User talk:Dkspartan1

Welcome

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-600px-en.ogv

A video showing the basics of verifiability and neutral point of view policies.

Welcome!

Hello, Dkspartan1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia 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! - Ahunt (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to The Expendables 3, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Thank you. STATic message me! 02:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of significant content from Julian Assange

Hi there, Welcome to Wikipedia.

I note that you recently removed a significant portion of information from the Julian Assange article in this change. Another user, Totorotroll then removed more, stating that it would be moved to a separate page. However I am unable to locate the destination of this supposed move, or any surviving copy of the original content, which was far more up to date than the case page. I therefore came here to ask that you:

* Clarify what happened to the content (was it just deleted?)
* Explain what the process was that you went through prior to taking this action
* Resist the urge to make obviously destructive changes removing well cited content in future

Thank you.

prat (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 17 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the The Catholic University of America page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content and threatening other editors

I notice that you are systematically opposing addition of sourced content, but without proper justification. You are also threatening other editors with being blocked. Please be more careful or you may find yourself blocked. We include properly sourced content here all the time, even if it's recent, and especially of significant events and controversies. Maybe a controversy section isn't the best way to do this, but simply deleting the content doesn't build the encyclopedia. It tears it down. Please support addition of good content and seek to work with, not against, other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the other editor systematically ignores attempts to discuss or satisfy request on the talk page. It's probably not a good idea to threaten me either when the other editor has not responded to such request. Don't you think? The editor states there is consensus but doesn't provide that verification when prompted. Several editors disputed whether that information should be included in the article at all (let alone it's own section). That issue has not been settled. A couple of editors that agree and a couple that don't, doesn't make a consensus. The editor ignores the disputed controversy section and keeps putting it back in. Contrary to popular belief, this is not an historical event. Investigations happen all the time. We don't know what the lasting affects of the investigation are at this time. If the investigation leads to something, then it should be included in the article. This investigation is no different than any of the other ones. So why give it more weight? I have given plenty of justification to the edit. The other editor has not, but yeah it's my fault I guess.2601:4:1500:C90:34A1:E6EC:6AA0:554B (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Forgot to sign in.Dkspartan1 (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit you didn't merely (as claimed in the summary) move a section, you deleted once more the section that you and your IP sock has been edit-warring over. The IP is blocked and your named account will be as well if you do that again. Favonian (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please login

User:Dkspartan1, please login so your edits may be properly tracked. Your recent promise to do so appears to have been a lie. This type of slow and long term edit warring while logged out is forbidden. It's sock puppetry. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing your disruptive behavior, lately using 2601:4:1500:C90:B1C4:B109:334B:B924 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), in spite of warnings. 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. Favonian (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]