User talk:Shaq54
Shaq54, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi Shaq54! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
May 2014
[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Starcastle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- attempted negotiations with the label and it's owner legal remedies were pursued starting in 2009(Case number SACV 09-00195-JVS (ANx). Eventually ProgRock Records and it's parent company TheKompany.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion of this issue on the article's talk page: Talk:ProgRock Records. Please explain there before re-adding the information to the article. ... discospinster talk 16:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Shaq54, same thing as ProgRock Records applies to theKompany. If it's notable, can you provide news articles as Discospinster suggested? If not, then it's not notable, sorry. Kirin13 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
So United States Federal Court Records aren't satisfactory? Also, by what authority do impose your take on this situation? By the way. A libelous statement would be a statement that is made that is knowingly untrue. The statements I have made are all supported by fact and US Federal Court Records.
I'm still quite curious if you know, work for are are somehow doing this in the interest of Mr. Gordon?
- No, given my fourteen hundred edits, majority on figure skating pages, it's seems quite unlikely. The only reason your edits caught my eye is because you commented on Discospinster's page which is on my watchlist, like every other page I've ever edited. Kirin13 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
So what authority do you exercise here to remove factual content? Did you remove the copyright infringing links to self serving interviews and self promoting sites on the Progrock records page?
- Wikipedia runs on consensus and discussion. Current consensus & discussion (1 and 2) points toward it being not notable. You've been asked to provide news articles to show it's notable. Just because it's fact, doesn't mean it should be included, see WP:NOT. Primary sources are highly discouraged by Wikipedia - this includes court documents. By what authority did you add information? (And don't claim you're so & so, because all that proves is WP:COI and that you should NOT be editing these pages.) All I need is Wikipedia policy & guidelines. I have no idea what you're talking about "copyright infringing links to self serving interviews and self promoting sites". No one says you can't reference or link to outside pages - you just can't copy them. Kirin13 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your input.
Your recent editing history at ProgRock Records shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Kirin13 (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I used the Talk Page, there was no resolution. Who do I explain my revisions to?
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I simply do not know how to navigate in the Wiki environment. This person ruined years of my work, has made numerous false and malicious claims, vandalized the Stacastle wiki entry and it is incredibly frustrating. I will refrain from making further changes. Please tell me how I will know when some sort of consensus has been arrived at over what I can and cannot post regarding these entries. Thank you.
- Since you have WP:COI the recommended course of action is for you to add nothing to pages with COI. If you wanted something added, you make a request on talk pages. For more official guidance, see WP:COIADVICE. If you are asking about the court case this edit war is about, then I would advice you to find some news articles. Kirin13 (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I will follow your advice.
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
May 2014
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. Bgwhite (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)