User talk:Sam Degelia
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Charles Harrelson. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Charles Harrelson, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
- avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. Re Charles Harrelson. Please take a moment to explain, on the article talk page, why you are making these reverts, or you'll get blocked. Also, be aware of WP:COI. Questions? Ask here William M. Connolley (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've blocked you for 24h for edit warring without discussion. Questions? Ask here William M. Connolley (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You are still engaged in an edit war on Charles Harrelson. Please stop, or you will be blocked from editing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Still edit warring
[edit]Regardless of the merits of your reverts, simply reverting without talk page discussion is disruptive. Edit warring is a two way street. You must engage with other editors on disputes or you will find yourself blocked again. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Should I assume from this edit that you have no interest in constructive dialog about the content of the Charles Harrelson article? If that is the case, please make it clear so we don't waste time in vain hopes that you might work with others on the article. Thanks. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
No, please do not assume that. I am very open to a constructive dialogue. I have posted verifiable facts. I am not sure what else I can do. If there is a user that has a difference of opinion or would like to present more facts, I would like to have that dialogue. The dispute has been up a for a week and there has been no other user contributions to the discussion.
I will provide more sources so that all facts presented are not in dispute. Any other suggestions?
Sam Degelia (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. As I and other users have stated, a file on the commons cannot be used as a source, an nor should you try to refocus this article based on your preoccupation with his 1968 case.--Nkgal (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright
[edit]He's right that the scan is a copyright violation. You don't need to include the scan to cite the news article, though: just include the citation using {{cite news}} specifying all the information about the original newspaper source.
The larger issues are your habit of logging in and out while editing the article, and your presentation of testimony. I've semi-protected the article to make sure you log in to edit. Testimony always has to be attributed to the source, and described as testimony. You can't present it as if it is true.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me. I think I have edited the article without referring to the testimony or treating it as true or violating any copyright issues regarding the news article. The other document referenced that I included is not copyrighted though and should not be restricted. Nkgal is deleting without attempting to modify or edit. It appears that his edits are censorship. Nkgal could edit my changes to adhere to wiki policy, which he/she seems to be very familiar. However, Nkgal only removes the content. It appears that he/she may have a conflict of interest and is trying to protect unpleasant facts about Pete Scamardo. There is other questionable uncited unverified statements in the article that he ignores; e.g. 'Harrelson was eventually convicted based largely on...'. Please let Nkgal know that there is no copyright violation and to edit or modify instead of deleting. Thank you for your help on this.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Sam Degelia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am adding factual content that is verfiable. Review the article history and you will see a systematic effort to delete all material unfavorable to Pete Scamardo, who was found guilty as an accomplice in the murder of Sam Degelia. Please review the article history and you will see that I have been very careful in my edits. The ONLY reason for the 'Edit War' is that Hkgal and others are trying to keep accurate, verifiable facts from wikipedia. Since the facts are accurate and undeniable, Hkgal is trying to keep me off wikipedia. Look at the facts and do not be fooled by Hkgal or others trying to hide unfavorable content about Pete Scamardo. If you follow the Edit history you will see that the conflict is being created because of Hkgal and others do not want facts about Pete Scamardo's involvement on wikipedia. I am only reporting truth and facts. Please unblock me, as I am following wiki guidelines. Sam Degelia (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Being right does not justify edit-warring. See also WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 21:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
What should I do if Hkgal continues to delete and censor content? Sam Degelia (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Proceed as advised at WP:DR. Sandstein 22:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)