User talk:Eckeman

Welcome

Hello Eckeman, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles

The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Eckeman, good luck, and have fun. --South Bay (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3rr

You are adding uncited, blatant POV to the BYU article, and if you don't stop, you will be blocked. If you add it back two more times, you will be violating the 3 revert rule which I've linked to above. If you really have something you want to add, let's talk about it on BYU's talk page. You're going to need to cite some of your additions and explain why a bit about pornography belongs in a paragraph about crime. Last I checked, it wasn't a crime to look at porn. Wrad (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've knowingly reverted four times, which is a violation of the rule. I really wish you had talked with us rather than just fighting, but oh well. Wrad (talk) 04:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of my edits to the BYU page were referenced to widely-available, unbiased published sources and were not based upon unsubstantiated opinion as you allege. You lied about that and are abusing your privileges as an editor to block factual and referenced content about BYU which you don't find flattering. The reference to the high rate of divorce, higher than average incidence of forcible rape and heavy use of pornography in Utah is relevant in a section on "culture and activities" extolling the alleged safety from certain crimes and the high rates of marriage at BYU. You have no argument, Wrad, just dogmatic opinion. I challenge you to refute a single one of my edits. Eckeman (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text

{{unblock|All of my edits to the BYU page were referenced to widely-available, unbiased published sources and were not based upon unsubstantiated opinion as was alleged wrongly by Wrad. Wrad lied about that and is abusing his privileges as an editor to block factual and referenced content about BYU which he does not find flattering. Moreover, Wrad claimed that a reference to the high incidence of forcible rape and heavy use of pornography in Utah was irrelevant in a section on the university's culture and activities which mentioned only the safety from certain crimes and the high rates of marriage. In no way did I damage, efface, or modify content in a malicious or misleading way. I challenge Wrad to refute any of the claims I made on the BYU page.}}

below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

JamieS93 17:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brigham Young University (and 3RR)

If you undo my edits a thrid time, all of which are supported by citations and not merely POV, I will move to have you blocked from this article. Don't just delete uncomfortable truths. Respond to them with facts. Eckeman (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(In case you don't see this on my talk page, I've reposted it here to be sure you see the 3RR warning.) I don't think you understand some core Wikipedia policies, namely WP:NPOV and WP:OR (specifically the section on synthesis. All your edits violate one, if not both, of these. I am more than willing to discuss how your edits do this on the article's talk page as suggested by WP:BRD. Also, consider this a warning: you have now reverted 3 times in the last four hours - another revert by you reinserting edit in the next 20 hours will cross the line of WP:3RR and you will be reported and likely blocked, just as you were last year for doing the same thing. In a content dispute, it doesn't matter if you are right, WP:3RR is a rule you must follow or you will be blocked. --FyzixFighter (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand them well. WP:NPOV means that an article on BYU must not merely be a glowing advertisement which expunges all matters of controversy as you and others have tried to do. I am merely adding factual material to counterbalance your uncritical adulation of the institution. WP:OR means that all the material that is added must be attributable to a reliable published source. Every one of my edits is supported in such a way. Why don't you take the time to actually check my reference weblinks rather than resorting to intimidation when your own POV is challenged? I'm more than happy to work toward synthesis but have not seen any good faith efforts to do so from BYU's uncritical admirers. Eckeman (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hans Graf von Sponeck, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 22nd Infantry Division and 11th Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]