User talk:R.R. Blaze

Concern regarding Draft:Gregory Clepper (Murderer)

Hello, R.R. Blaze. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Gregory Clepper (Murderer), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Gregory Clepper (Murderer)

Hello, R.R. Blaze. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gregory Clepper".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"hero" edits

Hi there, I noticed you've made a bunch of recent edits to emphasize that certain historic / legendary figures were "heroes." You're not wrong, but in some cases the wording might be subjective or inaccurate or unnecessary. That said, this edit to Abhimanyu was well done -- looks like the end of that sentence had been mangled by other folks and you fixed it nicely! Keep up the good work etc. RexSueciae (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Hi R.R. Blaze! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Rama several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Rama, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 22:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Culture hero"

Kindly stop inserting your personal opinions in Hinduism related articles, keeping in mind this is an encyclopedia rather than a blog. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 07:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, I'm The Banner. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Brian Boru seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 14:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Rama, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your 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. The Banner talk 14:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Julius Caesar, you may be blocked from editing. The Banner talk 14:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Ramesses II. The Banner talk 14:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ramesses II. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your edits seem to consist of adding the word "hero" to a variety of articles. As far as I can see, you have never provided a source for these changes. You should only make such changes if you can cite a source that uses that language. Saying that someone is a "hero" based on your personal judgement is original research and is not permitted. Please refrain from making such edits unless you can provide a reliable source. CodeTalker (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, what's with the "hero" thing? The change you're advocating for at Charlemagne is fine, though I think it's a little unnecessary and complicates the sentence. At the end of the day it's not inaccurate in a section about his portrayal in legends. But it seems that your main activity is going around adding "hero" to articles about historical figures. Why? I see several others have noted this to you. In most cases it constitutes original research when not supported by a source. And I guarantee that you won't have academic reliable sources saying, in the authoritative tone you often add it, "X was a hero" or "X was a war hero". These statements are almost definitely not neutral.

I see that here at Julius Caesar, you've qualified it that Caesar is portrayed as a hero in the literary Matter of Rome. That's a good step toward better representation of sources. However, remember that the lead section is for summarizing what's already in the body of the article. So information should not only appear in the lead. Any addition also needs to consider due weight, or whether the prominence of a piece of information in an article reflects its prominence in reliable sources. Do biographies of Caesar give prominence to his presence in medieval legends?

It seems like you're interested in improving the coverage of historical figures - that's awesome! But I would have to say that going around inserting the word "hero" into articles isn't the way to do it. And again, I have to ask, why this seeming obsession with the word? I hope you take what I and other editors have written here into consideration in your future editing. Best, Seltaeb Eht (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I will stop adding that word. R.R. Blaze (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing your edits on Brian Boru, you clearly did not stop with doing that. The Banner talk 19:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I add a citation to the last edit. Too bad no one likes it. R.R. Blaze (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the copy-and-paste from Battle of Clontarf? The Banner talk 20:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. R.R. Blaze (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner This user's done it again at Rama. They're clearly just not listening at this point. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 13:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also apparently at Arjuna, Bhishma, and Bhima. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 14:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@R.R. Blaze above, on 12 February, you said you would stop adding the word "hero" to articles, after multiple editors have complained about it here. Yet you've continued to do so, including at least 6 times in just the last week (here and here and here and here and here and here), in all cases without supporting sources. Your actions indicate that you are unable to stop yourself from making these unsourced additions to articles. Is there any way to convince you to stop, other than blocking you? CodeTalker (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Hello, I'm Lone-078. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Ramesses II, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lone-078 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at King Arthur, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Lone-078 (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. R.R. Blaze (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bhima, you may be blocked from editing. The Banner talk 14:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The recent, 'legitimate' changes made to Bhima can be called vandalism, too. At least, keep the changes I made on the Hanuman section. Oh, and the 'hero' in each page was technically correct, but if that word really violates impartiality, then I guess there is no point in putting it. R.R. Blaze (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I republish the changes that were erased? R.R. Blaze (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bhima. Why do you try to designate everybody as a hero? The Banner talk 08:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne, the folk hero

R.R. Blaze, please cite relevant and reliable sources on Charlemagne that designate him as a "folk hero", particularly with the weight of being important enough to be in the lead, and establish a consensus for inclusion. From my work on this article and other reading on Charlemagne, I don't believe I've come across this in any of the major scholarly or popular biographies on Charlemagne. You persistently try to add it to the page and are consistently reverted by myself and other editors. You persistently try to add it to other pages, and are reverted. This is a frequent, and really the only topic of your talk page. I'd implore again that you hear what I and other editors are saying, and use your obvious passion for improving articles on history in a more collaborative and constructive manner. I'd ask again also for you to review the relevant core content policies regarding original research, due weight, lead sections and presentation of a neutral point of view. While you're at it, please also review what constitutes a minor edit. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be less diplomatic and more blunt. If you don't want to find some other way of improving the encylopedia other than randomly adding "folk hero" to many pages, then very soon you may find you are unable to edit the encylopedia at all. This has been going on for months, and it should stop now. FDW777 (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped making edits beyond mere corrections. R.R. Blaze (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. R.R. Blaze (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guidelines. It is intended for basic information about yourself, your interests and goals as they relate to editing Wikipedia, as well as disclosures of conflicts of interest and paid editing. Although a lot of freedom is allowed in personalizing your user page, it is not:

an encyclopedia article (and should not be styled to look like one)
a workspace for a draft article
a personal website, blog, or social media site
a space for self-promotion or other advertising
a CV, resumé or lengthy autobiography

The user page guidelines have additional information on what is and what is not considered acceptable content. Please use your user sandbox or the draft article space to practice editing or to create new articles. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Meurvin (July 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Meurvin and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R.R. Blaze! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@R.R. Blaze: Collaboration is required. You will be blocked if edits to spread unsourced commentary such as hero continue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, R.R. Blaze, I believe you should take this warning seriously. You've been warned about inserting your own views, like adding "hero/heroic" to articles and yet you persist. If you continue, especially since you have chosen not to communicate about this, you WILL be blocked. The community doesn't have infinite patience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. Sorry. R.R. Blaze (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the third administrator to comment here. This "hero" stuff must end now, or you will be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm sorry. R.R. Blaze (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi R.R. Blaze, this [1] is WP:OP. Please do not add this type of commentary again. Knitsey (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I myself removed it actually. R.R. Blaze (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is false. You simply tweaked the wording. It was Fountains of Bryn Mawr who removed the unreferenced and inappropriate hero language. Cullen328 (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You were warned by three administrators to refrain from disruptive use of unreferenced "hero" rhetoric and yet you engaged in that same behavior at Nikola Tesla. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]