User talk:Danceking5
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Administrators' noticeboard
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Warning: Inappropriate use of templates.
[edit]Your use of the Fact template on the Tiesto and Paul Oakenfold articles is inappropriate. If you read the verifiability policy, you will see that while all information must be verifiable, not all information must be sourced. The policy explicitly states: "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged.[1]"
You have been putting excessive numbers of citation needed templates on information that is clearly not likely to be legitimately challenged, nor are they quotations. Adding that many templates to the articles makes them extremely difficult to read, and your willingness to revert other editors to keep them in is disruptive. Please stop doing this, as if you continue you may find yourself blocked for disruptive editing. It is against policy, and it is not in the Wikipedia spirit. Neither, for that matter, are your accusations against other editors trying to clean up the mess you left.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- And you've been doing this across all sorts of articles beyond those two. As a result, other editors have had to spend time cleaning up hundreds of templates that you've left behind inappropriately. Had it been just those two articles, I could see this being a mistake; what it looks like to me here is disruption. Not to mention you've been adding inappropriate comments to talk pages accusing other editors of stalking you for cleaning up your messes. So let's be clear, if you continue to add massive amounts of fact tags, take ownership of articles, and otherwise edit disruptively, you will be blocked without further warning. I hope that's clear enough. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let me be more blunt: This is disruptive. If you find you really need more than two fact tags in a section, just tag the section, not each fact. What you are doing is WP:POINTy, against WP:DE and I strongly suggest you stop it now, or you force our hands here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- I also agree; you are instructed to stop doing this. Also, please do not refer to good-faith editors as "vandals" (in edit summaries or elsewhere) just because they disagree with you about something or change one of your edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
July 2012
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- To the reviewing admin: [1] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've looked through your contributions history, and found this, this, and this. It appears that you were heading towards implosion for a year. That "we are a group of lawyers" speech was utter foolishness. The rest of the world does not comprise a massive conspiracy of people with conflicts of interest, magically leaving you as the only neutral party. Whilst some, but by no means all or even a majority, of the content that you have challenged and removed does indeed appear to me to be classic off-the-top-of-the-head-personal-opinion-of-the-Wikipedia-editor material, your approach, spanning just over a year, was most definitely not the way to go about fixing it. I suggest that, before you even think about editing Wikipedia again, you look at how other people manage to challenge stuff in a way that doesn't lead to their own self-destruction after a year. You should also bear in mind that on a collaborative writing project such as Wikipedia, collaborative writing is the norm. If you see something that isn't linked to a source and that is not an outright error, then your first stop is to attempt to find a supporting source, either one already in the article or elsewhere. Help with the collaborative endeavour. Don't treat the writing and researching parts of writing an encyclopaedia as Somebody Else's Problem.
That said, your outstanding legal threats remain, at this point, an unsurmountable barrier to your editing here.