User talk:Kaneandhicks

Welcome!

Hello, Kaneandhicks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Rob Ford does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please 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: 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! — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

September 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at Rob Ford. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 21:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Rob Ford
If you need some help with editing on the Rob Ford article, maybe I can help. The article is basically on probation. If you get into an edit war with Claimsfour, the article will become fully protected and no-one will be able to edit the article. IMO, the guy is a biased defender of Ford, but in any case, getting into an edit war will not help anyone. My suggestion is to work on sub-articles in your own space, and get myself or someone else to look it over. Having a section entitled "Controversies" is a red flag to a lot of people, (hint hint) so it's probably best if any integrity commissioner judgments on Ford go into the appropriate section, either Mayor or Councillor and confine the mention to the specifics. The conflict-of-interest was already mentioned in the Mayor section. I try to avoid description, and get quotes; it's much less debatable. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 15:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Please do not add or change content, as you did to AR-15, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SudoGhost 21:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to AR-15. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SudoGhost 22:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at AR-15 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SudoGhost 16:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop edit warring
Please respect WP:3RR and follow the WP:BRD cycle or you will get blocked. You must discuss on the talk page and not restore until a consensus is reached. Note that this has nothing to do with whether you are right or your content is accurate, but has everything to do with collaborative editing. You will never succeed here by attempting to force your will on other editors. I have definite sympathies for the type of content you are attempting to add, and discovered this situation because I was considering doing something similar. Unfortunately your course of action will now make it harder for others to add such content. Discuss this on the talk page and seek to convince others through patient and civil discussion. Listen to their arguments and learn from them. Then seek to find a compromise. A modified version might be acceptable.

Failure to respond to this appeal will result in a block being sought. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
 * You've been asked repeatedly to stop edit warring, but haven't even bothered to start a discussion on the article's talk page. This block is for 24 hours, but longer blocks will be imposed if you continue this behaviour when it expires. Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Patience
I'm too busy for Wikipedia now, but curiosity got the better of me, and I noticed that the edit war has been going on. Of course I'm with you, since it was my version that you reinstated, but please be patient. Very little about Wikipedia is ever urgent. Right now, while the way this all turns out politically is up in the air, it isn't that important yet to work out what an encyclopedia should say about it. As you can see from the outcome of the mediation request above, it hurts a cause in the long run if someone keeps edit warring. I, for one, voluntarily pledged to follow the Don't re-revert rule. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions. &mdash; Sebastian 22:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is used in killing sprees. This is a fact. Just because you do not like this Fact does not give you justification to delete it.) [User:Kaneandhicks|Kaneandhicks]] 00:40, December 21, 2012‎ (UTC)


 * No one likes that fact, but that has NOTHING to do with why you're having difficulty getting this content into the article. It has to do with the way you're trying to do it. We work collaboratively here, and you must work with others. You need to follow the advice you've gotten. Follow WP:BRD. If you won't follow the rules (working with others is a big rule here), then no matter how factual the content (and your content is very factual!), then you won't succeed. You need to decide whether you're more interested in getting your will (that never works here), or in getting this content included successfully. So far you seem to be more interested in bullying others.


 * I have moved your comments to the right spots (we do have rules about that too), and have also added your missing signatures (you must always sign your comments on talk pages). -- Brangifer (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Luckily I do not live in this nut-house of a nation (USA). If Yanks want to keep killing each other, that's fine with me,  just stop killing everybody else around the world. [User:Kaneandhicks|Kaneandhicks]] 00:41, December 21, 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'm a Yank living in Europe. It's much safer here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The next step, if you really want success, is to discuss this calmly and civilly on the article's talk page. Ask what to do and how to do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How long is this article going to be held hostage to NRA-member faNatics. This article's unwillingness to address the use of AR-15's in US massacres is like talking about the Atomic Bomb without mentioning Hiroshima or Nagasaki. FANATICS WITH GUNS ON THE BRAIN.


 * Number one: You're dealing with this in the wrong place. You have been told many times what to do: Discuss this on the article's discussion page. You're just going to get blocked again if you continue this way. You're also making it harder for others, including myself, who wish to include similar content in the article. Unless you are an NRA plant, who is deliberately trying to make it hard for us, you need to read the advice above and follow it EXACTLY. Einstein defined insanity this way: "Doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result." Are you going to take our advice, or just prove him right? -- Brangifer (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

April 2013
Hello, I'm Echoedmyron. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Rob Ford, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:File-Dennis Raphael.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:File-Dennis Raphael.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:File-Dennis Raphael.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:File-Dennis Raphael.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Living people and neutrality
I don't see your additions to the Tory page as neutral, please be aware of wikipedias respect for neutral editing of living people article ans consider if you are a neutral observer - please read WP:BLP AND WP:NPOV - before editing that article again Govindaharihari (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Raphael - Don't waste my time making me have to neutralize your attacking additions soapboxing and attacking living people you disagree with - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Raphael#/media/File:Dennis_Raphael.jpg - Govindaharihari (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at John Tory. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tory&diff=665922197&oldid=665894235. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

April 2016
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Alberta, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

June 2019
You need reliable sources. See WP:RS Enigmamsg 22:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Saucy. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Mark Stevens (venture capitalist) have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Saucy[talk – contribs] 02:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Mark Stevens (venture capitalist). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Saucy[talk – contribs] 03:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia Enigmamsg 23:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Hello. Your recent edit to Alexander appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you.  General Ization Talk  22:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)