Chesterfieldman
Joined 4 March 2012
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Georgenancy in topic March 2012
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kamala Lopez, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Though you stated "incorrect information" in one edit, you reason for removal is unclear, especially given that I sourced the year of birth to a reliable source. You need to stop just blanking content but come to the article's talk page and discuss the issue causing your blanking of not just the birthdate but other content. Until you do, or otherwise come clean on what your issue is, continued blanking will be considered vandalism, and may subject you to being blocked from editing. Again, please discuss the issue. You are not going to get your way by opaquely blanking content.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I see relevant reason to blank the content are not part of your rationale. It is now fairly obvious, following three sources added, that you have some personal reason for not wishing this cited content to remain. You are not going to get your way by continued blanking. Further removal of the cited content will be considered vandalism. On the other hand, if you really have a rational basis, which I doubt based on your actions but I can't discount the possibility, then you need to discuss the issue, best done on the article's talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- In addition to your recent blanking again, with the opaque edit summary "bad sourcing", you are very close to violating the three revert rule, if you haven't already, given that it is not a stretch to think that the IP who is editing in concert with you, is you. Please stop acting unilaterally and discuss the issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I see relevant reason to blank the content are not part of your rationale. It is now fairly obvious, following three sources added, that you have some personal reason for not wishing this cited content to remain. You are not going to get your way by continued blanking. Further removal of the cited content will be considered vandalism. On the other hand, if you really have a rational basis, which I doubt based on your actions but I can't discount the possibility, then you need to discuss the issue, best done on the article's talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
March 2012
edit
This is your last and only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Kamala Lopez. ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you have a concern with the article, discuss the situation on the talk page. If you persist in repeatedly removing the same information from the article, you will be blocked for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Re your message on my talk page: The information is sourced. I hardly see how adding a date of birth to an article, and backing it up with sources, qualifies as a "personal vendetta." Once your block is over, if you want to dispute the date of birth, you'll need to discuss the sources at the article's talk page. You'll need to explain how two biographical handbooks are both incorrect. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Chesterfieldman. This was sort of inevitable given your actions. Now, can you take a breath and try to be rationale and calm? Regarding me, do you really think a self-identified male user with 60,000 edits all across Wikipedia, who only got involved in the article after responding to a {{adminhelp}} request on the talk page, happens to be some person named Jeannie with a vendetta, and is acting out on it by adding citations to sources you can check yourself in books? Can you follow how absurd that sounds? Once your block expires, go to the talk page, as I've invited you to do now multiple times, and discuss why you think three separate independently published books all got their information wrong. Of course, if you have a different reliable source you can produce with different information, we will listen to that too.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am confused. Where does the subject of "some person named Jeannie" come up? Fuhghettaboutit, It concerns me that Jeanmarie Simpson is called out in an edit - is this facially libelous? Can we blank that from the edits? Seems as if its opening up Wikipedia to (worst case scenario) a law suit? I'm not expert - just concerned.71.33.73.47 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- It comes from this diff (and I also see it in this edit summary). since I've been the one placing the citations, I figured he was talking about me—it's hard to know with someone this uncommunicative. I don't see legal liability flowing from the edit summary but I'll revdelete under WP:BLP.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- We remain confused. We have both looked at the history and are perplexed. None of the editors are Simpson, or you, for that matter, until very recently. People related to the subject are not allowed to edit those pages, correct? Georgenancy (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- It appears the page was created by Simpson in 2006, but was never again worked on until 2010. Very odd, indeed. Georgenancy (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- We remain confused. We have both looked at the history and are perplexed. None of the editors are Simpson, or you, for that matter, until very recently. People related to the subject are not allowed to edit those pages, correct? Georgenancy (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- It comes from this diff (and I also see it in this edit summary). since I've been the one placing the citations, I figured he was talking about me—it's hard to know with someone this uncommunicative. I don't see legal liability flowing from the edit summary but I'll revdelete under WP:BLP.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am confused. Where does the subject of "some person named Jeannie" come up? Fuhghettaboutit, It concerns me that Jeanmarie Simpson is called out in an edit - is this facially libelous? Can we blank that from the edits? Seems as if its opening up Wikipedia to (worst case scenario) a law suit? I'm not expert - just concerned.71.33.73.47 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Chesterfieldman. This was sort of inevitable given your actions. Now, can you take a breath and try to be rationale and calm? Regarding me, do you really think a self-identified male user with 60,000 edits all across Wikipedia, who only got involved in the article after responding to a {{adminhelp}} request on the talk page, happens to be some person named Jeannie with a vendetta, and is acting out on it by adding citations to sources you can check yourself in books? Can you follow how absurd that sounds? Once your block expires, go to the talk page, as I've invited you to do now multiple times, and discuss why you think three separate independently published books all got their information wrong. Of course, if you have a different reliable source you can produce with different information, we will listen to that too.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Re your message on my talk page: The information is sourced. I hardly see how adding a date of birth to an article, and backing it up with sources, qualifies as a "personal vendetta." Once your block is over, if you want to dispute the date of birth, you'll need to discuss the sources at the article's talk page. You'll need to explain how two biographical handbooks are both incorrect. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Blocked
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —C.Fred (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)