User talk:67.101.5.165

Welcome
Welcome

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


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. Again, welcome! ttonyb1 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Giving Pledge
I don't see that as notable for any of the persons you have added the reference to, and givingpledge.org s not a reliable source that those people agreed. Please do not add the reference without both verifying notability and reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. 67.101.5.165 (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * These persons being (presumably) living, WP:BLP comes into play, so a reliable source is needed. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I appreciate your familiarity with the rules, but you are tilting at windmills. Are you seriously questioning the legitimacy of the letters that the official website for The Giving Pledge makes available?  67.101.5.165 (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Yes. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is to say that, although I don't question any specific claim, I do question that the organization qualifies as a WP:RS under our rules, which is necessary for it to be used as a source about a living person. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I would appreciate it if the conversation were held in one place, which should probably be here. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine let's have it here. 67.101.5.165 (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38556042/ns/us_news-giving/ is (apparently) a reliable source for the named parties, but not for any specific percentage over 50. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you had been paying attention to my changes (instead of boldly reverting them), I was making no claim as to what percentage they had committed to. I supposed if you feel obligated to " (apparently) " question msn.com as a reliable source, your criteria for reliability must be pretty high.  67.101.5.165 (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You added 95% and 97% on two of the billionairs, and msn.com has been known to host press releases before. That doesn't look like a press release, but I would want to look at the author's other works at msn.com to be sure.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which two are you claiming I did that? 67.101.5.165 (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, my mistake, there. You sourced the previous percentages given to The Giving Pledge website.  The percentages had been there previously.  Still, givingpledge.org should not be used as a reference in any article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Reported to WP:BLPN. It would be appreciated if you would stop adding BLP violations until that can be resolved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're willing to tag all your additions of (probably the wrong) links to givingpledge.org with vc, I won't further revert until some resolution is taken at WP:BLPN. However, what you're adding is against policy.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I need to report this at WP:ANI, as well. I may not block you, but if my interpretation is accepted there, someone there might.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reinstating "Giving Pledge" additions with the comment "See my Talk page" is not sufficient - you need to demonstrate a consensus for adding it, and I don't see that here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * More context and comments from other registered editors is available at Talk:Bill Gates, the talk page that I, as a IP editor can come back to if I lose this IP address.  Thanks.  67.101.5.165 (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the correct discussion location is WP:BLPN, and now WP:ANI, as the anon is still doing it.
 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your repeated reinsertion of WP:BLP violations.  The thread is The Giving Pledge.   Thank you. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted a number of your recent edits adding the "Giving Pledge" stuff. You must not keep making controversial additions while it is under discussion here, and repeatedly reverting the removal of your additions amounts to an edit war. As your additions have been challenged, you need to finish the discussion and gain a consensus before making any further changes - failure to follow this established procedure could get you blocked from editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Inline template
I note your introduction of an inline template for George Lucas to highlight your issue. That's a fairer alternative to your systematic reversion of my work. Perhaps to get a wider audience about this issue we can go to Talk:Bill Gates, where I made a request for an edit to that semi=protected article. 67.101.5.165 (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For George, there was already a source for the material. Where there isn't another source, your edit is a clear BLP violation, and should be immediately reverted.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's move this to my edit-semiprotected request section
As you said, a single place for the conversation, and that place is more likely to get comments from others. 67.101.5.165 (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's inappropriate there, as we can find an acceptable source. I'll add it if you remove your BLP violations.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So now we're debating where we should be having this conversation? As long as other places have pointers to the right place I don't think it matters. 67.101.5.165 (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC).
 * WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, and the individual talk pages of pledgers other than the founders as to relevance, are the only appropriate places for the discussion. The discussion there (Talk:Bill Gates) seems irrelevant to the general case, as something is clearly appropriate there as Bill Gates cofounded the organization, and the version I presently added to Bill Gates seems acceptable.  If you want to add his wife, find a source for the information.
 * If you want to move the discussion at Talk:Bill Gates to WP:BLPN, and can get permission of the third party, then go ahead. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

3RV warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Michael Bloomberg. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaxial (talk • contribs)

I assume you gave the same notice to ? 67.101.5.165 (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, more context and comments from other registered editors is available at Talk:Bill Gates, the talk page that I, as a IP editor can come back to if I lose this IP address. Thanks. 67.101.5.165 (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI ANI
Hi your contributions have been mentioned at the Administrators noticeboard incidents here thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I did that already. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes so you did, it is above, excuse me I missed it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for your edit on Indian River Lagoon. Id have clicked thank you, except you dont have a button since you´re not registered. please do!--Wuerzele (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions&#32;so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without an account, your IP address (67.101.5.165) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and  [ create an account] . If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! --Wuerzele (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)