User talk:PeaceFrog71

I've reverted your recent edit to the article Stalking. The topic im question is currently under discussion on the article's talk page: could you please discuss this with other editors there, providing a rationale for your proposed edit, before considering whether to re-insert this material into the article? -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stalking. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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.
Please discuss this on the talk page rather than reinserting this content without consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should have been engaged in by all concerned parties before two mainstream news stories that had stood on the page since December, 2011 were redacted.

There is no such requirement for pre-approval, and the issue was raised well in advance on the article talkpage: disputed content isn't granted a pass through mere tenure, and the topic is an area where there has been previous concern over exaggerated and sensationalist internet memes circulated through email chains, presented as fact. The proposed removal was brought up on the article talkpage three weeks before it was removed. Please discuss it there. Acroterion (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting your recent edit. Verifiability is not optional in our articles. (And of course, your signature should never have been in the article.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thank you for self-reverting: I was about to refer your edits to the edit-warring noticeboard for review and action. Please allow discussion to take place: the removal was given three weeks, there's no hurry and no consensus has had time to develop on the article talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now reverted your most recent edit, which appears to have restored the controversial content, including your signature, to the article. Please read the WP:3RR policy before making any more reverts. -- The Anome (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct is being discussed at WP:ANI#Stalking. Acroterion (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would initiate a sock puppet investigation, to see if there has been any sock puppetry since it was "confirmed" during the summer of 2011, I would appreciate it. Last summer's sock puppetry wasn't what it would seem and I would welcome the opportunity to clear my good name. I am not the same user as PeaceFrog71 and I do not have access to that account. Elizabeth Blandra (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Oklahoma City bombing. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add YouTube links to fringe theory promotion. Acroterion (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]