User talk:Kevgood777

Ronald Reagan

Consider this a final warning - if you continue to engage in unsourced POV-pushing and editorialising in the Ronald Reagan article, I shall report the matter, and request that you be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See [1]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions

I looked at your edits to Ronald Reagan. These edits were not helpful. If you continue to edit like that, the edits will be removed and your account will be blocked. If you want to avoid this:

1) Don't change a POV you dislike for your own; instead find a reputable source that more closely represents the line the article should take and discuss adding material at article talk.

2) Don't mark major edits as minor.

3) If you're going to discuss another user, use their proper name, exactly as written.

4) If one of you edits is reverted, start a discussion rather than revert back.

5) Try to assume good faith in those who disagree with you. All of us are here to build the encyclopedia. We disagree from time to time but that is normal. --John (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I am disappointed that you did not heed my suggestion above. I have therefore been as good as my word and blocked this account indefinitely. If you feel this was an error you may appeal using the {{unblock}} template, but you should read WP:GAB first. --John (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually posted that last Reagan edit before you sent your "talk" edit

hoping you can reconsider your block, and look at my replies in the discussion and judge that I am somebody you can work with here.

thank you for considering.Kevgood777 (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevgood777 (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)==Thx for the suggestions==[reply]

Much appreciated.

Not sure if I am even replying correctly.

Plz advise. Thx.

1) POV THX.

2) What is the difference between a major and a minor edit. POV seems minor to me, especially since POV is so strong in pretty much every article.

3) OK

4) Really? Why is the undo option so prominently displayed?

5) Thx for the good faith advice. The guy who undid my edits said he assumed good faith and threatened to try to get me blocked in the same sentence. Come on now. And his name is AndyTheGrump. How are manners like those supposed to be taken seriously?

Thank you very much for your "talk."

Still not sure if I am even "tak"ing correctly here.

Again, plz advise!

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Kevgood777Kevgood777 (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, you have done everything right. Minor edits are ones which no-one could possibly disagree with. Undo is for vandalism. --John (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevgood777, I suggest you provide a clear and unequivocal explanation as to why you added the heading 'Crystal Meth Lab' to the Levi Johnston article - without addressing that (which appears to be a flagrant violation of WP:BLP policy), I very much doubt that you will be unblocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry L. Johnstone was arrested for operating a crystal meth lab. Are you simply asking me to source that?

Sherry Johnston was of convicted of "one count of possession with intent to deliver the painkiller OxyContin." No evidence appears to have ever been presented at trial regarding any supposed 'meth lab'. [2] And yes, if you add contentious statements regarding living persons to any article you are required to provide a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to source and read editing rules too. Does that work for you?Kevgood777 (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not without an explanation for why you added the heading 'Crystal Meth Lab' to the Levi Johnston article. You have as yet failed to explain why you made an edit clearly intended to imply that Sherry Johnston had been convicted of running a meth lab. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Looks like I did a poor job editing. Now that I know the rules, I am happy to comply. Very sorry for the trouble.

May I ask you to please forgive in this instance and offer a second chance? I can be sure to verify and source any and all possible edits with due diligence in the future.

Kevgood777 (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to appeal the block, see WP:GAB - you need to do so formally. And for the record, as a Brit, my personal opinion on Ronald Reagan at the time he was President (as opposed to his earlier acting career - he made a good straight man for the chimpanzee) was much the same as my opinion of our then-current Prime Minister - had the pair of them met an unfortunate and fatal accident involving a crane, a grand piano and a length of sub-standard rope, I would have joined much of the country in spontaneous celebrations complete with street parties, fireworks, and copious indulgence in illegal mind-altering substances. I try however to keep my personal opinions out of articles, or at least to make them less obviously my own. The Reagan article is something of a hagiography if you ask me, though frankly I'm not sure that I have the stamina (or the background knowledge) to take it on - and I'm certain that one person trying to 'fix' it through edits without discussion isn't going to get anywhere, even with sources. Some things on Wikipedia take a heck of a lot of effort to get put right, and some things probably never will be. If you want to get anywhere in such disputes, you'll need to learn how Wikipedia works first, and be prepared for a long struggle. If you just want to tell the world what a %*#@ Reagan was, you'll probably do better to find a forum elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, Kevgood777. Am I right in thinking that you've said that in future you will conform with my suggestions above? If you assent to this I will unblock you. I am always here to help you if you get stuck in the future. Please post here or at my talk page in future before making any controversial edits. --John (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, Yes. Those were some of my first attempts at editing, and I made some mistakes. I very much would like the opportunity to edit according to protocol, and I am willing to learn that protocol. Thank you for offering to unblock me.Kevgood777 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked. Please remember the advice, and please do ask for help next time before you get into trouble. Good luck! --John (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]