User talk:MoorNextDoor

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, MoorNextDoor. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Epicgenius (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

/* Deletion of RS-supported material

Please do not delete RS-supported text, as you did here. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. I have read the sources provided and not a single one of them describes them as such. MoorNextDoor (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. As ... yet again ... here. It is in the source. Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research, period. Until you show me the source where it says what you're implying, you are in the wrong. MoorNextDoor (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It is quite clearly and indubitably in the source ... your claims otherwise are quite incorrect. It could not possibly be clearer. I don't have to "show you" anything -- you have to read the refs that are in the article, where anybody can clearly see the direct support for the statement. Your string of failures to do so, and deletion of RS-supported material, will if you continue place your continued editing in peril. Please stop it. Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia. And yet again here. If the New York Times reports it, in is notable enough to be reflected here. Please stop deleting RS-supported material. If you continue, I or another editor may well in the next instance seek to have you blocked. Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That's another matter that I was discussing with others, if you want to mention the origin of their parents, do so, however, bear in mind that the origin of the victims should also be mentioned in that case. MoorNextDoor (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I see you did it again, despite the NYT article. I don't care whether you mention the origins as well of the victims, the King of Siam, or Donald Duck -- as long as they are mentioned by high-level RSs in regard to this event. Which is the case with what you are deleting. Which makes your editing less than appropriate. You have now deleted, as evidenced above, a slew of RS-supported material, mostly sourced to the NY Times, with arguments ranging from "I don't see it" (when it is clearly in the ref) to ... effectively ... "I don't like it, even though the NY Times believes it sufficiently notable to report." That not appropriate. Please stop. Epeefleche (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Read carefully and you'll notice that it was done before you added the independent article where it is clearly mentioned. The NY article did not word it that way, no matter how any times you keep repeating it. Whether you admit it or not is completely irrelevant now. MoorNextDoor (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Breach of three-revert rule

You have reverted the page Charlie Hebdo shooting on more than three occasions in the past 24 hours. [1] [2] [3] [4] This is in breach of the WP:3RR rule. I strongly urge you to reverse your last change, or the matter will need to be considered by an admin, which may lead to your account being blocked. WWGB (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly advise you to stop deleting sourced material just because you don't like it. Let the matter be considered by an admin and don't forget to mention the message I left you the second time you deleted sourced material for no apparent reason, asking you nicely not to do it again and to discuss the matter if something is bothering you. For the record, you've done it 3 times [5] [6] [7]. So, basically, because of you and those who, instead of enriching the article, keep deleting sourced material, I find myself spending more time restoring what has already been sourced instead of doing something useful. MoorNextDoor (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Relevance on Charlie Hebdo shooting

Hi. In regards to this edit, I did not remove {{Relevance}} at Charlie Hebdo shooting. I moved it to the prose rather than the section heading because, generally, tags, references, and links shouldn't be included in headers; the entire section is still tagged with {{Relevance}}. If you want, I can revert my edit, but having any tags, etc. in headers is usually not good style. Thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately, that will not make it clear that it's the relevance of the entire section (including the title) that's being questioned and not its content, that's why I added it to the header. MoorNextDoor (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Readers will see the relevance tag anyway once they scroll down. On mobile devices, however, any headers like that will probably mess up the display. In desktop view, readers will not be able to see any reasons in any prose (e.g. the header) unless they specifically roll over the tag with their cursor. A banner, like I just added, will display the specific reason for the tag immediately. Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, but the banner will display: "This section contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. Please help improve this article by clarifying or removing superfluous information. (14 January 2015)". As you can see, it does not question the existence of the section nor does it link to the specific section of the talk page. MoorNextDoor (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I added a new link to the discussion, using the template {{cleanup}}. Epicgenius (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, let's just hope it survives the disruptive editing. MoorNextDoor (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's hope you're correct. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it lasted almost 20 minutes. MoorNextDoor (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit war at Charlie Hebdo shooting

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Charlie Hebdo shooting. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version 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.

Your next revert will result in a trip to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Under no circumstances is such WP:POINT-y editing acceptable. You've made no effort to back up any of your points on the talk page—this is a requirement to demonstrate your good faith. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)