User talk:Keeterlg

Welcome!
Hello, Keeterlg, 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 recent edits to the page Christopher Walken has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other 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. Additionally, 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! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified 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 need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Aoidh (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Elvis
Hello, I have twice had to remove your contributions to the Elvis Presley article because you are not being careful with your writing and citation style. Elvis Presley is a Featured article, meaning it has the highest standards of writing and sourcing according to our assessment scale. It is already quite a long article, and you are adding details that are of questionable relevance to the subject (thus increasing the length for uncertain gain). You are also not respecting the citation style in use in the article, which creates inconsistency and quality problems. Please review Citing sources for more information on how to cite sources here. I ask that you discuss your proposed changes on the article Talk page before re-adding them. -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Keeterlg, I see that you are new to Wikipedia. So I have pinged you, because you may not have read Laser_brain's message. I just reverted your addition of the telephone call with Carter and Elvis Presley, because this is being discussed on the Talk page of the EP article, and so far there are not many responses, so it is still unsure whether consensus will develop for its inclusion. The article is quite long already, and one can doubt whether this is worthy to add. So let's wait and see how the cookie crumbles. One other thing is, your edit does not follow the referencing system used in the article. The New Yorker source should be supplied in a footnote, not in the text of the article itself. Should consensus be reached for inclusion, make sure you add it to its correct place, which is the section "Final year and death," after the sentence about the "Way Down"-single. Cheers MackyBeth (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Keeterlg, I noticed that after my previous message you edited the Carter phone call incident again on 21 March and again on 28 March. The right way to get this incident into the article is to first get involved in the discussion about this on Talk:Elvis_Presley, and see in what direction consensus develops. My understanding of the problem is that this is a FA article, and during the review process that resulted in the FA-rating some objections were made already about the size of the article. It is not sufficient to just state your reasons in the edit summary: yes, Guralnick covers the fact in--one paragraph of--his two volumes, but other material not yet included seems much more important to add. If you ask me, the major event not covered a all is the CBS TV special of 1977.MackyBeth (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Keeterlg. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
 * instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. ''
 * This relates to adding a reference/citation to a book you apparently authored. Self-promotion is highly discouraged. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;   &#9743;(ring-ring)''  00:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Communication with other users
Hello Keeterlg, would you please consider engaging your fellow editors and acknowledging the attempts people have been making to communicate with you? This is a collaborative environment, and one of the basic requirements is that you communicate and discuss your edits with other editors when concerns arise. You have been continuously adding details to Elvis Presley after numerous editors have expressed concerns about the level of detail, the nature of your edits, and even the quality of your writing. You have not made a single attempt to respond except via edit summaries. Please start at Talk:Elvis Presley and talk to us. If you continue on this path, your editing privileges may have to be revoked until you can start communicating with others. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Referencing
When you add material to an article - as you have done at Bob Dylan, Don Henley, and elsewhere - you must provide citations in the proper format - that is, using the template as shown at WP:INCITE. Please don't just assume that other editors will tidy up after you - it is just as likely that improperly referenced text will simply be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Same with one of your edits to the Rachel Maddow article (diff). It was a good addition to the article, but you did not cite the reference correctly, which creates unnecessary extra work for other editors.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  03:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  07:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is a direct link to the discussion, which is about you: Editor does not respond to several requests for cooperation  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  07:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * See the page cited earlier for details, but this has been resolved. If you wish to learn more about how to best cite references in a Wikipedia article, see the post immediately below ("Adding references can be easy".) I would also be happy to help you. All the best -  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  18:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding references can be easy
Hello! Here's how to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain the Wikipedia policy of verifiability.

Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:
 * 1) While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "Cite". Click on it.
 * 2) Then click on "Templates".
 * 3) Choose the most appropriate template and fill in as many details as you can. This will add a well formatted reference that is helpful in case the web URL (or "website link") becomes inactive in the future.
 * 4) Click on Preview when you're done filling out the 'Cite (web/news/book/journal)' to make sure that the reference is correct.
 * 5) Click on Insert to insert the reference into your editing window content.
 * 6) Click on Show preview to Preview all your editing changes.
 * Before clicking on Publish changes, check that a References header  ==References==  is near the end of the article.
 * And check that    is directly underneath that header.
 * 7.Click on Publish changes. ...and you've just added a complete reference to a Wikipedia article.

You can read more about this on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv.

Hope this helps, --Neil N  talk to me 12:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * To use this message, place  on User:talk pages when needed.

January 2018
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article, George Saunders, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   18:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Mary Tyler Moore
The material you added to this article confuses me. "About them..." Is the interviewer asking her to compare Asner and Presley? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Johnny Mercer
I kept your first edit to Johnny Mercer but replaced the source with one whose content supported the claim. Your later edits were poorly formatted so I couldn't figure out what you were trying to do. (It could well be worthwhile.) There is some helpful advice above, posted by User:NeilN, on how to cite your sources. When you do, please check to make sure that your citation appears as you intend. If you need more help, please ask.DougHill (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

March 2020
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Richard Harris, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Eric talk 16:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Spindale, North Carolina, you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Spindale, North Carolina. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Spindale, North Carolina. Sundayclose (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

February 2022
Hi Keeterlg! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Max Weber that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Spindale, North Carolina. Sundayclose (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your editing work.
 * Please clarify the source problem.
 * The sources provided are retrievable at the websites indicated.
 * These sources are acceptable in my professional presentations and publications.
 * Always intend to comply with the rules for editing.
 * Respectfully,
 * Larry Keeter Keeterlg (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikis are not reliable sources. NCpedia.org is a wiki. It is irrelevant what is "retrievable" and what you personally use as a source. You have been warned numerous times about problem edits, but you obviously don't click the links and read the policies or guidelines related to the problem edit. Before making additional edits, go back through your warnings, click all the links, and read, including WP:RS and WP:CITE. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean you can edit any way you wish without regard to policies and guidelines. Sundayclose (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful RSVP.
 * Didn’t know all wikis are unreliable sources.
 * Wikipedia is considered reliable?
 * The sources I cited are reliable
 * Excerpts from official publications,
 * Posted by established institutions in NC and Georgia.
 * Many in academia prefer retrievable sources
 * Rather than books-and-print library searches.
 * Policies and guidelines, they say,
 * Lag behind more convenient and efficient sites of the digital age.
 * Many thanks for the links
 * That I will reread.
 * Humble apologies and appreciation,
 * Larry 47.134.212.49 (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit or make comments while signed out. Your saying a source is reliable doesn't make it reliable by Wikipedia's standards. AGAIN, you're not permitted to edit any way you wish without regard to policies and guidelines. I'm not sure why you can't understand this (or perhaps you just don't want to understand): click the links and read the policies and guidelines. Don't edit again until you do that. Some leeway is given to new editors when they make bad edits. You've edited for six years, have about a dozen warnings, and up until the last few days have refused to try to communicate with others on Wikipedia. You have squandered any assumption of good faith, so if you can't begin to assume some responsibility for your edits, you likely are headed for loss of editing privileges very soon. No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for the same reason that all wikis are not reliable: no professional editorial oversight. That's why you can make bad edits and the edits stay in the article unless someone like me challenges them. Sundayclose (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand.
 * Larry
 * BTW, I communicated with you because you emailed me.
 * No one else has ever done so. Keeterlg (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I never emailed you. But your refusal to communicate here with other editors is unacceptable, regardless of whether they email you. This is a collaborative project. Not communicating is not an option. Sundayclose (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the email is from wikimedia,
 * The first email ever to me,
 * Actually the best way to "talk,"
 * As our exchange demonstrates.
 * My communication to you is
 * To test the wiki sources
 * For reliability,
 * As the readers of Wikipedia do,
 * Instead of automatic rejection.
 * Larry Keeterlg (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your logic is seriously flawed. Look, an email from Wikimedia doesn't mean it came from ME  . Do you think I don't know if I sent an email??? Stop telling me I emailed you because I didn't. Regardless, here's the bottom line: Don't make any more edits until you click all of the links in the warnings and read all of the policies, and agree to abide by them. And if someone messages you here, you need to respond and not wait for them to email you. Otherwise you are quickly headed for loss of editing privileges. You don't have any special privileges on Wikipedia to ignore the rules. Now, I'm finished here until you make another problem edit, so don't bother to respond. Sundayclose (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No bother.
 * I'm a grow-up.
 * I get the message.
 * Yes, it was not an e-mail from you,
 * But an e-mail from Wikimedia,
 * Containing your talk.
 * The first such e-mail I've ever received,
 * And I'll reply every time I receive such e-mail,
 * As I did with you.
 * FYI - My review of you as editor
 * Is you're very helpful,
 * But rough around the edges.
 * Larry Keeter Keeterlg (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't really care how you review me, but since we're now making reviews, here's my review of you as an editor: You are a serious failure at communication, a requirement to edit here. Even worse, you don't seem willing to change. And so far, you have been unwilling to follow Wikipedia policies, or you have not read them, or both. Sundayclose (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)