User talk:RickW7x2

Welcome
Hello  and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.  ''Click here to reply to this message.''  ukexpat (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page
Thanks for the message. We are all editors - if you have a question I will do my best to help. – ukexpat (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like my concerns addressed in the discussion page for Anthony D'Andrea, an early 20th century Chicago mob boss. In my response to a previous editor's comment I gave reasons why the example he or she cited was really (in my opinion) an example of a badly written article. My impression is that these articles are supposed to compare to actual known encyclopedias, such as Funk & Wagnall's, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc, and that the way I wrote the article fit with this style. I'm willing to edit the article more if necessary, but if all the facts are provided accurately and the source info is provided at the bottom, then I don't see a problem. Thanks. RickW7x2 (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:D'Andrea, Anthony.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:D'Andrea, Anthony.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It is in the public domain, being from 1921 or earlier. Appears to have been used by the Chicago Daily Tribune 1921 or earlier, possibly other old Chicago papers as well. RickW7x2 (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel the image is in the public domain? The tag to use depends on the reason the image is PD. J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

May, 2011
Please do not edit war, as you appear to be doing at Bill Ayers. Three editors have now disputed the entirety of your proposed changes on grounds of WP:POV, WP:OR, inappropriate encyclopedic tone, and WP:BLP. Your justification regarding "left-wing bias" makes clear that you are approaching this article in a WP:POV manner. Further, it violates our policies of assuming good faith and remaining civil to accuse other editors of WP:VANDALISM, and to attack their credibility as editors in edit summaries. I have reverted your most recent attempt, as arguing without reliable sources that a living person a "terrorist" carries significant BLP concerns. You are expected to work through consensus, and not unilaterally attempt to impose your edits. If you continue, your account may be temporarily blocked by an administrator to prevent further disruption to the article. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC) On the contrary Wikidemon, I was the one who originally included the quotes from the New York Times and followed it up to determine its veracity. I included citations from Life magazine (1969) that showed the history of the quotes and from the Los Angeles Times (1970) to show that it was Bill Ayers said them. These are legitimate sources. This proves that he prevaricated in his interview with the New York Times. To delete the the latter evidence while leaving the former does in fact give a non-neutral POV. I am therefore being objective. Judging by what the other people, such as VoluntarySlave, wrote, it clearly shows that none of them read the info from the Los Angeles Times. As I said to VoluntarySlave, I can provide additional citations, but that would be redundant. If I provide evidence that others do not read then it makes it impossible to reach a consensus. Furthermore, leaving Ayers's self-serving statements intact and unchallenged is not the basis for a neutral article. Prima facie the article without the corrections to his self-serving statements does show a Left-wing bias. That does NOT mean I am approaching the article in a POV manner. It is unfair to someone of that simply because they take note that a given article is biased. Politically the Weather Underground is Left-wing. That is undisputed factually (see the article on the WU that states that it is an "American radical left organization."). Finally, why is it that only the evidence that is contrary to his statement is deleted? If I have a POV as you claim, why would I include citations both pro and con? Why is VoluntarySlave deleting only the con side? I submitted documented claims only to have them deleted and unread by the people doing the deleting. I am not doing an edit war as you accuse me of since it is only some of my contributions that are being deleted. Because more than one person is doing this you threaten me with a block. This appears to be a form of cyber-bullying. Rather than threaten me, why don't you give evidence how my claims (supported by evidence) are false? If you want the article to be accurate, rather than one-sided and reflecting the opinions of majority rule, this would be a better way to go. This follows the Wikipedia term of use that says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."RickW7x2 (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

December 2012
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Power metal. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. –  Richard  BB  09:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
–  Richard  BB  20:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
–  Richard  BB  18:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

John Gibson
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on John Gibson (political commentator). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.