24.113.172.237

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards 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. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 99.0.82.226 (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Talk:Harold Covington. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. Courcelles 19:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Harold Covington, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 4twenty42o (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Harold Covington - Discussion

If you wish for me to create the deletion discussion page for Harold Covington, I will do that for you as a neutral third party. What I will ask is to give me a rationale for deletion which will be listed as the reason for deletion. I will remain neutral and not vote on the discussion, but I must tell you that I'm finding a number of reliable sources, so there is a minimal chance of the article being deleted. You never know, however. And I'm still going to pick through the article with a fine-tooth comb as time permits today.

I should add to this that I'm bending over backwards to try to help you out here, but I feel you are resisting my efforts to set things right. Keep in mind I am a volunteer just like the other millions of editors. Even the administrators and bureaucrats are nothing more than volunteers; none of us are paid a penny for anything we do here. Keep that in mind before attacking us on article talk pages (or anywhere else for that matter). I feel I've tried to work with you well; I could have literally said f*** you back there and recommended you be blocked, but I do not operate that way and prefer to help where I can.

As I said, I'll start the deletion discussion if you really want me to. But I don't think it will merit deletion. That's again just the way Wikipedia works. CycloneGU (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking the IP's last comment on Talk:Harold Covington to mean that they have just emailed to the WMF email address saying that they want it deleted. If so, it might be as well to wait for OTRS confirmation of that, before AfD'ing the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm watching the info-en and courtesy-en queues for this, and I've seen nothing come through yet. It's possible he sent it to a queue I don't have access to, though - if we could figure out what email address he contacted, I can find out for sure. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Since he hasn't made any other edits I assume he's taken off to wait for an e-mail back. I'll keep an eye on the article for now to see if it is indeed deleted.

My e-mail guess would be info-en-q@wikimedia.org - different than info.en if I'm not mistaken. CycloneGU (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if he sent it to the quality queue I won't be of any use in finding it. Alas. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the address I sent it to, about 40 minutes ago. - HAC

Ok, I can confirm that there is now an OTRS ticket about this issue (Ticket:2011072110016071, for those of you who have access). As I said, it's in a queue I don't have access to, so someone else from OTRS will have to handle it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell me what the ticket says? I don't think I have that access. CycloneGU (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I just realized you might not be able to tell me. CycloneGU (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, OTRS tickets are generally considered confidential information. Whoever handles the ticket will probably be along here or on the article talk to comment and do...whatever it is they can do about this situation (I've completely lost track of what that is. Which is why there are better people than me to handle this!). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I C. Well, whoever comes along will see this mess, and if they can make heads or tails of the whole situation it'll be a miracle. =) As for what they have to determine: whether Harold Covington should be deleted. Of course, Harold Covington himself cannot be deleted. =) CycloneGU (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My initial plan was simpler; that the OTRS person should simply confirm that the person who sent in the email is Harold Covington, and that that person thinks the article should be deleted. With that confirmed, we go to AfD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying it's been handled now? And if the respondent believes it should not be deleted, AfD will not be necessary? CycloneGU (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, we're still waiting on OTRS, as far as I know. And, I think we should AfD it anyway, even if Covington changes his mind (or chooses not to confirm his identity). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me Know Where

Please let me know where this deletion page or site is so I can make my pitch. My e-mail is nwnet@earthlink.net (unsigned IP comment)

Right now we can't set up a deletion page at this time. Like I said, if you really want the page deleted that badly, tell me what your rationale is here (keep it to a couple of lines, don't produce an essay for a rationale as I guarantee you it won't all be read by the majority of participants). The reason we can't set it up yet is because you've gone through an entirely different channel asking for the same thing. If they decline, then we can proceed with the normal route, which I'll go into more at that time. CycloneGU (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for Deleting Page

Well, let's see. Rationale for deleting my article, rationale for deleting my article...

1) I am simply not that noteworthy. This is isn't false modesty. I haven't been in the nationwide media for years, so apparently the Big Boys agree with me on this. If Rachel Maddow can kick me off her blog, why can't you?

2) For some reason I have never understood, I have a tendency to attract cranks and obsessives. They will gravitate to this Wikipedia article like blowflies to whatever you care to compare this article to, and they will all want to play with it, to insert themselves into my life in the manner of obsessive loons. If you leave the article up and editable, you are facilitating cyber-stalking by some pretty sick and bizarre individuals.

3) Smears and abuse are one thing. Lies are another. I will do whatever is necessary to prevent the publication of scurrilous, malicious, false, and defamatory information in this article. Banning me or blocking me will do no good; I may not be familiar with Wikipedia's system (yet) but I've picked up some moves down through the years and I have a LOT of friends who own computers. Just to save you some time, don't bother threatening me with cops or prosecution or lawsuits or Janet Napolitano's lesbian ninjas or whatever. As you may have gathered, I have lived on the edge of the law all my life. These things are just another day at the office for me.

4) The upshot of Point Three is, THIS IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. It is going to end up wasting endless amounts of EVERYBODY's time to no end whatsoever except for--what? To prove some point about "our 'policies' trump your right to be free of scurrilous defamation?' Why? Who GIVES a damn except me and a few lefty weirdo stalker freaks? Why not just tell us to take it outside? I'm perfectly good with that.

-Harold A. Covington

You really don't understand how things work here... Whether or not you want an article about yourself or not is actually almost irrelevant, considering your...colorful past. Thinly veiled threats are also just about as welcome as a vandal is. No one is going to threaten to sue you, send the police after you, chase you down or take it outside for that matter. This is an encyclopedic collaboration of world history. Important places, things, notable people or business or in some cases notorious events and peoples to be recorded for posterity. For everyone to read, edit and contribute to. That's what this project is. I have been watching the interactions since you and the other anonymous IP started edit warring. As a matter I was the person who requested page protection. Understand this is not a chat nor a forum. It is an encyclopedic project where we strive to produce facts. The simple fact is someone is working nonstop to provide what is needed to the project. Including assistance to new editors such as yourself should you see someone vandalizing a page. As well as All kinds of things you can learn to eventually contribute yourself. Now I don't personally care if you contribute or not but please relax now. You brought the problem and your solution to every-ones attention now let everyone do their job. Cheers - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A slight point of disagreement here; if the notability of a living person is borderline, and it is verified that the person wants the article about them deleted, then their wishes can be taken into account - regardless of their colourful past (on wikipedia or off it). Totally agree with most or all of the rest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

=============

"No one is going to threaten to sue you, send the police after you, chase you down or take it outside for that matter."

Well, that will be a welcome change.

Tell you what, do whatever you feel like doing. Put lies about me on that page, and see what happens.

-HAC

So you are going to make threats? Have you read a single thing I said to you? Should I stop wasting my time? If you have read anything I said, you'd recall this snippet: If anything published by another editor is infactual and not referenced in reliable sources, trust that another editor will be along to remove it. If someone comes along with an agenda to put defamatory information in an article - not just your article, ANY article - we can't stop them from adding it. However, we CAN remove it when we come across it - and by "we", I mean any editor who happened to read your page and realizes the content does not belong there. We also have bots that are programmed to revert spam and obvious vandalism. So instead of making threats like the one here, read and understand what we're trying to tell you here, all right? I've been trying to help you and you continue to make threats, and I'm getting sick of it. CycloneGU (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a big enthusiast for blocking every single person who makes a legal threat on Wikipedia (and I wrote out the SPI), but I'm tempted to consider "just see what will happen" to be irrelevant in this case. Based on his other statements he might mean that, gosh, he will raise an army of meatpuppets. That's not a legal threat. All living persons, even neo-Nazis, get the same protection from WP:BLP - sadly, "any editor" who read the page about Covington failed to remove the attack site that was sitting unchallenged in "External links" for several weeks. So there is some weight behind the suggestion that the page is just better off deleted, even if a few of the reasons for doing so are a bit angry or misguided. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't take it as a legal threat. I took it simply as a threat, as in, "Just see what kind of crap will happen to your page" or something like that. CycloneGU (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see any good reason to delete this article. Harold has just been calling everyone a loon and threatening legal action without really bringing up any good points. I noticed he didn't seem to have a problem with it when it sat around for so long with the unsourced reference to him serving in the Rhodesian Army, so his request for deletion seems to only be on the grounds that he doesn't like the information (whether sourced or not) in the article and cares little for it's authenticity as long as it doesn't put a bad light on him. Repeated vandalism can be permanently cured with page protection. I would also disagree with the subject (assuming he isn't a fake) saying that he isn't notable or important, especially with the colorful history he claims to have had. Regardless of what is true or not, he has been in some key positions of neo-Nazi organizations over the years, and being that Wikipedia has articles for even less notable people, I think it would be best for the article to stay up and expand beyond it's current form.--SlapChopVincent (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Harold Covington

Your recent edits removed only an inline citation and not the information gleaned from the citation. If you believe the reference being used to be unreliable or biased you need to pursue a claim with the reliable sources notice board and the talk page of the article. Edit warring is not the answer. I thought we had established that little fact already. - 4twenty42o (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I edit Wikipedia too, under the username 4twenty42o. I noticed that one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Harold Covington with this edit, appeared to be unconstructive, and I’ve reverted it. In the future, I recommend you use the sandbox for testing. It also helps to let other people know about your change to Wikipedia with an informative edit summary. Please feel free to ask me questions about editing Wikipedia (or anything else) on my talk page. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks! 4twenty42o (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Harold Covington

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harold Covington. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards 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. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

February 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one year for long-term block evasion, as you did at Talk:Harold Covington. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the unblock mailing list at unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---