User talk:Richterer11111

Welcome!

Hello, Richterer11111, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of Playboy Playmates of 1995 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Playboy Playmates of 1994, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Guy1890 (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to List of Playboy Playmates of 1995

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from List of Playboy Playmates of 1995 without 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; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! MCMLXXXIX 21:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Your recent editing history at List of Playboy Playmates of 1995 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 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. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to List of Playboy Playmates of 1995, you may be blocked from editing. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 01:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

Editors would much rather try to have you blocked than try to justify their own edits. I strongly suggest that you stop reverting and very patiently continue with your efforts to resolve the dispute following WP:DR. --Ronz (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I might say it even more directly. You have to stop removing content for the specious reasons you've been offering. I agree (agreed!) that the sourcing of this article was substandard - but that's a reason to improve the sourcing, not blank content. The basic material on this page can easily be sourced right to Playboy.com, which - contrary to your assertion - is a perfectly acceptable source. I suggest - strongly - that you quit removing the parts of the article that you don't like. It's becoming disruptive, and, yes, disruptive editors wind up getting blocked. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2017 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Richterer11111 reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: ). Thank you. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 02:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

Can you please explain why you chose this particular year - List of Playboy Playmates of 1995 - for such attention? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to continue other years as well. Richterer11111 (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have bundled all the year articles into one AFD or set up a RFC to discuss whether or not this class of articles meets notability requirements. It is counter-productive to have the same argument ~70 times. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok am unsure how to do that, can you assist. The simple facts are I am right on what I am arguing. Richterer11111 (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete a class of articles, you need to come up with reasons rooted in deletion policy as to why they should be deleted. "No sources and nothing noteworthy" won't cut it. If you want to open a RFC, please read WP:RFC, especially Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply saying that the content on this article is incorrect. Is that a point you agree with? I am unclear as to why I cant make these changes alone. Richterer11111 (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Incorrect content" is not a reason for deleting an article unless the article is a hoax. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richterer11111, I hope you don't mind some friendly advice. I think it would be better if you put your concerns aside (especially those that impact multiple articles) and learn Wikipedia first. You're trying to jump into a topic that has been discussed at length. You won't get far without a much better knowledge of the articles involved and their history, the policies and guidelines involved, and the past discussions. You have some excellent points that I agree need addressing. However, the approach you've taken so far is too much like that of a vandal, which editors prefer to assume rather than address your content concerns. Give yourself some time, learn Wikipedia, and demonstrate this just isn't something that's personal to you. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]