User talk:Rrrr5

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

Ica Stones

I described my reasons for removing the badly sourced claim of Spanish stones on the talk page. I've now mentioned your edits at [[WP:FTN#Ica Stones interesting issue about material sourced to Skepdic]]. I think they were good faith but a bit confused (ie the Spanish stuff is badly sourced and irrelevant, the bit about the museums has a source that clearly failes WP:RS, and the article is about stones with dinosaurs, etc, not about archaeologically verified stones from Peru. You might want to comment there. Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Dinosaursandman is run by the Creationist Dennis Swift, and does not meet our criteria for reliable sources. The fact that you visited the Regional Museum and saw stones there and think that there must be stones in other museums is what we call original research - see WP:NOR and irrelevant. The entire article is about a group of hoax stones, read the introduction, so to remove the description of these is just wrong. Please don't make those edits again. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Reliable sources

You still don't seem to understand our policy on sources. I've asked you to read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Look at WP:SPS. Swift's website doesn't meet these criteria. If you are so sure it does, then why not go to WP:RSN to see if anyone else agrees? Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Your recent editing history at Ica stones shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


Since you weren't willing to defend the site at RSN, I've taken it there (WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This is your last and only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Talk:Ica stones. Cheers AKS 20:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you've been reported for edit-warring. You may find the report here. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Ica stones. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:MDHMurderSuspect.png

A tag has been placed on File:MDHMurderSuspect.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Calabe1992 02:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI for copyvio

There is a current thread about you at ANI for copyright violations.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a fortnight for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Ica Stones. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. A. B. (talkcontribs) 14:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Indefinite block was actually imposed 23:21,16 May 2012 by another administrator. Subsequent Cox Communications IPs used in the Roanoke, Virginia area:
Any additional IPs or accounts used by this person should be blocked on sight; no warning is required.
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 14:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)