User talk:Spalding321

September 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fred Hampton. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Assassination is not a specific cause of death. That field is for what actually caused the death. Why would you replace a specific cause with a generic one? And falsely claiming that there is consensus for that change is not going to help. If you want to get consensus for that then discuss it on the talk page. From what I see the assassination claim has been undone more than once. Meters (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fred Hampton. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reach consensus un the talk page, right now you are edit warring. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spalding321, the assertion of "assassination" has been rejected by multiple editors in the edit history of the article and multiple editors in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. As mentioned above, there is the possibility that you could be blocked for continuing to edit against consensus. -Location (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Fred Hampton. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Hampton

Your recent editing history at Fred Hampton 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. Jim1138 (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That Chicago Tribute article has a long ways to go to satisfy the claim that Fred Hampton was "assassinated". Personally, I suspect you are correct, but Wikipedia goes by what wp:reliable sources state and not by what we believe. See wp:OR Jim1138 (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Spalding321, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 06:30, 17 September 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. Thank you. Location (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spalding321, I am not trying to get you blocked but I am trying to get you to follow how things work here, and following consensus developed by other editors is one of those things. You may want to follow the link above and order to respond. -Location (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I pulled the complaint since you seem to be unfamiliar with how things work in Wikipedia and your contact with Jim1138 shows that you are trying to figure it out. I know EdJohnston monitors WP:ANEW, so from his comments below I assume he might be aware that I posted then removed the complaint there. Feel free to make points in Talk:Fred Hampton about what you would like to see in the article and I'll do what I can to help you. There are ways to address various points of view while preserving a neutral tone. -Location (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Spalding321, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Doctor^G (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Hampton dispute

Hi Spalding321, best-practices on Wikipedia would be to start a discussion on talk:Fred Hampton. Start a new section. See wp:dispute resolution on how to proceed. help:talk pages and wp:talk page guidelines. I must admit, I am not very good at the subtleties and idiosyncrasies of Wikipedia wp:policy. You should ask on how to proceed. I am not denying how Fred Hampton died. I just don't know, and have too many other priorities to take the time to go through everything to come to a conclusion. Please be aware that this sort of struggle is not uncommon on Wikipedia. See wp:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. My personal concern is climate change and overpopulation; the resulting living conditions likely making the deep south slavery in the 1850s look like a picnic - for everybody (except the 1% of course). I don't care who "wins". I just hope they have more sense about taking care of the planet. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spalding321. If you revert again at Fred Hampton without getting prior consensus on the talk page, you are risking a block for edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Made a mistake

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spalding321 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. Place any further information here. Spalding321 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. You forgot to tell us your IP address, so we can't investigate your claim. You can find your IP address using WhatIsMyIP. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS. Yamla (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.