User talk:Walledro

Welcome (belated)

Hello, Walledro, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome notice!

David Hammond (director)

Hi! I've had to revert your addition to the article. It is great that you've added a source, but the source doesn't support most of what you are writing - it only shows that there were concerns raised about his behaviour, not that he was found guilty of acting inappropriately, nor that he was then sanctioned. Given that this is an article about a living person, Wikipedia can't accept strong claims such as that without a solid source to back them up, and the current reference isn't enough. YOu are very welcome to discuss the issue on the talk page, though, and that may help work out how to address the issues being raised. - Bilby (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. a13ean (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

Your recent editing history at David Hammond (director) 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

final warning

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked this account for one week because you have been engaged in an edit war at David Hammond (director). Despite several requests for you to discuss your editing, you have never engaged another person in conversation. This is unacceptable. When this block expires, please go to Talk:David Hammond (director) and try to strike up a discussion regarding the changes you wish to make to the article. If you wish to be unblocked before the block expires on its own, please copy and paste this template: {{unblock|YOUR REASON HERE}} below, and replace the text "YOUR REASON HERE" with a clear statement indicating that you intend to stop editing that article's text, and intend to engage in dialog with others instead, and that you understand why you are blocked. If you do so, you may be unblocked and can start that dialog. Thank you. --Jayron32 13:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Returning from a block for edit warring to continue to insert the edits for which you had been blocked is not a good sign that you are here to be a productive editor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

make your case at the discussion Talk:David_Hammond_(director)#old_allegations and if you are able to create a consensus, then the appropriate content, appropriately sourced, can be included. But continuing to edit war will result in another, longer block. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, do not add this material again without discussion or you will be blocked. a13ean (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the necessary corrections according to the instructions above. I've repaired a link, cited a specific actions, he was investigated and then cleared. Used a newspaper as a legitimate source. Thanks for the information.

He was investigated, cleared and went back to his job. There WAS no "actions" or impact to cover, except for the taint of unfounded allegations. We do not cover those. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is not true. Wikipedia does cove allegations whether proven true or not. For example, on the OJ Simpson page, at the top, it clearly reviews his being charged with two murders in 1994 and then that he was found not guilty. So, according to the above statement, this should not be included on his page because he was cleared of all charges despite this being widely reported in the news by legitimate sources. Why is this on OJ's page? Because these events actually happened, were reported and he was charged and then cleared. Much like David Hammond. You seem to operating by a double standard or are somehow unfairly biased toward protecting Hammond from having the truth of his history reported. As a result, I DO expect for my edits to additions to stand.

If you somehow think the allegations against OJ are in anyway comparable to the allegations here, there is a severe WP:COMPETENCY issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the logic and argument you made previously, explain the difference to me in terms of someone being accused and then cleared NOT being worthy of noting. The premise is the absolute same according to the reasons you gave me.

hammond

The place to make your case for inclusion is Talk:David_Hammond_(director)#old_allegations. And be aware that all comments you make about living people, both in the article or at any talk page, must be appropriately supported by reliable sources -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at David Hammond (director) 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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using the talk pages in an effort to get very clear and specific reasons I've been edited and to find out what the standards are that I have to meet in order to post this information. I now believe I have met those standards and don't expect to have my additions edited any longer. Thanks for your help.

posting "its unfair" on the talk page and then reinserting the content is NOT discussing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. a13ean (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK

Any reviews you add to articles need to be appropriate to the subject of the article. As the playwright and not director or producer or actor or set designer of Tom Jones, any review discussing anything except the script itself is inappropriate to add. The review you keep inserting has one thing to say about the script, that it is long. Well thats not going to be a surprise to anyone when it is an adaptation of Tom Jones. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at David Hammond (director), you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

This is YOUR FINAL WARNING ABOUT INAPPROPRIATE EDITS to an article about a living person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain, exactly, what policies I've broken. I've adjusted my comments per every note however, you seem to keep changing the rules on me. And have yet failed to explain why OJ Simpsons accusations can be listed despite being cleared but Hammond's cannot.

The OJ allegations were the subject of constant world-wide press review for years and are still heavily discussed. the allegations against Hammond were extremely limited coverage both in time and in location.

In the reviews you keep attempting to insert, Hammond is the playwright and not the director and not the producer and not the actor and not the set designer and so any negative comments relating to anything but Hammond's work on the script is nothing to do with Hammond or his work and merely an attempt to tarnish him through the faults of others. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

are you inserting the wrong link? the review you have been using does not support any of the claims you are inserting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just double checked and the even adjusted the information. The link is correct and clearly supports the notation.

I really dont think you double checked. Your edit [1] uses the reference [2] and you state by using "direct quotes" that the source says "production a hyper, almost cheesy tone" and "Most entrances were ripe with characters screaming their way on stage" which are not in any way shape or form direct quotes from the source you list. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the review? That is a direct quote from the review. The link works.

yes, i have read the article. "cheesy", for example, appears nowhere. Neither does "hyper" nor does "screaming". so if you decide upon the expiration of your block to attempt to reinsert the content, you will get blocked quickly and for a longer time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darkness Shines. Thank you for taking a look. I'm happy to discuss as I feel like I've been unfairly edited and when I make adjustments according to the feedback I've gotten, the rules changes. When I've asked for specifics their either not given or then later amended to fit the editor's argument. Thanks again.

Your comments will need to be Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Walledro if you wish other editors to take them into consideration. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI again

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. a13ean (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is it possible for me to take part in this conversation?

Sure, just go here and don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~~~~). Cheers, a13ean (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. 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.

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. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]