User talk:Viticulturist99

Welcome!

Hello, Viticulturist99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Your previous edits on Richard Boyd Barrett were reverted and reworded due to the lack of neutral point of view. Exiledone (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Richard Boyd Barrett. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blatant lie. You criticise me for what you are doing yourself but I am not. You keep removing well sourced material from Richard Boyd Barrett replacing it with your own, ungrounded fabrications e.g. the one about president Mubarak's government banning the conference. I left a note on your talk page. Viticulturist99 (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your desired addition is being reverted and there is a report opened about the addition at the BLP noticeboard here, please don't re add your desired addition without consensus support either on the article talkpage or at the BLPN, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the quote according to the article published in The Irish Independent and restored it to the text; so any future claims that the article has been misquoted will be nothing but lies. Anyone can follow the link and check it. I reserve the right to defend my point of view against a biased editor who tries to whitewash Richard Boyd Barrett before the elections. The article is well balanced at the moment, it is neutral, and it shall remain this way. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Richard Boyd Barrett. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely dishonest and frivolous warning. I haven't done a single reversion but kept editing and improving the article according to the consensus reached on the talk page. Your intervention amounts to harrassment. I give you a warning to stop. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the link to WP:3RR that I provided. In particular, the part in the pale blue sausage shaped container, which says this: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." The concensus on the talk page, and at the BLP noticeboard, was that there were issues with neutrality and weight regarding the version that you insisted on repeatedly reverting back to, whether partially or wholly. Also, comments like this (which you have now repeated multiple times in different places) lead me to think you have a problem with ownership of this article. Finally; repeatedly accusing other editors of being dishonest, biased etc., as you've now done many times, does not fill well with no personal attacks. Please try to take things a bit more calmly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attack on me was made by yourself and Dave Lordan (talk) (see the article talk page). Isn't it strange that at the very moment the editors, including yourself and me, reached consensus on Richard Boyd Barrett you are trying to block one of the editors who defends well-sourced the material that you personally don't seem to like? Perhaps you dislike the neutrality of this article? I think, after your actions, which I see as a violation of no personal attacks, I have the right to question your motives. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Boyd Barrett has a lot of extreme views. Why do you consider his view on Israel to be so significant to deserve its own heading? - ClemMcGann (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you explain why you think he is not notable on the talkpage, he looks clearly notable to me,chairman od the Irish_Anti-War_Movement, a lot of independent coverage of the person with some articles that are exclusively related to him. Although I am sure you were going to explain on the talkpage such templates should not be added without an explanation on the talkpage. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mary Mitchell O'Connor is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Mitchell O'Connor until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Exiledone (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Anatoly Kudryavitsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Harte (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viticulturist. There's a bit of concern about some of the content you have recently added in regards to our WP:BLP policy. It would be appreciated if you could explain the edits at the discussion here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jack Harte. Thank you, The Interior (Talk) 03:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Jack Harte (Irish writer) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I thought you might like to know that a discussion regarding Jack Harte (Irish writer) is currently underway at WP:BLPN. Your edits regarding this living person have become a topic of discussion, and you may care to weigh in. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 07:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]