User talk:Everton Dasent
Welcome
 Getting Started Getting help
 The Commmunity |
 Policies and Guidelines
 Things to do | |
ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
May 2010
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Peter Holmes à Court. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Also please read WP:BLP. ukexpat (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
All of the material you removed was verifiable and referenced. It was not original research or personal analysis. You are in violation by deleting referenced material. All I did was to replace the referenced material which had be put in place by several editors. Please do not remove referenced material from Wikipedia. Edasent (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- What you did was litter the article with non-neutral words and phrases, in contravention of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP - I have reverted your edits again. – ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Recent edits
It is quite apparent that you are trying to change this article into something blatantly non-neutral by the use of tabloid language and over-weighting of negative material. It is not acceptable to use a Wikipedia biography to push your point-of-view of the subject. Please discuss the material you wish to introduce on the talk page of the article, so that the valid parts of it may be utilised in a neutral article. If you continue to edit the article in the manner in which you have been doing, I will prevent you from doing so, either by banning you from this topic (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLP Special Enforcement) or blocking your account outright. CIreland (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Please explain how direct quotes from a properly referenced, researched book, not subject to litigation and still in print is not valid? The Firepower section which you removed is 90% quote from just such a source. Threatening to ban me for providing referenced material just makes you look like a clown. Edasent (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Now referred to BLPN, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Peter Holmes à Court redux. – ukexpat (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
I warned you earlier not to edit-war to retain clearly unsuitable language and editorial commentary in Peter Holmes à Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Because you have ignored this warning, I am blocking you from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit-warring and disregard for the biographies of living persons policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} CIreland (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Everton Dasent (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am the victim of bullying and wheel warring by an editor with more rights than I. The page in question was fully referenced with quotes from verifiable sources and very little editorial. Several sections have been removed altogether because a couple of editors don't like the facts
Decline reason:
You really need to familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Your additions were almost certainly inappropriate, and your edit warring to maintain them was 100% inappropriate. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Everton Dasent (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
An example - The following text remains on the page in the latest edit: 'Back Row produced over 20 live shows in 30 countries and 300 cities world wide.' (This statement has no reference but remains on the page, it could easily be regarded as undue:wp)
'In 1994 Holmes à Court put together an off-Broadway rock musical, Fallen Angel. The show lasted 3 weeks and lost most of Holmes à Court's available capital as well as the capital put in by investors.' This statement was referenced with {Edgar, Patricia (1999). Janet Holmes à Court. Australia. Harper Collins. ISBN 0-7322-5715-8. p.349 The official biography) but that has been removed and replaced with a "quote needed to verify". How is that in any way responsible editing?
Decline reason:
When your block expires, you are welcome to discuss your concerns on the appropriate article talk-pages and/or notice-boards, or request admin intervention if there is a serious policy/guideline violation that needs high-level attention. Edit-warring is not allowed (and is itself a blockable disruptive-behavior). DMacks (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Blocked again
Your first act on expiry of your block was to resume the same problematic editing on the same article. The block is for one week this time. Guy (Help!) 06:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Everton Dasent (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was banned for warring previously. After the block expired, I edited the same page and took care to make sure that all of the information added was referenced, written in neutral language and verified. The previous editor had removed valid links and left unreferenced 'feel good' material that could not be verified. There was nothing that was added that contravened the quoted policy.
Decline reason:
Your edits prior to the block are undeniably disruptive, mostly consisting of removing {{fact}} tags placed by the other editor. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Everton Dasent (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The page in question has attracted vandals over the last two years. Mostly the attempts are to remove valid, referenced (in many cases from multiple sources) material that can and has been verified. I am willing to concede that some of the language used (my previous account Everton Dasent cannot be accessed due to forgotten password) in my edits might have crossed over from neutral to negative at times and for that reason I am willing to accept this ban. However I would ask that the contributions (or otherwise) of the following editors be reviewed against the context of changes made on the page in question. I would ask that the i.p. addresses of these editors also be compared, along with join date and activity. The users I ask to be reviewed are: Berkinstock Dallas3737 BrearRabbit Slanter Remover Simon Manifold Nimbus880 James1168 I think that a pattern will quickly be established and I look forward to being able to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive and/or neutral fashion once my ban is removed or expires. Thankyou.
Decline reason:
This is not a request for unblock. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 11:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Everton Dasent (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ok I'll make it a request to unblock - though I stand by my acceptance as was first offered. "The page in question has attracted vandals over the last two years. Mostly the attempts are to remove valid, referenced (in many cases from multiple sources) material that can and has been verified. I am willing to concede that some of the language used (my previous account User:Everton Dasent cannot be accessed due to forgotten password) in my edits might have crossed over from neutral to negative at times and for that reason I am willing to accept this ban. However I would ask that the contributions (or otherwise) of the following editors be reviewed against the context of changes made on the page in question. I would ask that the i.p. addresses of these editors also be compared, along with join date and activity. The users I ask to be reviewed are: User:Berkinstock User:Dallas3737 User:BrearRabbit User:Slanter Remover User:Simon Manifold User:Nimbus880 User:James1168 I believe these usernames are Sock puppets and/or Meat puppets. I think that a pattern will quickly be established and I look forward to being able to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive and/or neutral fashion once my ban is removed or expires. Thankyou."
Decline reason:
Blaming others for the disruption you have caused is not going to get you anywhere. That being said, feel free to request a sockpuppet investigation after your block expires. Anymore abuse of this talk page will lead to your talk page access to be revoked for the remainder of the block. Regards, –MuZemike 12:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Peter Holmes à Court
Please discuss on the article's talk page - that's what it's for. – ukexpat (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, my two reverts reverted back to your version, not a vandalised version. Denisarona (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Page protection tag
Hello, Everton Dasent. I see that you added a page protection tag to Peter Holmes à Court, although the article was not, in fact, protected. Perhaps you thought that adding the tag protected the article. Page protection has to be done by an administrator, and when it has been done a tag can be added to the page to show that it has been protected, but the tag does not itself cause the page to be protected. In fact your tagging very nearly had the effect of preventing the article from being protected, because I was going to protect the article, but saw there was a protection tag in place, and thought it had already been done, so I didn't need to. Luckily I then realised the article was not protected, and did so. If you think a page should be protected you should report it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (commonly abbreviated to WP:RPP). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
My apologies. I thought I was protecting the page. Thanks for clearing that up. Everton Dasent (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russell Crowe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC (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) 11:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
RfC:Infobox Road proposal
WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.
You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS
Nbound (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
2016 GA Cup-Round 1
 Greetings, all. The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already, If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here). Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
2016 GA Cup-Round 2
Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Sainsf took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 765. In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 742 points, and in third place, FunkMonk received 610 points. In Round 1, 206 reviews were completed, more than any other year! At the beginning of March, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 490. We continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the second round, you needed to make it into the top 16 of participants. Users were placed in 4 random pools of 4. To qualify for Round 3, the top 2 in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 9th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on April 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on April 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here Also, remember that a major rule change will go into effect starting on April 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 had an issue brought up in the rules, which we are correcting with this clarification. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: All reviews must give the nominator (or anyone else willing to improve the article) time to address the issues at hand, even if the article would qualify for what is usually called a "quick fail" in GA terms. To avoid further confusion, we have updated the scoring page, replacing the term "quick fail" with the term "fail without granting time for improvements". We expect all reviewers to put a review on hold for seven days in cases such as these as well, in order to apply the same standards to every competitor. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)