User talk:Hawtpeppers

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Hawtpeppers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Shooting of Walter Scott. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! - Mr X 00:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please dial it down[edit]

Regarding this and this, please dial it down several notches. No one is trying to intimidate you. Wikipedia is not a battleground. We welcome new editors (like MrX did with you) and we try to help one another as well as discuss and work together collegially. Please afford other editors good faith -- it is, after all, one of Wikipedia's Five Pillars. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as you took tone from text I wrote so did I take tone from text written to me. So either we are both wrong or we are both right- which is it? so with that said, don't threaten me. I will convey my message however I see fit, and just rest assured its not with ill intent.Hawtpeppers (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no threat in what I wrote. If you continue down this road thinking everyone is out to get you, your Wikipedia editing career is likely to be miserable and possibly cut short. Let me encourage you: dial it down and have more fun. There's nothing in Wikipedia worth the stress you seem to be going through because of the Scott article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, refrain from threatening me. I've done nothing that would jeopardize my right to edit wikipedia, so don't imply that I have or that I will. You don't know me, so don't make assumptions about how I feel, and the possible reason I feel that way. This is about the integrity of articles within wikipedia, not just about one article, its just where I happen to begin.Hawtpeppers (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And If you didn't notice, my first edit was a typo fix regarding musical pitch. I have no agenda like most editors who edit the 'shooting of walter scott' article. It was merely a starting point, after reading an article about court documents revealing that walter scott was under the influence of cocaine and alcohol. I thought it pertinent, so I added it. Then I read the article, and was appalled by the egregiously bias information within it. And now we are where we are at now, and I will not back down. Wrongs must be corrected- if for anything, for the sake of integrity.Hawtpeppers (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is about you inferring a tone that was non-existent, and it escalated from there. How about you take your own advice and back off, thank you. Hawtpeppers (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is threatening you or trying to intimidate you. For some reason you are seeing threats, attacks, and POV-pushing that do not exist. My suggestion would be to try to calm down a little, read WP:AGF, and join the rest of us in constructively collaborating on this article. We may disagree with you as to content, but we are not your enemies. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion to you is back off, who invited you to the conversion on my talk page? you aren't collaborating, you are edit warring and tendentious editing to fit your bias agenda. what you are doing isn't constructive.Hawtpeppers (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, stop inferring that you know how I feel and why I feel the way I do - You don't know me. You are reading more into it then what is there. My advice to you is stop being so defensive. My actions aren't hostile, so stop implying they are.Hawtpeppers (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too often I've seen you use AGF as a guise to hide your tendentious editing.Hawtpeppers (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Shooting of Walter Scott. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Winkelvi's 9 September removal is a disputed edit without consensus. They have made a BLP claim which appears to be without merit, has no support, and, as I understand the process, is without weight unless they get a consensus to that effect at WP:BLPN or elsewhere. Therefore you are edit warring, I am going to return the article to its WP:STATUSQUO once again, and any continued disruption iin this matter may result in a behavior complaint and possible sanctions. This is not an attempt to intimidate you, it is an attempt to persuade you to follow correct editing procedure. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]