User talk:Michael Ronson

Leave a message here.

Proposed deletion of Paul McKercher


The article Paul McKercher has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. TexasAndroid (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. When you recently edited Lonerider, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TheAnyones.jpeg
 Thanks for uploading File:TheAnyones.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Ned Kelly
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. The full report is at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Ned Kelly into The Stringybark Creek police murders. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have the purpose of trimming down the The Stringybark Creek police murders on the Ned Kelly page so that his biography is shorter and more concise. At the moment, the Ned Kelly article contains everything and anything about the Kelly Gang and related events. I copied it over directly because I wanted to keep the original community work left in tact. Michael Ronson (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Ned Kelly. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Plagiarism, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

December 2017
Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Richard Wolstencroft, 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)   06:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC) You instereted a reference into a WP:BIO page. Please take it to the talk page. Michael Ronson (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Richard Wolstencroft 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. Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

May 2018
Hello, I'm David.moreno72. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Ned Kelly, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. David. moreno 72   07:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. David. moreno 72   07:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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. David. moreno 72   07:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC) What personal attack are you taling about? Michael Ronson (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. David. moreno 72   07:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at User_talk:David.moreno. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. 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:.  A  Train talk 07:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Michael, just to underscore what the block template says above: posting messages like this to other users is wildly unacceptable. You have a long history of problematic editing and you are a hair's breadth from being blocked indefinitely. If you can't work calmly and cooperatively with other editors then you can't participate in a collaborative project such as Wikipedia.  A  Train talk 08:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Whist I agree that the responses by the User here are totally unacceptable behaviour, I think that the sanction is perhaps a little harsh because that I find that 80% of the edit actually are useful and positive contributions. I.e. These clearly harmless edits . Plainly after reading the Ned Kelly the wording needs to be paraphrased not just copied carté-blanch just from the cited source.
 * I can understand the utter frustration shown here, when clearly acceptable edits are reverted without any logical reason. e.g. David.moreno72 just writing as a summary comment; "Restore to last good version" avoid good faith edits and avoids WP:EDITSUMCITE. (The editors Michael Ronson & User:HappyWaldo too are also poor when adding summary comments, which makes outside editors to have problems understanding what is actually going on.)
 * Who says this is a "good version" here? Where is the consensus for this? Worse neither David.moreno72 nor HappyWaldo have bother to use the Talkpage either, nor encouraged discussion. Seeing the discussions on HappyWaldo's Talkpage here, especially this  it is quite possible Michael Ronson is the sandwich of some continuing turf dispute.


 * I find it difficult to see a sanction on edit warring here is appropriate, but the outspokenness in response by Michael Ronsonis unacceptable. As a suggestion, I think all parties should use the talk pages and make constructive edits and make edit summary comments. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Arianewiki1, I get where you're coming from, but this user requested that a deity murder a fellow editor. That is effectively a death threat. A fanciful one, but a death threat all the same. I think with that in mind, the fact that I didn't indef block this user is downright lenient.  A  Train talk 09:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I didn't see that edit, and really Michael Ronson should be grateful for being blocked permanently. Provocation here is absolutely no excuse, and Michael Ronson might need to heed/read Bite. (A decent apology by them here might go a long way to settle things down.) Also David.moreno72, who looks like a very experienced editor, but should not reverted because someone thinks some "good version" is better. e.g. Changing "destroyed" to " eradicated", "captives " to "hostages"  or "spies" to "informers" are examples of wafer-thin reasoning. They should think about and remember WP:Own. Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, I thought Ronson made some decent edits in terms of compressing and tightening the prose, but he included some factual errors along the way, which I corrected. He also threw out baseless claims of POV, and then called me scum and accused me of having a pro-Kelly bias. I'm certainly not pro-Kelly, but pro-interesting story. I regard Kelly's as an interesting story, but it's also a very divisive one, so hope the page can remain neutral. Unfortunately, Ronson has a clear anti-Kelly agenda to push. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)