Hello, ParkH.Davis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Poti Berik ( talk) 17:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi ParkH.Davis. Each use of non-free image must be accompanied by a separate non-free-use rationale on the image description page. If this is not done, a fair-use claim is invalid and constitutes a copyright infringement. If you want to display these images on the article Early history of American football, you have to provide non-free-use rationales first. Images without a rationale for that article will be removed. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. I have reverted your edit, please don't restore the images until there are valid rationales. This is not a matter of opinion, it's a requirement by the image use policy to comply with copyright law. For some images, all ten requirements may not be met and they can't be used at all. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Vince Lombardi into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{ copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. This appears to be the source of your edit to Homosexuality in American football. Great addition to the article, but do attribute where it came from. Thanks. — Bagumba ( talk) 17:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quarterback, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Full back and Half back. 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) 11:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at American football shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - BilCat ( talk) 03:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to English Defence League, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 04:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at 2015 Colorado Springs shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ParkH.Davis reported by User:Viriditas (Result: ). Thank you. Viriditas ( talk) 07:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. NeilN talk to me 19:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
ParkH.Davis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
A consensus was reached concerning the content in question via the talk page. I reported the BLP violation to the BLP noticeboard and repeatedly attempted make it clear that I was attempting to preserve the status-quo of the page in lieu of sources which stated that shooters' religions had anything to do with the shooting or their motives for the shooting. I was not aware of the dispute resolution process and I apoligize for my ignorance. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 19:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The policy is very simple: no edit warring, even if you're right, and this page is full of warnings that explain this to you. NPOV is not a reason to revert repeatedly. BLP gives you an exemption from edit warring restrictions, however this is absolutely not a BLP issue because the suspects being Muslims is neither negative information nor wasn't it unsourced. If you have a content dispute, please use dispute resolution instead of reverting again and again. Max Semenik ( talk) 20:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You were reported to WP:ANEW and still continued to revert. Also, based on this conversation it seems that you think consensus is "my edits stay until there is agreement to remove them". -- NeilN talk to me 19:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The implication was that because the shooters were muslim that they were terrorists. There are no sources which have established any sort motive connected to the islamic religion or terrorism. The BLP excemption should have been upheld. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 20:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Based on this edit [2] one might think the block had no effect on you. Legacypac ( talk) 22:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Colorado Springs shooting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army of God. 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) 10:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Here's how to
add references from
reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain the Wikipedia policy of
verifiability.
Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:
You can read more about this on
Help:Edit toolbar or see this video
File:RefTools.ogv.
Hope this helps, --
Shearonink (
talk) 22:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
{{subst:
User:Shearonink/ref}}
on User:talk pages when needed.Good way to get yourself re-blocked, revert or no. [3] -- NeilN talk to me 20:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
“This is not a forum. Please only discuss how to improve the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)”
Hi Park, discussion at Talk:Pac-12 Conference has determined the "Pacific-12" conference name to be incorrect (since inception in 2011!), with "Pac-12" conference preferred. We have been working to update any and all references over the last month. Therefore I've reverted your change to Modern history of American football to the preferred version of "Pac-12" which links directly to the article at Pac-12 Conference. You're welcome to discuss at Talk:Pac-12 Conference. Cheers, UW Dawgs ( talk) 02:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peyton Manning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily News. 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) 11:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Please take note that your edit to Super Bowl 50 had no basis in policy, and has therefore been administratively reverted. We try to use descriptive wording whenever possible, and as long as such description is backed up by reliable sources - as this is - it should be used. WP:WEASEL, which you noted in your removal of the wording, has absolutely no bearing in this matter, (and I'm confused why you even brought it up in your edit summary). Please, do not repeat your previous patterns of disruptive behavior (as I can see above, you've been involved in several revert wars)... or you will face the same outcome as before. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
according to whom}}
(which states in it's documentation "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation") to something you know is backed up by actual citations is not "promoting objective editing", it's being simply disruptive to the appearance of the article to our readership. Don't play games with me. —
Coffee //
have a cup //
beans // 05:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Please do not add or change content, as you did at Peyton Manning, without citing a reliable source. Many of your edit's give of the impression Manning is guilty of the allegations. Until that is proven to be the case, do not revert to controversial titles. WillsonSS3 ( talk) 21:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add nonconstructive malicious content, as you did at Peyton Manning. Failure to do so will result in you getting blocked from editing. WillsonSS3 ( talk) 01:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
ParkH.Davis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I repeatedly attempted to end the edit warring and requested numerous times that the situation be resolved by an admin. I attempted to resolve the situation via the talk page, yet User:WillsonSS3 continued to unilaterally blank large sections of content without seeking consensus on the talk page before making their edits. User:WillsonSS3 violated the three revert rule two times over and continued to revert after I reported him/her. As Manning played in a big game yesterday and emotions are running high, any large changes in content should only come with proper deliberation on the talk page and should not be made unilaterally by a single editor. I continued to revert as the situation was not being resolved and User:WillsonSS3 was making highly disruptive edits which were damaging the article. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 02:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I agree with C.Fred. This is a clear case of 3RR violation and a clear case of your unblock request only focusing on the actions of another editor and not on your own. If you request again, please be sure to address your own actions with an explanation of your understanding of what you did wrong and how you'll avoid it moving forward. only ( talk) 02:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I accept my block.
ParkH.Davis (
talk) 02:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
User:C.Fred, User:WillsonSS3 is continuing to remove content without consensus. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 03:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
ParkH.Davis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not violate the three revert rule as I was simply reverting vandalism. I was preventing vital information, which had been previously accepted as consensus, from removed, which would have damaged the article and prevented a reader from a having a full and unbiased understanding of the topic. It is clear that Manning is a polarizing figure that has been subject to a significant amount of controversy, both on and off the field. Any changes should first be fully discussed on the talk page before a change is made and unilateral blanking of large sections should be seen as nothing but vandalism. I will seek to resolve conflict through the proper channels next time and apologize for any wrong I have done. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 04:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Considering this isn't your first block for edit warring (nor your first time disrupting the encyclopedia) and that you are standing behind your clear violation of 3RR (even going so far as to call the edits of someone you disagree with "vandalism", when they clearly are not)... I am declining this request. I suggest you use this time to think about what you've been warned about previously, and take note that your rope here is getting shorter and shorter. If you continue acting in this manner, an indefinite block will be in your future. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Your recent editing history at Peyton Manning shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Meatsgains ( talk) 19:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I invite you to read my statements on topics we both are involved and then talk to me on my talk page. I'm not sure if everything I'm writing contribute to your concerns and I don't want to compromise your views or your status as editor, specially in Peyton Manning's case. Thank you. Leo Bonilla ( talk) 22:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
We all can agree the topics need a mention. We do not agree that they need such a large mention, because Manning's notability comes from his other pursuits. Additionally they should not be written in Wikipedia's voice but we should detail that they are allegations and Manning has denied them. I hope we can continue to work together on this article. Mr Ernie ( talk) 23:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I found a part where I think we disagree. On the last version of the controversies section in question there's no part of Manning negating the allegations and defending himself, which is important to present a balanced article in this case. Leo Bonilla ( talk) 07:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Check it, this what I talked about: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Peyton_Manning&oldid=706342256. Leo Bonilla ( talk) 21:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The facts about the PED use allegations by Al Jazeera in which refers Manning should be adknowledged at least on AJ page as it can't be part of Manning's page for now. But there is no mention about it Talk:Al Jazeera America#Why isn't any mention of the PED documentary?. And it's worth to note Manning is not the only one in mention in the documentary as other players from the NFL and the MLB are mentioned. Leo Bonilla ( talk) 20:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Why are you requesting dispute resolution? Insert what you want to. Make sure to avoid BLP violations and refer to allegations as allegations. Be careful not to weight the items too heavily. Peyton Manning is a notable athlete. If he were not notable as an athlete none of these claims would exist. People are sued all the time. Use editorial judgment on what you think is encyclopedic and what is simply news. We are all here to work together. Mr Ernie ( talk) 17:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:Peyton Manning, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mlpearc ( open channel) 19:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you removed all the deflategate material from Tom Brady. Is this a matter of WP:POINT? There's certainly no obvious WP:BLP violation going on in those statements. Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 19:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok men. Leave alone Brady. If you read the article about Ballghazi you'll see the scandal itself was more about the hilariously ludicrous way the scandal was covered instead of if Brady's name was affected; it was more like the 2010 Tonight Show conflict than Bill Cosby's personal issues. I'll find the way to fix Manning's BLP conflict, I promise. Now there's a mention on Al Jazeera America wikipage, it's something. Read the Manning's talk page, there's important information related to both cases. Wikipedia measures articles case by case. Leo Bonilla ( talk) 21:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Swarm
♠ 21:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)I noticed you removed this content at Peyton Manning, alleging that the editor who added it violated WP:PEACOCK. You are actually misunderstanding what peacocking (puffery) is. As the guideline clearly explains, peacocking only refers to very high praise that is not sourced and is "without attribution". The content you removed had excellent attribtuion; it used a high quality source (Sports Ilustrated), which verified exactly what the content stated - that Manning's college offensive coordinator called Manning the greatest NFL quarterback ever. So, rather than calling it peacocking, which it clearly was not, you would have been much better off removing it for giving undue weight to a view that many disagree with. I'm sure there are many people who believe he's the best ever; however, there are surely many more people who believe he is not the best ever and would instead choose Brady, Montana, or someone else. So, do I agree with your removal of the content? Yes, I actually do. However, my reason for removal would have definitely been undue weight, and I would have asked for a balance of sourced content to be presented. Including only the view of his mentor, who actually admitted in the story to being very biased ("I’m not a little biased, I’m a lot biased"), definitely gave undue weight to the content.
One other note. I know you're passionate about the Manning "controvery" issues that were removed and are being debated on the talk page, but your tone may come across to some other editors as angry, aggressive, and biased. I think you would serve yourself much better if you'd back off a bit by not taking so much of the spotlight in all of the discussions. Eventually, the contentious content will end up back in the article in an appropriate manner, so I feel you should really should try to work with the other editors in a more friendly, cooperative, and compromising manner. People are much more likely to go along with the ideas of someone with whom they enjoy working, and oppose those they don't. Good luck! Tracescoops ( talk) 01:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion about an article you created on the WP:BLP noticeboard. Please find it here. Mr Ernie ( talk) 19:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Calling someone a sex offender when they have not been charged or tried is a BLP violation. Simple question - do you understand this? I have engaged with you longer than most reasonable people would have, but this will be the final attempt. Mr Ernie ( talk) 22:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to add
defamatory content, as you did at
Talk:Peyton Manning, you may be
blocked from editing.
Edits such as
this are completely unacceptable. Please read Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines thoroughly so that you can edit more effectively. -
theWOLFchild 23:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I have opened a report at WP:ANI. Please find it here. Mr Ernie ( talk) 23:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Peyton Manning. - theWOLFchild 23:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Peyton Manning, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mlpearc ( open channel) 23:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Last chance – stop edit warring. I don't know what the dispute is, but that doesn't matter. — SMALL JIM 23:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Huon (
talk) 23:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Should any administrator ever consider unblocking this editor, please take note of his admitted motive on his user page, and his edit summaries, including hashtags, for the 11 times he blanked Peyton Manning. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Tracescoops ( talk) 01:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated an article / redirect you created for deletion. == Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy listed at Redirects for discussion ==
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy. Since you had some involvement with the Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. . I realize you are blocked, and I don't mean for this to be gloating, but it says to notify the creator. Mr Ernie ( talk) 19:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, ParkH.Davis. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, ParkH.Davis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Poti Berik ( talk) 17:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi ParkH.Davis. Each use of non-free image must be accompanied by a separate non-free-use rationale on the image description page. If this is not done, a fair-use claim is invalid and constitutes a copyright infringement. If you want to display these images on the article Early history of American football, you have to provide non-free-use rationales first. Images without a rationale for that article will be removed. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. I have reverted your edit, please don't restore the images until there are valid rationales. This is not a matter of opinion, it's a requirement by the image use policy to comply with copyright law. For some images, all ten requirements may not be met and they can't be used at all. Finnusertop ( talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Vince Lombardi into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{ copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. This appears to be the source of your edit to Homosexuality in American football. Great addition to the article, but do attribute where it came from. Thanks. — Bagumba ( talk) 17:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quarterback, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Full back and Half back. 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) 11:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at American football shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - BilCat ( talk) 03:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to English Defence League, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 04:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at 2015 Colorado Springs shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ParkH.Davis reported by User:Viriditas (Result: ). Thank you. Viriditas ( talk) 07:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. NeilN talk to me 19:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
ParkH.Davis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
A consensus was reached concerning the content in question via the talk page. I reported the BLP violation to the BLP noticeboard and repeatedly attempted make it clear that I was attempting to preserve the status-quo of the page in lieu of sources which stated that shooters' religions had anything to do with the shooting or their motives for the shooting. I was not aware of the dispute resolution process and I apoligize for my ignorance. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 19:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The policy is very simple: no edit warring, even if you're right, and this page is full of warnings that explain this to you. NPOV is not a reason to revert repeatedly. BLP gives you an exemption from edit warring restrictions, however this is absolutely not a BLP issue because the suspects being Muslims is neither negative information nor wasn't it unsourced. If you have a content dispute, please use dispute resolution instead of reverting again and again. Max Semenik ( talk) 20:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You were reported to WP:ANEW and still continued to revert. Also, based on this conversation it seems that you think consensus is "my edits stay until there is agreement to remove them". -- NeilN talk to me 19:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
The implication was that because the shooters were muslim that they were terrorists. There are no sources which have established any sort motive connected to the islamic religion or terrorism. The BLP excemption should have been upheld. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 20:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Based on this edit [2] one might think the block had no effect on you. Legacypac ( talk) 22:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Colorado Springs shooting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army of God. 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) 10:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Here's how to
add references from
reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain the Wikipedia policy of
verifiability.
Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:
You can read more about this on
Help:Edit toolbar or see this video
File:RefTools.ogv.
Hope this helps, --
Shearonink (
talk) 22:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
{{subst:
User:Shearonink/ref}}
on User:talk pages when needed.Good way to get yourself re-blocked, revert or no. [3] -- NeilN talk to me 20:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
“This is not a forum. Please only discuss how to improve the article. ParkH.Davis (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)”
Hi Park, discussion at Talk:Pac-12 Conference has determined the "Pacific-12" conference name to be incorrect (since inception in 2011!), with "Pac-12" conference preferred. We have been working to update any and all references over the last month. Therefore I've reverted your change to Modern history of American football to the preferred version of "Pac-12" which links directly to the article at Pac-12 Conference. You're welcome to discuss at Talk:Pac-12 Conference. Cheers, UW Dawgs ( talk) 02:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peyton Manning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily News. 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) 11:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Please take note that your edit to Super Bowl 50 had no basis in policy, and has therefore been administratively reverted. We try to use descriptive wording whenever possible, and as long as such description is backed up by reliable sources - as this is - it should be used. WP:WEASEL, which you noted in your removal of the wording, has absolutely no bearing in this matter, (and I'm confused why you even brought it up in your edit summary). Please, do not repeat your previous patterns of disruptive behavior (as I can see above, you've been involved in several revert wars)... or you will face the same outcome as before. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
according to whom}}
(which states in it's documentation "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation") to something you know is backed up by actual citations is not "promoting objective editing", it's being simply disruptive to the appearance of the article to our readership. Don't play games with me. —
Coffee //
have a cup //
beans // 05:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Please do not add or change content, as you did at Peyton Manning, without citing a reliable source. Many of your edit's give of the impression Manning is guilty of the allegations. Until that is proven to be the case, do not revert to controversial titles. WillsonSS3 ( talk) 21:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add nonconstructive malicious content, as you did at Peyton Manning. Failure to do so will result in you getting blocked from editing. WillsonSS3 ( talk) 01:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
ParkH.Davis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I repeatedly attempted to end the edit warring and requested numerous times that the situation be resolved by an admin. I attempted to resolve the situation via the talk page, yet User:WillsonSS3 continued to unilaterally blank large sections of content without seeking consensus on the talk page before making their edits. User:WillsonSS3 violated the three revert rule two times over and continued to revert after I reported him/her. As Manning played in a big game yesterday and emotions are running high, any large changes in content should only come with proper deliberation on the talk page and should not be made unilaterally by a single editor. I continued to revert as the situation was not being resolved and User:WillsonSS3 was making highly disruptive edits which were damaging the article. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 02:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I agree with C.Fred. This is a clear case of 3RR violation and a clear case of your unblock request only focusing on the actions of another editor and not on your own. If you request again, please be sure to address your own actions with an explanation of your understanding of what you did wrong and how you'll avoid it moving forward. only ( talk) 02:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I accept my block.
ParkH.Davis (
talk) 02:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
User:C.Fred, User:WillsonSS3 is continuing to remove content without consensus. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 03:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
ParkH.Davis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not violate the three revert rule as I was simply reverting vandalism. I was preventing vital information, which had been previously accepted as consensus, from removed, which would have damaged the article and prevented a reader from a having a full and unbiased understanding of the topic. It is clear that Manning is a polarizing figure that has been subject to a significant amount of controversy, both on and off the field. Any changes should first be fully discussed on the talk page before a change is made and unilateral blanking of large sections should be seen as nothing but vandalism. I will seek to resolve conflict through the proper channels next time and apologize for any wrong I have done. ParkH.Davis ( talk) 04:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Considering this isn't your first block for edit warring (nor your first time disrupting the encyclopedia) and that you are standing behind your clear violation of 3RR (even going so far as to call the edits of someone you disagree with "vandalism", when they clearly are not)... I am declining this request. I suggest you use this time to think about what you've been warned about previously, and take note that your rope here is getting shorter and shorter. If you continue acting in this manner, an indefinite block will be in your future. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Your recent editing history at Peyton Manning shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Meatsgains ( talk) 19:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I invite you to read my statements on topics we both are involved and then talk to me on my talk page. I'm not sure if everything I'm writing contribute to your concerns and I don't want to compromise your views or your status as editor, specially in Peyton Manning's case. Thank you. Leo Bonilla ( talk) 22:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
We all can agree the topics need a mention. We do not agree that they need such a large mention, because Manning's notability comes from his other pursuits. Additionally they should not be written in Wikipedia's voice but we should detail that they are allegations and Manning has denied them. I hope we can continue to work together on this article. Mr Ernie ( talk) 23:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I found a part where I think we disagree. On the last version of the controversies section in question there's no part of Manning negating the allegations and defending himself, which is important to present a balanced article in this case. Leo Bonilla ( talk) 07:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Check it, this what I talked about: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Peyton_Manning&oldid=706342256. Leo Bonilla ( talk) 21:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The facts about the PED use allegations by Al Jazeera in which refers Manning should be adknowledged at least on AJ page as it can't be part of Manning's page for now. But there is no mention about it Talk:Al Jazeera America#Why isn't any mention of the PED documentary?. And it's worth to note Manning is not the only one in mention in the documentary as other players from the NFL and the MLB are mentioned. Leo Bonilla ( talk) 20:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Why are you requesting dispute resolution? Insert what you want to. Make sure to avoid BLP violations and refer to allegations as allegations. Be careful not to weight the items too heavily. Peyton Manning is a notable athlete. If he were not notable as an athlete none of these claims would exist. People are sued all the time. Use editorial judgment on what you think is encyclopedic and what is simply news. We are all here to work together. Mr Ernie ( talk) 17:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:Peyton Manning, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mlpearc ( open channel) 19:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you removed all the deflategate material from Tom Brady. Is this a matter of WP:POINT? There's certainly no obvious WP:BLP violation going on in those statements. Tarl.Neustaedter ( talk) 19:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok men. Leave alone Brady. If you read the article about Ballghazi you'll see the scandal itself was more about the hilariously ludicrous way the scandal was covered instead of if Brady's name was affected; it was more like the 2010 Tonight Show conflict than Bill Cosby's personal issues. I'll find the way to fix Manning's BLP conflict, I promise. Now there's a mention on Al Jazeera America wikipage, it's something. Read the Manning's talk page, there's important information related to both cases. Wikipedia measures articles case by case. Leo Bonilla ( talk) 21:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Swarm
♠ 21:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)I noticed you removed this content at Peyton Manning, alleging that the editor who added it violated WP:PEACOCK. You are actually misunderstanding what peacocking (puffery) is. As the guideline clearly explains, peacocking only refers to very high praise that is not sourced and is "without attribution". The content you removed had excellent attribtuion; it used a high quality source (Sports Ilustrated), which verified exactly what the content stated - that Manning's college offensive coordinator called Manning the greatest NFL quarterback ever. So, rather than calling it peacocking, which it clearly was not, you would have been much better off removing it for giving undue weight to a view that many disagree with. I'm sure there are many people who believe he's the best ever; however, there are surely many more people who believe he is not the best ever and would instead choose Brady, Montana, or someone else. So, do I agree with your removal of the content? Yes, I actually do. However, my reason for removal would have definitely been undue weight, and I would have asked for a balance of sourced content to be presented. Including only the view of his mentor, who actually admitted in the story to being very biased ("I’m not a little biased, I’m a lot biased"), definitely gave undue weight to the content.
One other note. I know you're passionate about the Manning "controvery" issues that were removed and are being debated on the talk page, but your tone may come across to some other editors as angry, aggressive, and biased. I think you would serve yourself much better if you'd back off a bit by not taking so much of the spotlight in all of the discussions. Eventually, the contentious content will end up back in the article in an appropriate manner, so I feel you should really should try to work with the other editors in a more friendly, cooperative, and compromising manner. People are much more likely to go along with the ideas of someone with whom they enjoy working, and oppose those they don't. Good luck! Tracescoops ( talk) 01:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion about an article you created on the WP:BLP noticeboard. Please find it here. Mr Ernie ( talk) 19:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Calling someone a sex offender when they have not been charged or tried is a BLP violation. Simple question - do you understand this? I have engaged with you longer than most reasonable people would have, but this will be the final attempt. Mr Ernie ( talk) 22:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to add
defamatory content, as you did at
Talk:Peyton Manning, you may be
blocked from editing.
Edits such as
this are completely unacceptable. Please read Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines thoroughly so that you can edit more effectively. -
theWOLFchild 23:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I have opened a report at WP:ANI. Please find it here. Mr Ernie ( talk) 23:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Peyton Manning. - theWOLFchild 23:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Peyton Manning, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mlpearc ( open channel) 23:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Last chance – stop edit warring. I don't know what the dispute is, but that doesn't matter. — SMALL JIM 23:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Huon (
talk) 23:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Should any administrator ever consider unblocking this editor, please take note of his admitted motive on his user page, and his edit summaries, including hashtags, for the 11 times he blanked Peyton Manning. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Tracescoops ( talk) 01:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I have nominated an article / redirect you created for deletion. == Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy listed at Redirects for discussion ==
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy. Since you had some involvement with the Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. . I realize you are blocked, and I don't mean for this to be gloating, but it says to notify the creator. Mr Ernie ( talk) 19:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, ParkH.Davis. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)