User talk:Mandolinryan

October 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Danny Paisley and the Southern Grass has been reverted. Your edit here to Danny Paisley and the Southern Grass was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/DannyPaisley/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Danny Paisley and the Southern Grass, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Danny Paisley and the Southern Grass, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Mandolinryan. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Danny Paisley and the Southern Grass, 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. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

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

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Your recent editing history at Danny Paisley and the Southern Grass shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.  Zack mann  (read below/What I been doing) 15:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Zackmann08, I am so deeply sad by these unprecedented and absurd measures and accusations you have made. You have accused me of taking ownership of the page "Danny Paisley and the Southern Grass" If anyone has taken ownership of this page it has been you. I made an edit to the page, and you deemed that edit "Unnecessary." Does that not in its self imply that you own this page and that it is subject to your approval. Wikipedia prides its self in allowing all reader to make changes; however, you have taken any amendment I've made and revised it. You then accuse me of starting an edit war, The evidence clearly shows that you were the one whom started the war because any change I made you reversed. I never nonce took ownership for the page; and I provided references for my work. Finally you then said that If wanted to make a change I should discuss it with you first; That clearly shows that you have placed yourself as the owner of the page. My only intentions for my amendments were to add accurate information and remove false sources. You have the audacity and the arrogance to revert it. I would assume that you have no knowledge of this band. So what qualifies you to do these things? I on the other hand have clear first hand knowledge on this topic and my information is incredibly valuable. It is so absurd that you would then go and report me and have me blocked from Wikipedia. If anyone should be blocked it should be you; because of your actions.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Danny Paisley and the Southern Grass. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You sir are the person that has taken over the page. As soon as I made one edit you started an edit war by reverting it. You deemed my edit unnecessary which is the first case of redundancy because by saying you deem it unnecessary implies that you have control over the page. The second case of redundancy comes when you said that if I wanted to make an edit I should go through you.. That furthermore implies that you own this page. Never once did I take ownership of the page. My entire intention was to implement factual information and further information to the page. This is the purpose of Wikipedia and by looking at your page I see you have an atrocious track record of preventing a lot of people from doing this. I have first hand knowledge of the topic in question; and I would assume you do not or else you would know that the information you were reverting back to was false. I find your conduct to be immature and disgraceful and certainly not the conduct that Wikipedia endorses. Quite frankly I don't know what problem you had with me but It is clear that your arrogance has clouded your judgment. You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. 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:. -- ferret (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Let me begin by stating how sorry I am. I can see how my actions were wrong and how some of them can be perceived as wrong. I must admit, having work reverted after I had exhausted myself working for hours for it simply to be reverted was enraging. I realize that giving into the provocation of an edit war was wrong. To me it was a no win situation. It is wrong and I should not have done that - I apologize. In the future I recognize that I must make more of an effort to communicate with editors that I do not see eye to eye with. However, I did make attempts to reconcile with the rouge user, he did not comply; he refused to cooperate. It angers me because I tried to improve the page with the valuable knowledge that I have from a primary source and he denied the submissions regardless of any factors. I was disappointed in Wikipedia allowing such behavior. Not only done to me but multiple others without ramifications for that user. I apologize for my lapse in judgement in posting un-cited work. My work came directly from interviewing the subject of the article. I was ignorant in not knowing how to go about citing that work. I have known the subject of the article all my life. So its like being asked to cite that your aunt really did work at Starbucks for example. I am not belittling this just giving my perspective. None the less, I realize it was wrong and I'll never do that again. In regards to deleting sources. It is never okay to delete sources I sincerely apologies for that. In my case, I deleted the sources because in my revisions I didn't use that information. Also, after going back and revisiting those sources they weren't even relevant and no information in the sources were in the article. In conclusion, I realize the wrong nature of my actions. However, I want Wikipedia to also realize that I am only partially at fault. I greatly hope that Wikipedia will reprimand user Zackmann. His actions were provocative and unprofessional not to mention ridiculous and unfounded. I sincerely apologies for my misjudgments and I affirm in the future I'll never do them again. Sincerely, Mandolinryan

personal knowledge, family, and the encyclopedia
We cannot go by assertions of the relatives of subjects or whatever. This is an encyclopedia. All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. As you have a conflict of interest, it would be best to suggest and discuss on the article talk page instead of editing directly. It is unfortunate that your conflict of interest has led to your being blocked. Please read Biographies of living persons as it may help you. Please understand that material cited from reliable sources will trump personal knowledge in any discussion. Hope this helps.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, going forward I promise to only use cited sources. You have a valid point and it has made me think. I understand that it would be irresponsible for Wikipedia just to allow any type of information without citation. From now on I pledge to only use sources that can be publicly cited. I understand and now agree with you. My final question is may I be re-instated so that I may amend the article so it displays factual information? I promise you whole heartedly that I will provide public sources for all information. Thank you!

Block evasion
User has engaged in block evasion in August, 2019. See Special:Contributions/2601:145:601:51EE:0:0:0:0/64. --Yamla (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)