User talk:RefHistory

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

RefHistory, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi RefHistory! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! 78.26 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Actual disruption

You are the one being disruptive - 1) restoring WP:SYN, 2) a "source " (yearbook) that does not support the claim 3) improper linking to external sites from the body of the article 4) non encyclopedic gossip tone "a product of the DC public school system" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The yearbook lists him as a 1966 graduate. I have the yearbook right in front of me. There is no synthesis. Go to talk if you have an issue. There is no gossipy tone. The DC school district produces graduates as well as drop outs. Benedict was one of the graduates it produced. You can't just go onto a page and delete huge swaths of material for no valid reason and without discussion. That is the definition of vandalism.RefHistory (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You, Philip Benedict, and TRPoD

The only thing I will comment on is that there is a distinction between disruptive editing and vandalism. TheRedPenOfDoom's edits aren't vandalism. Maybe they're disruptive, but I've frankly had enough of disputes so won't get involved.

This means that reporting TRPoD to AIV is just going to have an admin remove it, as has happened. —George8211 / T 18:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@George8211: Thanks George8211. Would you please refresh me on the difference? He came in and deleted whole swaths of the article without going to talk and without valid justification. What is the procedure for reporting someone for disruptive editing?RefHistory (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It's ANI. —George8211 / T 21:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Philip Benedict

Your recent editing history at Philip Benedict shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jim1138 (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have made only a few edits in almost a year. That isn't a war.RefHistory (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#thread User:RefHistory reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: ). Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Philip Benedict. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.  Swarm... ^—X— 05:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Two sections up you were specifically warned about our edit warring policy, the three-revert rule, and the potential consequences, and you continued to revert after receiving the warning, so I'm sorry but you have no excuse. Swarm... ^—X— 05:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Philip Benedict

The only article you edit is Philip Benedict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where you show signs of trying to own the content. This invites speculation as to your connection to the subject, especially given that your username suggests that you are involved in the same academic area. Please elucidate. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am just following Wikipedia policy. Those sections have existed for years and are extremely well sourced, with independent citations from University Press books, University websites, and an article. There needs to be good, specific reasons for blanking them. I am a Reformation Historian. But I was unaware that expertise disqualified someone from editing Wikipedia.RefHistory (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

RefHistory, stay on point. No one said expertise disqualifies someone from editing. Follow the links in Guy's post and ask questions if you are still unclear on the details. Tiderolls 03:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I would advise you to read this Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for restoring your version at Philip Benedict after expiration of your block for edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 04:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=I am participating on the talk page. I did not violate the 3 edit rule. I made one edit in 30 hours. I am restoring information that is incredibly well sourced from prize winning University Press books, independent University websites on two continents, and an article. The other side does not contest the accuracy of the information and has not provided a reason why they think a section without a single adjective is puffery. In fact, many are not even responding on talk. Instead, they are just blocking reasonable edits of well-sourced material. RefHistory (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)}}RefHistory (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Engaging in talk page discussion is not a license to edit war. 3RR is not an entitlement; one may edit war with one revert. Your edits are still contrary to consensus; you have not made any progress toward establishing consensus for your content. If you reformat your unblock request so that it becomes live, I will decline your request. Tiderolls 18:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI

FYI: There was a reply to your edit at AN/I after you were blocked the first time, which you may have missed.
Happy editing. --172.164.9.85 (talk) 10:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

request for comment

Given the lack of resources at the WP:DRN and lack of interest from the IPs to participate there, I have gone ahead and initiated a community request for comment at : Talk:Philip_Benedict#Request_for_comment_-_Teaching_section in which you are invited to participate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not acceptable. We had a request for comments open for a month; every uninvolved edtior who commented there agreed that content was unsuitable, you did not engage in that discussion, and now that the consensus is implemented, you revert. If you proceed in that vein, there will be consequences, possibly including a block or a topic ban. Huon (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

AN/I notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RefHistory. Thank you. Huon (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)