| Revision as of 16:59, 21 January 2008 edit67.168.86.129 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:55, 21 January 2008 edit undo67.168.86.129 (talk) not a new userNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| {{anon}} ~ ] (]) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | {{anon}} ~ ] (]) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :], Thanks for the welcome. I am not a new user. My earliest contriubtions to Misplaced Pages were in 2001, before its first mainstream media coverage. ] (]) 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:55, 21 January 2008
Your edits on Killian documents
Hi. I'm sure you meant well, but I had to revert your edit to the Killian documents. Your "improved intro" removed the reference to there being 6 Killian memos in total, and your add of "and many media organizations concluded that the memos were forgeries" is actually misleading, if not outrightly false. Pretty much only the right wing/conservative media "concluded" that the memos were forgeries. The general media has only only described the memos as not having been authenticated for the most part. Since this is a volatile topic with much misinformation floating about on the Internet, especially on blog sites, it's usually best to propose any suggested changes on the Talk page in advance and get some feedback on that. Hope this helps. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just noticed that you put back your "improve intro" even after having it explained to you both here and on the article's Talk page that it really isn't improvement in terms of accuracy. I'm afraid I'll have to revert you again, but again I encourage you to discuss further your proposed changes on the appropriate Talk pages. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
3RR Warning
Sorry, but your reinsertions of your "improve intro" in the face of Talk page discussion showing issue with your proposed edits has caused a violation of 3RR. This is your official warming, Please desist from edit warring, and again, as has been requested numerous times, please use the Talk page. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- What is your authority for issuing an "official" 3RR warning? I am not edit warring. Every one of my edits has been a a good faith effort to improve the article. I have not made any reverts. I have explained the reason for my changes on the Talk page. Please desist from making 3RR threats. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's kind of like when someone pops in on a highly volatile article to make substantial, undiscussed, and somewhat questionable changes to the intro and then keeps doing that repeatedly even after someone else keeps pointing out problems and repeatedly asks to discuss the proposed changes first. When that first someone does this 3 or more times, a 3RR warning is applicable and it's actually considered a courtesy -- I've been blocked for just doing 4 edit reverts in the past and without any warnings at all. And any editor can do this. Perhaps you should read this official policy if you are not familiar with any of this. Hope this helps. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- You've been blocked for 24 hours for your edit warring. In the future, please discuss on the talk page to reach consensus rather than repeatedly reverting. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. If you wish to contest this block, you may write {{unblock|reason}} on your talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please explain your reason for blocking me. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- You've been blocked for 24 hours for your edit warring. In the future, please discuss on the talk page to reach consensus rather than repeatedly reverting. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. If you wish to contest this block, you may write {{unblock|reason}} on your talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's kind of like when someone pops in on a highly volatile article to make substantial, undiscussed, and somewhat questionable changes to the intro and then keeps doing that repeatedly even after someone else keeps pointing out problems and repeatedly asks to discuss the proposed changes first. When that first someone does this 3 or more times, a 3RR warning is applicable and it's actually considered a courtesy -- I've been blocked for just doing 4 edit reverts in the past and without any warnings at all. And any editor can do this. Perhaps you should read this official policy if you are not familiar with any of this. Hope this helps. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
67.168.86.129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This blocking was not justfied. My edits were all different and were good faith attempts to produce acceptable and appropriate improvement of the article. I responded to the objections from the other editor, both by explaining the reasons for my edits on the Talk page and by adjusting the text of my edits to accomodate specific concerns. The blocking admin has not justified his charge of "edit warring" on my part.
Decline reason:
A 3RR violation did occur, the block was justified. Please start taking disputes to talk pages rather than repeatedly reverting disputed edits. — Trusilver 06:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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.
I did take the dispute to the Talk page. I did not repeatedly revert edits. This is clear from the edit log and the Talk page. Please review the record more carefully before exercising admin responsibilities.
- It is true that your edits were not exactly the same; however, they had the effect of reverting, at least in part, to a previous version. This is edit warring when done repeatedly. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The edits were not effectively the same, and moreover were a good faith attempt to produce acceptable and appropriate wording.
- For example, the original wording said:
- The Killian documents controversy (also called Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate) involved four of six documents critical of President George W. Bush's service in the United States National Guard.
- There was no explanation of what the other two documents were, or why they were not involved in the controversy, or why, if they were not involved in the controversy, they were being mentioned at all. So I removed the "four of six" wording and left the number of documents unquantified. The other editor objected, saying that there were six documents. It wasn't clear to me why the precise number was important for the introductory paragraph (what difference would it have made if there were 5 or 7?) but I changed the wording to say that six documents were involved, as the objecting editor seemed to want. That was not a revert to my previous unquantified wording, and was in fact done to accommodate the other editor! 67.168.86.129 (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
67.168.86.129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
See above.
Decline reason:
The block is appropriate; both of you were edit warring, and both of you drews. --jpgordon 16:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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.
jpgordon, You did not respond to my explanation of why the block was unjustified. Simply repeating the allegation that I was "edit warring", as Trusilver did to my first request, is not helpful. You have no obligation to remove the block, of course. But please do not close the unblock request without responding to the issue in a meaningful way. Instead, allow another admin who is willing to address the issue close the request. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! ~ UBeR (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- UBeR, Thanks for the welcome. I am not a new user. My earliest contriubtions to Misplaced Pages were in 2001, before its first mainstream media coverage. 67.168.86.129 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)