User talk:John G. Miles

Welcome!

Hello, John G. Miles, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I fear that you need to be made aware of WP:3RR. Please be sure to familiarise yourself with it William M. Connolley (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I had read the 3RR policy (while trying to figure out what "rv" meant in the edit comments sections) and think I understand it. To date, I count 2 reversions during my time here and am allowed an additional one within a 24 hour period, correct? (John G. Miles (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Close. 4 in 24h is an automatic block. But there is no entitlement to 3 William M. Connolley (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to stick by Wiki policies, so bear with my questions here:

• I have currently only made 2 reverts, correct (I'm trying to make sure I'm not missing anything here and thought the "close" comment might mean you disagree)?

• I understand there are other circumstances (though I'm sure not even close to a full understanding) where the 3 reverts rule does not apply. I assume as admin that you will let me know if you think I've even come close to crossing some criterion line (and what you feel that criterion was and why), well before it devolves into anything petty or worse, so that things can flow civilly and in good faith here.

• I have noticed that reverts are often made with the "m" or "minor" edit checked. It seems a revert of a non-minor edit would, by definition, also be non-minor (i.e., significant change in meaning, etc.). Why is this not the case? And could you point me to the appropriate Wiki policy(ies).

My greatest concern is that the BLP, especially, and other Wiki policies be strictly adhered to (as has been imposed on me--but I appreciate the learning experience). I believe living persons, especially, deserve respect (and the benefit of the doubt in disputes) and that the BLP not be a means for opponents to try to undermine someone's credibility simply because they hold strongly opposing views to the LP being bio'ed.

My main goal here is to add important content and context and to make sure the article is strictly neutral, with no POVs expressed or insinuated. All I expect is that standards be applied equally to any user/admin in the editing arena, with strict neutrality shown in all user/admin actions, editing or otherwise. (John G. Miles (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Just as a reminder - you actually broke 3RR on the Singer article today. Please be more carefull. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I was actually being extremely careful, as the above request for info (though not supplied by you) and counting the "undo"s on my history list demonstrate. Could you please indicate by time-stamp the reverts you had in mind to help me understand where you're coming from.

I won't bother trying to track down the version of the page - but "one of the founding members" is a partial revert back to an old version of the article. The 3 additional reverts/undos are marked as such. If you are going against the 3RR wall, then you have to be absolutely certain. The better way is to try to get consensus on talk before reverting again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume you had to "track down" the information before the "be careful" comment was made. A quick copy & paste would have done the job. It's hard to be careful regarding something for which someone refuses to provide specific cites, especially when confusion is noted and more info is requested, as it simply would have helped me resolve the issue in my own head (as I still count only 3 reverts in toto). But I may be slow.

Be that as it may, I keep having to take substantial time to do research on Wiki policies every time I read another editor's revert comment or when I get a "be careful" or other message regarding 3RR, so I don't mind asking someone to take a quick few minutes to help me out with the basis for their particular comment. Anyway, the policies are pretty fresh in my mind as far as that goes. As I understand it, there is a specific exception to the 3RR rule for unsourced material in BLPs and removing unsourced material is one of those exceptions requiring "immediate" deletion (Wiki's emphasis, not mine). So I assume I can continue to revert unsourced material which includes facts that cannot be substantiated. --John G. Miles (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As a sidenote: The assumption that the NIPCC is an organization by itself, is as far as i can see original research, we have (so far seen) no indication that its more than a "smart" name that SEPP invented to publish the report under. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the original research policy, but again, this is a red herring. I have not claimed the NIPCC is anything in the article. I simply added additional sourced information about it since it was already there. So we need to keep the discussion to unsourced material in the article--discussions require no sourcing. The very group of people who keep reverting the changes and, given the history of the article, should be more knowledgeable on WP:BLP and its exceptions than someone who's just arrived, should, in fact, have already corrected it--especially the admin who actually took the side of keeping the unsourced material in the article--instead of fighting it. Certainly no one could have missed the prominent BLP box on the Singer discussion page emphasizing the immediacy with which unsubstantiated claims must be removed). --John G. Miles (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re the warmings: please don't take them as an assertion that you have or intend to break the rules. They are just warnings. Re 3RR/BLP: the interaction between these two is difficult. People have used BLP as justification for their own preferred reverts; they usually get blocked. The general rule is, that if its sufficiently obviously BLP-immune to 3RR then you won't need to risk 3RR by doing it: other people will: post on the BLP noticeboard if you want more attention William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I didn't take it as an assertion of intent to break the rules. And I was also trying to be very careful to stick to policy, asked those concerned to point out where I had actually broken 3RR (as I was honestly trying to keep very close track), but no one would help me out in this particular regard. As should be clear, I am still not familiar with all the "dispute" avenues available, so thanks for the ref to the BLP noticeboard.

I'm also not sure "others" would have reverted an "obviously BLP-immune" issue -- those trying to make Singer's bio NPOV honestly seem few and far between (one needs only examine the history of edits to see the problem). And I'm hoping others would also be proactive in taking an issue to the BLP noticeboard before taking harsh (and possibly unnecessary) measures or taking an adversarial view towards any particular editor--I'm assuming that it's not incumbent on someone trying to remove POV material or add NPOV material to be the one to do so. But again, perhaps I'm uninformed here and would be glad to be corrected and directed toward the appropriate policy. I'm here to make an honest and good faith contribution. I'm also assuming others aren't using "warnings" as a pretext to block those they disagree with. If the BLP exceptions to the 3RR rule apply, I don't see why the exceptions should not be followed faithfully by everyone when truly unsourced, controversial material is at issue. Reverts in those situations would be an obvious effort at pushing a POV, it seems to me. I am also assuming, of course, that the BLP explicit exceptions, as written and accepted by Wiki as policy, are the most important rules of thumb. I would hope that as long as I play by the rules in good faith, I'll be okay. But if anyone thinks I should take a particular action, I would hope they would let me or other editors know in good faith as well, rather than as a blunt force weapon to make editors tow a particular preference imposed by any other editor. Not that it's being done, only that I can see it as a temptation.

I'd also still be interested for your opinion on this point I made above:

• I have noticed that reverts are often made with the "m" or "minor" edit checked. It seems a revert of a non-minor edit would, by definition, also be non-minor (i.e., significant change in meaning, etc.). Why is this not the case? And could you point me to the appropriate Wiki policy(ies).

and also on this point:

• What seems the best policy in terms of "labels" (e.g., conservative, liberal) as applied to organizations or sources? Do we source them all, or do we allow both labels to be applied as seen fit by individual editors.

Perhaps it would be better to start a new article discussion section for everyone to be involved in contributing their feelings on the above points. Feel free to copy them there (or I might, if I get to it first, but gotta visit Mom first). Hope we can all have a good time and not take any particular efforts by one editor or another making good faith efforts in ensuring a NPOV article personally (this is not directed at you, just a general encouragement).

"m" - means what it says. But different people use it differently. Labels... unsure. BLP: BLP *correctly applied* allows you to break 3RR. But are you applying it correctly? Maybe not. So don't rely on it to get you out of 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)