User:John J. Bulten/Challenges
- Discussions about deletion of material related to Ron Paul
User COI
[edit]→ In re: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 20#Moneybomb and related matters. (Link updated John J. Bulten (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC))
To user John J. Bulten: This is a reminder that if, in the pursuit of your conflict of interest, you continue to edit disruptively and tendentiously and to violate the civility and ownership of articles policies, you risk being blocked from editing this encyclopedia. Some of the suggestions for COI compliance may be helpful to you. — Athaenara ✉ 17:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Notice of 24 hour block
[edit]
This single-purpose account with a conflict of interest has been blocked from editing for 24 hours for persistent violations of the disruptive editing (definition) and Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point guidelines. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}, or email any administrator on the list of Wikipedia administrators, or email unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. — Athaenara ✉ 01:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Unblock Request 1
[edit]Suspicious edit-history deletions, no explanation of what edits were disruptive, good faith very hard to find, etc.; much detail below. (Please consider this combined unblock request and request for admin investigation (ANI); I'd documented the first three suspicious deletions before realizing the block.) Something very very fishy is going on with memory-hole deletions of edits from edit histories! While I understand admins do things for protection, I cannot explain this. The prelude: New User:Newsroom hierarchies advocated removing semiprotection from Ron Paul, was quickly granted, and immediately began editing it; I naturally protested the protection removal and requested checkuser due to similarity with many past proven sockpuppets of banned user James Salsman User:Nrcprm2026. But then this:
- In my RCU edit I cited the new user's first four edits. The first of those edits no longer appears in the user's edit history and has been deleted, either by admin or by the invisible-revert trick (which I still don't fully understand). It was formerly just prior to the now-first edit of 11/30 12:40.
- Immediately after my RCU edit, I added diffs of the new user's four edits as my second RCU edit. That edit has also been deleted from the RCU page's history (it was formerly just after my first RCU edit, 12/01 01:24), presumably because it contained a diff of the new user's first edit and would be inconsistent to permit users to see the diff and not the edit in edit history.
- When I objected to the already-complete protection removal on my first edit to RPP, I made a second edit to that page, moving the section from "Fulfilled/denied requests" to "Current requests for protection", in accord with my first edit. That second edit was also deleted from the RPP page's history (it had formerly been just after my first RPP edit, 12/01 11:01). So my rerequest for protection, which has been approved by consensus on that article since Sep (except for Mr. Salsman evading ban), was deleted and reverted to just "strong opposition"-- shortly after the protection had just been suspiciously removed on behalf of a new editor with admitted former experience.
- While I was writing this, I was 24-hour blocked by Athaenara for claims of COI, on edits tangentially related to this suspicious new account; so I can't post this to ANI, nor (otherwise than here) warn admins of the suspicious activity connected with the new account! I would say there is at least probable cause that the block may be connected to the other fishy activity-- enough cause to unblock.
- Athaenara gave COI warning 12/01 17:10. I made only four edits between then and the block 12/03 01:21, civil I thought (unless there were some more deletions I don't recall). I have reviewed each and found that while I disagreed politely with other editors and provided reasoning, there was no intent to game the system or to disrupt. I had, of course, previously proposed a change to WP:V which I thought well-reasoned and which patched a gaping hole related to an open reversion battle of mine (from which of course I stopped reinserting after the third variation); but my proposal for policy change was subjected to criticisms of form and process and hardly any discussion of its merits. Most importantly, all week I have requested policy cites from the competing parties, and have met general resistance, while I regularly quote the policies in support of my edits. (Under WP:DE, I find "Techniques such as reverting need to be combined with sincere efforts to turn the user toward productive work.") No editor all week, except AnonEMouse, has demonstrated sincere efforts to productively engage my points, nor succeeded in looking beyond the knee-jerk reaction that I must be disruptive because, well, I'm just disruptive. (Orangemike has been polite and sincere but has mostly kept out of the dispute.)
I cannot conceive any explanation for all of the above on basic good-faith arguments. If it was IP protection, why remove my request for protection? If it was deletion of edits which some admin ruled to be COI, SPA, POINT, NPOV, DE, etc., why was Newsroom's edit deleted? While the block is not necessarily precisely related to the suspicious Orwellian deletions, isn't there a case that (a) the block came at suspiciously enough of a time to be open to removal and further investigation, and (b) the thorough stonewall from many parties to my requests for debunking my policy reliances, concluding in Athaenara's block without any detailed explanation after four reasonable edits, is a failure of WIkipedians at large to assume my good faith? I really trust(ed) Wikipedia. I'm still confident somewhere here my trust will be rewarded, even if I have to wait for AnonEMouse. John J. Bulten 02:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Could you also please add a "hangon" tag to Moneybomb? I warned that Elonka's edits would leave the article ripe for AFD, and there it happened, interrupting active ongoing mediation on that page. John J. Bulten 02:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Two observations: (1) Only one edit by user "Newsroom hierarchies" was deleted. (2) The {{hangon}} template is for speedies, not for Afds. — Athaenara ✉ 03:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some responses that may help clear some things up:
- That missing edit, a redirect from my user page to talk page, was not whisked away in a sinister admin plot, but rather was deleted by a bot that saw it as a broken link (apparently because I had left my talk page as a redlink).
- A checkuser has already confirmed that I am "unlikely" to be a sock of BenB4, etc. Since I have made zero abusive edits in the short history of this account, I would request that John WP:AGF now. I'll say it again: I am not a sock, I am not a blocked user, and this is my only active account.
- I requested unprotection of Ron Paul because it is against WP norms and policy to leave articles protected indefinitely unless they are under significant threat of ongoing vandalism. I also wanted to edit the article, and found myself unable to do so. So I requested unprotection, which was perfectly normal, appropriate behavior for someone who wanted to contribute to a wiki.
--Newsroom hierarchies 06:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- That may answer 1 of my 5 points, but note the article has been vandalized nine times in the day or two since becoming unprotected.
- Athaenara, please answer my implicit question: Between your warning and your block, which of my four edits were tendentious or disruptive, and why? Per WP:APPEAL, I am supposed to learn something from being blocked, but there is no indication what. Per WP:BLOCK, the explanation should be clear and specific, not generic. John J. Bulten 14:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Athaenara, but the guidelines cited - disruptive editing (definition) and Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - look specific enough to me.
- As I've said you elsewhere, recognising that quasi-legal tactics - gaming the system - are unwelcome on Wikipedia would be a good thing to learn. Gordonofcartoon 01:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Notice of 48 hour block
[edit]This account has been blocked from editing for 48 hours for continued violations of the WP:POINT guideline and for continuing to harass neutral editors. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}, or email any administrator on the list of Wikipedia administrators, or email unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. — Athaenara ✉ 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Unblock Request 2
[edit]You are using this template in the wrong namespace. Use this template on your talk page instead.
I know allegations of admin abuse require clear proof, but it may be below. See, I wouldn't mind so much if I knew what bad behavior I was doing. I have in good faith begged and pleaded for anyone, anyone with expertise or experience to explain what was blockable; please take the time to review considerately. At virtually every turn, when I requested a policy clarification as a 2-month user, if I even got a cite, it was only to a whole policy page, and never with a diff to my alleged offense. This behavior is so consistent from so many users that it is hard to explain, much less to provide sources for this possibly exceptional claim. But let's please start with what points I do get, and the questions I need answered first by you, the reviewer:
- (N.b. I wrote this the first hour of block. I trustingly clicked Save and did not realize that there would be an edit conflict due to the edit warrior (below) closely following me and stating her block agreement "sadly" (huh?) and giving nuanced advice and compliments (unhelpful). This minor frustration can be gotten past, but of course this request is now many hours late. PLEASE at least quickly indicate willingness to answer.)
- See whole discussion. As near as I can tell, WP:POINT is intended to refer to my politely proposing a change to WP:V (my first policy suggestion) and disclosing what I regarded as an edit war about the issue. Instead of any comments on the merits (except one positive one), I received consistent criticism about my poor formatting followed by refusal to address the merits because (apparently) it was obviously unnecessary to answer. Q. When one has made a policy suggestion in good faith and one receives zero discussion on its negatives and significant negative discussion on one's person and presentation, is one refusing to get the point if one continues politely requesting the specific demerits of the proposal that would indicate nonconsensus on its merits?
- See whole user discussion. As near as I can tell, WP:HAR (first I've heard of this charge against me) is intended to refer to my appropriate-level user warnings in response to an editor using obscenity and assuming bad faith-- this is only the most reasonable guess, of course. After he stated he was entitled to assume bad faith, he changed up and claimed facetiously he really was assuming good faith. My links there indicate specifically what behavior I referred to. I know of no other case which might come near to harassment. Q. When one uses edit warnings in full compliance with policy and is met with continuing bad faith, is one harassing?
- See whole COI discussion. As near as I can tell, WP:DE is intended to refer primarily to my first extended correction of a user charging me with COI, along with a suggestion that the accusing user may also have COI. Certainly I might have been overstrong in that edit (I recognize not noticing the 200-word limit, but I adverted that myself). But again, there was no indication of why a donor to a political candidate has the sort of close relationship envisioned by COI. There was one attempt at googling me (and I'm not looking up the personal details policy right now) which turned up nothing undisclosed besides my blog comments-- but this was described as "considerable involvement of ... promotional activities". Recall there are about 60,000 Ron Paul Meetup volunteers, and nearly that many donors. If I worked for a 60,000-member workplace there might be a bit more point, but even that would be debatable in good faith. Q. Is every political donor or Meetup member forbidden from editing candidate-related articles neutrally, or only those who willingly disclose the relationship?
- As near as I can tell, there is a further potential application of WP:POINT (which by the way is an application of the rule, convenient to the generic, that a generic warning is fungible with any warning). Apparently I don't realize that, in some sense, these users are every one justified in refusing to explain specifically any of their adverse actions against me, and that I am being disruptively pointed if I explain specific charges against them, citing policy and diffs. And there I do admit not understanding. The policies are no Procrustean bed, but very specific. I am completely unfamiliar with operating in such an environment other than to do one's best to WP:AGF, to complain properly and carefully, and to accept potential suffering for it. However I'm essentially barred by generic threats (yes) from complaining specifically, and I'm completely certain that a generic, unsourced complaint from me (as appears to be the majority practice here) would be met with similar apparent ridicule. Further, these editors repeat each other's unsourced charges and act like there's consensus. But there has been no good-faith attempt by this bloc of editors on reaching consensus with me. Q. Is asking good-faith questions, doing one's best not to be offended, explaining why the attempted answers seem deficient a case of failing to get the point when one honestly believes one's stated views of the policies have not been seriously answered?
There's much more, but I would really appreciate you answering these 4 questions before working hard on the unblock (ordinary research expected of course). I am here to answer anything (like backup of any charges I make). While there may be exceptions to your answers, isn't it common sense that this much statement of the case is probable cause for further investigation? Not proof beyond reasonable doubt, just sufficient cause to interest you. I will only allude to the leadup events such as Athaenara's complete failure to explain the blocks meaningfully, the edit war that started the whole thing (three disjointed reversions of my sourced insertions without any explanation of their questionability, while I fully demonstrated reliability when asked), the third opinion who bowed out after difficulty answering several of the questions (I may have worn that editor down, but I thought it was a mediation route), and of course the AFD that's scheduled to close without me. I've had a rough week or more, and have only had glimmers of hope here and there, and no one willing to mentor me into how to deal with these questions. Please help. John J. Bulten (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict:)
- Sadly, I support this block. John, I know this may be tough for you to hear, but I am genuinely offering this advice from a position of good faith: If you wish to continue as a Wikipedia editor, it is very important that you tone down your rhetoric. Every time I've checked my watchlist over the last couple days, it seems like I saw you making another accusation, or that you were trying to warn or discredit anyone who disagreed with you. Your actions draw the picture of someone whose primary purpose on Wikipedia is to promote a political candidate (Ron Paul), and to intimidate other editors from undoing your edits. These long messages that you've been posting where you confuse the issue, and level counter charges and personal attacks on other editors, are not collegial behavior. It really seems to come down to a classic example of WP:SOUP. But we're not the Internal Revenue Service here -- it's not about engaging in extensive debate tactics or trying to find tiny loopholes in policy, it's about following the spirit of the policy, and working in a cooperative manner with other editors. Your behavior has already been discussed at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard, and you were already blocked once for disruption. But instead of learning from this, and acknowledging the consensus of other editors, you continued to issue personal attacks and accusations of bad faith, which further decreased your credibility.
- Please, when this block expires, if you'd like to genuinely have a voice in discussions on Wikipedia, I recommend that you:
- (1) adopt a more civil tone;
- (2) Stop throwing accusations and warnings at everyone who disagrees with you;
- (3) Show that you're interested in working on multiple topics on Wikipedia, not just the Ron Paul articles;
- (4) Avoid aggressive behavior concerning topics with which you are personally involved; and
- (5) Keep your posts short and focused.
- As I've said elsewhere, I think you have many good qualities which would make you a wonderful editor on Wikipedia. You write well, you have great attention to detail, and you have a passion for subjects that interest you. If you can figure out how to use your abilities in a way that makes you a good member of the team, I'd love to see you continue at Wikipedia. If not though, perhaps it would be best if you found some other hobby. :/ --Elonka 01:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
(See also User:John J. Bulten/DR1.) (link updated John J. Bulten (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC))
Remove autoblock request
[edit]
Got an autoblock while logged in, more than 12 hours after the related "second block" expired. Completely confused and see no reason for it, felt I should have been able to edit.
False Block
[edit]I apologize that my name appeared under your false block notice. A vandal or sock I blocked earlier must have been angered and reincarnated themselves to spam my block notices. My sincere apologies for any problems this may have caused. Happy editing! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 00:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Annoying
[edit]Please, just stay off of Wikipedia. Your edits are particularly annoying, and while you believe you are helping, it really just angers those who are actually contributing.--TheEveryone
- The preceding comment was placed at the top of my talk page at 12/21 00:53 by 65.31.197.77. I'm so glad to know my edits are so effective as to generate anonymous complaints and directives. A sure sign that one is on the right track. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Aggressive cross-posting
[edit] Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice."1, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that has resulted in blocks being issued. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Troublesome page move
[edit]The last time you moved 1 E+4 m to 1 myriametre I reverted this as the move to me appears to be breaking up an established scheme based on the dissenting notion of a single individual. I firmly believe that attempts to garner a consensus or at least posting ahead a proposal for such actions ought to be conducted. Now that you have insisted on enforcing your action again, please be advised that you have through this also created a large number of double redirects. Please take the necessary steps to follow up this situation. __meco (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Summary style
[edit]There's been some recent discussion. You mentioned that you tried to get something to work last fall. You might be interested in User_talk:Geometry_guy#Your_help_is_requested and WT:Summary style. I butted in and reverted in my role as watchdog on style-related pages; that is, I thought presenting this new idea as a fait accompli was a bad idea. I'm also supportive of the general idea, but I have very little time to push it. If you want to grab this and lead a discussion in some wider forum so we can get things moving, I'll be happy to lend support. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
iPhone recycling article notability
[edit]Hi, I've initiated a discussion on the iPhone recycling talk page regarding the notability of the article. Since you've done the most editing on the article thus far, I wanted to inform you of such. Thanks. Brianreading (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
More strange things are going on here
[edit]Don't know if this is the correct place to send you this bit of information. You may have a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification:_User:Thomas_Basboll. --Cs32en (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, will watch, but I don't see anything I am likely to have by way of contribution, and ArbCom action is not very likely. JJB 00:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Rebecca
[edit]Hi, I am following your corrections to Rebecca and would like to know where you got your Biblical dating of the ages of Jacob/Esau and Rebecca? According to the sources I cited in "Marriage and Motherhood," Rebecca was married at either 3 or 14 and had children 20 years later. This would make her either 23 or 34 years older than the twins. The age of Jacob and Esau at the time of the blessings is more straightforward. According to the Midrash, Isaac was 123 years old, and he was 60 at the time of their birth, making them 63 years old. What's your source for 77? According to the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 31:38), Jacob served Laban for 20 years, and Joseph was born right before he decided to leave (30:25). Yoninah (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- The Hebrew Bible, and I've seen it written out elsewhere but don't have that handy. I came across the claim of Rebecca married at 10 this week, but it can stay uncited until I come across it again. The blessing could have occurred with Isaac at 123 with a 14-year gap afterward (though the text seems to make Jacob's departure more immediate). The source for 77, and thus Isaac at 137, is that Joseph was unquestionably 39 when Jacob was 130, and Joseph was born at the 14-year mark of Jacob's career, not the 20-year mark, because he separated the flocks that day and worked 6 years for them (30:35, 31:41). (This might admit a gap pushing the birth of Joseph a couple years later, but not 6, and not enough to support the combined assumptions that the Midrash is correct at 123 AND there is no gap afterward.) Thanks for your interest! Please let me know if there is anything needing further correction as the article stands. If I come across further sources I will add them. JJB 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like you know your Bible verses very well. Do you study Rashi too? On Genesis 25:17, Rashi cites Rabbi Chiya in Yevamot 6a, who says that Ishmael's age at death is reckoned here in order to help date various events in Jacob's life. Esau married the daughter of Ishmael right after Jacob left (28:9), and that verse stresses that she is "the daughter of Ishmael, son of Abraham, sister of Nebaiot", because Ishmael died between the engagement and the wedding and her brother gave her away (Rashi, quoting Megillah 17a). Abraham was born in year 1948 (from creation) and had Ishmael when he was 86 (year 2034) and Isaac when he was 100 (year 2048). Isaac had Jacob and Esau when he was 60 (year 2108). Ishmael died at 137 (year 2171). In 2171, Jacob and Esau were 63 years old.
- One cannot rely just on the text (the Written Torah) without looking at the rabbinic commentaries (the Oral Torah). The above calculations show up a missing 14 years which would get you to Jacob being 77 when he enters Laban's house. Rabbi Chiya explains that Jacob spent 14 years in the yeshiva of Shem and Eber after leaving his parents and before entering Laban's house. Yoninah (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
WQA notice
[edit]This is to notify you that your actions have been brought up at WQA. Padillah (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Please don't stir
[edit]This edit summary is really not helpful. (Nor, do I think, is your talk page setup, but that's another issue).
Please stop telling editors they are not editing in good faith (you know what you're doing). Moreover, telling an editor you will "fix" edits they have made, with which you do not agree, is not on here and may be taken as a personal attack. Comment only on sources and content, not on other editors. If you carry on hinting that good faith editors are not editing in good faith and/or making personal attacks, sooner or later you will be blocked so please do save everyone some time and worry, stop now. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The article Intrawar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Intrawar and interwar mean opposite things, so this is a blatantly wrong redirect. It was already deleted for this reason, and the previous creator has recreated it.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Phoenixrod (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violations
[edit]Copyright problems with File:Dismantled Sony and Compaq laptops.jpg
[edit]
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Dismantled Sony and Compaq laptops.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Dismantled Sony and Compaq laptops.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Dismantled Sony and Compaq laptops.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Dismantled Sony and Compaq laptops.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-en
wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions. - If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Dismantled Sony and Compaq laptops.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Dismantled Sony and Compaq laptops.jpg.
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Dismantled Sony and Compaq laptops.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-en
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you.
Copyright problems with File:Recycling at Cash For Laptops affiliate.jpg
[edit]
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Recycling at Cash For Laptops affiliate.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Recycling at Cash For Laptops affiliate.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Recycling at Cash For Laptops affiliate.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Recycling at Cash For Laptops affiliate.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Recycling at Cash For Laptops affiliate.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Recycling at Cash For Laptops affiliate.jpg.
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Recycling at Cash For Laptops affiliate.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-en
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. VictorianMutant (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Intrawar listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Intrawar. Since you had some involvement with the Intrawar redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Phoenixrod (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
RFC
[edit]I added you to the list, since you're clearly involved. Come join the fun. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I've taken this to ANI
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Gadsby: Champion of Youth. Thank you. Padillah (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Warning
[edit]As you have certainly seen, there has been a very clear consensus on the recent ANI discussion regarding your "lipogram" editing at Gadsby: Champion of Youth and related pages that your campaign about lipogram editing needs to stop. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any acknowledgment from you that you have taken this message on board; instead, after you commented on that discussion, you made this edit to Ernest Vincent Wright. This is unacceptable, and the fact that the "debate" about your shenanigans on the article talk page has lasted for over a year shows your conduct has crossed the line into disruptive editing. Therefore, I'm afraid I have to make this quite unmistakably clear by way of administrator intervention: if I should see you again making any edit to those articles that demonstrably damages or sacrifices natural English wording in favour of avoiding "e"s, or if you further pursue the issue by pressing for "e"-less wordings in talk page discussion, you will be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Vin Wright listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vin Wright. Since you had some involvement with the Vin Wright redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). pablo 15:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Please don't
[edit]I see you've been previously warned for making posts like this; please consider this your absolute final warning. Lipograms are an amusing diversion, and the idea of writing about a lipogram in lipogrammatic language is an amusing one. However we cannot use it on the project, as the various discussions have made clear. (We had a similar situation on the Kurt Vonnegut article a few years ago when the subject died and dozens of enthusiastic editors all thought it would be amusing to add "So it goes." to the article. This was a catchphrase the subject used in his work in relation to death. It wasn't added to the article.) We have I think reached the point where your continuing to raise the matter on the talk page is annoying people. It will lead to nothing good if you continue to advocate like this. Please don't. --John (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- JJB, I think that a bunch of editors, including some admins, have acted improperly in preventing any further discussion on this topic. This is not a case of one tendentious editor but a difference of opinion involving many editors on each side. Those suppressing discussion of the topic have used Aunt Sally (straw man) arguments to make their case.
- The only way forward I can see is Arbcom. This is really about two things. Mob rule by admins and 'new editors' who feel that they have the right to arbitrate on matters of style, and freedom to discuss the most appropriate style of style of an article, bearing in mind its importance and notability. I have nothing against working to produce high quality, readable, encyclopedic articles but sometimes special circumstances mean that it might be better to ignore all the rules, (even if there is no rule requiring the letter 'e' to be used in all WP articles).
- It is quite possible that the case will be thrown out by Arbcom or that they rule against us, in which case we have to move on, but I think it is at least worth a try. This is actually an important principle about the future of WP. Shall we give it a go? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- This might be a better venue, if you insist that this is merely an issue of style. pablo 12:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is a matter of fundamental importance to WP. We already have ignore all the rules. If ever there was a case to at least discuss this Gadsby is it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh there has been a lot of discussion already. I do think that my suggestion above is a good one if you wish to discuss further, but don't let me dissuade you from an Arbcom case. pablo 12:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Concur. An RFC at the WPTMOS is the correct place for this. It is too big a divergence for an article level RFC to work and Arbcom will reject it out of hand. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 19:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think you people are missing the point. I am not suggesting that we ask Arbcom to support a lipogram just to support continued, relevant, civil discussion on the subject on the article talk page. This is the way disputes should be resolved on WP rather than by threats of blocks. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- See you at Arbcom then. pablo 22:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Concur. An RFC at the WPTMOS is the correct place for this. It is too big a divergence for an article level RFC to work and Arbcom will reject it out of hand. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 19:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh there has been a lot of discussion already. I do think that my suggestion above is a good one if you wish to discuss further, but don't let me dissuade you from an Arbcom case. pablo 12:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- This is a matter of fundamental importance to WP. We already have ignore all the rules. If ever there was a case to at least discuss this Gadsby is it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- This might be a better venue, if you insist that this is merely an issue of style. pablo 12:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Martin, I think cabal would work, but I am in two situations with it now anyway, so I might wait. JJB 22:58, 31 Oct 2010 (UTC)
- I do not think so. They are essentially advisory. I think we have a problem here with admins overstepping the mark. We nee to go to the top, or give up. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
This is my list of points.
- Admins mistook our paradigm (admin FPAS mistook ANI, and contributor Bali mistook FPAS, and admin John mistook both I think) and thus wind up arguing in favor of a nonlipogram camp and against us, but should stay NPOV. As you say, Aunt Sally and strawman, and in a major suit.
- Admins spat out block warnings that prohibit any of my contributions; I cannot fix inaccuracy at all. (Is its pagination 136 or 260? Is its subtitling as in first graf or as in photo? I could put down a long list.) I am afraid to fix anything, inasmuch as my account's goodwill is hurt if I run into a block of any kind, so this is an actual prohibition to my improving this topic, not to my suppositional disruption.
- Along with introduction of such inaccuracy, irrational quick abolition of such good links as manual typing and aught-six (but not aught-four) by admin OhNoItsJimmy is uncritical swatting a fly with a blowtorch.
- I try compromising by acting as if I'm in conflict, that is, putting my contributions on talk first, but that too did not fly with this crowd.
- My right to limit my contributions to a subgroup of phrasings that is lipogrammatic, and my right to not say anything if I don't know of any lipogram that would actually count as improving, is basic, but is thought out of play by our last contributor influx.
- "Ignoring all rulings" is as old as WP, and Ima Hogg was in fact an FA on April Fool's Day, with a full-graf blurb fully as roundabout as, say, "Vin Wright" or David Crystal's phrasing "Cat in a Hat". But this is not my main point, in that I think it would not stand if anybody was arguing WP:CON did not today support this. From 2004 until last month it was first sixty-forty in favor of lipogram and, at last, "no con", which supports "prior con"; but if this ANI was waking up anybody who wants to slay a "dragon" of IAR, that might support a finding of WP:CCC, so this point is not as strong.
- My right to talk in lipogram is not in conflict with WP:TALK if I am working as hard as anybody at making my words plain and communicating with crystal clarity.
But in short, if I'm at risk of block just for asking about my right to fix inaccuracy, if I'm at risk of block just for saying what I'm saying right now, this is out of joint. And, still, I'm also afraid that Arbcom might find, or by lack of input allow admins to find, that contribution in lipogram is always, always, at risk of not working out most satisfactorily for WP. (But WP's Gadsby today still contains this: "As a nod to Wright, La Disparation contains an Oxford don and Auctor Honoris Causa known as "Lord Gadsby V. Wright",[14] a "grand anglais savant" and tutor to protagonist Anton Voyl, or Vowl; a composition of Voyl's is actually a quotation from Gadsby.[5]" So did all our influx contributors find that nobody could do any improving on this thought? This was our most satisfactory phrasing for it? If so, that canard is totally a no-go.) Why don't you wait half a month or so, and start Arbcom in your own idiom, and I'll follow? And do you want any assist on Monty Hall as long as I'm asking? JJB 04:08, 1 Nov 2010 (UTC)
- As explained above, it is the right to continue to discuss the topic that I want to fight for. Arbcom do not usually rule on disputes over article content but mainly do so on editor conduct. There seems to be a trend for admins to use their power beyond its originaly intended purpose, which was to enforce the consensus and prevent incivility. They may also be expected to prevent single tendentious editors for continuing to flood the article or talk page with the same argument. I quick look at the talk page history will show that this is not the case for Gadsby. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- As someone who copyedited the article, JJB, let me note that I didn't change that sentence because it was basically incomprehensible on a first pass. I can't copyedit for clarity what I can't make heads or tails of. However, since it bothers you that that wasn't edited, I've rolled it around in my head and given it another shot just now. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah.. here is the problem; My right to limit my contributions to a subgroup of phrasings that is lipogrammatic, and my right to not say anything if I don't know of any lipogram that would actually count as improving, is basic, but is thought out of play by our last contributor influx., no such rights exist. You are asked by guidelines to contribute in the best English available to you. On another note; IAR is not a license to do what you fancy. This is a common misconception.--Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 11:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Cabal what?
[edit]"I'm in two other cabal cases right now, one with Dylan Flaherty".
You are? Where's this? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring
[edit]I reverted your changes to Joshua as per WP:BRD. Unfortunately, although your edit comment says something about discussing the change, you counter-reverted. Particularly given that you've written nothing on the Discussion page, this is a form of edit-warring. Please stop. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- It seems that you are continuing to edit war. Your current tactic is to respond to reversions of your bold (and unwanted) changes by claiming that everyone else but you has "defaulted", so it's ok for you to repeat your error. No matter how you serve that up, it looks like edit-warring to me. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- As the night comes to an end, the tally of your edits is weighted heavily towards unconstructive changes in violation of consensus. Some have been fixed, others will be fixed later, but the underlying problem is your hostile, uncooperative attitude. You seem to be convinced that you WP:OWN these pages and can therefore set the terms of the discussion. This will only lead to unhappiness for you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Personal attacks and edit warring
[edit]You have been around long enough that I assume you are familiar with both the No personal attacks and the Edit warring policies. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with them if you are not, as this edit violates both. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- His follow-up comment on the talk page was also uncivil. Dylan Flaherty 00:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dylan Flaherty, but given that your edits at that article and talkpage are also far from being above reproach, I am not sure that this comment is necessarily productive. Have there been any efforts at dispute resolution at those articles, such as requesting comment from the community at large or from a specific WikiProject? - 2/0 (cont.) 01:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Welcome, 2over0. I have reviewed the edit and am unable to determine the personal attack or the edit warring, as I have stated on the history article's talk page. You might be interested to know that ever since 21-22 Sep (two full months), Dylan and another editor have been very protective of the edits in a single edit set, and that edit's treatment of pigs in particular has not been addressed in these two months of active mediation attempts, including "BRD, BURDEN, and NOR, ... AGF, ABF, DISCUSSION, DISENGAGE, WARN, 3O, RFC, MEDCAB, ANEW, and NORN" (Archive 2; somebody has set archiving to 14 days, understandably). JJB 02:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleting warnings doesn't make you look good.
[edit]While you're allowed to delete warnings, doing so without a response makes it look like (1) you don't care about the warning and are likely to continue the actions you were warned about and/or (b) trying to hide evidence of your bad behavior. Either way, it doesn't make you look good. I think it would be more beneficial if you responded to the warnings, whether to refute them or (ideally) accept personal responsibility for your actions and pledge not to repeat them. Just my attempt helpful advice; I suspect you'll delete it out of hand. Dylan Flaherty 02:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- This might be addressed by your (1) using "edit this page" instead of "new section", (2) reading user summaries, or (3) reviewing user contributions, any of which would have shown you what is going on. JJB 02:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
A basic rule for verifiability...
[edit]...if you don't know what a source says, then don't cite it (or edit on the basis of it)
I know that's not in fact in WP:Verifiability -- the writers of it probably thought it was so obvious as to be covered by WP:Competency is required. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
May 2012 1
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- note that 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. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I have mentioned your name at WP:ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Prequel dispute
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
May 2012 2
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view 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. Dmcq (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at wp:Summary style 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. Dmcq (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Sticking in stuff saying people may create non-notable article is simply wrong and I said so twice to you. That is basic policy please follow WP:PGCHANGE especially don't stick in such contradictions to basic policy and WP:5P. Dmcq (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Pot Calling Kettle?
[edit]Really? you're going to make an off topic attack on me after I've explicitly linked and quoted the policy? Based on the fact that we have editors from completely outside the conversation dropping in and confirming assertions made at Agent00f and youself, might it be a good idea to evaluate your own actions in relation to the policies? "Let he who is without..." Hasteur (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:DTTR Hasteur (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Complaint at AN/I
[edit]I have raised a complaint about your behaviour at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_edits_by_User:John_J._Bulten Dmcq (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
[edit]Hello.
I have noticed that you have undone my edit to that page. The explanation was reasonable, but I will explain why I do not entirely agree with it.
- In Wikipedia articles (or other material), even if an acronym is defined in the title, it is often repeated in the text for clarity. Perhaps we can state "point of view fork" first, and then state that it is often abbreviated "POV fork".
- The hyphen may have been negligible, but it was not particularly correct. The formal way to note a content fork on Wikipedia is "content fork", evident by the title of the relevant page, Wikipedia:Content forking, rather than Wikipedia:Content-forking, which does not even exist. 76.251.28.21 (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Brown (talk • contribs) 18:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)