User talk:RonaldMerchant

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, RonaldMerchant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Hebron. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

London and use of minor edit flag
Hi, regardless of the merit of your edit which I disagreed with and undid, you should definitely not mark such edits as minor. Cheers, --John (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I see you have removed this a third time. At least you didn't flag it as minor this time, thanks for that. Rather than edit-warring, why not join the discussion at Talk:London and see if you can justify this removal? --John (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-adding stuff to people's talk pages
Users are allowed to remove items from their talk page, and by removing it they acknowledge that they read the item, so please stop undoing his edit. ZamorakO o (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. RonaldMerchant (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
Reviewing your recent contributions, while I don't necessarily disagree with the material being added, I think you should review WP:BRD. Typically, when you insert material and another user reverts that addition, you discuss it on the relevant talk page.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 02:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This was a mandatory note, not harassment. Tune it down a little. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ


 * Look, if he doesn't want conflict, why does he keep prolonging it? And bringing everything to admin? Leave me alone, and I'll leave him alone RonaldMerchant (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

 I have increased your blockto 60 hours for gross incivility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked due to misuse while blocked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the unblock mailing list at . Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Scotch-Irish American
I reverted your edits for a couple of reasons. As a proud southerner from Memphis, TN as well as being Scotch Irish myself I happen to know for a fact that Elvis Presley was indeed at least part Scotch-Irish. Then I looked to the Elvis article and this fact is mentioned. I do not wish to suggest as to your motives but I undid all of your deletions myself because I do not believe you have researched anything. It looks to me like you are using your own best judgement and unfortunately I strongly disagree with that. So unless you can provide some sort of rationale, kindly leave the information in place or gain a consensus for removal since your edits have now been challenged twice. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A Palestinian rabbi for you!
Thanks for your support at the Afd on Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Indef block
Quoting what I just said at WP:ANI:
 * Here is the claim. I have read the referenced source, and Sarek is correct that there is nothing in there about Armenians or Armenian Americans believing either of those two things. I think I misunderstood Sarek above, I was worried that there might be something in there about Armenians and broken charms, for example, but not quite what was in the article. But instead, there is nothing that links Armenians with either belief; one is linked to another ethnic group, and one is not mentioned. (Having read the source, I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if it turned out one or both were true about old Armenian beliefs too, but they are not in the source provided.)  If this was a one-off, I could easily chalk it up to misreading the source, but coming as it does in the middle of cries of "I win", and general problematic behavior across multiple articles, I am going to re-block RonaldMerchant indef for intentionally misrepresenting sources in an article to win an argument with a perceived enemy.

Since this is a significant change from a 60 hour block, I have reinstated your ability to edit your talk page, in case you want to make an honest, well-reasoned, drama-free unblock request. But at the first whiff of trolling or flaming, it will get re-protected. (Nevermind) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Just in case some admin is tempted to moderate this block, I'll note here that this user repeatedly lied about sources. For example, in this edit, both references to Stein's paper misrepresent the source, the view attributed (without page number) to Jeffries is the opposite of his view, the quotation of Congreve is stolen together with its citation from a book of Norman Rose and maliciously truncated, and the reference to Wilson is entirely invented. The source given in this edit is also fake. This block has saved me the trouble of filing an SPI to ask for a comparison against User:JerryDavid89, who was blocked for socking a few days before this username was created. That user also lied about sources, including the same ones, and had remarkably similar characteristics. Given this history, I expect this user to resurface under another name and resume dishonest editing. Zerotalk 08:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)