Rsiemens

Hello, Rsiemens, 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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! CNMall41 (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

The edits you made were actually more about Donal Trump than Kelcy Warren, despite your edit comment ("Edited Controversy section to be reflective of BLP"). Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a tabloid nor a place to right a wrong. You may also want to review WP:NPOV. If you feel there is something "negative" to add, please take it to the talk page. I already started a discussion there. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Your misleading edit summary, "Included edits per Talk page discussion", was in accompaniment with edits which clearly have not been supported by this talk page discussion. This kind of behavior is not tolerable on Wikipedia. Please refrain from such behavior in the future. bd2412 T 13:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

BD2412, I suggested those edits to Kelcy Warren's page two weeks ago and you made no response; so I incorporated them. My summary states that the edits are per the Talk discussion, not per your approval. You need to be more forthright about who you are and your role in this discussion. You mysteriously appeared after I brought up the possibility of engaging a Third Opinion with User CNMall41. You did not introduce yourself as that Third Opinion or define your role in our discussion. You engaged (quite helpfully) on the Talk page and then stopped responding after my final suggested edit. There was and is no reason for me to assume that my edits require your approval.

You just reverted my edits without citing them as inaccurate, unbalanced, or lacking historical significance. You gave no reason whatsoever. This seems to be lacking in good faith. If you dislike my edits, make your case; do not instruct me.

At this juncture I'd like to point out that I am not the only contributor who feels that Mr. Warren's page needs to contain information about his involvement in the Dakota Access pipeline in order to appear balanced. Pzriddle also recommended that the subject be addressed in some manner. And before criticizing my removal of Warren's Forbes ranking and net worth from the Personal Life section, please consider that I did so because his net worth is already stated earlier in the entry, and because the Forbes ranking has been described by the IRS as variable and generous, and that in actuality it is "impossible to determine the precise market value" of the assets that Forbes includes in their estimates. The estimates are simply speculation, not fact.

BD2412, I have listened very carefully to your suggestions and opinions, and I have revised the language, references, and location of material multiple times in order to address your concerns. Your current edit/reversion was done without comment or justification, so I am respectfully reverting back to my last edit. If you'd like to discuss them, let's go back to Warren's Talk page where other contributors can participate. Rsiemens

• We have a procedure here - WP:BRD - which clearly states that you should have gone back to Warren's talk page in the first case, rather than reverting my last edit. You made a bold and contested edit; I reverted; at this point, you are supposed to discuss, rather than plunge into edit warring. You seem to be having trouble with the basic concept of achieving consensus, which has not been achieved with respect to your contested edits to this BLP. You sought an independent third opinion in the discussion, and I provided one, generating a consensus which you then ignored. I am going to request that you recuse yourself from involvement in this article for a few months to avoid a deepening spiral. In the meantime, I am closing the current discussion for clear lack of consensus. bd2412 T 14:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

BD2412,I appreciate your continued response. You are referring to a procedure that you are not following yourself. The “optional” WP:BRD explains that a BOLD edit can be made “if you advance a potential edit on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time.” Which is exactly what I did. If you choose to Revert my edit, you should “be specific about your reasons in the edit summary” and then “discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page.” Even though I asked that you discuss my edits on the Talk page, you did not. I reverted your changes without discussion because you provided no discussion or justification for undoing my edits that I could respond to. I gave sources and explanations for both my proposed changes and for my revert. After which you again reverted my changes without discussion on the article’s Talk page, an action that is far closer to both the definition of warring edits and the bright line of the three revert rule.

During the course of our Talk discussion I attempted new edits that “reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion” per the WP:BRD. You, however, have not made any suggestions that endeavor to reach a consensus; you’ve merely made observations designed to shut down potential changes. You claim that I have a problem with the basic concept of achieving consensus, yet state that you gave an opinion that” generated a consensus.” A consensus is when all parties agree, not two out of three-- or more accurately two out of four.

Let me be clear: the edits that CNMall41 initially objected to-- which dealt with political contributions-- are not the same as the ones I am proposing now-- the attention Warren has received for his construction activities. I listened to both of your original arguments, and while I did not find all of them convincing I recognized they had enough validity to re-shape my contribution. During our Talk discussion, however, you have repeated attempted to block edits to Warren’s page regardless of subject matter, and without offering a “modified solution that reflects some aspect of the other editor's remarks,” again per WP:BRD. Recently, you have stopped providing any facts, references, or even opinions as to why you deem the edits inappropriate. When I supplied sources for my latest edit; you did not contest the edits or the sources. Instead, you state that I am edit warring with you, assert that I am not following procedures and guidelines, claim unilateral authority to close discussions, and insist that I back off so the page remains just as you would like it to be.

I would like to refocus our discussion on the issue of the page rather than the issues of our interaction. My request to you is that you participate in the discussion by providing reliable sources, modified solutions to content issues, and relevant guidance per Wikipedia policy. If you feel the discussion is no longer productive, then know that you have contributed to make these edits better. But please don’t insist that others step back because you’re tiring of the discussion. Wikipedia isn’t designed to contain solely the information you approve; it’s designed to contain balanced, well-sourced information. And as you’ve mentioned, there’s no urgency to edits to Wikipedia pages, and that applies to reverting my edits as well. RsiemensRsiemens (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)RSiemensReply

To be clear, there is an established consensus in the discussion that the subject of this article is too remotely connected to the controversy in question to merit mention of that controversy in his biography. BRD does not mean discuss, fail to obtain consensus, and then find a way to reword the issue so as to add material that goes against that consensus. Find a reliable source identifying the CEO of the company that is actually doing the digging, and then there will be something to discuss. bd2412 T 01:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as George Walker (composer), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://georgetwalker.com/bio.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:George Walker (composer) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, George Walker (composer), in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:George Walker (composer). See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:George Walker (composer) with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:George Walker (composer) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! somethingintheshadows (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply