User talk:Dukeare1

Welcome
Hello, Dukeare1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! CutOffTies (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Tiverton, Rhode Island. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. CutOffTies (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to John Buccigross. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CutOffTies (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Tiverton, Rhode Island, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. CutOffTies (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

on the buccigross page, i provided a link. you said i couldnt, but i think it still should be said cause its true. and it is necessary on his page cause it shows he cares for his fans and is a chill anchor.

Your recent edits
Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 15:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
There are numerous problems with your editing, including the following:
 * 1) Comments about editing belong on talk pages, not in articles, so for example comments such as "Wikipedia I'm telling the truth, so please keep this. Message my account if you have a problem with me" and "While many people don't believe that is true, this is. Unless Tom Murray wikipedia, how does wikipedia know that is information is factual?" do not belong in an article.
 * 2) Wikipedia content requires reliable sources. An anonymous person coming here and saying "you can take my word for this" is not a reliable source, as anyone can make any claim here.
 * 3) A source must actually contain the information it is used as a source for.
 * 4) Wikipedia articles should not contain subjective opinions, such as "The men's soccer coach Murray is one of the better coaches in America".
 * 5) Wikipedia works by cooperation, not by individuals who believe they are right pushing ahead with what they want to do against consensus.

I have found my way to your talk page because of a report on you at Administrator intervention against vandalism. My impression is that "vandalism" is not the right description of your activity, as you are probably acting in good faith. However, you need to learn how Wikipedia works, and I strongly suggest slowing down and discussing things, and hold back a bit until you have done so. Even though I do not think you are deliberately trying to be disruptive, you are being disruptive. I have declined the request at Administrator intervention against vandalism to take action against you, but unless you change your editing habits you will be blocked before long. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice job on finding a source for your new toned down content on the Tiverton, Rhode Island article. However, your edits on John Buccigross were removed for several reasons. First of all, the youtube clip is a copyright violation.  See Video links.  Secondly, a "shout-out" the broadcaster made is hardly cause for inclusion in the page.  Content in an article should be generally covered in third party secondary reliable sources.  Youtube is a primary source.  --CutOffTies (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In reply to all your comments, please read Reliable Sources, especially the part on "questionable sources". Twitter is not reliable, because you can post whatever you want without verification, and YouTube is not reliable for the same reason plus the copyright issues. If you have further questions about a source, please use Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Krashlandon (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Amongst other things I explained to you above that comments about editing don't belong in articles, yet you still made edits such as this one. If you wish to return to editing when your block expires you will really have to try to understand how Wikipedia works, otherwise it is likely that you will be blocked indefinitely. I tried hard to help you rather than block you when I saw the report at Administrator intervention against vandalism, but there has to be a limit to how far one can make allowances. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

yo james i understand that wikipedia isnt a place for that, but nobody would answer my question so what else was i supposed to do? i would appreciate if maybe you answered the question...why is sg allowed to use citation needed on an article and im not?

so you cant even answer my question? come on now thats all i want, if you cant answer this question wikipedia is a joke.
 * I can't answer any questions about someone else's disagreement with you on a subject I don't know anything about. When your block expires, go to the article talk page and discuss it with the person you're disagreeing with.   I can answer questions about Wikipedia's rules; I assume you've been reading through them at WP:WELCOME.  I'm not clear, though, on what specific question about the rules you are asking. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The user is asking why a sentence in an article got a cite needed why his was removed. My answer was above, but I'll move it down here.


 * From the policy on Biographies of Living persons, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".
 * Having content that two people from Oklahoma with similar ages played on the same high school basketball team is not contentious. Having content about a high school soccer coach getting yearly requests of advice from a world famous coach and claiming that this high school soccer coach "will one day, he could have it any day if he wanted, take over the U.S. National Team" is contentious. . Having content about national broadcasters, well known musicians, and NBA players having an affiliation with a band from Rhode Island whose presence seems to be limited to a myspace page and a youtube video is   contentious., , ,.
 * Having content that two people from Oklahoma with similar ages played on the same high school basketball team is not contentious. Having content about a high school soccer coach getting yearly requests of advice from a world famous coach and claiming that this high school soccer coach "will one day, he could have it any day if he wanted, take over the U.S. National Team" is contentious. . Having content about national broadcasters, well known musicians, and NBA players having an affiliation with a band from Rhode Island whose presence seems to be limited to a myspace page and a youtube video is   contentious., , ,.


 * --CutOffTies (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

how is the info that was cited in buccigross page cotentious, which means Causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial. Guess what if you went to the actual link that i provided, i know i can't actually cite it, but if you went to it you will see that it is clearly true, which would not make it controversial because it is fact. I can't prove the other ones as fact, because I don't have a direct source as I do with the Buccigross thing. I believe you are just jealous of the fact I've met these people, and don't say that info is useless on Buccigross page it provides an insight into his life, something you can't prove. So your saying as long as it makes some kind of sense I don't need a source? I can say citation needed, then that just shows wikipedia is a piece of crap, and I know you won't actually abide by those rules (which means- Accept or act in accordance with, just in case you didn't know). Cause I know if I do anything like that, say I put in Tom Brady played pickup basketball with Landon Donovan when they were younger because they are both from California. Now that should be allowed because it isn't contentious and as long as I put citation needed it will stay right? well i bet you wont let it stay once i get off this block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukeare1 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 17 February 2011
 * There is another point which has not yet been mentioned. Apart from the need for verifiability via reliable sources there is also the need for information to be significant or notable. There may be a reliable source somewhere that tells us what colour shoes Barack Obama was wearing at his inauguration, but even if there is it is not significant enough for inclusion in the article about him. If for some reason the colour of his shoes had received a large amount of attention, being discussed at length in numerous prominent reliable sources then it might be considered notable, but if some journalist just happened to mention it in passing it is not notable, even if the source is reliable. Even if we leave aside the question of whether your "sources" are reliable or not, the information you say they give is not worthy of inclusion in the relevant article. There is a clear consensus of all those who have commented on the issue apart from you that it is not worthy of inclusion, and Wikipedia works by consensus, not by individual editors who disagree persisting in repeatedly imposing their version. Doing so is called edit warring, and editors who continue to do it after being warned are blocked from editing. You have already been edit warring, and your statement "i bet you wont let it stay once i get off this block" appears to be a declaration that you intend to continue to do so. I have already put a considerable amount of time and effort into trying to explain to you what the problems with your editing are, and others have tried to help you understand too. If you either can't or won't understand then you very probably will be blocked indefinitely. When I first came across the report on you at Administrator intervention against vandalism I decided that you were acting in good faith but did not understand how Wikipedia worked, so I tried to help you understand rather than block you. However, you have now had quite sufficient attempts to help you understand from several editors, including at least three administrators, and if you do return to your disruptive editing when the block expires you may be blocked without further warning. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

yea fisherqueen you ever been blocked? if you havent then it makes sense for you to think 31 hours isnt a long time, so thanks for not taking me off block...and jamesbwatson how is landon donovan playing pick up basketball with tom brady not relevant? i understand your point about brown shoes, but i believe my information goes past. and to the john buccigross information, the shout out to his fans shows how he's willing to hook up his fans and is a good guy, that is relevant. how is it not? im not saying stuff like brown shoes or small stuff, you guys keep making a comeback that has nothing to do with the information im trying to add to articles, you guys cite these examples like of obama's brown shoes which is nowhere close to what im trying to put.

Edits after block
Please don't make edits like you did here. You might find it useful to read WP:POINT which basically says to not make edits in order to make a point especially when done so in retaliation for perceived mistreatment. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

i will if you could stop being a bitch?

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Billy Tipton, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Andy Carroll, you may be blocked from editing. SQGibbon (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Loyd Grossman, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SQGibbon (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

okkkkkkkkkkk

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 7 02:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Changed to indef. Talk page access revoked.   7  02:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)