User talk:Rtmcrrctr

Re Wikileaks Revolution redirect

Please note that it is TOTALLY AGAINST POLICY to delete a redirect in the manner you have. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion for the correct way to approach this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Godwin Grech

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Godwin Grech, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/who-is-godwin-grech/1549572.aspx. As a copyright violation, Godwin Grech appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Godwin Grech has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Godwin Grech and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Godwin Grech with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Godwin Grech.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a very close paraphrase (such as you have used for a substantial portion of the article) can also constitute a copyright violation. I can see little evidence that an article on Grech would meet Wikipedia notability requirements either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page had already been deleted as WP:BLP1E, this version is even smaller than the original, and has been returned to a redirect as WP:CSD#G4. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. It might have been a little longer if it actually reported the one salient fact about Grech that seems to have attracted the most media attention: that he admitted to faking an e-mail that was to become central in the Utegate affair [1] - though even with this seemingly-relevant bit of information, it would still fail to pass our notability requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan edit war

You're at 3RR on Paul Ryan. Please take a look at WP:3RR and consider reverting yourself. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Rtmcrrctr. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Paul Ryan and speech reception. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another recent edit.

In this edit, you not only edit-warred, you left a comment that was a personal attack against me. This is inappropriate. I am going to suggest that you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and I will assume that you have been made aware of them. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Your recent editing history at Paul Ryan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. JOJ ^Hutton 01:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Hello, your recent conduct on the article on Paul Ryan has been mentioned at ANI.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Sanctions on Paul Ryan

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Paul Ryan, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.--v/r - T P 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, note that any continuation of your edit-warring on this article (you have made the same revert four times in the last three days) will lead to sanctions per article probation being applied. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did it again. Specifically, I added the material in question with the edit summary: "Speech reaction. Rtmcrrctr and others: If you don't like it, edit it, don't delete it. See WP:BADPOV. This will need to improve before it settles, but keeping it out altogether is fighting against WP policy.", and you removed it, saying: ""this will need to improve...", but YOU did not try to improve it, did you? Why not?". To answer your question, it's because I wanted to give you a chance to improve it from your point of view; I'm pretty much sure that anything I would have done would have made it worse from your perspective. But you preferred to edit war instead. Until you've shown that you understand why that was wrong, I think it would be better if you did not edit the article at all. Homunq (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to further point out that every single one of your last 8 article-space edits has been to remove some form of this material. You've removed 5 different versions, which had collectively been added and/or worked on by at least a dozen editors, including some who could be characterized as having a pro-Ryan orientation; and yet your only edit which could be (charitably) called an attempt at compromise was the very first of these edits. This is edit warring, and it's the kind of behavior which could get you an article ban. Homunq (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what another editor had to say about you: "As I commented on WP:ANI recently, Rtmcrrctr's entire history on and usage of WP is highly dubious, even racking up 6R in just above 24 hours at one point. —Kerfuffler 23:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)" Homunq (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel that your edits were highly disruptive and made the article worse.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disengage

When another editor tries to end a personal argument, back off; don't pursue it.

Regarding your comment:

"We cannot get sidetracked with these personal issues." - Said TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) who introduced them here. Notice a pattern of throwing around allegations without being able to back them up by someone?"

Homunq (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct discussion

RFC/U discussion concerning you (Rtmcrrctr)

Hello, Rtmcrrctr. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rtmcrrctr, where you may want to participate. Homunq (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

Please comment here about closing this RFC/U early. User:Worm That Turned has proposed a remedy.--v/r - T P 19:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]