User talk:Syncmaster941bw

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! §everal⇒|Times 15:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Hello, I'm RedSoxFan2434. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Theresa Spence, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Theresa Spence, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Theresa Spence shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. You need to get consensus on the talk page for this now. Dougweller (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the above warning from Dougweller and believe he has made an error in issuing the warning--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Syncmaster941bw. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 21:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It should be noted"

We try not to tell our readers that something is particularly important -- see WP:EDITORIALIZING. This is in no way a warning, this is my just telling you something you may not know. Dougweller (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On reverting on this type of article

Hey Syncmaster. Just wanted to post some advice: on these breaking news-type articles, especially when there is a political element (and in this case, a living person involved), it is very important to engage with other editors on the talk page. Content can be reworked and agreed upon, rather than reverting back and forth. As has been mentioned, the reverting leads to blocks and other nastiness. You've done quite a bit of reverting on the Spence article in the last two days, now it's time to has things out on the talk page. Best, The Interior (Talk) 20:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interior no problem, but I think it is inconsiderate for an editor such as maunus to delete without discussing with me first--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss, rather than reverting

[1] Especially when you were recently warned about edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be more considerate for editors to discuss before deleting?--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but given that WP:BLP applies, deletion is going to be the norm: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "poorly sourced"--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:BLP, which is what I quoted. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking advice on how to propose Theresa Spence article for deletion

I am seeking advice on how to propose the Theresa Spence page for deletion, please advise the most expedient way to achieve this--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a waste of time and puts your editing in a bad light just to bring it up, let alone follow through. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you are not willing to offer the advice requested?--Syncmaster941bw (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been given plenty of advice at this point, so I only wanted to emphasize what I feel is the best. --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz and the other POV-pushers are putting wikipedia in a bad light by reverting obviously correct edits. Not good for wikipedia reputation - I assume Ronz does not care about his. Anyway, the truth will come out, Ronz cannot censor the article forever. 24.224.214.165 (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Theresa Spence ANI Discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the recent Theresa Spence-related disputes. Thank you. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, too bad there isn't a notice board for discussing overly zealous Administrators-Syncmaster941bw (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]