User talk:Theodorerichert

October 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Who, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: The Who was changed by Theodorerichert (u) (t) making a minor change censoring content (Wikipedia is not censored) on 2010-10-21T02:20:05+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Speak Now edit
Please do not change the first week sales information. Billboard is the primary source for that information, not a press release for the recording artist. Dan56 (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Speak Now. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive; until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Please don't be offended. Your edits to the article lacked edit summaries and you were not responding to my comments, so it was difficult to assume good faith. As I mentioned before, controversial changes should be discussed at the talk page, in which I've left a post regarding the issue. Dan56 (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How Wikipedia works.
Instead of engaging with an edit war with Dan56, please discuss your changes on the article's talk page. Thank you.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I opened a talk page post at Talk:Speak_Now regarding your material I reverted at Speak Now. I've notified the other editors that contributed to the article as well. Dan56 (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

My revert has nothing to do with the discussion on the talkpage. Here on Wikipedia, we DO NOT source information in the leads, we source information in the article itself and the lead summarizes the article. ℥nding · start 04:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Speak Now. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Stop adding the same information until you achieve consensus (so far you dont have it) or face a block. You have been reverted more than i wish to count. Please stop. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 00:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Speak Now, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop and wait for consensus.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  00:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Speak Now, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Last warning. One more time and I request a block for 3RR violations and using OR with synthesis.  Toa   Nidhiki '' 05  00:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
I've reported you on the 3RR board. I'd suggest you stop reverting, as you have already done 5 in 17 hours. Feel free to comment or defend yourself there.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  18:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That is two different sources from the same site, not one source, and your edits are clearly violating WP:SYN.
 * Even if the edits are right, you have no consensus and have violated 3RR once and almost done it another. I understand your want to include content (and I have had past issues with edit warring/3RR myself), but the block time of 24/48/72 hours is not worth the temporary gain of the reverts.
 * My advice? Try and achieve consensus, or simply give in and wait for the new sales totals to come out. :)  Toa   Nidhiki  05  18:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You will most likely be blocked unless you reply at the 3RR noticeboard and promise to stop warring on this article. Please consider this a final chance. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Speak Now
TBH, I really don't give a rat's ass. Knock yourself out.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 19:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All I care about is that you sourced new information in the lead. We don't do that.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 19:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

How Wikipedia works. (Part 2)
Theodore, it doesn't matter if you are "right" on Wikipedia, everybody is right so that doesn't make a compelling argument. Consensus is more important than being "right". You won't Win a single battle by being "right". And until there is a consensus, you must not edit on the matter. If you want to stay at Wikipedia, keep these things in mind.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 02:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I will explain it to you
You cannot rely on multiple sources and then add the sales. You cannot do that, at least not on Wikipedia. Find a source giving the whole sales. Jivesh   &bull;  Talk2Me  05:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Consensus
No doubt. Proceed. Dan56 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Enchanted"
I have started a discussion about the vandalism that has been going on regarding this song on the Speak Now talk page. I think all of us who edit on Taylor's stuff should discuss this and come up a consensus on what should be done about the vandalism. So please be sure to give your input. Thanks! JamesAlan1986 *talk 10:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Speak Now World Tour
The reason your edits have been reverted is based upon neutrality. Regardless of whether it's 99.015 or 99.991, at the end of the day, it's still 99. What you are doing is attempting to "fluff" up the article to make the tour and/or Swift more relevant (i.e. gloating). This violates neutrality and is the reason why your edits have been reverted. You are on revert #2, next one is WP:3RR. Itsbydesign (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think that section should be rid of the percentages. It does not seem notable, "fluff". Readers can deduce whatever they want from the tickets sold fraction, if they are readers who'll care enough. Dan56 (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

October 2012
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Speak Now without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jim1138 (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)