User talk:Knight Prince - Sage Veritas: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:51, 1 September 2009 editMangojuice (talk \| contribs)19,969 edits →My Block ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:08, 1 September 2009 edit undoKnight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk \| contribs)167 edits →My Block Next edit →
Line 53:		Line 53:
	{{unblock reviewed\|In the Joseph Barbera article I made a total of 3 edits in a period of 24 hours. The following are the 3 diffs from when the problem occured <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Joseph_Barbera&diff=311154754&oldid=310986347</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Joseph_Barbera&diff=311154754&oldid=311106854</ref>and<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Joseph_Barbera&diff=311152675&oldid=311106854</ref>.		{{unblock reviewed\|In the Joseph Barbera article I made a total of 3 edits in a period of 24 hours. The following are the 3 diffs from when the problem occured <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Joseph_Barbera&diff=311154754&oldid=310986347</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Joseph_Barbera&diff=311154754&oldid=311106854</ref>and<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Joseph_Barbera&diff=311152675&oldid=311106854</ref>.
	Consensus on the said article's talk was to leave the article as is but include a citation. After which I went forward and included the citation at the bottom of the infobox (as you see above in the diffs). I will admit that I should not have added Lebanese next to Italian in the ethnicity section or removed the language Barbera spoke. That was a mistake on my part. In between my second and third edits (diffs), user Rlevse reverted the citation and the other 2 edits. My 3rd edit(diff) was a revert of Rlevse's revert. I then got blocked for vandalism, this is what it said "you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges." According to the article, what I did is not vandalism. Then I am told that I got blocked for edit warring. As you can see from my diffs, I was not edit warring. I had made 1 revert. The 2 other edits were the adding of the citation. And then I am told by Julancolton, that I am blocked indefinetly for "pushing a POV" and for my racist remark. I've already apologized for the racist remark and the only POV incident would be me, adding Lebanese next to Italian in the ethnicity section and removing the language spoken. Both of which I have said were mistakes on my part. Having said all this, I agree not to add Lebanese next to Italian in the ethnicity section and agree not to remove the language spoken. As for the citation, the consencus was to include one.\|2=Your request here is largely a bunch of legalizing over which rule you broke. The point is, you were editing disruptively. You were edit warring across multiple articles over a point where consensus is clearly against you. You seem to be violating ] in discussions. And then you get so personally upset that you aren't getting your way that you make over-the-top comments about racism. I might be willing to unblock you, but only if you agree to avoid the area of dispute by a wide swath. Specifically, no edits to ] or its talk page, and no editing about the ethnic background of any people. I might agree to more lenient terms if you were to wait a couple of weeks first. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)}}		Consensus on the said article's talk was to leave the article as is but include a citation. After which I went forward and included the citation at the bottom of the infobox (as you see above in the diffs). I will admit that I should not have added Lebanese next to Italian in the ethnicity section or removed the language Barbera spoke. That was a mistake on my part. In between my second and third edits (diffs), user Rlevse reverted the citation and the other 2 edits. My 3rd edit(diff) was a revert of Rlevse's revert. I then got blocked for vandalism, this is what it said "you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges." According to the article, what I did is not vandalism. Then I am told that I got blocked for edit warring. As you can see from my diffs, I was not edit warring. I had made 1 revert. The 2 other edits were the adding of the citation. And then I am told by Julancolton, that I am blocked indefinetly for "pushing a POV" and for my racist remark. I've already apologized for the racist remark and the only POV incident would be me, adding Lebanese next to Italian in the ethnicity section and removing the language spoken. Both of which I have said were mistakes on my part. Having said all this, I agree not to add Lebanese next to Italian in the ethnicity section and agree not to remove the language spoken. As for the citation, the consencus was to include one.\|2=Your request here is largely a bunch of legalizing over which rule you broke. The point is, you were editing disruptively. You were edit warring across multiple articles over a point where consensus is clearly against you. You seem to be violating ] in discussions. And then you get so personally upset that you aren't getting your way that you make over-the-top comments about racism. I might be willing to unblock you, but only if you agree to avoid the area of dispute by a wide swath. Specifically, no edits to ] or its talk page, and no editing about the ethnic background of any people. I might agree to more lenient terms if you were to wait a couple of weeks first. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)}}

			:::Firstly, I would like to thank you for your response. It is very much appreciated. I was hoping someone would explain to me in as muich detail myu wrongdoings. And you have kindly done so, so again thank you. I actually had not realized that reverts across 2 or more pages are counted altogether as edit warring. Had I known. I would not have partaken in such behavior. So thank you for telling me. I would have no problem staying away from the article in question (]) or editing about ethnicities. I, believe it or not, make no difference between people. We are all human. Having said that, if you do unblock me, would I be able to edit anywhere I want if I wait a feew weeks? I'm not saying I'm going to go back and do whats been happening now, I'd simply like to know what your thoughts are. But again, I would have no problem abiding by your conditions. Also, I would like to apologize for my disruptive behavior. I need to read up on Misplaced Pages's since I haven't read them all. But again, thank you so much for your kind response. :) ] (]) 17:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:08, 1 September 2009

Template:Archive box collapsible

Joseph Barbera

Mr. Barbera's biography on Misplaced Pages contains 5 sources confirming he is of Sicilian ancestry. Your source is not reliable and therefore he should not be included on this list. Furthermore, do not revert constructive edits I have done on this list correcting grammar and structural errors. Please have at least four verifiable references confirming Mr. Barbera is Lebanese or this will be end of conversation. --XLR8TION (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see these verifiable links:

http://www.american.com/archive/2006/december/joseph-barbera-an-appreciation/article_print

http://www.niaf.org/research/contribution.asp

http://books.google.com/books?id=gy-FsWq_tOEC&pg=PA155&dq=joseph+barbera+sicilian#v=onepage&q=sicilian&f=false (Page 155) [Book was written by Iwao Takamoto, one of Barbera's closest friends and colleagues)

http://books.google.com/books?id=LAzWAAAAMAAJ&dq=joseph+barbera+sicilian&q=sicilian#search_anchor (Joseph Barbera's autobiography, "My life in 'toons: from Flatbush to Bedrock in under a century" By Joseph Barbera Page 128 - HE HIMSELF SAYS HE IS SICILIAN!!!!) READ!--XLR8TION (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, Both my sources are Very Reliable. Who are you to say whether they are or are not reliable?! Furthermore, there is no rule that says you need 4 sources and if there was, I would have provided as many. Many sources out there state he was Lebanese. Furthermore, to use a NPOV, I stated that he was "with Lebanese and/or Italian ethnicity" That is a NPOV. So you need to accept this fact. Do not drag this into an edit war! And do not revert it!Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Now you're telling people you can edit but they can't and insist his own autobio is less worthy than a web site that copied erroneous info. There are more sources that back up his autobio than your measly two sources. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. I'm saying, keep a NPOV! His autobio is a good source, just as my 2 sources are. Also, your first source, is from the AEI! Not even close to being reliable on this subject! Your second source is an Italian website! Not even close to being reliable on this subject (there are Many Lebanese websites that state that both Barbera and Hanna were Lebanese. But I have not used them to keep a NPOV!).

That leaves you with 2 sources, just as I have 2. So stop your reverts. Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, who are you to say if the info is "erroneous"? Your problem is with the Daily Telegraph and my other source. Both are reliable but if you have criticism about their info, I suggest you take it up with them. Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

See my comment on the Talk:Joseph Barbera at 21:20, 31 Aug, basically you keep zooming in on one source and ignoring the others. And then consider that you got yourself blocked twice over this. There's a reason, think about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

–Juliancolton | 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

One source??? YOU ARE THE ONE PUSHING A POV! Not accepting ANY SOURCES that state he was LEBANESE! I'm the one accepting your sources as well as mine! Blocked? Not surprised. Beginning to understand why hardly anyone outside of Misplaced Pages trusts it! Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2009 (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).

Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Excuse me but How were my edits "Vandalism"!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Were they "Vandalism" because I was trying to keep a NPOV on 2 articles, while the 2 other users (who were Not blocked) WERE PUSHING A POV???????? Choosing which sources to accept and which not to is NOT NPOV. It is a POV. INCLUDING All sources available IS NPOV. Completely ridiculous and contradicting behavior!

Decline reason:

You weren't blocked for vandalism. You were blocked for edit warring, which you clearly were. Smashville 21:59, 31 August 2009 (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.

Edit warring? Show me where! Because I was not.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, you really are a racist you know. Also, I'm Not even an Arab! lol Furthermore, Do not put words in my mouth. GOT IT?? Your just so blinded by your hatred its incredible and laughable. :) Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the article, you can see that you repeatedly undid others' edits despite there being no conesnsus for your edit. That is edit warring. When there is no consensus for your version, the correct procedure is to restore the article to the status quo, discuss the issue, and change the article again only if you gain consensus for your edits. Furthermore, comments such as the above are unconstructive and are not conducive to a positive atmosphere. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I would really like to thank you for your kind response here! :) As for me calling Rlevse "racist", that's what it looks like from the way he seems obsessed with keeping out any Lebanese claims. About edit warring: The edit warring article says this "Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches" and also, "Typically a user who edit wars is ignoring editorial norms, reverting rather than taking due consideration of the points made by others." But it also says: "It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24 hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, usually for a 24 hour period for a first incident".

Now there was no edit war going on, on the article in question.

As you can see, my first edit was at 00:27, 31 August 2009 which was when I added the note. The edit right after that, was me, improving the note I had added. Right after this second edit, Rlevse reverts my edits. After he does so, I revert his revert and ask that he keep it the way it is while the topic is in discussion. That was it. There was no edit war. 4 Reverts = an Edit war. That was only 1! And even if you wish to count all the edits, that was only 3 and not 4! Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My Block

I have extended your block to indefinite - your account appears to only exist to push a POV and disrupt the Misplaced Pages community. Calling a user a racist is unacceptable. –Juliancolton | 01:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright look, I will apologize for the racist remark. I shouldn't have said it. But can you please tell me how I'm pushing a POV when I accept his autobio as well as other soureces??? Rlevse seems to not accept any source besides the autobio. I accept all of them (I never even said that I don't accept his autobio). So how am I pushing a POV??? Can you explain??Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Juliancolton, do you know you are breaking adminid\strator rules with your failure to commuinicate as per http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrators_are_accountable and my block said that I was blocked for Vandalism. Not edit warring. Its on this page so you can see. Furthermore, as is clear, I was not Vandalizing. But then you said I got blocked for edit warring yet can't prove that I was. Now you say, I'm blocked indefinetly for pushing a POV. And you can't tell me how I am doing so. According to Misplaced Pages policy, admins are held accouintable.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Request reason:

In the Joseph Barbera article I made a total of 3 edits in a period of 24 hours. The following are the 3 diffs from when the problem occured and. Consensus on the said article's talk was to leave the article as is but include a citation. After which I went forward and included the citation at the bottom of the infobox (as you see above in the diffs). I will admit that I should not have added Lebanese next to Italian in the ethnicity section or removed the language Barbera spoke. That was a mistake on my part. In between my second and third edits (diffs), user Rlevse reverted the citation and the other 2 edits. My 3rd edit(diff) was a revert of Rlevse's revert. I then got blocked for vandalism, this is what it said "you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges." According to the article, what I did is not vandalism. Then I am told that I got blocked for edit warring. As you can see from my diffs, I was not edit warring. I had made 1 revert. The 2 other edits were the adding of the citation. And then I am told by Julancolton, that I am blocked indefinetly for "pushing a POV" and for my racist remark. I've already apologized for the racist remark and the only POV incident would be me, adding Lebanese next to Italian in the ethnicity section and removing the language spoken. Both of which I have said were mistakes on my part. Having said all this, I agree not to add Lebanese next to Italian in the ethnicity section and agree not to remove the language spoken. As for the citation, the consencus was to include one.

Decline reason:

Your request here is largely a bunch of legalizing over which rule you broke. The point is, you were editing disruptively. You were edit warring across multiple articles over a point where consensus is clearly against you. You seem to be violating WP:IDHT in discussions. And then you get so personally upset that you aren't getting your way that you make over-the-top comments about racism. I might be willing to unblock you, but only if you agree to avoid the area of dispute by a wide swath. Specifically, no edits to Joseph Barbera or its talk page, and no editing about the ethnic background of any people. I might agree to more lenient terms if you were to wait a couple of weeks first. Mango juice 16:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to thank you for your response. It is very much appreciated. I was hoping someone would explain to me in as muich detail myu wrongdoings. And you have kindly done so, so again thank you. I actually had not realized that reverts across 2 or more pages are counted altogether as edit warring. Had I known. I would not have partaken in such behavior. So thank you for telling me. I would have no problem staying away from the article in question (Joseph Barbera) or editing about ethnicities. I, believe it or not, make no difference between people. We are all human. Having said that, if you do unblock me, would I be able to edit anywhere I want if I wait a feew weeks? I'm not saying I'm going to go back and do whats been happening now, I'd simply like to know what your thoughts are. But again, I would have no problem abiding by your conditions. Also, I would like to apologize for my disruptive behavior. I need to read up on Misplaced Pages's since I haven't read them all. But again, thank you so much for your kind response. :) Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:51, 1 September 2009 editMangojuice (talk \| contribs)19,969 edits →My Block ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:08, 1 September 2009 edit undoKnight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk \| contribs)167 edits →My Block Next edit →
Line 53:		Line 53:
	{{unblock reviewed\|In the Joseph Barbera article I made a total of 3 edits in a period of 24 hours. The following are the 3 diffs from when the problem occured <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Joseph_Barbera&diff=311154754&oldid=310986347</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Joseph_Barbera&diff=311154754&oldid=311106854</ref>and<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Joseph_Barbera&diff=311152675&oldid=311106854</ref>.		{{unblock reviewed\|In the Joseph Barbera article I made a total of 3 edits in a period of 24 hours. The following are the 3 diffs from when the problem occured <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Joseph_Barbera&diff=311154754&oldid=310986347</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Joseph_Barbera&diff=311154754&oldid=311106854</ref>and<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Joseph_Barbera&diff=311152675&oldid=311106854</ref>.
	Consensus on the said article's talk was to leave the article as is but include a citation. After which I went forward and included the citation at the bottom of the infobox (as you see above in the diffs). I will admit that I should not have added Lebanese next to Italian in the ethnicity section or removed the language Barbera spoke. That was a mistake on my part. In between my second and third edits (diffs), user Rlevse reverted the citation and the other 2 edits. My 3rd edit(diff) was a revert of Rlevse's revert. I then got blocked for vandalism, this is what it said "you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges." According to the article, what I did is not vandalism. Then I am told that I got blocked for edit warring. As you can see from my diffs, I was not edit warring. I had made 1 revert. The 2 other edits were the adding of the citation. And then I am told by Julancolton, that I am blocked indefinetly for "pushing a POV" and for my racist remark. I've already apologized for the racist remark and the only POV incident would be me, adding Lebanese next to Italian in the ethnicity section and removing the language spoken. Both of which I have said were mistakes on my part. Having said all this, I agree not to add Lebanese next to Italian in the ethnicity section and agree not to remove the language spoken. As for the citation, the consencus was to include one.\|2=Your request here is largely a bunch of legalizing over which rule you broke. The point is, you were editing disruptively. You were edit warring across multiple articles over a point where consensus is clearly against you. You seem to be violating ] in discussions. And then you get so personally upset that you aren't getting your way that you make over-the-top comments about racism. I might be willing to unblock you, but only if you agree to avoid the area of dispute by a wide swath. Specifically, no edits to ] or its talk page, and no editing about the ethnic background of any people. I might agree to more lenient terms if you were to wait a couple of weeks first. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)}}		Consensus on the said article's talk was to leave the article as is but include a citation. After which I went forward and included the citation at the bottom of the infobox (as you see above in the diffs). I will admit that I should not have added Lebanese next to Italian in the ethnicity section or removed the language Barbera spoke. That was a mistake on my part. In between my second and third edits (diffs), user Rlevse reverted the citation and the other 2 edits. My 3rd edit(diff) was a revert of Rlevse's revert. I then got blocked for vandalism, this is what it said "you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges." According to the article, what I did is not vandalism. Then I am told that I got blocked for edit warring. As you can see from my diffs, I was not edit warring. I had made 1 revert. The 2 other edits were the adding of the citation. And then I am told by Julancolton, that I am blocked indefinetly for "pushing a POV" and for my racist remark. I've already apologized for the racist remark and the only POV incident would be me, adding Lebanese next to Italian in the ethnicity section and removing the language spoken. Both of which I have said were mistakes on my part. Having said all this, I agree not to add Lebanese next to Italian in the ethnicity section and agree not to remove the language spoken. As for the citation, the consencus was to include one.\|2=Your request here is largely a bunch of legalizing over which rule you broke. The point is, you were editing disruptively. You were edit warring across multiple articles over a point where consensus is clearly against you. You seem to be violating ] in discussions. And then you get so personally upset that you aren't getting your way that you make over-the-top comments about racism. I might be willing to unblock you, but only if you agree to avoid the area of dispute by a wide swath. Specifically, no edits to ] or its talk page, and no editing about the ethnic background of any people. I might agree to more lenient terms if you were to wait a couple of weeks first. ]]<sup>]</sup> 16:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)}}

			:::Firstly, I would like to thank you for your response. It is very much appreciated. I was hoping someone would explain to me in as muich detail myu wrongdoings. And you have kindly done so, so again thank you. I actually had not realized that reverts across 2 or more pages are counted altogether as edit warring. Had I known. I would not have partaken in such behavior. So thank you for telling me. I would have no problem staying away from the article in question (]) or editing about ethnicities. I, believe it or not, make no difference between people. We are all human. Having said that, if you do unblock me, would I be able to edit anywhere I want if I wait a feew weeks? I'm not saying I'm going to go back and do whats been happening now, I'd simply like to know what your thoughts are. But again, I would have no problem abiding by your conditions. Also, I would like to apologize for my disruptive behavior. I need to read up on Misplaced Pages's since I haven't read them all. But again, thank you so much for your kind response. :) ] (]) 17:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)