User talk:Curtainsider

Denali
Please provide a reference to a reliable source that verifies the 1990 content that you added. Thanks. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Verification
Ref: 1 The book ‘Above The Clouds 2 Anatoli Boukreev Wikipedia 3 Mountainzone.com 4 The Denali park ranger quote in the mountaineering publication ‘Outside’. Kind Regards. Curtainsider (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Anatoli Boukreev
Stop deleting things that you have no knowledge about. That’s what uneducated means. If you care to look there is already a link on the page it is listed already in Timeline on this site. Curtainsider (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
Hello, I'm NekoKatsun. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. ''Please use a reliable source for all of your additions, especially those pertaining to mountaineering records. Please also avoid using superlative language - Wikipedia is built on neutrality, and such language runs counter to the encyclopedia's aims.'' NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Denali. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. ''Since you apparently don't believe me that it is not appropriate to add commentary where you are "talking" in an article instead of writing about the subject, I thought I'd drop this here for you to peruse. It's not just some rule I made up, it's pretty basic to how Wikipedia works. '' Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Content disputes
Hi Curtainsider. When you disagree with another editor about article content, the best thing to do is follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to resolve any difference through article talk page discussion. The pretty much worse thing you can do is to add posts like this to NekoKatsun's user page. Not only is such a post not really inaccordance with Wikipedia:Civility (even perhaps Wikipedia:No personal attack), it's indicates a battleground approach which doesn't work well in a collaborative editing project. When you add content to an article which is subsequently removed by another editor, it's easy to lose your cool and respond in an angry way, but it's better to keep cool and try to understand why your change was reverted. So, you're best bet here is to discuss things on the relevant article's talk page and try to better understand why the content was removed and what needs to be done for it to be re-established. Insulting another editor like you did (no matter how right you think you are) is likely only going to end up with your behavior being discussed by Wikipedia administrators at one of their noticeboards, which is not really a good thing. You've been only editing Wikipedia for about a month so others are going to be willing to cut you a bit of slack if you make some good-faith mistakes, but don't shoot yourself in the foot by posting comments like you did on NekoKatsun's user page again; the Wikipedia Community has limited tolerance for such things and an administrator will step in if you continue post those types of comments. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
Hello, I'm KNHaw. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to K2 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. KNHaw  (talk)  05:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear elite I’m up my own arse club.
Stop deleting records just because you don’t like them, or do you the elite members reserve the right to make up your own version of history to suit your taste and ego’s? Curtainsider (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding personal comments to articles
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, K2. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have concerns about content being removed from K2, then you can discuss them at Talk:K2. You should be advised, however, that Wikipedia pretty much requires that all content/claims being added to an article be supported by citations to reliable sources, and that it is the responsibility of the person wanting to add the content to provide these citations; otherwise, the content can be removed at anytime by any editor. So, if you want add content about a June 1993 expedition to the article, you are going to need to provide citations so that the content can be verified. If you're not sure how to do that, then take a look at Help:Referencing for beginners or ask for help at the Wikipedia' Teahouse.Your edits are quickly approaching a level of disruption and edit warring that is not going to be overlooked any longer. As I posted above, the Wikipedia community will assume good faith when mistakes are made, but only for so long. So, I suggest once again that you try and resolve things through article talk page discussion and focus on the content you want to add and not insulting other editors who disagree with you. If you continue to do the latter, you're the one who's going to find their account blocked for editing by an administrator, not these other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear elite
I notice that only your opinion counts and your version of event, the truth counts for nothing if it is not appealing to you. Curtainsider (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It's just an essay, but it pretty much explains why the content you added was removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability
Hi, elite club members, everything I have published is true and verifiable, anyone who can read and is not bias can see the facts. It is only you guys who do not wish the truth that Anatoli Boukreev is the greatest mountaineer to be documented. Curtainsider (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's true and verifiable, provide the citations to reliable sources in support. Please note that the sources need to be reliable per Wikipedia's definition. They also need to be used in the proper context and actually support the article content they are intended to support; in other words, don't just add a bunch a website homepages and expect others to search through the websites to find the relevant information, but rather provide direct links to the relevant article or whatever you're citing. If you're not sure how to add these citations, then post the links at Talk:K2 and someone will look the sources over and figure out the best way to use them if they can be used. The next thing is that an edit like this is pretty easily going to be mistaken for disruptive, especially given your past edits. Not only were the Citation needed templates you added formatted incorrectly, you seemed to adding them more to make a point. If you really do have concerns about the verifiability of information in the article, then please discuss your concerns on the article's talk page and see how others feel. You might find out that some of other editors agree with you and then a consensus can be established on what to do next.Finally, you might not think so, but I've been trying to help you avoid getting your account blocked because that's what's going to happen if you don't slow down and start trying to engage other editors on the article talk page instead of disparaging them here on your user talk page. Your continuing to snarkily refer to other editors as "elites" is not going to make any of these editors really want to help you, but will make them want to be the one who starts a discussion about your behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Curtainsider, please read the above, including the information that's linked in the text. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 09:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I will try to remember that headmaster sir
You are really important Curtainsider (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

In fact I don’t think people appreciate just how important you are
Maybe you could teach me how to be as important, on here, as you are. Curtainsider (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at K2. bonadea contributions talk 09:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits and for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When this block expires, you must drop the sarcastic personal attacks you have been making on people who are simply trying to explain to you how to resolve content disagreements (at their talk pages, and generally here on this talk page), and you must follow the proper content dispute procedures. If you do not, you will be blocked for longer, possibly indefinitely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

How to: cite sources
There is very good advice on this page for a new editor.

Here is more help: A form that will let you correctly add references to a Wikipedia article:

Here is an example, filled in:

In the Edit window, it looks like this (includes footnoted sentence): "Makalu" Gau Ming-Ho led a five-member team to Everest that day.

In the article, it looks like this:

"Makalu" Gau Ming-Ho led a five-member team to Everest that day.

Explanations:

"date" is date of publication of the source, if known (May 13, 1996 in the example).

"publisher" is often not needed, when it is the same as "website".

"accessdate" is the date you saw it online—"Retrieved" (November 14, 2015 in the example).

"Smith, John L." I made up this name to show how "last= first=" work.

You could copy and paste the blank form that I placed above. However, to save time, you can use the RefToolbar. You will see the toolbar when you are in edit mode, like this:



In the illustration, "cite news" is highlighted. Most of the time, though, you will probably use "cite web". Notice the  at the right-hand side of the toolbar. If necessary, click "cite" to make the toolbar display the drop-down "Templates" list. When you click on "cite web", a popup window will appear. It has blank spaces where you can easily type or paste in the url, title, website, and other items. It also has a Preview function. After you fill in the form and preview it, click "Insert". Position the ref text so it immediately follows the sentence to be footnoted. Referencing will be easy and correct.

For very complete instructions, study this page:

WP: CITING SOURCES

DonFB (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Harsh treatment
It was easy to see this coming yesterday. Many more experienced Wikipedians have tried to explain how things work here to you, but instead of accepting their advice and trying to learn how to do things properly you have hurled sarcasm and insults at everyone and deliberately made edits to articles that are totally disruptive.

Citing appropriate sources when adding material and not adding your own personal commentary to articles is really basic to What Wikipedia is and how it works. You don't have to be perfect, you will find if you at least try to do things correctly other users will help you out. If instead you treat articles like battlegrounds and attack those who try to explain things to you, blocking is the inevitable result. It's not something anybody wants to do but if you can't at least try to work within Wikipedia's basic rules there's no real choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Beeblebrox
What are you waffling on about, you sound like a 9 year old girl, a teachers pet. There are no citations for half the crap that is printed on K2, it is just opinion, not facts. You bunch of self promoting, self appointed geeks. Wikipedia is for fascists. GOODBYE. Curtainsider (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As you are continuing with personal attacks, the block is now indefinite. (As an aside, you would have found editors happy to examine and discuss whatever existing weaknesses there are in that article had you not approached them with attacks and insults.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)