User talk:Verdad

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Verdad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - FrancisTyers 21:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks68.55.206.184 21:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Byrne Photo.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Byrne Photo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dscn0035.jpg[edit]

Hi Verdad, I was looking to rename File:Dscn0035.jpg, and wanted to ask if you have some more information about this photo - location, and make/model of the cotton picker? Thanks. XLerate (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Montgomery Academy, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Per Wikipedia Talk Page guidelines, a basic rule of Wikipedia is that "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." I'm also concerned about the POV deletions you made to this talk page's article. Do not delete talk pages or sourced information or you could be blocked from this site. SouthernNights (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry accusations[edit]

I have taken the highly unusual step of deleting your SPI case as it consisted of baseless accusations against editors in good standing. I have done my own investigation, and here is what I can tell you: Alabamaboy and SouthernNights are not sockpuppets of one another. Regarding Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, you have provided no evidence for sockpuppetry other than that he agrees with SouthernNights. Do not reopen an SPI case without some serious evidence. If you're not sure what constitutes serious evidence, you can email me. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Someguy1221, for your attention in this matter. I do, though, disagree with you. I would like to know what your process of investigating is, and what constitutes serious evidence. I will leave you a message on your talk page to discuss. Verdad (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014[edit]

Your recent editing history at Montgomery Academy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller,

You will see that prior to my edits of the page in question I engaged in very open, very cooperative dialogue with other editors on that talk page. I stated my case, and specifically asked if my edits would be deleted. Other editors, nonetheless, immediately reverted my edits. Please ask me anything you would like. I am here to cooperate. My edits closely paraphrase sources. Let's work this out. Verdad (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful of WP:3RR as edit warring can result in a block ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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:Verdad reported by User:Dougweller (Result: ). Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Montgomery Academy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bishonen | talk 10:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Verdad (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been blocked for being part of an edit war. Technically, my edits were reverted first. Not sure that that matters. It does matter that the admin noted I was not in violation of 3RR, but blocked me anyway for "tendentious editing." That just means they disagree with me, not that I was violating Wikipedia policy. It also did matter that I explained my position clearly before making the edits and the other contributors were not cooperative in the discussion. One editor was quite rude and combative, actually. I specifically asked if I made edits, would the edits be deleted. Which, as it turned out, was exactly what was done in short order. At any rate, I have been active in the talk page of the article. I'm editing in good faith. I'm using a very literalist interpretation of cited sources. I'm attempting to be collaborative. I have even added new, reliably sourced, material which was deleted. I don't think the other editors are properly following WP:BRD unless the "B" stands for "Block-the-other-user." The article in question is Montgomery_Academy. Check it out if you need. Look at the talk page. At the moment, I can't even edit the talk page. They are currently discussing the article. I seem to be the only one of the 3 to have a physical copy of a book that they are citing. I would, at the very least, like to scan a page and provide them a link to the file. Golly!

Decline reason:

It does not matter who "shot first" in an edit war. Also, edit wars do not require that you breach 3RR; 3RR is just the bright line where it IS edit-warring - and edit-warring is a violation of Wikipedia policy. (Also, by my count, you did violate 3RR, but you were edit-warring either way.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Tennessee Scholastic Lacrosse Association[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tennessee Scholastic Lacrosse Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, society, or group, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DrStrauss talk 12:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tennessee Scholastic Lacrosse Association for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tennessee Scholastic Lacrosse Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tennessee Scholastic Lacrosse Association 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. DrStrauss talk 15:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]