User talk:Dimitrisdad

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 that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Cailil  talk 21:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Sorry the above template wasn't left here earlier - I had assumed that someone else had already done it--Cailil  talk 21:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Baldwin
Please stop returning the material to the Alec Baldwin article. The proper thing to have done was request more information about the tag in the section, which was placed because the entire section as it was, and in some cases, still is, undue weight on the entire topic in the article. It was edited completely in the light of removing what is essentially a continuation of a bias toward Baldwin's side of the story, which is unacceptable in a neutral article. Why would you say that the article's "politics section reads the most well toned as it has ever been right now" and then return all of the "case against Basinger"?? This is not balanced and can't remain. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Responded on the article talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Alec Baldwin has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  Flewis (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. ''If you return that section it will be a 3RR violation and you will be blocked from editing. '' Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Guide to referencing
Click on "show" on the right of the orange bar to open contents. This will teach you how something is properly referenced.

Regarding reversions made on October 31 2008 to Alec Baldwin
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''Let me remind you to assume good faith, stay cool, remain civil, and do not make personal attacks, such as was left by you here and here. I would suggest at this point that you take a step back, take a day or two to regain your composure and stop being so personally invested in a point of view. Your behavior to date on this article has been unproductive, ill-tempered and a prime example of tenditious editing. Please consider ways to better interact with other editors involved and don't become so personally involved that you lose your temper. Any further displays may result in your being banned from Wikipedia.'' LaVidaLoca (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Response
I have read through all of the article talk page discussion, looked through the myriad of page revisions and your postings on user talk pages asking for administrators to block the other user. I have also noted your series of personal attacks upon the other editor, which are absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia and are blockable offenses. You are admonished to assume good faith at all times and to avoid making personal attacks such as you have, even in your posting on my talk page (gadfly) and to desist from lobbying adminstrators to ban someone based on your personal perspective of the issue (such as on this talk page. You may have made the points about the tape, but at no time, until you obviously became quite angry, did you say that your objection to the TMZ page was because it contained the recording. I note that other reliable sources were put in about the tape which were also removed. From an outsider's perspective, you are only arguing that on the basis of the Baldwin book, and not from any court action that has determined it to be a legal violation. I have to wonder, however, if the release of the recording is a legal violation, why the court has not ordered its removal from the TMZ website. TMZ is based in California.

In reviewing the original addition of the section, there were issues related to what appears to be a biased skew to the verbage used in it, which to me seems to be what the other editor repeatedly tried to convey to you. There was nothing in what was discussed by the other editor that conveyed anything except issues with referencing, wording and the potential of libel on the part of Wikipedia based on the wording and lack of specific references for what you were submitting as information from the book. Detailed referencing when writing what could open Wikipedia to libel charges is fundamental policy that cannot be ignored. There will be no blocking of editors who are trying in good faith to improve article content in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies. I note that initially, the other editor removed your wording due to potential WP:BLP violations, which are one of the highest of Wikipedia tenets which must be followed. Direct citations and page numbers are required to avoid such issues. Neutrality is tantamount, and I don't believe the section as you originally wrote it, had a neutral tone. The issue is in how your section is presented, and I support the other editor that it lacked neutrality.

It is my opinion that the section of the article, as it exists at this time, is sufficient. If you can't accept that, then the article will likely be locked from any editing and formal dispute mediation will commense. One other point that I want to make is that if you don't want your contributions to be changed, shortened, lengthened, or altered, that you do not submit it. You have no claim upon anything you write once you click the save page button. I note that the other editor has suggested that if you wish to write about the book in a detailed manner, that you create a separate article about it. That is a valid and very good suggestion. I would echo the other editor's comment, and suggest to you that anything written on this book needs to have complete and thorough sourcing and citations, no matter where it is. I hope that when you return, it is with a new outlook on user behavior and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would suggest that you read WP:BEHAVE in the interim and strive to comment clearly on content issues and cease with the personal attacks. LaVidaLoca (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)