User talk:Motthoop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Motthoop, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.  Again, welcome! Sweet xxTalk 11:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maria McKee[edit]

You made a few statements in this save summary removed copyrighted image. Maria McKee herself expressed that the photo should be removed and replaced on her Facebook page. Let's deal with them one at a time.

  1. The image is copyrighted, but was reviewed and found to be acceptable for use on Wikipedia. If you, or anyone, have an issue with the legality of its use, the correct place to voice that concern is at the image, not on the page of articles using the image.
  2. I assume that the second sentence means that Maria McKee commented on her Facebook page that she would like the image to be removed. I just checked bother her personal page and one of her fan pages and see no recent comment to that effect. Could you point-out where that comment is?
  3. If she requested that it should be replaced, does she have a replacement image?

--Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Keddie murders , but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Go fuck your dead self.

January 2017[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Keddie murders.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Silverfish (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Keddie murders. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 15:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --GouramiWatcherTalk 17:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Motthoop reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ). Thank you. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I am closing this report with no action. While screaming FUCK OFF in caps generally isn't a good idea, you are right that removing unsourced or poorly sourced information connected to living people (and assume that the surviving members of the Keddie community are all still alive and hoping for eventual justice) is acceptable via the exemptions to edit-warring. Have a beer or three and chill. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Motthoop: I'm sorry I had to go to the noticeboard over you, and I'm glad Ritchie333 gave you the result you deserved  ;) the problem was, though, at the time, that it seemed difficult to talk to you (exotic edit-summaries notwithstanding!), or even to edit the article properly when you kept reverting everyone. Anyway- that's not important right now. I apologise to you for the edit-warring report. Now- moving on. I'm going to remove a couple of the most contentious aspects of the article, and then, can we leave it until an admin has a chance to cast an eye over it for anything else that needs to be done. You are right though- it's a rotten article. But- you now how it is- we've got our own ways of dealing with these problems. We might be slowm but we're sure! Great username, by the way  :) Cheers, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 18:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)