User talk:LiberalMindset

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Daily Kos. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, after [1] this report concluded, you saw fit to put the article back to your version. Then, the other party added only a tag, another editor reverted you, and you reverted both of them. It's true you sought a third opinion, but that wasn't sufficient once another editor was involved in the discussion. Finally, your comment on the talk page {"you folks are getting more and more ridiculous") evinced an I'm right mentality.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LiberalMindset (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I'm not sure how significant this is, but I didn't revert the other party's "better source needed" tag -- I believed that was a fair addition. I reverted the second editor's changes because (i) he/she is *apparently* unaware of what a noun adjunct (adjectival noun) is in English and believes "Democratic Party point of view" to be incorrect English, never mind that a simple Google search shows many reputable sources using the same phrase; (ii) the owner of the site explicitly said his site isn't a liberal site *in response to* media sources often getting it wrong -- I mean, funnily enough, it's possible these sources get it wrong because the Wikipedia article gets it wrong. Anyway, I sincerely believe my case is a good one, as do some other editors, but I don't know what to do if a couple of editors are going to base edits on a misunderstanding of English grammar and/or overlooked points in the full chain of argument. By my count, it's 3:2 in favor of my modifications, but I feel the only way to get a decisive resolution in either direction is to have half a dozen or so experienced editors looking at the case. How do I make this happen? LiberalMindset (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You evidently have not grasped the point. You are blocked for edit warring, not for being wrong. "I sincerely believe my case is a good one" could be said by almost anyone who edit wars, and if Wikipedia's policy on edit war blocks were "you can be unblocked provided you believe you are right" then nobody would ever be blocked, and anyone who edit warred would be free to go on doing so. Dwelling on the issue of misunderstanding of English grammar is disingenuous, because you must be fully aware that that was only a small part of what you were doing. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your remarks about what "the owner of the site explicitly said" are irrelevant to the unblock request, since the block is for edit warring, but to save future misunderstanding I will answer you anyway. Wikipedia does not exist as a medium for people, businesses, or organisations to promulgate their own preferred views of themselves. A Wikipedia article should reflect what independent, third party, reliable sources say about its subject, which is often very different from what the subject of the article would like the article to say. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example: Fox News "Fair & Balanced" is their slogan, despite this and this existing in such large size. Zero Serenity (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when so-called "reliable" media sources conflict on basic distinctions, I'd say there's a problem and a need for a more thorough objective analysis, yet I'm unaware of any such analyses. You can have this one, Zero Serenity -- you obviously have a lot more clout around here than I thought you did. Edit warring, heh. I would recommend "progressive point of view" over "liberal point of view," but you'll do what you'll do, I suppose. LiberalMindset (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add: I changed Markos' page on here too, so you may want to change that one for consistency with the Daily Kos page. Take it easy. LiberalMindset (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]