User talk:Revdangerfield

August 2013[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Paperback Writer. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 14:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Paperback Writer, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 14:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Paperback Writer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. freshacconci talk to me 14:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Revdangerfield. You have new messages at Freshacconci's talk page.
Message added 14:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

freshacconci talk to me 14:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Revdangerfield. You have new messages at Freshacconci's talk page.
Message added 14:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

freshacconci talk to me 14:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you've made the edit despite the warnings? You are now edit warring. freshacconci talk to me 14:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made the edits despite your "warnings". You are in no place to "warn" me, if all you have to back up your edits is a single book written by a man who was not present, and your viewing of a music video. I have provided two separate published quotes from the man who wrote and performed this song, and provided information from 4 pages detailing the session from "Beatles Gear" by Andy Babiuk. I'm sorry but I have more credible sources to back up my edits than you do. Since you are continuing to be stubborn in the face of facts, I have no choice but to open a formal dispute with you.

I have removed the specific brands of instruments listed. This is left over from a previous editor who liked to go around adding this info unsourced to all the Beatle articles. Most have been removed but there's obviously a few kicking around. However, the main issue is, Ian MacDonald is an established source. An historian does not need to be present at an event to write about it. He is basing his writing on first-hand accounts. That's how history works. The section already mentions the dispute but it is a dispute and we cannot definitively say way it is without a reliable source and McCartney's recollections are in fact primary and can not be used definitively. The main issue is your edit warring and yes, it is mt place to warn you, as is any other editor who sees an editor breaking Wiki policy, as you were. Your edits have been reverted by two editors and any further edits on that page concerning the personnel will pretty much guarantee a block. freshacconci talk to me 15:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what your problem is. I can only assume that you only want your version to be featured on the page, despite the fact that you are only able to quote one source. I have quoted three, two of which include statements from McCartney himself, and I provided links to these articles, and even wrote the page numbers from the book that I am referencing, so for you to continue to allege that I am posting "opinionated" information without references is absolute nonsense, and it is petty. You can argue with me all day over who wrote the better book, Babiuk or MacDonald, HOWEVER, I did provide TWO published and credible interviews in which McCartney backs up Babiuk's account of events, and NOT MacDonald's. Babiuk's personnel lists are being cited in several other Wikipedia articles, such as the page for "Maxwell's Silver Hammer", so I am not posting information from an unprecedented source. When you have the author and performer of the song being quoted TWICE as saying your source is incorrect, it is time to back down. Tomorrow, once my ban is lifted, I will once again replace the inaccurate information with the accurate information, including all references. I wrote the personnel article on this page years ago, and for you to come in and edit it with inaccurate information, and then ban me, the original author, for correcting it, is absolute nonsense. Have a nice day.

The last line of your message sounds a bit like WP:OWN. Just thought I should mention. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 19:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you're basically saying that you will continue to edit war and push your POV, that you are a sockpuppet (if you edited prior to this it would have been a different account) and that you have no intention to discuss the issue and respect consensus. I guess you'll have to settle for a longer block. Consensus right now is against you and several editors are watching the page and will revert your edits until you're willing to stop being disruptive and discuss the issue. And by discussing the issue, that means not adding the disputed edits and wait for consensus to be reached. Wikipedia is collaborative and if you're not willing to work that way, I suggest you start a blog where you can write whatever you want. freshacconci talk to me 20:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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#User:Revdangerfield reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: ). Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 14:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]