Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:* Your behavior fundamentally and repeatedly violates the basic standards expected of editors at this site.
:* Your behavior fundamentally and repeatedly violates the basic standards expected of editors at this site.
:Obviously, you favor the former explanation. I would urge you to give some consideration to the latter - though it may be less convenient - particularly as your block expires and you resume editing. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
:Obviously, you favor the former explanation. I would urge you to give some consideration to the latter - though it may be less convenient - particularly as your block expires and you resume editing. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you have arrogantly again failed to address the substance of the case against me, there is no basis for me to reconsider my impression of your actions. You said in your block notice that I had performed "5+" reverts, which I have demonstrated shows without ambiguity that you were misinformed as well as arrogant in your failure to properly inform yourself before acting unnecessarily, and you failed to block the editor who misinformed you, despite his having actually violated 3RR, which proves that your action was capricious and arbitrary.
I do not think that I have been particularly unfortunate in the admins I have encountered. My assumption is rather that the sampling who have this time refused to respond meaningfully to the points I have made, and who have chosen to block my channel to request that someone else do so, is representative. The mullah class of Misplaced Pages is once again revealed to be capricious, arbitrary, uninformed, arrogant and prone to unnecessary misuse of its powers. And unaccountable to reason to any other check. But I knew that already. ] (]) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Andyvphil, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! -Will Beback · † · 10:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: You're right that I need to archive the talk page. But you can always add a new comment by using the "+" button on the top of the webpage, and then use the "edit" button by the header to edit just the one section. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 10:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Categories on redirects
There may be some value to placing a category on one of the "Discover the Networks" redirects, but not all four. Likewise there's no reason to add a category to "Front Page Magazine" when we already have one on "FrontPageMag.com".
This is not my final request that you establish the good faith of your deletions, if you can, by responding to the questions I and others have put to you with something other than obstinate repetition of your assertions. Start with this question: Why did you nominate the David Horowitz Freedom Center article for deletion (on the grounds that it is a "Non notable organization - has no sources outside itself. Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)") and have not nominated the Political Research Associates article on the same grounds? If there is some explanation other than your POV, please supply it. Barring an answer you will continue to have exhausted the assumption of good faith, and I will continue to revert your apparent POV vandalism wherever I find it. Andyvphil14:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
POV warring is not vandalism. Please do not label it as such. I dispute that I am pushing my POV, but, even if I were, it would not be vandalism. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk»14:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
POV warring, per se, is not vandalism. But you are apparently choosing vandalism as your weapon of choice for POV warring. Answer the question. Andyvphil14:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a violation of policy for you to assume bad faith with respect to my changes. If you believe I am out to harm the encyclopedia, I reccomend you file an arbitration case (WP:RFAr) or request a community ban (WP:ANI). In the absence of such, I must insist that you at the very least, make no assumption, and at best assume that a contributor, that, unlike you, has edits to articles that have nothing to do with politics that date back more than three months, is operating in good faith. Hipocrite - «Talk»15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
As usual, you have it wrong. WP:AGF is a guideline, not a policy, and it allows for the "occasional exception" (that's you). Answer the question. Andyvphil15:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
How exactly does 'because of his responsibilities with the' invent or assume any knowledge? It says the same thing as 'he had a campaign to do', except in a readable way. Having a campaign to do certainly entails 'responsibilities'. Color me boggled. Arkon23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The "assumed prior knowledge" was about the identity of "Blount". If it reads better, don't name him, just don't have an unidentifed "Blount" appear. "Having a campaign to do" does not necessarily imply "responsibilities", merely the opportunity to work on a campaign. The word has a semantic load which is not justified by the cite. Let me make my POV clear: Bush wasn't needed in the Guard and it's OK with me that he got on with his career. But his "responsibilities" are an invention of the editor who write the line. Andyvphil00:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The reference to Blount is constant in both of our edits, and I could honestly care less if the campaign itself is identified. My confusion is in your distinction between having a campaign to do, and having responsibilities to that campaign. If I have a job to do, I have responsibilities to do that job. If you really wish to bunker down with this distinction, you are welcome to it. That article is hardly watched and we would just 3rr ourselves into oblivion if I pushed. Arkon00:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any interest in restarting the Killian discussion/debate/whatever? The past few weeks have not been without intrigue, but I kind of want to get back to my original purpose in venturing into wiki land. -BC aka Callmebc16:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to do a partial archive whenever the size justifies it. My skin is pretty thick when it comes to the opinions of someone whose opinions I don't respect, so BC isn't getting to me. But I'm not overly polite either, and I thought the "aka s**t-for-brains" response was past due. That said, before Misplaced Pages I had the impression that the memos used kerning and other context-sensitive character placement that required a computer to execute, so I've found the back-and-forth useful to correct my impressions. My command of the material is insufficient to make many substantial contributions to this subject in mainspace, but I can certainly contribute to keeping an eye on what BC, or the uninformed, put there... I see I was quoted with approval in the LGF thread. Would post there to address the complaints about WP and clear up some of the misinformation, but CJ's not accepting registrations...maybe I'll email him. Andyvphil21:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Personal attack warning
It has been pointed out to me that you have violated Misplaced Pages policies on WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, especially with this edit . Please refrain from posting any more personal attacks. Doing so could cause you to be blocked. Best, --Alabamaboy17:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, "Andyvphil," I'm off my block (so to speak), and I just wanted you to know that "Alabamaboy" issued that reprimand without my consent. I had made this complaint to "Jehochman" in My Talk page: Lastly, how is it that others are free to insult me (including calling me "shit for brains"), to demonstrably misrepresent and outright lie about things I posted, to threaten me with "Loss of Privacy", to make hostile edits and redactions, and to basically attack and be uncivil to me as all heck and not be called on it? Is there a secret handshake I'm missing or such?
Of course that was not responded to (Misplaced Pages seems to have an awful lot of people who only make statements and never answer), and only the naughty word got anybody's attention, but I defended you with a later comment that went at least he, alone of all the right wingers and despite numerous insults on his part, actually was genuinely curious about my links regarding the true state of 70's office tech and showing issues with the forgery claims. All the others have insulted me pretty regularly -- their only difference is that they've so far avoided using naughty words, and have shown no interest or curiousity whatsoever about anything not supportive of the forgery charges.
And it's true -- the others were sniping maliciously out of what appears now to have been a political agenda (connections to LGF at least) and had no desire whatsoever to discuss anything -- just block & suppress. Although things got acrimonious between us, you were indeed the only one actually curious and actually "discussing" things in some manner.
I wasn't entirely idle during my block, so some stuff is already happening, but I made it quite clear that you were likely the only straight shooter of the bunch (not that you ever quite hit your target...) FYI. Callmebc17:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
My attempts to discuss JOG's behavior with him have been deleted from his user talk. I now think that it is reasonable to begin a request for arbitration and I am interested to know if you wish to participate. I believe that there is sufficient evidence and precedence () for action to be taken. I plan to request that he be blocked from editing pet food recall-related articles and that his administrator privileges be reviewed. Let me know if you are interested in helping. Jfwambaugh14:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
restored 1
(3) -- well, the current version isn't a bad compromise; having only just gotten this alleged "majority view" out of the lead, keeping A&M somewhere near the top isn't bad. I don't feel this is criticism per se. I don't like the idea of leading off with a quote farm -- sooner or later someone will want to alphabetize them and then find a white supremacist baby killer named "Aaron Aarvark" etc. and it'll just get messy. (2) eh... there's been edit warring over this before -- does a rebuttable to Tutu belong immmediately after Tutu or in the criticism section? -- I do prefer the latter but you'll just have to fight your own battle here. -- Kendrick722:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The paragraphs of A&M that were sent to the bottom of the article in Other Views was everything following the first paragraph there, which any number of pro-Israeli editors didn't like. I have no idea why. I restored it in part or in whole several times. -- Kendrick701:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Protected page
There's a bot that does that, as far as I know. Regardless, the issues don't seem to have been worked on on the Talk: page; a specific individual seems to edit Misplaced Pages solely for the purpose of edit-warring on this and 3 other articles. He doesn't appear to like to use the Talk: pages, but he regularly agitates to have pages unprotected so that he can start edit-warring again. As a result, I don't think the parties are ready for unprotection. Jayjg 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
RfAR Notice regarding the Killian Documents dispute
Hi. You have been included as a party in a request for arbitration involving the Killian memos dispute. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc00:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes procrastination is a good thing when writing an encyclopedia. I often find that that if I wait long enough to add a fact it either gets added by someone else or turns out to be wrong. Either way my work is done for me. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 07:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Arab sources for apartheid accusation
I noticed your comments on the Allegations of Israeli apartheid talk page and thought I might direct you to potential sources at the Hafrada (Separation) page that make that claim. Specifically, there is a Palestinian reverend in Jerusalem named Naim Ateek who heads the ecumenical organization Sabeel, and a former Yale professor, Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, who both claim that Israel's policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians amount to apartheid. Tiamut13:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not getting involved with the Killian page (aside from reverting what Deaniack vandal did) until some lingering other issues are dealt with, but "Political Forgery" has as much business being there as "Government Hoax" does on the moon landing and you know it. But I'll bring it up on the discussion page like a good doobie when I get back to business. -BC aka Callmebc23:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Stossel. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Croctotheface23:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Do not insert personal attacks again. You want to discuss it, I will discuss the matter with you here. I have no wish to have an adversarial relationship with you, but you simply can't attack other users and then restore those attacks when they are removed. Barring the restoration of your attacks, I am open to exploring whatever may resolve this issue. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 21:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are unwilling to continue our discussion, that is fine, but linking to your personal attacks are just as inappropriate as restoring them was. Why play these little games? What possible point is there? Attacks are inappropriate and prohibited, period. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 02:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
input at Centralized and Israeli allegations Talk
Hi. Liked your comments. Replied to you both at Centralized and AoIA Talk pages. Thanks! Keep up the insightful challenges. HG | Talk11:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. I really appreciate your taking the time to read and edit the synthesis effort. Whatever you can do to improve it would be great, esp since I sense you tend to see both sides of an argument. Thanks. HG | Talk23:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. FYI I added a rebuttal to the self-identifying counter-argument you(?) made (about Holocaust vs Final Solution). This back and forth needs to be condensed, but wanted to tell you, with the hope you might help further analyze this and other arguments. Thanks! HG | Talk20:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
OTRS
Please do not roll back edits that cite an OTRS ticket without a good reason, and preferably without contacting the editor who made the edit first. OTRS edits often involve privacy issues and should not be reverted without knowing exactly what's going on. (Re: ) Phil Sandifer03:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
French apartheid
Andy, calm down. Read the first paragraph of the article "Allegations of French apartheid draw analogies between France and apartheid-era South Africa." France and South Africa, not France and French Algeria and South Africa. In any case, the discussion on merging the article with Social situation in the French suburbs has been closed by a neutral admin with a finding of consensus to merge. Lothar of the Hill People02:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Why did you restore a blog as a source for a WP:BLP? Misplaced Pages's policy on BLPs says:
Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.
Neither cite sufficiently supported the long-present statement in the article and therefor neither was a "source" for controversial innformation. The overlawyered.com item did, however, point to an actual RS (The New Republic) which could be consulted, and removing that clue while leaving the unsupported text was unhelpful(as my edit comment indicated). I didn't then have time or inclination to run down the truth of this matter but have now done so ] with the aid of the removed cite. As I suspected, the problem was with Misplaced Pages, not overlawyered.com, which appears to be far more reliable. Andyvphil08:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Andyvphil. I though I would pass on this from the Seam Zone article:
In a petition to Israel's Supreme Court challenging the legality of the separation barrier and the seam zone under international law, the Israelinon-governmental organizationHaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual stated that,
"the web of the Declaration and the Orders has spun, in the seam zone, a legal apartheid, which is intolerable, illegal and immoral. In other words, the discriminatory and oppressive topographical structure stands upon a shameful normative infrastructure, unprecedented in Israeli law."
I'm soon going to be off on vacation for three weeks with no internet access, so I'm not going to have time to look at this until I get back. And I am in any case looking for examples where violation of the UN/ICC definition is clearly referred to. But, thanks. Andyvphil23:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
FNC
Whether you like the outcome of the discussion on FNC or not, please do not re-add material that has been removed as a result of that discussion. You are free to add your thoughts to the talk page, but please do not continue to revert. You are also free to reopen any portion of the discussion you feel has been ignore, but again, do not just blanket revert. Also, edit summaries are there for a reason: please use them to explain your edits when they are likely to be controversial. - auburnpilottalk21:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You think a decision was reached. I don't. My explanation was archived but remains unrebutted. I see no reason to respect a chorus of IDONTLIKEITs, and won't. Andyvphil22:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
this is the second caution I'm forwarding to Andyvphil. This one is a strong caution to be followed by reporting.
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I decided to forgo the earlier 3RR route, which you 'were' guilty of, in the spirit of being civil and to AGF. However, you've been cautioned by numerous editors and now you personally attack me. I chose, again, to seek advice from others on the above consensus discussion. Some feel I should not close it while others feel I can. Again, I'm being Civil. However, in the manner of personally attacking, I will not because of the many editors who've already cautioned you. I would have put this privately on your page, but you are also bent on making it public and consistently bringing it here, so my warning is public on this page for all. --Maniwar (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Civility warning
For this series of edits, following as they do a sustained period of bickering and contentious editing on the John Stossel page. I am not here to suffer abuse. Please conform your conduct to Misplaced Pages's behavioral policies and guidelines. Wikidemo12:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Another cautioning
I am not at this time placing a vandal tag on this page, however I will the next time. You are well aware that this issue was discussed in the overall compromised additions. And it is currently being discussed on the talk page. Please discuss and avoid arbitrary edits contrary to the consensus. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. I appreciate your answer there, but I still had trouble figuring out what you think, perhaps because you spoke so indirectly about what you think the article should be about. It seems like your saying it should be about the 2nd definition, which you think is a "bad faith" definition? Then I traced you in the archive, where you started off very pessimistic, but then, hope you don't mind my judgmental view here, I felt you were increasingly constructive and offering alternatives:
""Israeli apartheid" is an epithet, not a phenomenon, and you are not going to get agreement on a title that muddles that distinction. Nor on one which makes it explicit, for that matter (e.g., Israeli apartheid (epithet)(also a current redirect)). Nor on "merging" (deleting) the article. There's not going to be any consensus here -- just get over that idea.Andyvphil 22:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)"
(Cerejota: It's also a scholarly poli-sci controversy. Both are happening at the same time. The epithet sums up the controversy, and is manifestly notable. The polemics/name-calling and the parallel scholarly debate are Siamese twins. The article should cover them both.)
You: The "scholarly debate" twin is a midget, not an equal. Andyvphil 20:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
To whom it may concern: If we could have it, to whom would "Israeli apartheid" Controversy be unacceptable? Please speak up. Andyvphil 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Later you indicated you were willing to accept Apartheid debate (or controversy) in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict You said "won't howl over either version of your proposal" and accepted the controversy version in a straw poll as your second choice.
A&M are all about drawing lessons from the ZA experience for Israel's situation. By all means take A&M and stick them in an article called Debate on Israel and apartheid-era South Africa. I will be happy to see it appropriately linked to from this article. But the phenomenon addressed by this article is not a debate on Israel and apartheid-era South Africa. The phenomenon addressed by this article is that the word "apartheid" is applied to Israel ("Apartheid Israel") or to its actions and policies ("Apartheid wall", "Israeli apartheid", "guilty of the crime of apartheid", etc.) as if apartheid had a well-defined meaning outside its ZA roots but without any consistency in applying the term to similar (or more similar to historical ZA) situations. No serious examination of apartheid-era South Africa is involved and that phrase has no place in the title. Andyvphil 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's how I'm reading you. It seems like you would divide the issue into 2 parts. Similar to my own approach in restructuring -- except above you would put them in two different articles. One about the A&M-type Debate, which you consider pretty small (midget), and another about the Epithet, which you consider more notable. Is this right? It seems like you could accept, even if it's not your first choice, Apartheid debate (or controversy) in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for both parts. Or, Debate on Israel and apartheid-era South Africa for the midget part. Is this right? However, currently, the article has both parts, as currently restructured. One part based on the epithet (what you call the "bad faith" second definition) and another on the ("midget") scholarly debate (the first definition). So, since "Israel and apartheid" allows both definitions to function at the same time (maybe "ambiguous" was a poor word choice by me) then why wouldn't it meet both your criteria? What if the subheadings for each part were the names you could accept, i.e., the epithet title and then the Debate title? Well, as you can see I've spent some time trying to figure out your view. So I hope you'll respond. Maybe let me know on my talk page when you do. I respect your thinking on this matter, perhaps because it seems rather close to my own (though maybe we reach different endpoints). Thanks muchly, HG | Talk10:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity
I saw your comment at Ann Coulter talk:
And I'm about as right-wing as AC, albeit on a rather different axis.
I'm trying to figure out the "rather different axis" part. Could you explain?
BTW, I'm glad that somebody over at AC's page understands that she talks tongue-in-cheek. Many editors seem to think that she means literally what she says. If Jonathan Swift had not already written A modest proposal and Ann wrote it, I suspect that some people would think that she was urging cannibalism. Sbowers301:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's how I came to add AC to my watchlist -- I was going to use her Misplaced Pages page as a jump page to get to her latest entertainment, and was waylayed by the obvious need to correct its state of obtunded literalism. As to the different axis, she's Christian and Republican, whereas I'm atheist and vote Libertarian, usually, but there's a lot of overlap in what we disdain. Andyvphil13:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now I understand the "different axis".
I occasionally think I might invent a column by AC along the lines of A modest proposal, put it on the AC talk page, and express my outrage that she would dare say such a thing and see just how people react. (If I ever tried such a thing I'd set it in Africa instead of Ireland so people could accuse her of both cannibalism and racism.) It's hard to believe that some people take her so literally. Sbowers322:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
no revert war please
This diff of yours, part of your insistence of linking to 'useful' commercial websites also reverted two intermediate constructive edits. Would you please take a look at your edit and correct what I assume was unintended damage?
Also, you and I appear to disagree about Misplaced Pages policy regarding external links. Are you willing to talk this disagreement through with me? It seems a back and forth revert war might be a waste of time for both of us. Thanks. SaltyBoatr14:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You are in error. I was careful to retain both of the two intermediate edits I thought constructive ("Fishermen" and "rotation", though I tightened the latter rather than merely retain it), reverting only the two edits I thought deleted useful material. As you say, we disagree. E.g., I corrected the Spitcast link to point directly to the Linda Mar and Princeton surf forecasts, rather than the homepage, but see no reason to hide this useful link from anyone interested in surfing in Pacifica. And anyone interested in bromeliads shouldn't have to take the additional step of Googling Shelldance to get information about tours, etc. If you feel the itch to delete something, you might try Geri Doran, whose curriculum vitae is blue linked but unremarkable. Anyway, I don't plan to edit just to revert you, but when I do edit I will revert you. I've explained why. Andyvphil21:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Ann Coulter
I've spent many, many hours on this article, but I gave up several months ago. It's still on my watchlist, though. Your work on it seems pretty good to me, but I take a bit of an issue with "She did not mention that the error was corrected at the insistence of her publisher, after certain critics pointed it out." Something like that really should cite a reference, IMHO. Lou Sander02:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That's someone else's text. I undid an edit that had incidentally deleted it, thus restoring it, but did so because I found the replacement objectionable (she wasn't "pointing out" Duranty, she was making an ironic reference to the NY Times' fiasco) not because I was endorsing the text you quote. Andyvphil14:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to Misplaced Pages articles about living persons, as you did to Ilan Pappé. Please re-read WP:BLP, and note the requirements that criticism "needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone ... If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Merely that the criticisms have been made and published is not enough justification for including them, even if the information is worded properly as somebody else's opinion rather than Misplaced Pages's. This is especially true given that the critic at issue has already been found to have libeled another pro-Palestinian writer (by an Israeli court) and ordered to pay damages. <eleland/talkedits>04:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That the "criticisms have been made and published" (and are widely noted) "is not enough justification for including them" (in a Criticism section) "even if the information is worded properly as somebody else's opinion rather than Misplaced Pages's" is your opinion, not policy. And it's not the way I read BLP. Plaut's comments are precisely the subject of the section. And they are not poorly referenced - there is no controversy about whether he made them. So I intend to restore the Plaut material to the article. Just haven't got around to it yet. Andyvphil (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No, criticisms of Ilan Pappé generally are the subject of the section. A missive based on a facticious contextomy performed by an obscure extremist with a penchant for libel is neither a reliable source, nor relevant to Pappé's notoriety as a whole. Plenty of legitimate criticisms of Pappé and his works exist. Why are you trying to push the views of a neo-con fabricator? <eleland/talkedits>17:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
And why not ?
If Pappe is no reliable but quoted on wp...
Why "stupid" neo con, no more (but no less) reliable should not be quoted on wp ?
Hi Andyvphil,
I react here after discusson on Pappe talk page.
I want to point out that I think I now understand why you agree people such as Plaut, Shahak and... Pappe to be used as sources. Is it because it is unavoidable and rather than to try to "close the door" to some among them, you think it is better to open doors to all of them !
Do I understand you properly ?
I wrote somewhere : "Pappe is not a RS but he is a RS for wikipedia ?" Would you share this mind and why not extend this to many others "scholars" ? Ceedjee (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, valid application of the WP term "reliable source" does not mean any statement he makes, or any statement made in a RS, is actually reliable. There is a page on Misplaced Pages where the reliability of sources is discussed, but the consensus conclusions there are reliably unreliable. Some sources that are reliably unreliable (MMFA springs to mind) are generally accepted as WP:RS. The policy of RS is incoherent in the area of opinion (e.g., politics) anyway, and needs to be rewritten, but it's not a task I care to attempt. The best policy is to avoid WikiLawyering unless it is forced upon you, and be deeply suspicious of any claim that credentials are relevant to an area of discussion where credentials are in fact irrelevant. Pappe has credentials and detailed knowledge, but he clearly doesn't have the judgement to distinguish between what he knows and what he doesn't know or to form a sound judgement about what he should think probable. It's doubtful he even knows when he's lying, and we can't know either. So, when is a fool a reliable source? On Misplaced Pages. Andyvphil (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
on wp:fr, that is the policy but I think on wp:en, that is not the policy. :-)
You must laugh a lot because in fighting for the introduction of all pov's even controversed, you must often be attacked as pro-this and anti-that and a few minutes later as pro-that and anti-this.
The way you see things makes everything easier to manage but decreases the level of reliability of the encyclopaedia. I think you will have difficulties here to put forward this way to see things.
Sometimes I write : "if what he says is not true, it is true it is what he says"...
Thanks for that, I don't object atall. And, although I'd spotted the outrageous way Dershowitz has attacked Finkelstein's mother, I'd not appreciated that Finkelstein had written it up himself. I'll likely use that link myself in future. PR17:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
{{unblock|This block is unjustified. It also appears that the length of the block is out of policy.:
"Wikipedians who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blocked from editing." I made four edits to this page after not editing it for 9 or 10 days. The first was not a revert. The next three were. I had not edited the page for about three-and-a-half hours when the Cavalry, riding to the rescue of a damsel who was not in distress, blocked me without warning or inquiry.
Policy states "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." My edits were not disruptive. I explained them in the edit comment trail as follows:
(continued OUTSIDE the template, since preview shows my rebuttal cut off at this point)}}
Y
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
I've spoken with the blocking admin, and, they don't mind me making the call on this. I've decided to unblock you, however, I would strongly caution you to seek consensus with other editors, instead of skirting right up to 3RR in the future. Thank you, for your patience.
09:13, 1 December 2007 Andyvphil (Talk | contribs) (44,792 bytes) (→From Time Immemorial - rather than clean this mess of inverted sequence, added italics, double link, missing "... ", lets just cite to the source.)
11:32, 1 December 2007 Nishidani (Talk | contribs) (45,587 bytes) (Undid revision 175016920 by Andyvphil (talk) Don'rt be lazy. If dissatisfied, offer suggestions we can all work on)
17:32, 1 December 2007 Andyvphil (Talk | contribs) (44,792 bytes) (My suggestion is that the cite works fine in the usual form.)
18:18, 1 December 2007 Nishidani (Talk | contribs) (45,587 bytes) (Undid revision 175086803 by Andyvphil (talk)Resdtored text. Argue your view on talk, and persuade others)
19:34, 1 December 2007 Andyvphil (Talk | contribs) (44,792 bytes) (I've already pointed out that the cite is defective. If you want to keep it, fix it.)
20:27, 1 December 2007 RolandR (Talk | contribs) (45,587 bytes) (Undid revision 175110228 by Andyvphil (talk)Stop edit-warring over this, and discuss it on the talk page, as you have been asked)
20:38, 1 December 2007 Andyvphil (Talk | contribs) (44,792 bytes) (The claque speaks! The cite you keep restoring contains emphasis not in the original, an orphan "(2)", missing ellipses, and a duplicate link. YOU defend restoring error, in Talk.)
20:43, 1 December 2007 RolandR (Talk | contribs) (45,587 bytes) (Undid revision 175123206 by Andyvphil (talk)Again restoring original text;)
I also explained them in a note to the editor, Ling Nut, who had just performed a GA anylysis of Norman Finkelstein as follows:
Your edit brought this footnote to my attention. I'm not sure what you had in mind, since the "(1)" you deleted went with the (2) you didn't delete, but in looking at the cite I noticed that it contains emphasis not in the original, missing ellipses, and a duplicate link as well as the orphan "(2)". Since I didn't see what the additional quotes in the ref added to what was in the inline text except piling on unnecessarily repetitive examples of Pipe's disdain for the literary quality of Peters' work, I replaced it with a normal cite. A claque of pro-Finkelstein (and pro-Ilan Pappe -- there is history on the talk page between us, there) have now reverted me several times, without even bothering to fix the added-emphasis distortions (the missing trailing ellipses is minor). Whether the repetitive disdain is desirable may not fall within your purview as a GA-reviewer (though I think it is relevant to your comment about detectable non-neutrality) but I would hope you have something to say about defective quotation. Andyvphil 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that though I explain the reasons for my edit completely in my edit comments and my reasons are, if I may say so, unanswerable (what possible justification is there for having multiple unmentioned additions of emphasis in quoted text), and though I said I would accept the content otherwise unchanged if the reverting editors would just fix its obvious defects (though I think it is problematic content for the reasons I gave to Ling Nut, and reserve the right to argue against its inclusion), the reverting editors neither address my points nor fix the text they are reinserting. Now, who, exactly, is edit-warring in a disruptive fashion? Andyvphil03:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You have been warned about edit warring and civility in the past, so I'm not particularly sympathetic. However, you may be correct, in that not even violating 3RR, and with a first block, a 24 hour block may have sufficed better (the other blocked editors have previous blocks). The Evil Spartan03:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I am told that I am being blocked for 3RR. If I didn't 3RR why does a 24 block "suffice"? Surely, if I didn't 3RR then I should not be blocked at all for 3RR. Andyvphil04:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I know. I quoted the policy on that, above. If you are saying my edits were "clearly disruptive" despite my not crossing the bright red line of 3RR (and not intending to) I would appreciate your explaining your reasoning, in the light of the points I've made. Andyvphil 04:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)...and see next section. Let's continue this there. Andyvphil04:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
IMO, it's called 'gaming the system' you are not entitled to edit war "up to 3RR per day". At least, from your post directly above mine, that's what it sounds like you were doing. SQL05:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, as an aside, I am presently getting in contact with the blocking administrator, regarding reducing your block. Just because a couple people agree that your block may be a little long, does not make it illegitimate, however. It was as far as I can see, a preventative block, to keep you from further disrupting that article. SQL06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Before I can "further disrupt the article" I have to first "disrupt the article". No, make that "clearly disrupt the article". In fact I made a change that the editor currently reviewing the article for "Good Article" status later agreed was "purely... well formed text and footnotes" and implemented himself in only slightly different form. This was reverted without discussion, ignoring my points and offer to compromise ("If you want to keep it, fix it.") The speed limit being 55, I was careful to drive no more than 54. This isn't "gaming the system", it's obeying the rules. Andyvphil06:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:3RR does pretty clearly state that driving at 54 for too long is also likely to get you blocked. Is there some reason you kept reverting, instead of discussing the issue? If other user(s) are clearly being disruptive, it's safer for you to contact the admin noticeboard to request help, or ask for a third opinion, or otherwise make use of the dispute resolution process. Should you agree to discuss the issue (or escalate it for review), I'd be more inclined to support an unblock. Regardless, the current length might be excessive. My two cents, anyway. Feel free to reply. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't "discuss the issue" with someone who doesn't respond to what I say. I repeatedly pointed out that the cite was defective, stating nearly exactly the reasons that Ling.nut (a completely uninvolved party whom I had never encountered before) mentioned when he fixed it in very nearly the same way I had (see below) and got no response, even in the edit comments on reverts. Policy states that I can be banned for 24 hours, on a first offense, if I (a) touch the electric fence, or (b) clearly disrupt. (a) didn't happen, and (b) I assert, requires that some attention be paid to the particulars of the allegation. The admins who have looked in at this have been very resistant to commenting on the particulars, so far. Andyvphil21:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Btw, The Evil Spartan began by saying "You have been warned about edit warring and civility in the past, so I'm not particularly sympathetic." Indeed, I have. The one that went to AN/I is particularly instructive, as it includes allegations of 3RR and multiple personal attacks -- all of which were nonsense, and recognized as such by the two editors who commented. And now, in addition to "previously warned" you can add "previously blocked", a recidivist without ever having done anything that should have been punished. Something is wrong with your system. Andyvphil21:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment by blocking admin
I blocked you for edit-warring, not breaking the 3rr. My 'proposed policy' is just that. The section below is an example of what the page may look like when in operation. Which it isn't. I doo, however, think the 3RR noticeboard is useless, which is why I don't visit it. I gave all three users a 72 hour block, as two of them had had previous problems with edit-warring. You, however, did not, but I knew that by giving you only a 24 hour block, I would be soundly thrashed by the other two users. Note how I was happy for SQL to unblock you, as to be honest, I didn't think you deserved a 72 hour block. I can provide you with the email exchange between me and SQL if you like? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can't say I'm not curious about the exchange, but I believe you on that point. However, I do not know: (1) If you blocked me for edit warring, not 3RR, why did you use the 3RR template? (2) If you do not visit the 3RR page, then I gather you did not learn of the situation at Norman Finkelstein because of RolandR's false accusation of me. How, then, did you learn of it? Is Norman Finkelstein on your watchlist? (3) If you did not believe I deserved a 72 hour block is it not highly improper to block me for that length of time merely to save yourself from facing unjustified criticism? (4) As regards your proposed policy, and the "examples", are all of the elements of, say, the List of National Hockey League statistical leaders entry (e.g., the note from User:HMS_Nonesuch and the "72 hour blocks all round" true except that User:HMS_Nonesuch did not post to that page? And, finally, (5) are there any guidelines or is there any consensus that you consult in deciding what degree of block is appropriate for what degree of edit warring, or are you just winging it? Andyvphil11:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Btw, (6) are you doing something unusual when you block that is resulting in a hidden autoblock of the ip addy as well as the user block? I note that both I and RolandR seem to have remained autoblocked after our blocks were lifted, and at least in my case it seems no autoblock was listed for my ip, but nonetheless lifting the "nonexistant" autoblock removed the barrier to my editing. Andyvphil11:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Andyvphil here; Chase Me's behaviour seems unacceptable in this case. I don't think that either Nishidani or I should have been blocked at all (I had made just two edits in the previous 24 hours), and -- assuming for a moment that my report was justified -- a 72 hour block of Andyvphil for a first offence was clearly excessive. As in Andyvphil's case, I was blocked for an alleged, but unspecified, breach of 3RR; until I looked at Chase Me's contributions history, I didn't even know where this was supposed to have happened.
This was then followed with a swift reprieve for Andyvphil, while my appeal was ignored for a day, and then accepted by a second admin. Nishidani remains blocked, apparently because he has offended a third admin. To reprieve the allegedly disruptive editor, while punishing the two editors who opposed this alleged disruption, is surely an abuse of admin tools?RolandR12:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm transcluding your "deeper" response here, primarily for the benefit of The Evil Spartan, but also because I cannot comment elsewhere:
OK. I'm back. Speaking as someone who (I solemnly affirm) has absolutely and positively no horse in this race, I see absolutely no reason for the cited text to remain in the footnotes. However, I do see a compelling rationale for retaining the hyperlinks in the footnote (or footnotes — I envision two separate ones). From a purely logical point of view, the quoted text does not need to be included in the footnote (and in fact is redundant) because it is there for all the world to see on the two webpages offered in the hyperlink in the cite. As per WP:BOLD I'm gonna make the changes now. I hope the editors of this page will recognize that my actions are based purely and what would seem to be well-formed text and footnotes, rather than partisanship of any kind. Cheers! Ling.Nut 04:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Norman_Finkelstein"
Well, you may not have a horse in this race, but you seem to be riding mine. That is, you removed the duplicative text from the footnote, but left the hyperlink (now split), which is exactly what I did. But what you call "purely... well formed text and footnotes" was "clearly disruptive editing" when I did it, apparently. Andyvphil04:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Speaking bluntly (perhaps too bluntly, if so then please forgive..), the formatting of the footnotes is a mess. But I think that's... tolerable... at the GA level. Cheers! Ling.Nut04:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No offense taken. It's the claque that "owns" this article, not I, and I think it still has a pro-Finkelstein POV (see, e.g., "tendentious evidence on which Peters’ thesis relied", in Misplaced Pages's voice) that makes GA dubious, never mind the footnotes. Andyvphil05:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The Evil Spartan: I note my block is still at 72 hours, despite your conceeding that it is probably unjustified. I am aware of the need for "first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them" -- is this taking place? Further, I note that policy reads: "The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment." And, Cavalry wrote "editors...need a rest until they can come up with a solution". I am (not surprisingly) completely satisfied with Ling.Nuts' "solution". Andyvphil05:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I pointed out a couple sneaky adjectives in the hopes that others would fix them. I just now fixed "tendentious ". 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ling.Nut (talk • contribs)
Your autoblock
{{unblock|Despite having been "unblocked" almost 5 hours ago, I find I'm still blocked. There's nothing on my block log to indicate why. The blocking message doesn't seem to recognize me as myself: "You are unable to edit Misplaced Pages because someone using the same internet address (an 'IP address') or shared proxy server as you was blocked. Your ability to edit Misplaced Pages has been automatically suspended as a result...Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. The other user was blocked by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry for the following reason (see our blocking policy):...Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Andyvphil"... Andyvphil}}
"You are unable to edit Misplaced Pages because someone using the same internet address (an 'IP address') or shared proxy server as you was blocked. Your ability to edit Misplaced Pages has been automatically suspended as a result.
Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. The other user was blocked by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Andyvphil". The reason given for Andyvphil's block is: "Edit warring: on Norman Finkelstein".
This block has been set to expire: 07:13, 3 December 2007.
If you do not understand the reason for this block, you are probably on a shared IP address."
Andyvphil23:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
{{unblock-auto|1=76.21.45.89|2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Andyvphil". The reason given for Andyvphil's block is: "Edit warring: on Norman Finkelstein".|3=Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry|4=711307}}</nowiki>
There is no autoblock listed for the above IP, but I've attempted to unblock it anyway. If you are still unable to edit, please repost your request and we'll try to figure it out. - auburnpilottalk01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot08:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and start the article if you like. I will contribute. I am in favor of all the information being out there so people who are interested can decide for themselves. Redddogg (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer of support, but starting a new article would be a clear POV fork. It's Anti-Obama whisper campaign that needs to be renamed (to ...background rather than ...heritage, I now think), but I don't want to go through the article rooting out all of the "whisper" crap that HailFire stuck in after he changed the name. I'm just going to keep an occasional eye on the Insight/Couric sections and undo the misrepresentations that will creep in. Had to restore the Couric section today -- the link to the transcript of the April commentary before it was "corrected" from truth to error had itself been written out of history, and Zulfan Adi was again described as recanting something he never said. Andyvphil (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You should refrain from lecturing or scolding other editors. It is impolite and can be seen as a personal attack. Please also stop trying to debate other editors on talk pages. The good ones won't respond, and the bad ones will lead you into sophomoric arguments that are embarrassing to all of us. Cleome (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You should refrain from lecturing or scolding other editors. Reminds me of some editors who revert my reversion of their POV deletions while scolding me for edit warring. If you're referring to my telling Lou Sander that his declaration that something was "unencylopedic" was just opinion until he supported it with an argument... well, it is, and if I don't tell him he probably won't learn much from just observing the abysmal excuse for debate endemic on Misplaced Pages. And it is absolutely necessary to debate on talk pages. How else is consensus on the various issues that arise to be reached? Andyvphil (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's {{Delrev}}, although I believe that's intended for being added to articles where the result was 'keep'. You could just add a note to the top of the Articles for Deletion discussion, that's what I've seen done in other cases. Terraxos (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to this story: 'Kerry decries smear campaign against Obama', . Now I look at it, I'm not sure if he was actually referring to the Muslim rumours or something else, but it could probably go in the article somewhere. Terraxos (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Care to talk about your issues on the talk page? Your edit history indicates that you are pretty passionate about the Obama-Clinton issue, but the article in question is about Insight, a media property owned by Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church, and the article there is about Insight. It's not a "mouthpiece" for trashing political candidates, and EVERYTHING there should be about Insight, not about the candidates it trashed, OK? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Andy, I'm reverting you again, and your argument "Insight identified as source of "anonymous smears" - same article, different url. note heading "columns/opinions". Grossberger doesn't claim to have done any reporting" is purely not relevant...the point is that MediaWeek is a WP:RS for commentary on MEDIA, and if they picked up Grossberger's "opinion" and decided to publish it as a "commentary" on Insight, it's still MediaWeek publishing Grossberg and MediaWeek is a reliable source for the subject of the article, which is a MEDIA organization, ok? riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to try to help out with the article. It's one of those that I'd like to take off my watchlist because it's too much of a pain in the ass and clogs my view, but I am annoyed that quality seems to be a casualty of fighting. Since I know you have also watched this article for a long time, I hope that we can put our differences aside and work together to improve it.Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Andy, I'm curious because the level of heat you are bringing on the talk page at Insight seems pretty high, more than is needed for the discussion. I notice that edit histories indicate you have an almost singular interest in Misplaced Pages for political topics only, you have been very active in the "madrassa" area specifically, including edits that changed "school" to "madrassa" for no apparent reason other than to keep the word in play, for example here. I've also seen you removing references to Unification Church ownership of the Washington Times, which seem to be peripherally associated with this kind of problem. You might want to take a look at WP:TE, and please let's try to keep it civil. WNDL42 (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes. WP:TE: "Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view", particularly in your case that of your bête noir, the Unification Church. Comparing your profile with mine makes it clear which of us is obsessed with that subject. And, if you want to know if I'm a Moonie, I've answered that question. Search this page for "atheist". Andyvphil (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course (and I do wear it on my sleeve) I am virulently opposed to Moon's propagandist intervention in US politics, you can see that on my talk page quite clearly -- I do not hide anything. In particular, as a libertarian, I am especially opposed to what I see as the perversion of post Reagan-era neoconservatism by the neo-straussian "moonie" influence on the GOP. The Moon church has turned "neocon" into an epithet, and we are seeing a backlash against it in the GOP's embrace of McCain. Were we (you and I) to work together in a less rhetorically "heated" environment, I expect we'd find areas of common ground. My request that we jointly "turn it down a notch" is meant to allow room for that possibility to emerge. Thanks for talking. WNDL42 (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Barack Obama media controversy DRV close
The default outcome to a DRV is endorse and I just don't see a consensus to overturn in the DRV comments. DGG probably makes the most cogent argument when he says that a seperate article on these issues given them undue weight. In general though, no policy demands that an article be kept against consensus though a few may call for its deletion (e.g. BLP or copyright), thus even relatively weak arguments weigh against the article as long as they are not completely unreasonable or factually incorrect. Your arguments likewise were reasonable and well put, but there failure to attract more support means that I can't find a consensus to overturn. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The whole situation is pretty tacky imo, but the most recently cached version of the article is at http://obama.wikia.com/Barack_Obama_media_controversy where you could 're-wikify' it if you'd like. (The source code is elsewhere so the footnotes are available as well - just a lot of work to restore them.) A related article was 'quickly' deleted in equally questionable circumstances earlier, and that version is also saved http://obama.wikia.com/Muslim_and_madrassa_school_rumors Probably better than continuing to play this ridiculous cat-and-mouse game where "dirty politics" articles are consistently deleted right before an election. Better yet, the entire article (complete with history) would be moved to the Wikia. I remember you posted something about earlier versions of it being better in some ways.Flatterworld (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I've been editing very lightly the last few days and haven't felt up to composing a proper reply to your questions. I am indeed conflating the two questions. There is no tradition of a "No Consensus" close at DRV so even if I had felt the arguments to be in exact equipoise (rather than slightly tilted toward endorse) I would have used the summary deletion endorsed, since that is the practical outcome of a no consensus DRV, particularly in cases such as this where BLP is alleged; see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. DRV's run for 5 days, many obvious ones are closed short of that time and m ore difficult ones are left for longer, however, they are not left to run indefinitely. In this case, I judged that the debate had run it's course and was unlikely to garner further comments and very unlikely indeed to fresh comments that might produce an alternate consensus. Even after carefull rereading of your comments, I do not understand your claim that "the closing admin had effectively admitted to a policy violation". I only see argument claiming that the article in question was compliant with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines and should have been kept on that basis. But our guidelines and even, to a large extent, our policies are descriptive not proscriptive. Even though you believe that the article is in compliance with all applicable guidelines it can still be deleted if a consensus exists that it is inappropriate. Misplaced Pages policies are somewhat vague by design with particular applications determined by consensus. Thus the arguments that the page violated the spirit if not necessarily the letter of WP:NOT and WP:BLP are valid and must be weighed. Your argument that the delete votes in the AfD were without basis in policy (and thus that a close based on them should be overturned) was not accepted by a consensus at DRV and thus the closure was sustained. I hope this answers your questions, but know that it will be somewhat unsatisfactory. I understand the frustration of being overruled at DRV. My own first experience with it was being unanimously told that my challenge to an AfD closure was groundless. I also want to add that your nomination was in no way out of order and that it did state a claim on which relief could have been granted had a consensus below agreed with it. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in edit warring according to the reverts you have made on several articles, characterized by this and several other edits. In the context of what appears to be a single-issue tendentious pattern of edits extending for several months, your edits in these areas appear to be unconstructive and reflective of the POV of Jeffrey T. Kuhner. Please see WP:COAT and ] and consider whether your editing pattern is constructive in these topic areas. WNDL42 (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
3RR? Takes 4 diffs. Please specify. And don't "warn" me again without diffs. Or counting your own. And I've already debunked this "meatpuppet" nonsense, most notably here: . And it takes two to "edit war". I will continue to try to undo some of the damage you continue to inflict on Misplaced Pages's attempt at NPOV. Andyvphil (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No, 3rr applies in broader contexts, see the template I'm now adding here, and please review WP:3RR in it's entirety.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
You are being warned here about your tendentious and multiple non-constructive reverts across a range of articles related to content disputes in topic above. There are at least three articles in which your reverts have been a problem and have been identified as such by multiple editors. WNDL42 (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, your welcome re: the message you left at my talk page. I think the problem is that with the US political season in full swing, we'll get loads of partisan edits especially from regarding whatever topic or candidate is "in" with the college kids. I don't know if that includes you (showing my age here), but the level of POV edits from User:Wndl42 seems to indicate a lack of perspective. I'll check that page when I can, but in truth, no one really cares about that issue anymore and no one should read Misplaced Pages as a definitive source on touchy topics. Its great for many things, but too many people view it as their political blog on these topics. Jmcnamera (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No explanation (except maybe in the name of art) for Maria could do
Forget it passing muster with handlers, who'd avoid putting the Che chic out into the MSM that way. But maybe as you'd said, Barack's response at some point will be deemed necessary, through some YouTube debate in the general election or something? Where Barack would again express his regret and all).
But say Maria did want to stand up for her sensiblities and give what her rationale is to love Che. What could she say?
"It was hung next to a peace sign as something evocative of the sixties--- Man." That's about all I can think of. She might go on, but it would be hard to avoid digging herself into a hole.
"Upon reflection, I regret my bad taste in trying to symbolize youth, idealism, and the thirst for change through a butcher like Ernesto "Che." I'm sorry." That's about all she could say. But really it would be much better for the campaign for her to just lay low.
(What did Buckingham Palace come up with after Prince Harry came off the Polo field and was photographed in a Che T-shirt? I couldn't google it. Whatever the case---here's a press release from Carlos Santana's "people"): "Carlos Santana was invited to perform, along with Antonio Banderas, the winner of Best Original Song: 'Al Otro Lado Del Dio' from The Motorcycle Diaries, a movie based on a nonfiction novel, the 'Motorcycle Diaries' by Ernesto Guevara de la Serna and 'Traveling With Che Guevara' by Alberto Granado. For that occasion, Carlos Santana wore a shirt with a Che Guevara image from a famous graphic poster underneath his suit. The image was not intended to project a single note of the hatred, anger or revolutionary ruthlessness displayed when Che Guevara was a revolutionary leader in Cuba. It was worn to honor the soulful young man portrayed in the movie, who awoke to the struggle of the disenfranchised and who had a profound political epiphany during a journey across South America. The image was not meant to be an endorsement about a man who helped to establish the Castro dictatorship in Cuba. "Carlos Santana has always preached non-violence and spiritual awakening to promote a consciousness evolution, not revolution. The film and book portrayed Che as a person who cared about the poor and the needy. Santana Management hopes that those people who were offended by the image will understand the intention in which Carlos displayed it. "Tickets for the June 1st Santana 'Embrace Your Light' Tour at American Airlines Arena are still available. "Source: Carlos Santana "MIAMI, June 1, 2005 /PRNewswire/"
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
No way on earth
you can get NPOV edits about Obama's youthful associations with Islam in the current environment (although I admire your trying). Justmeherenow (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Throw in a few reverts. Not everyone is so fastidious about mentioning the subject at hand as WNDL42, or as focussed on overplaying the Moonie angle. But 72-whatever has weight in what appears on the page, no matter how deranged his argument, if no one reverts him. Andyvphil (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Warning: Edit Warring at United States journalism scandals
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States Journalism Scandals. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
Please be advised that this edit is considered to be edit warring. See talk page and discuss major revisions.
I told you to stop spamming my page with bogus warnings. And I invite anyone who reads this to examine the diff you provide to see if it has any relevance to WP:SOCK. Are you alleging that the editor who agreed with me about my reversal of your mass deletion was a WP:SOCK? And you have the chutzpah to instruct me to "discuss major revisions" because of my reversal of your undiscussed major deletion? "Jackass" doesn't begin to describe what I think of you. Andyvphil (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three reverts rule on United States journalism scandals. Signing out and editing anonymously does not exempt you from the limitations on edit warring, and being first to report someone at 3RR does not confer immunity.
You may resume editing after the block expires but continued edit warring will result in longer blocks without further warning. Remember: There are no emergencies on Misplaced Pages. If necessary, seek dispute resolution through the proper channels. Kafziel 08:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
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).
Wtf? I did not "sign out and edit anonymously". I signed out and went to a movie with a date! See , which I already linked to in my 3RR complaintagainst WNDL42, and where I already requested checkuser to confirm the falsity of WNDL42's allegation that the ip address he was warring with was me. I did not violate 3RR. I even added the page to the sockpuppet complaint list, so that I could be cleared, because WNDL42 had created it without taking that necessary step to actually get it listed and attended to. I DID NOT VIOLATE 3RR! Never mind that WNDL42's text is a BLP violation alleging in Misplaced Pages's voice that Kuhner committed a "double smear" against both Obama and Clinton, i.e. that he lied about having a source in Clinton's campaign. JKuhner (yes, he has a username, and has complained and may conceivably sue) is a living person, and saying he lied is an actionable slander, and that removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR. That doesn't come into play BECAUSE I DIDN'T VIOLATE 3RR! After I came back on line I merely filed a 3RR report. I didn't even revert the page, which is now protected with WNDL42's BLP-violating POV-atrocity smear of Kuhner locked in place. Just go there and read it! Then come back and tell me it's OK.
Decline reason:
Like the blocking admin, I consider it likely that it was you who continued reverting WNDL42 while logged out; compare and . As to the alleged WP:BLP violation present in the content you reverted, the words "double smear" cannot be found in it and I cannot therefore understand your argument that the reversions were done to enforce BLP. — Sandstein (talk) 09:46, 2 March 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.
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).
Ok, I've compared the two edits. We both hit the undo button. Looks the same when two different editors do it as when one editor does it in two guises. What's your point? As to it being "likely" that I'm 70.13.183.189... You've got to be kidding. I've got several thousand edits in and you think it "likely" that I'd requested checkuser ("I welcome a checkuser on this wild assertion.") and sought attention for the "sock puppet" allegation if checkuser is going to show that I'm the anonymous IP? As I've made no secret in the past, I'm in Pacifica, CA, just south of San Francisco. 70.13.183.189 is in, um, Long Beach. Or nearby. I just checked my IP, and it says 24.23.229.223 is in Pinole, 35 mi NE of here. Close enough, I guess. Lessee... Google maps says Pacifica to Long Beach is 417 miles, 6 hours and 23 minutes. But I'm Superman. Made it in 24 minutes. Also, lessee... the Journalism Scandal version only says "anonymously written and unsourced article" and attributes the "rare double splatter" bit to MediaWeek. Not as bad as earlier versions, but what do you think "unsourced" means if not that Kuhner lied when he said he had a source? Were the "Deep Throat" stories "unsourced"? Anyway, compare the version still at Insight (magazine), where I've had less impact: "On January 17, 2007, Insight published what would quickly come to be known among journalists and media experts as 'the first anonymous smear' of the 2008 U.S. presidential election campaign, and as a 'double smear' on two of its candidates. The first sentence of the report asked the loaded question..." "Known to journalists...as a 'double smear'"? You do know the bit in WP:V about sourcing claims of consensus, don't you? Understand, Insight is editorially a one-man operation. Insight is Kuhner. If he didn't have a source in Clinton's campaign, he lied. If he smeared Clinton and Obama rather than reporting Clinton staffers smears of Obame, he lied. I have undone most of WNDL42's smearing at Obama's campaign '08 article, which has the highest profile and the most editors involved and it's from there that I imported the more NPOV text which WNDL42 keeps reverting. Even if you're not familiar with this material, if you read that version and consider the distinctions made there that are obscured by WNDL42's version I am confident you will see why the latter violates BLP policy. And BLP violations are an exception to the rule that "there are no emergencies". Did you get that bit about Jkuhner having complained? (Actually it was publishtruth - "The article is tilted in the direction of trying to smear Insight on the News and destroying its credibility." - who appears to be an employee of J.Kuhner -- this is Jkuhner's only talk page post) That was before WNDL42 got hold of his articles and made them much, much, much worse. Anyway, I DID NOT VIOLATE 3RR! And removing BLP violations is policy, not edit warring. Damn sensible too, when the BLP in question has complained. Do you want Misplaced Pages to be sued?
Decline reason:
Regardless of the exact details, you have been edit warring and the block is appropriate. I should remind you that 3RR is not an entitlement, and arguing about the exact number or nature of reverts you engaged in while edit warring is not a conductive to having your block lifted. — Coren 23:14, 2 March 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 have contacted the blocking admin. (diff) - Revolving Bugbear 12:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. And I appreciate protocol between admins. But in the case of a well-documented error like this... Oh, well. This is the second time I've been blocked for 3RR without violating it. All I did this time was report a 5RR. And I tried a BLP noticeboard post without getting any help either. Really encourages one to respect the rules. Just "seek dispute resolution through the proper channels". That'll work. Sure. Andyvphil (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a "well-documented error". Even without counting the anon edits, you made 3 reverts as part of an ongoing edit war. You've been going round and round with this editor for quite some time, and a BLP noticeboard post almost a month ago (which you did not initiate) does not constitute an attempt at dispute resolution.
I can't make heads or tails of your argument about how this applies to BLP; as far as I can tell, you just seem to be trying to remove the acknowledged author's name from the section and make a few minor changes. But that doesn't even matter, because even if we completely disregard the whole issue about Kuhner, your reverts include replacing large amounts of other unrelated content. Whether he's right or not, the other editor claims those sections are irrelevant, and this is therefore a content dispute, not a BLP issue. Kafziel 18:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course there's a content dispute. WNDL42 deleted massive amounts of the page and I restored it, saying on the talk page that he needed to justify each section deleted on a case by case basis, since he has a long record of displaying poor judgement (an observation which is not an AGF violation). He deleted it again and another editor restored it, with a similar admonition. He deleted and I restored twice more and then I stopped. He then went through the same process with another editor, who also stopped. You decided I was both opposing editors and, explaining that "Signing out and editing anonymously does not exempt you from the limitations on edit warring". Was or was not your implicit assertion that I had done this a "well-documented error" on your part? If you are not yet convinced that this is a well-documented error on this part will you please arrange a checkuser so that it will become a "well-documented error"?
What the "dispute resolution process" involves in the real world of Misplaced Pages, when dealing with an editor who is not prepared to be reasonable, is in part not an absence of edit warring but processes to bring a dispute to the attention of enough editors so the the latter can, working within the rules, overwhelm the disruption caused by the former, either minimizing the disruption the former can cause by weight of numbers or forcing him to go outside the rules so that other action can be taken. Do you dispute this?
In this case, in the "content" part of the dispute, WNDL42 is deleting long-standing material actively opposed by two editors and implicitly opposed by all the editors who participated in writing the material and who left it in place over time. Both of the editors opposing him, neither of whom wrote the material in question (other than the Insight/Kuhner section, in my case) asked nothing more of him than that he justify his deletions section by section and in some detail, soimething he unreasonably refuses to do.
to be extended, after a break. Andyvphil (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that editors have to discuss their changes. That's not the case. Not even when the content is "long-standing". Not even when more than one editor wants them to stop. Our policy on consensus states that the main way consensus is to be sought is through bold editing and active change. Discussion is a last resort. Would it be helpful if he would discuss it? Absolutely. Does the fact that he won't mean you can edit war with him to get your way? Nope.
As you must know, 3RR does not guarantee you three free reverts per day. Whether or not you and the IP editor are one and the same is irrelevant - I said signing out doesn't confer immunity, but I didn't say that was the reason for the block. You made three reverts as part of an edit war that has been going on for quite some time and on multiple articles, breaking the spirit of 3RR, and you were finally blocked for it. If you continue the reverts without seeking proper dispute resolution after the block expires, I will block you again. End of story. Kafziel 23:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You didn't answer my questions. Is or is it not a well-documented error to assert that I am 70.13.183.189, and if it is not will you arrange checkuser to make it well-documented? Nor did you respond to my question about how you think the "dispute resolution process" works when dealing with an unreasonable editor. What is the point of a RfC if no one can undo the damage of a "boldly" unreasonable without being accused of "edit warring"? Or is one revert allowed? How often? Are you pulling the rule you want to enforce out of your ass? 3RR says three a day, with exceptions if an editor's behavior is disruptive. Was my behavior disruptive? I used up the number of reverts I though was allowed and then did not revert furher, but instead filed a 3RR notification (which I'd never done before) and asked for help on the underlying problem.
Are you really serious that you see no difference in POV-pushing between the version I imported from Barack Obama,campaign '08 and WNDL42's atrocity? And, no, I don't mind if Kuhner's name is mentioned. My insistance all along has been merely that his insistence that he got the misinformation from the Clinton campaign not be obscured, and that Misplaced Pages take an appropriately NPOV view of the undecided question. If you answer no other question, answer this: IS OR IS NOT WNDL42'S VERSION OF THE INSIGHT/MADRASSA SCANDAL A SMEAR? Andyvphil (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
CheckUsers aren't performed at a user's request to clear his own name. You can be as indignant as you like. There's no reason to perform a RCU here because it doesn't matter - you're blocked because of the edits you made with this account. And it wouldn't prove anything, anyway. You'd hardly be the first person on Misplaced Pages to call or email someone else and ask them to help with an edit war.
I have not the slightest bit of interest in this content issue, so I'm not going to discuss the merits of either side. I don't care. But, yes, your behavior has been disruptive - as I said, this dispute has been going on for quite a while, on a number of different pages. You seem to have elected yourself the smear police, and I'm here to tell you that that's not so. What I can tell you is that his removal of those other sections is not a "smear" and you have no right to edit war over replacing them. If the only section you touched was the Kuhner section, you might (if I cared to look further into the issue) have a leg to stand on. But your decision to make wholesale reverts the way you did (evidently because of some personal grudge) took you out of the domain of BLP. Kafziel 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
At least I've chosen to do, in part, something minor but positive to the value of this encyclopedia, namely make sure that a particular incident isn't misrepresented. Your only motivation seems to be to massage your ego by exploiting the minor arbitrary power given you by an unwisely awarded admin bit. It's clearly weaseling to say that you did not block me for exceeding 3RR by continuing to edit war as an anon. Your block explanation gave no other reason for the block than the assertion you now insist is "irrelevant". And you are still using locutions like "Whether or not you and the IP editor are one and the same" when it is perfectly obvious that this is not true. And inventing fantasy scenarios on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that I am colluding with someone outside Misplaced Pages channels. You ought to apoligize to me for having made an AGF-violating assumption on such little evidence as the fact that we both reverted WNDL42 by hitting the "undo" button. But you are obviously too small a person to admit error. Andyvphil (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
United States journalism scandals
The article has been locked to give everyone a chance to either a) engage in productive discussion, or b) seek dispute resolution. You don't seem to be doing either of those. If, not having attempted to reach a compromise, you use even one edit to continue the edit war after the page protection is lifted, I will block you again. I don't want to do that. The other two editors on that talk page are trying to come to an agreement; I suggest you stop with the "atrocity" stuff and do the same. Kafziel 01:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
They're not trying to come to an agreement with me. Andyvphil (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If they don't, then they'll be the ones with the problem. This is a good start on your part, and I thank you for it. Keep making concise, constructive points with a minimum of hyperbole, and maybe we can get somewhere. Kafziel 16:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't a "start". I've been making similar points in similar ways all along. And been ignored. Now suppose we look ahead and see that if I change where "Madrassa" points to in line with my comments, or replace the unsupported characterization of the Insight article as "unsourced" with merely "anonymously sourced", and I am reverted, what then? The "dispute resolution process" isn't working. Unreasonable editors are ignoring reasonable arguments and attempts to get to get wider community attention, like the BLP noticeboard posting, where you denigrated my participation, or this RfC are garnering no interest. You happened to settle on WNDL42's POV atrocity in freezing the Scandals page and as best I can see you offer no workable method of changing it. Andyvphil (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It was a "start", because it's the first time I've seen you make a point without excessive exaggeration and aggression. (Incidentally, it's also the first time I've seen you make a point using less than 1,000 words. If you want people to bother reading your position, 9 times out of 10 you're going to need to cut to the chase. Nobody is impressed with - much less convinced by - long talk-page diatribes. I speak from experience.)
In regard to the RfC, this is what I'm talking about when I say there are no emergencies. It's been, what, two days? This is a volunteer project - nobody is going to ask "how high?" when you tell them to jump. Just relax, and someone will get to it eventually. In the meantime, you may want to make some concise, specific, civil points about what you want, so when people show up from the RfC it doesn't take them an hour to figure out what's going on and they won't feel like they're walking into a shit storm. The disagreement is actually quite small, but it's been blown way out of proportion. Reign it back in, and people might feel like helping.
As far as you're concerned right now, the only workable method is civil talk page discussion. The necessary changes can and will be implemented when appropriate, but I'm not talking about that right now because the article is locked so it's not our concern. Kafziel 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of United States journalism scandals
An editor has nominated United States journalism scandals, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My userboxes
I tried to make it where I had 3 userboxes in each row, What screen resolution are you using? I don't see any problem with them, but I'm using a screen res of 1280x1024, which I'm sure isn't the norm. star 03:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm using 1024x768, which leaves your userboxes piled on top of each other mid-screen. They unpile and end up three-in-a-row when the number in the template gets somewhere near 780. Try bringing up the page and setting your monitor to a lower resolution. It'll go back automatically to your preferred setting if you don't approve it (I'm assuming Windows) but you should be able to see the effect. Andyvphil (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Obama
Please seek consensus on the talk page before editing. Your edits are highly controversial, and need to be discussed. You already know this. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
As well as the 4 reverts you pointed out on the obama talk page ,he also made this revert early in the morning. Thats 5 reverts in 12 hours. Realist2 (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well done, you already included it in the report. Realist2 (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I also think it needs explaining how close the two were to eachother and the fact he was criticised for reacting to weakly and slowely. Thoughts?Realist2 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Obviously it's a problem for Obama that he admits knowing of Wright's statements over a year ago, so I wrote it so as point that out as soon as I saw it, but I really haven't been following the story that closely. Which is why my merge is a bit incoherent on the relative importance of ABC & YouTube. I haven't studied it enough to know. But I could see ways in which the version in there between POV deletes was unsatisfactory, so I took a shot at a bit of fixing before I hit the sack. Andyvphil (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
72.0.180.2
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Misplaced Pages about living persons. Thank you.
From WP:Words to Avoid: It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear biased or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't. A more neutral wording is preferable and can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label."
So fyi, also please know I WILL REPORT MYSELF to 3rr before you have grounds, in a pre-emptive manner. BLP vio's are exempt from strict 3rr requirements so don't expect to win this NEW issue- you keep pretending this is somehow involved with the prior arguments. It's "poorly sourced" text, which is a BLP vio, it also violates words to avoid- so there is free reign to RV on it. The more you re-add it, the quicker you dig your own hole. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Please supply the link to your self-report. The BLP exemption is often claimed by editors who are clearly not entitled to it, and if I am still on line I'm sure I will want to point out why your claim is bogus. Or you could transclude my response on this point from your BLP noticeboard posting, as well as supplying a link to the 3rdO thread, if you really want to prove that you're merely wrongheaded rather than operating in bad faith. Cheers! Andyvphil (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
keep trying andy, you're also violating all the "consensus on talk" provisions too, and I mean I will report it when it goes over 3rr lol. You haven't responded to your HUGE words to avoid problem so again I will report when necessary and rv when necessary. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Until you actually report yourself, please stop spamming my talk page. Andyvphil (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
why do you refuse to talk about this? I mean, I keep providing sources that you won't respond to... you just rely on 3rr hearings and the one third opinion that you yourself ignored until last week. I really want to talk about it, but while we do, the language can not be on the page per BLP. But seriously what are your reasons for inclusion, taking into account the paragraph from "words to avoid", I think that is a totally valid discussion to have, before we add the text again. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The Nation viewpoint is that there is a "campaign" directed against Obama consisting of Martin, emails, Insight etc. A different POV is that these are unconnected by anything except their target, independently inspired by his name and background. Justice to the latter POV (ie, NPOV) requires that we make distinctions about what is actually being alleged and what is known about their actual connections. E.g., Martin said nothing about Indonesian schooling. Insight didn't say Obama is a Muslim, etc. Putting them all into a vaporous category of "background" doesn't do justice to NPOV.
Your edits since this revert indicate it's time for you to report yourself for 3RR. ... Andyvphil (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
actually it would probably be more fair if you did it lol 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Please respond to my comments about my edits and your edits on the talk page of the Pipes article. Can you take a look at {{citeweb}} and consider using it for your references? Also - you might want to archive this page. I can set you up with an archive box and a bot to archive it automatically, if that is the barrier rather than just a disinclination to archive. Avruch 22:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Review of Barack Obama's status as a featured article
Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw it too. Congrats, you are famous! Brianrein (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Come on over to Barack Obama. Most-seen article on Misplaced Pages, by a factor of two. Maybe you can be famous too. And new blood is badly needed in the editorial crew. Too many anti-NPOV warriors. Any random source of editors is bound to dilute that. Andyvphil (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Andy. I'd like to make a few edits to Barack Obama which I think should be uncontroversial, but since you questioned my previous edits during page protection, I'd like to get your opinion. (Not that I'm giving you a veto over my administrative actions — I just want to understand your position better.) One such change is the edit proposed at Talk:Barack Obama#Link change request: Lobbying in the United States to Israel lobby in the United States; I'm the only person who's replied to Lucretius there, which I take to mean that it's uncontroversial. Would you agree?
Third, several days ago I suggested trimming the section on Obama's 2004 DNC keynote address (see Talk:Barack Obama#2004 keynote: undue weight?). There was little response, in part I think because editors were focused on other disputes (Scjessey said that he thought the idea made sense in another section).
Finally, I'd like to make what I think is a rather minor edit to the controversial paragraph about Wright, as discussed just above Talk:Barack Obama#Possible way forward?.
In normal circumstances, I wouldn't think twice about making changes like these to a protected article, since none of the changes except the last one is related to the disputed subjects, and the last change appears to me to make the article more accurate and should be acceptable to both proponents and opponents of the article's current form. However, you made a rather subtle point about glacial changes to an article you consider POV being somehow a misuse of protected status. I don't quite understand that argument, and I'd like to see how you'd apply that criterion to the changes I mention here. I'm asking on your talk page rather than on the article's talk page because there's so much activity there and so much passion from the participants that I fear the policy-related question I'm asking would be drowned out. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
No, yes, I haven't examined the question, and yes. I've commented on the first two on the talk page. The article is biased and protected status makes it easier keep it that way. What part of that observation don't you understand? Andyvphil (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The part in which aspersions are cast on good-faith edits made by administrators in accordance with the protection policy. If your problem is that you believe the article is biased, you shouldn't object to edits unrelated to the points of dispute. The complaint sounds to me like a variation on The Wrong Version.
I'm relatively new to the dispute, and I haven't gone through the talk page's history to see everything that's gone before, but I can see that the page has been protected quite a bit, often because of edit warring. Even if we grant the existence of a "pro-Obama clique", I think that your methods in attempting to deal with them have tended towards edit warring. I'm sure that your intentions are good, but I think you're going about it the wrong way.
What steps in the dispute resolution process have been attempted in this? I see that there's been at least one RfC, which hasn't had much impact. Has anyone discussed mediation? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you intend to mean by "aspersions... cast on good-faith edits made by administrators". I've agreed to three of the last five proposed edits, rejected one minor one on the grounds that it is misguided, and expressed no opinion on the fifth. I've expressed the opinion that the agreed-to edits do not move the article substantially towards NPOV and specified that the fact that I've agreed to a change does not mean that I've agreed not to improve on the results of the change. As is surely my right.
From my first edits to the Obama bio page the way the entrenched pro-Obama claque has dealt with them is by edit warring. They've simply reverted out any material they don't like, demanding that I get their prior consent to any edits, which consent they've routinely witheld on spurious grounds or on no grounds whatsoever. And while the page is protected they are in exactly the position they wanted -- no change can be made without their prior consent. I haven't suggested that the page protection was performed for this reason (so your reference to the Wrong Version satire essay is unjustified) but I have noticed that the result is their getting their way and it is certainly possible that the editor requesting the page protection realized that that would be the result. And may do so next time for exactly that reason, even if it wasn't the reason this time.
As when FAR was proposed, I will welcome anything that brings the state of this article to wider attention, mediation included. Andyvphil (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
My comment about aspersions was a reference to your earlier remark, "It's unclear to me that your action is not out of policy in terms of an edit to a protected page", not to your response here. I initiated this discussion as an attempt to understand that better. As a practical matter, the question is moot now that the protection has expired, but I wanted to understand your viewpoint so as to minimize future conflict or disagreement. I'm not sure I've gained the understanding I sought, but at least I tried. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The comment you quote is too neutral in tone to be called an "aspersion". And it is too likely that the page will soon be protected again for the question to be moot. Andyvphil (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wright in Obama
I'm actually perfectly okay with this. Thought the POV tag still should be more specific. Now that you've included the controversy in the presidential campaign, it should only be where you still think there's a problem, which I think is the Senate section. Thanks, Grsz11 16:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Your "being okay" hasn't so far resulted in an suppoprt, either in mainspace or on the talk page. Please clarify. Andyvphil (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If I could rely on the individuals who remove necessary-to-NPOV content to restore the POV tags when they do so I might agree to tag only sections. Or maybe not. The POV balance of the article taken as a whole is very much at issue and under active discussion. There's no excuse for removing the tag. Andyvphil (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Andy, the proper statement in the featured Article Review is "Close and move to FARC." The term "FARC" represents "Featured Article Removal candidate." In my opinion, attempting to improve the article is useless because there are too many people who like the hagiography just the way it is. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The Nation
I've responded further here. Jayjg 17:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice. I added my comment to yours. Andyvphil (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
April 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please note your violation in these diffs: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4. Although there are 4 diffs listed, I note they only constitute a total of 3 reversions (since 2 of them are partial); however, this is still considered to be edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
What is the "previous version" for the first "revert"? The two middle "reverts" are part of a single uninterrupted edit sequence and therefor constitute a single revert for the purposes of 3RR. And of course this revert by you is "edit warring" as well. Note the unconcionable removal of the POV tag despite the simultaneous reference to the talk page discussion the tag gives notice of. Sheesh. Andyvphil (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. To quote from WP:3RR, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." - that means you have violated the rule again, just 26 hours after your previous violation. I am not going to report you for it (I think that is just a childish thing to do, and I like to give editors a chance to self-revert) but perhaps you would consider engaging in a meaningful conversation and try to build consensus on the article talk page before making such edits in future. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Since I've so far made exactly one sequence of edits to the article in question in a 24 hour period, your warning is quite bizarre. I have however reported you for your recent actual violation of 3RR. And "childish" or not, I suggest again that you restrain yourself or face the consequences. Andyvphil (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Obama talk page
Andy, is there a reason you're avoiding the discussion at Talk:Barack Obama? Several of us are trying to hammer out a compromise wording for some of the disputed sections (such as the Jeremiah Wright paragraph), but it's difficult to do that when one of the main editors is notable by his absence. It would be particularly helpful if you could comment at Talk:Barack Obama#Time for mediation? and/or Talk:Barack Obama#Wright compromise at last?. I know that your experience on that talk page hasn't been entirely positive, but some of us are trying to change the combative tone of the discussion and focus on the content dispute. We can't really get anywhere without your participation, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Your comments here, please. Thanks! --HailFire (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
genocide and people of color
Hi andy; glad you're still keeping it real. anyways genocide means attempt to kill a race or ethnicity, so having genocide against people of color is a duplicate statement... fyi 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Umm...no. It's not redundant, which is what I suppose you mean. Specifying the target is additional information. Andyvphil (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I remind you to follow article convention when it comes to citations. If you are going to add your POV crap to the article, at least make an effort to provide proper citations for readers to follow. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm at 3 reverts, you're at 4. Leave the next revert to someone else, please. Andyvphil (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm at 2 (if you include the "Hamas" thing). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Misuse of edit summary
Discussing how many reversion I have made in an edit summary, particularly when your math is once again flawed, is a gross misuse of edit summaries. Also, please stop trying to push WP:WEIGHT violations. You are loading up the article with useless information and violations of the neutral point of view. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Too late to appeal now, but I did not violate 3RR, though Scjessey did. Andyvphil (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Andy, however you count the reversions, you're still edit warring. I commend you for joining the conversation about the state legislature paragraph, but you're still adding other sentences (such as the "not all civil rights" bit) without engaging in discussion on the talk page. If you continue to add the same material without discussing it on the talk page, I will block you again for edit warring, for a longer period. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"...however you count the reversions..."? There is no question about how I am counting the reversions. I did not violate 3RR, and as a fellow reverter you are in no position to go beyond clear policy to decide that my reverts are "edit warring" and yours are not. Restrain yourself. Andyvphil (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
May 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. For your information, the three reversions are: diff1-a, diff1-b, diff2, diff3. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm at three, as is Ubiq. You're at two. Andyvphil (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The point of the above template is not just to warn users about the 3RR, but to elucidate the reasons behind it. Aside from making one comment about Trinity UCC and black liberation theology, you're still not engaging your fellow editors on the article's talk page, or making persuasive arguments about why the versions you prefer are more in keeping with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. A slow-motion edit war is still an edit war, and the other participants are at least trying to engage in discussion. If you continue to add the same material without discussion, you may be blocked regardless of whether you keep to the 3RR "speed limit". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. I have engaged in discussion on all the issues. The unwillingness of the pro-Obama claque to even allow it, e.g., to be neutrally mentioned that Trinity is a black liberation theology church and, e.g., the insistance that ADA's measure of Obama's liberalism be misrepresented as showing a decline in that liberalisam has been persuasively challenged by me without any plausible response from the pro-Obama claque, merely supported by reverts of the restoration of that information without any further argument to the talk page to which I might respond. My restoration of material is no more or less edit warring than their removal of it. If there is any argument which I have overlooked and to which I have not responded, please enlighten me. Your partisan judgement on my persuasiveness is irrelevant. I don't find your ukases that "this is too much detail" persuasive either. Andyvphil (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Working together on Wright
Since there's recently been a lot of edit warring on Jeremiah Wright controversy, I've made a post about working together constructively at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy#Working together. You've recently made some very helpful edits to that article (notably restructuring the first part of the article so that it talks about the specific sermons, instead of talking about this and that offensive subject), and I'd appreciate it if you could add any thoughts you have there. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Bill Moyers — warning
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Misplaced Pages about living persons, as you did to Bill Moyers. Thank you. Your single source for this is inadequate, especially since Moyers says the conversation related by Silberman is inaccurate.► RATEL ◄ 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Your understanding of policy is erroneous. The WSJ is a reliable source for the fact that Silberman identified Moyers as the author of the memo. Andyvphil (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bill Moyers. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ► RATEL ◄ 14:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit intro
Re:
You can add an link to the intro section by going into your My preferences, selecting the Gadgets tab (far right on the bottom row of tabs), and then checking the box next to "Add an link for the lead section of a page" in the User interface gadgets section. --Bobblehead 21:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Have done so. Hard to understand why it's not the default. Andyvphil (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Calling editors "deluded" and "specious"
Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Bill Moyers. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. ► RATEL ◄ 23:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You are deluded if you think calling arguments specious violates NPA. Andyvphil (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Do not change other editor's comments in any way
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Bill Moyers, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ► RATEL ◄ 23:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You use of illigible yellow text on a glaring red background is a "formatting error" similar to but more extreme than the use of ALL CAPITALS. See "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments" at the link you supplied. Andyvphil (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
INCIVILITY WARNING
This was uncivil. Do not continue incivility and edit warring, you can be blocked. --Abd (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Per this report, you're edit-warring and have made 5+ reverts in just over 24 hours. In the setting of previous 3RR blocks and longstanding issues relating to this article, you've been blocked for 1 week. Please make an effort to solicit outside input or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit-warring when the block expires. MastCell 22:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
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).
Misleading 3RR report, no actual 3RR violation, no threat of disruption, behavior no different or better than other editors -- including reporting editor -- who have not been blocked. See below.
Decline reason:
Trying to wikilawyer out of this will not work, the 24 hour rule is loose, so the revert on the 22nd "counts." There is always a threat of disruption from edit wars, something you have been warned about in the past. The bad behaviour of others is no excuse for your own behaviour. 1 week seems an appropriate length given previous blocks. — Woody (talk) 14:33, 24 May 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.
Scjessey reported me for 3RR after I had made 3 edits on 23 May and dragged in a revert from 22 may to make it seem I had violated 3RR. But the last two edits constituted only one revert, per the consecutive-edit rule, so I had only two reverts on 23 May and one the previous day, at that point. Before several edits on 22 May, including the one revert, I had not edited the article since 13 May. A couple hours later I made another revert and did not edit or log on again until this unblock request. By the time of my third revert on 23 May the edit from the preceeding day was no longer in the 24 hour window. My third revert was immediately undone by a member of the resident pro-hagiographic claque but I did not respond and five hours of inactivity passed before I was blocked. So, a total of four reverts in ten days, active participation in the discussion of the content dispute (where my position - that calling someone who founded and participated in a group which conducted multiple bombings and a fatal armored car robbery a "former radicial activist" is a bit too cute - has majority support), and no ongoing pursuit of the objective into 4RR territory... This is "edit warring" deserving of a one week block? Surely not.
And compare with my accuser's record of reverts (I've removed non-reverts from the 3RR tool dump) over the same period:
01:31, 13 May 2008 (edit summary: " rm POV stuff, restore deleted content that was carefully worked out in consensus process") Undoes another editor's move, pruning.
00:12, 14 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Presidential campaign */ Presidential campaign: - rm redundant details") Removes "23-year" from "23-year relationship with Wright".
22:06, 14 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ - rm good faith edits. Way too much detail and bizarre use of Amazon.com as a reference")
14:23, 21 May 2008 (edit summary: "rv series of non-useful edits (overlinking, linking to dab pages, etc.), add reference to OR about recent primary results")
16:08, 22 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Early life and career */ - Andy's cite described a meeting, said nothing about fundraising. Cannot say Ayers is a bomb-maker, no proof or conviction. Check facts first, please.")
16:41, 22 May 2008 (edit summary: "rm Improve2009's factually-inaccurate detail about healthcase, rv Andy's defamation that lacks a reliable source (National Review opinion piece)")
15:58, 23 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Early life and career */ rm "secular resident" (why needed?) and fixed lazy referencing")
I inadvertently saved the above without completely checking Scjessey's list for non-reverts. So there may be a few. But I'm tired and need to go to bed, so I'll return to that task when I log on again. Note the actual 3RR violation on 22 May. But he files a bogus 3RR report and I'm blocked for a week without violating 3RR and he's not blocked despite violating 3RR again (having been previously paroled with self-block for having violated 3RR, gone ahead and violated 3RR with nothing more than a warniung from me, and actually been blocked for edit warring, all regarding Barack Obama). That's really screwy.Andyvphil (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
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).
reason — still disruptive and wikilawyering. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:58, 25 May 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.
As I understand it, the 3RR rule has two parts: there is an "electric fence" absolutely probibiting more than three reverts in a 24 hour period, and there is a looser standard for admin action allowing blocks even if a technical 3RR violation hasn't taken place if an editor's "behavior is clearly disruptive". I was falsely accused of "5+" reverts, and for Woody to dismissive characterize my proof that actually no technical 3RR violation took place as "Wikilawyering" demonstrates an absence of judicial temperment and a failure to grasp the issues. I ask that he not answer this attempt to have Mastcell's block reviewed as I would like to place my points before an admin who will give them serious consideration.
I've demonstrated above that there was no technical violation and given some of the reasons to think my actions were not "clearly disruptive". I've now also looked at my edits, and it seems that two of the four reported "reverts" were not, in fact, reverts.
By this point all mention of Ayers had been edit warred off Barack Obama, and I reused some of the material that had been deleted from his Early Career section, but this mention of Ayers in his Presidential Campaign section is a complete rewrite, not a revert to anything. Check it out.
Next...
1. 16:28, 22 May 2008 (edit summary: "Ayers:“Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.†Google it.")
This followed Scjessey's revert,(16:08, 22 May 2008 (edit summary: "/* Early life and career */ - Andy's cite described a meeting, said nothing about fundraising. Cannot say Ayers is a bomb-maker, no proof or conviction. Check facts first, please.")) of an addition I'd made. It should not be considered a revert either, as it should be taken together with my next edit, which adding a cite to Ayers own statement that he bombed the Pentagon. The two edits taken together did not return to a prior state(see WP:revert; diff).
With the "reverts" at both ends not actually reverts, we're down to the two reverts in the middle. Andyvphil (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
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).
Still looking for an admin who, whether he agrees with me or does anything else for me or not, will at least do me the courtesy of explaining to me the errors in my argument that the block against me was capricious, arbitrary, uninformed, unnecessary and arrogant.
Decline reason:
Your choice of words in your unblock request alone (which in my opinion just barely toes the line of WP:CIVIL) gives me no reason to think any explanation would satisfy you. However, after looking at your talk page, your edits, and your previous blocks, I think you should be grateful that you've only been blocked a week. — Jauerback/dude. 03:15, 26 May 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.
To review, after not editing Barack Obama since 5/13, on 5/22 and 5/23 I made a series of edits. On 5/24 I returned to find that a 3RR violation report had been filed against me and I had been blocked by an admin who accused me of violating 3RR, "hav made 5+ reverts in just over 24 hours". In fact the five edits reported contained only two reverts in 25 hours. The relevant paragraph of the 3RR policy is:
The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blockedeven if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring regardless of whether they have explicitly violated the three-revert rule. Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances.
The first stage of the dispute resolution process is talk page discussion of the issues, and I was engaged in that. My first "revert" was part of addressing a purported issue with the text I had written. My last "revert" was in fact a complete rewrite to a different part of the page of the content at issue and although that too was edit warred off the page I had not responded by restoring it. So, my "bad behavior" consists in ... what? Calling me names and stopping me from editing for a week doesn't cut it. Andyvphil (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil: Still looking for an admin who, whether he agrees with me or does anything else for me or not, will at least do me the courtesy of explaining to me the errors in my argument that the block against me was capricious, arbitrary, uninformed, unnecessary and arrogant.
Jauerback: Your choice of words in your unblock request alone (which in my opinion just barely toes the line of WP:CIVIL) gives me no reason to think any explanation would satisfy you. However, after looking at your talk page, your edits, and your previous blocks, I think you should be grateful that you've only been blocked a week.
Your choice to make a capricious, arbitrary, uninformed, and unnecessary reply, neutering my request for an admin who will address my arguments without doing me the courtesy of doing so yourself, except by vague and unsubstantiated reference to supposed previous malfeasance, confirms my repeated experience that the actions of editors with an admin bit are often both arrogant and unaccountable to any effective process whatsoever. As to my supposedly deserving a longer block for having done nothing wrong in this instance but merely because of my bad character, I had previously written the following:
Since you keep repeating your ad hominum smear about having been blocked, let me say that I have three times been blocked by admins using a template accusing me of violating the three revert rule and in no case had I actually done so. The last time, when I reverted an editor who had violated 3RR an admin who was involved on the opposite side of the content dispute blocked us both, with fine impartialty as to who was guilty and his own conflict of interest, on the grounds that I hadn't replied anew on the talk page to the 3RR violator who had in fact posted nothing on the talk page for me to reply to. The previous time I left off reverting a tendentious edit at three and returned to Misplaced Pages to find that I was accused of resumed reverting as an IP sockpuppet. When that was disproved -- the ip was 700 miles away -- the clueless admin fell back on asserting without any evidence that the ip might be a meatpuppet and insisted on continuing to block us both as well as the 6RR violator. And the first time I was blocked it was by an "edit warring" vigilante who, dissatisfied with the 3RR process, set up an "edit warring" noticeboard in his user space and in this case blocked three editors, two of whom had, as I recall, two reverts, and none of whom had four. He actually said of blocking me that I didn't deserve it, but that he did it becuse he would otherwise be accused of partiality. What this proves is that the judgement of some admins deserves the same contempt that the judgements of some editors deserve. Andyvphil (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
So now I have a fourth instance of multiple admins behaving like a tyrannical clique of arrogant bozos. Forgive me if I'm not surprised at this late date. Andyvphil (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You've now been blocked 4 times, by 4 different admins, for violating one of Misplaced Pages's most basic policies, namely the prohibition on edit-warring. You've also had at least 3 unblock requests denied, this time alone, by additional uninvolved admins. There are two possible explanations:
You've had the misfortune to repeatedly and consistently encounter arrogant, biased, misinformed, capricious, power-mad admins through absolutely no fault of your own;
Your behavior fundamentally and repeatedly violates the basic standards expected of editors at this site.
Obviously, you favor the former explanation. I would urge you to give some consideration to the latter - though it may be less convenient - particularly as your block expires and you resume editing. MastCell 21:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Since you have arrogantly again failed to address the substance of the case against me, there is no basis for me to reconsider my impression of your actions. You said in your block notice that I had performed "5+" reverts, which I have demonstrated shows without ambiguity that you were misinformed as well as arrogant in your failure to properly inform yourself before acting unnecessarily, and you failed to block the editor who misinformed you, despite his having actually violated 3RR, which proves that your action was capricious and arbitrary.
I do not think that I have been particularly unfortunate in the admins I have encountered. My assumption is rather that the sampling who have this time refused to respond meaningfully to the points I have made, and who have chosen to block my channel to request that someone else do so, is representative. The mullah class of Misplaced Pages is once again revealed to be capricious, arbitrary, uninformed, arrogant and prone to unnecessary misuse of its powers. And unaccountable to reason to any other check. But I knew that already. Andyvphil (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Stossel. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Croctotheface 23:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I decided to forgo the earlier 3RR route, which you 'were' guilty of, in the spirit of being civil and to AGF. However, you've been cautioned by numerous editors and now you personally attack me. I chose, again, to seek advice from others on the above consensus discussion. Some feel I should not close it while others feel I can. Again, I'm being Civil. However, in the manner of personally attacking, I will not because of the many editors who've already cautioned you. I would have put this privately on your page, but you are also bent on making it public and consistently bringing it here, so my warning is public on this page for all. --Maniwar (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Y
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States Journalism Scandals. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Misplaced Pages about living persons. Thank you.
Andy, however you count the reversions, you're still edit warring. I commend you for joining the conversation about the state legislature paragraph, but you're still adding other sentences (such as the "not all civil rights" bit) without engaging in discussion on the talk page. If you continue to add the same material without discussing it on the talk page, I will block you again for edit warring, for a longer period. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Bill Moyers. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. ► RATEL ◄ 23:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
