User talk:Causa sui/Archive11

Lewontin's fallacy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You recently closed the AfD on Lewontin's fallacy. User:Maunus, in conjunction with User:AndyTheGrump have now moved the article to Lewontin's Argument, which completely changes the subject of the article, as it is meant to be about an academic paper that is a response to Lewontin's Argument and not Lewontin's argument itself. That's a different article that is yet to be written. When I pointed this out, the two of them in this section here started saying that the subject of the academic paper is non-notable, which is against the consensus in the AfD, and that the title of the paper is not neutral, even though the title is what it is. My proposal is to move the title to Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy, which is the full title of the paper, as that should minimize the confusion or any POVness about calling it just a fallacy. However, that title has already been made a redirect and requires an administrator to delete it in order for it to be moved. Can you do this? Silver seren^C 00:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now they are trying, in this series of edits] to make the subject of the article be about Lewontin's paper, which is an entirely different subject and, as discussed at the AfD, should be in a different article. Silver seren^C 01:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I point out that 'they' have done no such thing. My only edit to the article since I proposed it for AfD on the 11th of July was my addition of the {{POV-title}} template - and note that this issue was debated even before the AfD, and that User:Miradre (a major contributor, and vocal supporter of the article) stated that he would "quickly change the title" [1] - this was in March, and nobody seems to have objected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend enforce the AFD closure or act in future content disputes related to the article. If another user feels that some content changes are inappropriately in contradiction to the AFD discussion, they are welcome to enforce them as they see fit, and through the usual channels. Regards, causa sui (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opinion or advice needed

I want to ask you about how to handle certain situations which I have come across lately and from the looks of it I might be encountering in the future. I will use the plate armour article as an example. while reading the article I noticed that most of the information in the article was about European plate armour which I can understand as that is the most published type of armour. Since I have an interest in Japanese and samurai warfare I decided to add some pertinent and referenced information about the Japanese use of plate armour, this is a well know and documented fact that can easily be checked on through the references I provided in the text I introduced to the article. As soon as I added my text on the Japanese use of plate armour to the article I met with immediate resistance from one editor who gave me the impression that he considered the article to be only about European plate armour.

"did you notice how there is no European armour article? More specifically, no European armour of the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance? The reason for this is that this article is located at Plate armour"

I seem to be seeing the same response to other articles that I have added information about the Japanese version of the subject of the article as in saddle and possibly stirrup.

When I look at the title of these articles they do not appear to be only open to information on a certain cultures objects, rather I see the title being about a broad range of information open to whoever has relevant and informed information on the subject. Now if the title of the articles were for example European plate armour or European stirrups I could understand someones insisting that the majority of the information be based on European centered information, but in the cases I have mentioned and a few others I will probably be running into in the near future I want to have some sort of idea what is and what is not an appropriate response to editors who feel that "THEIR" article is being violated by a foreign culture.

I was under the impression that if someone added referenced text that was within the scope of the article it was not appropriate for an editor to delete the information as this would be considered to be vandalism and that such a deletion could be reverted.....Am I incorrect in believing this? And if so what is the best method to deal with this situation. I did not think that I would be required or forced to seek arbitration etc every time I want to edit an article that another editor believes belongs only to the particular culture they are interested in even though the title of the article is not based on any particular culture.

What would be the steps that you recommend that I should take in the future based on your experience with Wikipedia if I have a similar problem in the future? I have read the guides on editing and vandalism that I could find but I did not see an example that matched this situation so any advice or help you can provide in finding the best method for dealing these types of problems would be appreciated.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't been able to respond to you. Practically, it's hard to make heads or tails of this narrative without diffs and Wikilinks to talk page discussions. Consider that what you've posted here only represents your point of view and so it would be difficult for me to give you advice based on any important details that you might have missed. Can you add some citations to this so that I can investigate? causa sui (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

causa, I'm one of the people involved with the saddle and stirrup articles. The spat at saddle you are familiar with because you locked down the article (at my request, and you warned both me and Samurai about our behavior). There, the issue was not at all about adding appropriate data about Japanese saddles, the reversion issue was over improper linking that is discouraged by WP:MOS and a minor WP:UNDUE concern. I believe that the text there is stable and Samurai's additional material itself accepted. At stirrup, the material added was initially also subject to a WP:UNDUE problem, but the bigger issue was punctuation, grammar and sourcing. On that article I believe the issue was solved and Samurai accepted some relevant copyediting, with his contributions also accepted. I have no position on the plate armor article but note in passing that I noticed it seems to be getting some discussion on Samurai's talk page. I am of the view that it is Samurai's approach to criticism rather than his content additions that are the problem here. I believe that the correct answer to his questions is "take the issue to the talk page." His passion for his topic is clear, but he might get a little carried away. Montanabw^(talk) 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Verkhovskaya

Please contact me directly regarding this wiki site. You can also contact me via hiller@anl.gov. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiller17 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I hope you enjoy this cookie as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm writing to inquire about the deletion of the article 'Vietnam Green Building Council'.

This page should not be speedy deleted because it provides information about an organization working to promote green construction and sustainable development in Vietnam. The organization focuses on researching, developing rating tools for green buildings and the tools are free to access to anyone interested in adopting green building practices. In addition it provides an open directory of green products and services to the public and industry professionals so that they can have more options for going green. The organization also provides training course to educate the public and the industry professionals about sustainable development and green constructions and to raise awareness people's awareness about environmental issues. Currently this organization is the only non-profit organization working to promote green building practices in Vietnam. The organization has contributed to the development of the Vietnam's green building environment and played an important role in environment protection and sustainable development in Vietnam.

The organization is a member of the Green Building Council. The article is the same as other articles about other Green Building Council such as the Australian Green Building Council, US Green Building Council, Indian Green Building Council.

I believe that the organization's activities are for a good cause of environmental protection, sustainable development and climate change mitigation. Therefore the information about the organization is very useful for those who are interested to know more about sustainable development in Vietnam and it is necessary to maintain the article. Please review the article again and let me know if I should edit or change any thing with the article content.

Thank you for your consideration. Thevgbcteam (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Anders Behring Breivik

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anders Behring Breivik. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alprazolam

I am missing any discussion at the resolution board. Obviously there are no contradicting opinions. 70.137.133.232 (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is relatively new. If we don't get any outside opinions, it may be time for an article content request for comment. causa sui (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious, that it is sufficient that two IPs show up and blindly revert every edit, without discussion and comment, to trigger a lengthy process and lock the article for extended time? This seems to be an intrinsic weakness of the system. I'll try that out. 70.137.158.46 (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I should semi protect the article? causa sui (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't say that. What I am saying is, that disruptive editors can simply run a denial of service attack like that, if you cannot tell a content dispute apart from disruptive blind reversal of whatever edits in this case. I believe the current version of the article is ok. 70.137.131.90 (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's unprotected. So maybe the dispute is resolved de facto. causa sui (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I still see it as protected. Can you check? 70.137.131.90 (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could edit it and now the protection tag has disappeared. A quirk of the caching system, that the protection doesn't remove itself on expiration of the protection? 70.137.131.90 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sometimes you have to purge the cache. causa sui (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, I tried that (clear firefox cache) but it still showed the old state. Only editing it in spite of shown protection cleared the old state and removed protection. That probably means that expiration of the protection does not properly get reached down the storage hierarchy on the Wiki side. Maybe a bugzilla case. There is a similar bug in bugzilla, where the caching is not correctly handled for IP editors. 70.137.131.90 (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try the purge function, by adding &action=purge at the end of the article URL.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, folks. 70.137.134.93 (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The technical protection is separate from the padlock icon. The former is what actually controls editability and has automatic expiration and other settings according to the admin who sets the protection. The latter is just normal page content that someone (or some bot) has to remember to change when the protection status changes. DMacks (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that explains it. I thought it is coupled. 70.137.134.93 (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

70.137, one item on the DRV is what several have said elsewhere: if you created a named account, it would be trivial for an uninvolved admin to prevent IPs (such as ones who blindly edit-war and/or contradict cited sources) from editing, without affecting your ability to make edits. That seems like a really simple solution to implement and doesn't require lengthy discussion on notice-boards. DMacks (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I understood Wiki policy would not favor to put IP editors at a disadvantage. There must be a practical problem with that policy if de facto you need to login and semi-protect to avoid that articles go ape shit. 70.137.134.93 (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't black and white. We don't (or shouldn't) use semi-protection just to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes. But disruptive or abusing editing is a different animal. Often, if all of the abuse is coming from IPs, the article may be semi-protected to prevent abuse with the assumption (or crossed fingers) that people who are serious about improving the encyclopedia will register accounts to get around it. causa sui (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is the classical model of collateral damage. If the abuse comes from IPs, you lock all IPs out. The constructive ones become collateral damage, if they don't register, or pledge an oath of allegiance. Just like in real life. 70.137.159.221 (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Causa sui. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
Message added 19:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm using TB here because I don't think you watch that page, fyi. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: English correction

Thank you, I didn't know how to express myself correctly. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Causa sui. You have new messages at MikeGracia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MikeGracia has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Yoü and I

Hello Causa sui. I decided to semiprotect this article, which was showing up in the 'resolved' section at RFPP since you'd raised a question about it. Feel free to review my protection and undo it if you disagree. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Republican Party (United States)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Republican Party (United States). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A award for you!

		The Userpage Shield
		When I was first starting out on Wikipedia, you reverted vandalisim on my talk page with Huggle. Here's a barnstar to thank you! Nathan2055 ^talk 18:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Michael Lewis

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Michael Lewis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note of thanks

I wanted to thank you for the edit you provided on a page that describes my "15 minutes of fame" work Christopher_Rose_(electrical_engineer). Changing one word "showed" --> "argued" was powerful and accurate. Subsequent suggestions to add citations were also useful (by another wiki editor). Since you folks are generally unsung (and maybe even elicit complaints from various quarters) I simply wanted to offer a pat on the back in thanks. Cheers, --Chris (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It's good to hear from you again -- last we talked, I was going by the name "malathion" around these parts. I'm glad to see you're still on Wikipedia and participating in your own way. As for the article changes, you're very welcome. We've found that it is often helpful to the article subjects to be reserved in our judgments about things like this, since removing the appearance of leading the reader to a particular conclusion allows them to enjoy the process of freely pursuing knowledge. And while adding citations to the articles primarily improves the reliability of the content, it has the terrific side-effect of giving readers an efficient "further reading" section to delve deeper into subjects that we can't cover comprehensively.

Editing Wikipedia is definitely not a way to enrich oneself personally, but the feeling of sharing knowledge can be deeply rewarding. I recall when I was in college, a friend of mine told me that she'd read an article on Wikipedia that had helped her understand a difficult philosophical topic (my area of specialization) -- I hope you can imagine my reaction when I realized that unbeknownst to her I had written most of the article. From your own work, you might understand that there's nothing like knowing that people out there are expanding their knowledge and curiosity through the work we do; but the thanks (though they may be further between) go a long way, too. :-) causa sui (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poulenc

There are (of course) unsourced mistakes in the very poor page there was before I improved it. These mistakes never caused any concern. How come so many people now want to protect mistakes, and will never waste time checking my facts ? It's as simple as clicking on a wikipedia link. Maintaining the old Poulenc page as it is is just plain ridiculous. As for discarding my changes... Please VERIFY the facts in the old page, and VERIFY the facts in the new one. Is that too hard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.64.92.224 (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shroffameen

Hi, regarding User:Shroffameen, a warning (only/single) for copyright violation was given here on 1 August. PanIIT, which was an unambiguous copyvio, was moved to userspace 15 August. Apart from the fact that this editor is showing signs of either serious incompetence or trolling, what other warnings should he have been given for copyvios? --Beloved Freak 20:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC I declined to block not because of insufficient warnings, but because there was no disruption since the warning. Blocks are preventative and not punitive, so if a warning did the trick, that is just as good (or better). causa sui (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get that blocks are preventative, but does the creation of articles that are wholly copyright violations not count as disruption (whether intentional or based on misunderstanding)? I don't understand what the point is in saying "don't do this again or you'll get blocked" if it's not really true. (Don't mean to sound petulant, just find it a little frustrating...) --Beloved Freak 22:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think something is getting lost in translation. Adding copyvios is disruptive, and people who continue to add them after warnings will be blocked. However, I won't block someone for future disruption unless it occurred after a final warning. If it happens again, let me know and I'll push the button. causa sui (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which final warning? There is only one warning for copyright violations; {{Uw-copyright}} is a single-issue warning. Perhaps I am missing something - are you saying that we are supposed to give additional (levels 1-4) warnings? I have never encountered that expectation when dealing copyright violations before, so I apologise if I have been barking up the wrong tree. --Beloved Freak 22:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are missing something. I am not suggesting that you add additional warnings after {{uw-copyright}}. I am suggesting that I won't block for adding copyrighted material unless it was done after someone left a {{uw-copyright}} warning. causa sui (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But... they did. Don't worry, I'm going away now, this is clearly going nowhere.--Beloved Freak 07:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why didn't you say so? :-) Anyway, if it happens again, re-report it. Thanks. causa sui (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did, first paragraph of this thread (and at the AIV report). Anyway, we've obviously been at cross-purposes here, misunderstandings happen... he's been blocked for 2 weeks now anyway, so no worries.--Beloved Freak 18:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...

Since you deleted Blog:Hello, I figured I would let you know that this same person also created Category:Blogs from WikiBlogger61. LikeLakers2 (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's taken care of. causa sui (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Web design @ RFPP

I am over turning your decision on Web design at RFPP which you classified as not enough disruptive activity (NEA) to justify protection. I have to agree that most of the last long list of edits could be prevented and when policies are being violated, I think it's enough to justify the protection. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to notify me, but thanks for thinking of it anyway. causa sui (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Poulenc

Hi,

I added the little lock symbol to the top corner of this page after you protected it. An IP has got confused and accused me of protecting the page and questing the choice to protect it over on my talk page even though I am not an admin here. Just letting you know so you can review there comments over on my talk page as in reality its questioning the choice you made. They clearly don't understand how things work here. Also any chance you can protect my talk page temp semi as I don't really want them coming back with talk page edits about something I did not do. Thanks(Ruth-2013 (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Pointing them to the protection policy will help, hopefully. I can't protect your talk page pre-emptively but if it turns into harassment you can ask to have your userspace pages protected at RFPP. Good luck, causa sui (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Anders Behring Breivik

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anders Behring Breivik. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Anders Breivik

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anders Breivik. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point D

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This got a little long, so I decided not to post it in the main discussion, but here's the explanation, as requested:

This is a perfect example of why 3RR is a problem when admins can't apply common sense to individual situations. Martin definitely had no basis for removing the image, and the other editor had all the basis to restore it. There is no "right side" to an edit war but Martin was in the wrong content-wise, had started the war, and was absolutely propagating it. The fact that he didn't violate 3RR (because another editor took part in the war on his side) is the only reason he wasn't blocked (according to the blocking admin). 3RR is clear that users who edit war without violating 3RR can still be blocked. This is the textbook example of why that provision exists! Every ounce of common sense says that both parties should have been blocked, and if you're only going to block one, don't make it an absurdly long 24 hours while letting the other editor get off scot-free. Swarm ^{u | t} 21:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough response. I wasn't aware of any blocks for edit warring. Who got blocked and by whom? causa sui (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polozooza, blocked for 24 hours by Favonian. Discussion. Swarm ^{u | t} 21:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. FWIW, had it been me, I would have blocked both parties or none at all. Still, in my opinion, it's within the discretion of the sysop. 3RR is a bright line. The best way to avoid selective enforcement of 3RR is to stay out of edit wars. causa sui (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you- Favonian didn't do anything wrong, I just think it could've been handled a lot better. Swarm ^{u | t} 22:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad I was not the only person who noticed this. I am very glad you did, Swarm. I was unaware of doing anything wrong untill the moment I got blocked for 24 hours - which is rather long considering it was my first block. This disabled me from participating in the ongoing discussion(s). Polozooza (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained to Swarm, I don't think this is a good time for you to display indignation. A 24-hour block is standard for WP:3RR, and you were warned more than once to stop reverting. Now is a good time to indicate that you understand what you did wrong and will avoid edit warring in the future. Regards, causa sui (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was warned once in the Breivik case. Martin Hogbin removed the image (three times). I placed it back (also three times). Then HE went to the Administrator's Noticeboard, resulting in ME being blocked. Before that, we both got a warning (this was after we had both reverted each other's edits three times). After the first and only warning, both of us stopped. Yet I was the only one blocked. Polozooza (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Don't get me wrong; I do not intend on editing the page any more, or to engage in any other "edit war". I just feel like I have been treated unfairly and we should have both been blocked. Polozooza (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, Causa sui. You have new messages at Pax:Vobiscum's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mhakcm

Hi,

I assume info you have or can see tells you I am new to editing and I am not sure of many things so I hope you can guide me or be a mentor. I have come across two problems:

1. In an article I edited a few days ago my computer was somehow deleting words [ebay] in the article that I did not even know was happening is this some thing you have come across? I was informed I had done so and the edit was undone which I am glad about as I was NOT intending to vandalise the eBay article, but improve a bit about VAT mentioned therein.

2.Sodomy article on Islamic aspect is totally distorted as it mentions only Shia and not Sunni view which comprise 90% of world Muslim population. But I can't seem to be able to edit it. Do I need an administrator approval?

Please advise. I assume your reply comes to YOUR talk page?

Mhakcm (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to answer any of these questions without direct links to the articles. Please find the article titles and link them using two brackets: for example, [[Earth]] yields Earth. causa sui (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]