User talk:Burk Hale

Welcome!

Hello, Burk Hale, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! -Will Beback · † · 19:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This edit [1] to the "Sons of Confederate Veterans" article added unsourced material. Please provide the source for the statements so that the material won't be removed. -Will Beback · † · 19:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to the material added to the SCV article, I'd also like to inform you of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline and neutral point of view policy. Given your username and the existence of the conflict of interest guideline and this this policy, I encourage you to refrain from adding information related to Mr. Hale to Wikipedia. In any event, any additions to Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view. The addition to the SCV article was not written from such a perspective. I don't mean to discourage you from contributing here, but rather to encourage you to take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Sons of Confederate Veterans. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Sons of Confederate Veterans. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please interact with follow editors civilly. If you persist in violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you will be blocked from editing. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick key to some Wikipedia stuff

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! You may want to consider reviewing the following materials:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (official policy)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ (official policy)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability (official policy)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research (official policy)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not (official policy)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories (content guideline)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources (guideline)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources (guideline)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources (style guide)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links (guideline)

Again, welcome, and happy editing! Yours, Famspear 05:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tags

Removal of policy tags, such as {{or}} and {{npov}}, without first forming consensus to do so is considered vandalism. If you continue to remove the tags, you will be blocked from editing. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV was removed from the 14th Amemndment article, and you did not apply the same rule = BIAS. I have left tags on the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress article. It appears that some editing that is against Wikipedia rules is acceptable when it consensus prevails. INTERESTING....Burk Hale 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

The 1957 Georgia Memorial is Georgia Law and is not copyritable, otherwise, it could not have been used in court or have been copies submitted to other authorities (as noted in the memorial). I have not violated any copyright. The webite cited is copyrighted, but not the law it has used as content (which is in the public domain).Burk Hale 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress with a link to where we can find that note;
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress with a link to the details.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Your original contributions are welcome. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

There is no need for an NPOV tag in this article... there is nothing that violates neutrality here. Don't mistake "isn't neutral point of view" for "isn't my point of view". It may be helpful for you to review WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POINT.--Isotope23 14:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution article is saturated with NPOV comments, and it is refuted by Georgia law [2] and even the Supreme Court of Utah[3]. Don't mistake facts for biased consensus.Burk Hale 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Natalie 14:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Burk Hale (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

No reason given for unblock, 3RR violation. — Yamla 16:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Dear Natalie, I'm not sure if contesting this blocking of my editing rights is not completely futile. I've fallen into the trap. But to address the critical point here on my behalf - violating the three-revert rule - I may be in violation it seems. But it was not intended. I may have simply played into a hands of clever editors insistant on ostracizing me in any way possible, and they mean to gut the article any way they can now that I have disproven their spurious claims about POV and OR, etc. It appears they have been successful by baiting me into violating three-revert rule. All the same, I would not intentionally violate a rule here. Do as you see fit, and we'll see if Wikipedia's "Good Faith" reveals itself. Burk Hale 15:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are most definitely in violation - you made 5 identical reverts in about 12 hours. As to whether or not you have been baited into violating this rule, I cannot say. Unless you have very strong evidence, we must assume good faith of other editors. I would suggest using this time to read up on various Wikipedia policies, including Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (particularly section 2.2, Undue weight, and Wikipedia:No original research. Natalie 23:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked this account for 24 hours due to abuse of multiple accounts. Rangeguide (talk · contribs) is an admitted alternate account, and both have been used in the last 24 hours or so to edit-war in tandem on 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress. Please limit yourself to one account. Additionally, please review our guidelines on conflict of interest: it is inappropriate for you to edit-war or repeatedly insert controversial material with which you're directly affiliated. You may propose this material on the article talk page and try to reach consensus, but continuing to edit-war to insert material you've authored or hosted will result in a block for disruption. You may contest this block by using the {{unblock}} template, or by following the steps listed here. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MastCell - As user Leonacatherine has already pointed out, I am not very well at using the internet or wikipedia. I had lost my login information and had been using rangeguide account to get into wikipedia. I do not know how to delete rangeguide now that I have learned how to recover my Burk Hale login information. Could you please assist me with removing rangeguide account so that the block can be lifted? Thank you.

Additionlally, I do not want to get into an edit war either. I don't have time for it or the propensity to get involved in a fanatical way on the issue of the 57 memorial. I have much more to be doing than being overly concerned with what this website says or doesn't say. I thought to give it a try with editing again after being so frustrated with personal attacks and disruptive editing from Famspear. I recently learned, through Leonacatherine, how to recover my login so that I could post. No big secret here and no intent to use multiple usernames was ever intended. I will try to take the example provided by use Leonacatherine and other editors to make the article even better. I do think that Leonacatherine has done a good job and has found a way to supply the text. For the record, she does not provide editing or an agenda for me, she speaks her own mind and simply loves literature and writing, and she has done a great deal of study on the matter of the history of the South.Burk Hale (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block is for 24 hours. My recommendation would be to wait it out and then decide if and how much you want to participate. Accounts can't be deleted - though the Rangeguide account is blocked and can no longer edit, which accomplishes much the same thing. If you'd like another admin to review the block and unblock you before the 24 hours are up, you can use the {{unblock}} template to request review - post {{unblock|YOUR REASON}} (and replace YOUR REASON with the rationale for the unblock). MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]