User talk:Kellogsricecrispies

August 2022

Hello, I'm GabberFlasted. I noticed that you recently removed content from Taylor Hawkins without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your message. I removed the information because it referred to drug use which has not been confirmed and is damaging to the family of the deceased.

While you are there, could you tell me why my edits keep being deleted? Kellogsricecrispies (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drug use was confirmed. "Damaging to the family of the deceased" is censorship and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Discuss any changes you want to make on Talk:Taylor Hawkins and stop edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to censor or remove encyclopedic content based on the fact that it is offensive to some readers, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not censored, and attempts to censor encyclopedic content will be regarded as vandalism. Dhoru 21 (talk・contribs) 16:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Taylor Hawkins shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please stop your disruptive editing. Use the article's talk page to discuss your content dispute. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Jayron 32 15:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A note from an outside observer

If Person A adds material that people generally believe should be included in an article, and person B adds material that people generally believe should be discussed/altered before it is included, it is not hypocritical to keep Person A's material and remove Person B's material. That's a false equivalence, and is not evidence of an agenda of some kind. When 4 people disagree with you, it isn't proof of a 4-person conspiracy. There is also the possibility that you're in the wrong in this case.

You've said twice now that no one is answering you (at the article talk page and at Muboshgu's talk page), but you have to have more patience than this. People are not online 24/7. Just have a calm good faith discussion on the article talk page, perhaps propose a modified/condensed version of your addition on the talk page, accept with grace if people disagree with you, and it will all work out as it should in the end. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, funny thing is that I did reply to this user on Hawkins' talk page. And our timestamps are only 22 minutes apart. Then, they didn't respond and instead leveled personal insults on my talk page, rather than engage in a constructive discussion. Too bad. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu:, I don't think a block was crazy or anything, but I think we might all be better off if you unblocked, I tried to have a discussion here, and if personal attacks continue, I can make a completely uninvolved block myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of WP:AGF, I will do that. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is not true that no one is answering. Besides the discussion at his Moboshgu's talk page and at the article talk page, there is a lengthy discussion at my own talk page, where I have been trying to explain to them patience and WP:AGF. I have been looking over the Rolling Stones article in question; possible 1-2 sentences may be relevant given that it is a major publication and it does present relevant information about Hawkins in the time leading up to his death. I was just trying to craft such a 1-2 sentence mention of it when I noticed that Kellogsricecrispies has personalized this and has repeatedly been attacking other editors accusing them of bad faith, and generally getting worked up over the issue. I will probably still continue to do so, FWIW. --Jayron 32 17:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see Muboshgu has unblocked at my request. Muboshgu, thank you. KRC, it's obvious to me you're getting pretty annoyed, and name-calling isn't going to help anyone. There is a reasonable explanation to what's going on that does not involve anyone being evil or a jerk. Perhaps we can discuss it tomorrow, after a decompression of sorts? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Jayron has been uninvolved with the article, and is giving you good outside advice too. I don't mean to imply I'm "taking over" or anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]