User talk:Denhaagandy

Downside Abbey

Thank you for the comments on my Talk page.

Please do not remove properly-sourced material from the pages relating to Downside Abbey and Downside School. If you wish to remove sucgh a large quantity of sourced material, please notify other editors via the talk pages of the articles so they are aware of what you are proposing and can respond before the changes are made.

If you remove this material again without warning, I would suggest that the best option would be to open this matter up to wider debate with other editors via the Talk pages of the two articles concerned, and I will be happy to do so.

Best wishes, Peteinterpol (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message on my talk page

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. (Also, I'm a straight girl, so no, I don't have a girlfriend.) - Purplewowies (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see that you're close to breaking 3RR on the Downside Abbey and Downside School articles. Perhaps it would be best to take this issue to the talk pages of the articles in question so that perhaps everyone involved can come to a mutually agreeable solution without anyone breaking rules or suffering the consequences of breaking rules.

- Purplewowies (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(posting here because I don't feel like using talkback for this conversation) Newspapers are not inherently unreliable. Whether or not a particular story or newspaper/newswire/news source is reliable should be decided on a case-by-case basis. If you feel the source is unreliable, perhaps you should start a discussion on the talk pages for Downside Abbey and/or Downside School or on the reliable sources noticeboard. (That the source is pay has nothing to do with it, and if the source is reliable and the only source available, it should be used, regardless of whether you as an individual can verify the source or not.) I don't think that blanking the entire section was the right way to go about this, especially since there was information referenced to other sources in that section (half of the sources were to sites other than The Times. Again, if you question the inclusion of the section at all, I feel it would be best to discuss on the talk pages of the articles in question rather than to blank the sections. If someone re-adds the section (especially within the next day or so, since blanking will put you in violation of 3RR), instead of blanking/removing the section, start a discussion about the section on the article's talk page, and perhaps think of putting {{Disputed-section}} at the top of the section. - Purplewowies (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Downside school

I have opened a thread at Talk:Downside School for you to resolve your editing dispute, please try to reach consensus there before reverting the article again. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing

Hi Denhaagandy,

Your recent editing has raised a number of concerning issues. I recognise that, as a relatively new editor, you may not be familiar with Wikipedia's policies and practices, and so I'm taking this opportunity to highlight a few that you are clearly struggling with.

Firstly, Wikipedia is a community effort. This means we are expected to work together and remain civil. Wikipedia has a policy against threats and personal attacks; statements such as "Do not touch the downside page... Do more then I will mention your name in areas where your name should not be mentioned... I assume you do not have children, but you probably have parents and maybe a girlfriend." are extremely inappropriate; I would strongly advise you to strike that entire section.

Secondly, we have a policy on the assessment of sources, at Identifying reliable sources. This policy states that "Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". We also have a policy on the use of paysites as sources, at Verifiability: Access, which states that "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment." The Times paysite is thus a perfectly acceptable source according to policy. This has been explained to you before; I hope that this time it has been made sufficiently clear. In any event, the section you object to at Downside School is currently sourced to at least two other newspapers besides The Times.

Thirdly, we do not tolerate edit warring. If your changes to an article are reverted, you must discuss the issue on the article's talkpage, rather than simply reverting to your preferred version. Continuing to edit war will inevitably result in a block. I have have opened a thread for discussion at Talk:Downside School; you can give your reasoning there, but please do not blank the section again until it can be demonstrated that community consensus supports doing so. If you wish to gain more input from other editors, you could consider starting a request for comment (instructions on the linked page), however this will not necessarily rule in your favour.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talkpage, or at the helpdesk if you prefer. Above all, refrain from threats and stop edit warring. Whether you are right or wrong, these behaviours will quickly get you blocked. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make legal threats

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report filed

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Denhaagandy. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.