User talk:Renseim

Leave messages for me below: Renseim (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Darcus Howe
Please stop adding uncited interpretations of his BBC interview to Darcus Howe; see WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV for reasoning. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying HARD not to say anything that isn't sourced including by the interview itself. I'm sincere. Please deal with the specifics (sentences) if you feel I've made a mistake in any sense. The latest version I posted is a bit stronger exactly because the Wash. Post article sources the fact of the criticisms (not just on youtube). Is that cool?? Renseim (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not cool. You are posting your on interpretation of the video, which is not a reliable source for the statements you are making. You're also edit warring; you've restored specific sentences once I've removed them. You don't appear to be an experienced editor; others will happily advise you, so please don't make further edits to that section until you've discussed them on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please also urgently make yourself familiar with WP:3RR. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well of course I restored sentences when I didn't think that they should have been removed, but if you'll point out the specific sentences (or simply edit them to correct a specific problem with them) then we can take it from there. Yes, I will deal with the talk page (I hadn't realized a discussion began there but was just looking at the edit summaries.). Yes I am familiar with the 3-R rule. Renseim (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your AN3 report
Can you please fix your report at WP:AN3? The diffs are not readable. You should also add your signature at the bottom of the report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry, I'll try. I never filed these before and it's a hassle.... Renseim (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning
Formally given for your violation of the edit war policies of Wikipedia. Please self-revert or a report shall be made on the appropriate noticeboards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please answer my objection on the talk page. Specifically dealing with what I say (do you disagree?). Renseim (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, I went to the RS discussion page and didn't see anything about youtube in particular let alone relevant to the current dispute. Or point more specifically if needed.Renseim (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

From WP:RS:
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources; and, all majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). 

Youtube is not a "published source."
 * 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.

Claims that a person interrupted someone repeatedly, cut off a person etc. are "contentious" and need strong published reliable sourcing.
 * Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

Wikipedia editors are not to interpolate any claims not specifically made in the published source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, youtube is not being used as a source of fact. I am very sensitive to the issue of bias in BLPs. The negative issues raised are not about the person of the biography but of a public figure on television. I don't believe there is any unsourced fact presented, but if so them please refer to it specifically. Renseim (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)