| Revision as of 00:09, 31 January 2006 editAgapetos angel (talk | contribs)2,142 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:24, 31 January 2006 edit undoFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits Gee, it's not like we're trying to get you to abide by policy or anything...Next edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| FeloniousMonk jumped in and reverted (again, another editor that is merely reverting without cause). His claim of 'consensus' is not valid, as the content of the section I fixed is not in any sort of dispute. Please note that '''''any''''' edit I made on that article was being reverted, regardless. If this were related to the ongoing disputed content over the 'Scientist?' section, I'd understand their concern, but I requested mediation and have continued to attempt to reach a consensus (without agreeing to ignore wikipedia guidelines against weasel words). As it stands, it's just bully tactics being employed to make me give up and go away. ] 00:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | FeloniousMonk jumped in and reverted (again, another editor that is merely reverting without cause). His claim of 'consensus' is not valid, as the content of the section I fixed is not in any sort of dispute. Please note that '''''any''''' edit I made on that article was being reverted, regardless. If this were related to the ongoing disputed content over the 'Scientist?' section, I'd understand their concern, but I requested mediation and have continued to attempt to reach a consensus (without agreeing to ignore wikipedia guidelines against weasel words). As it stands, it's just bully tactics being employed to make me give up and go away. ] 00:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Or abide by policy... take your pick. ] 00:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:24, 31 January 2006
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. KillerChihuahua 23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, please review the history of Jonathan Sarfati. Links (that were not in dispute) were accidently deleted, and when I added them back in, an editor 'reverted' and claimed it was a concensus that I needed to abide by. I put the links back in and left a message in Talk that the links were not disputed content, and now find myself blocked. There are several issues going on, not the least of which is admin bullying. Please review this issue and reconsider the block. I have well documented my dispute issues, and although have several edits, they are for different issues (restoring accidently deleted links, adding a weasel word box in for disputed content, adding source links where none existed, etc.). There are several editors that are tag-team reverting anything I put in, in an obvious attempt to bully me and make me give up, so their POV pushing can remain (complete with weasel words and bald assertations that are not supported by sources). I have a request for mediation (as well as a request for admin abuse review) for this very problem. Thank you agapetos_angel 23:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
NB: Please see this entry in talk
FeloniousMonk reported three revert rule violation:
- 1st revert: 00:13, 30 January 2006 (17:13, 30 January 2006)
- Guettarda reverted and removed (nearly--I was incorrect in comment) all the new links I had just added; the POV revert is discussed in talk but s/he was ignoring talk and just reverting entirely, regardless of edits.
- 2nd revert: 01:46, 30 January 2006
- After another editor reverted Guettarda, s/he called it a whitewash and again reverted the entire article, removing new edits and links (and undisputed content). I put it back in and commented in Talk, asking why she was removing undisputed content.
- 3rd revert: 15:04, 30 January 2006
- This was not a revert of any prior content, but rather an addition of the weasel word warning box
- 4th revert: 15:21, 30 January 2006
- Fixed content in the header that was mangled by the various reverts.
- 5th revert: 15:26, 30 January 2006
- When Duncharris, without validation, removed the weasel word warning box, I replaced it and commented in talk; unrelated to any previous reverts.
- 6th revert: 16:03, 30 January 2006
- Jim62sch, without checking, reverted to remove the weasel word box, stating that 'some' was not a weasel word, and in the process he went to an older version which deleted valid links. I added them back in.
FeloniousMonk jumped in and reverted (again, another editor that is merely reverting without cause). His claim of 'consensus' is not valid, as the content of the section I fixed is not in any sort of dispute. Please note that any edit I made on that article was being reverted, regardless. If this were related to the ongoing disputed content over the 'Scientist?' section, I'd understand their concern, but I requested mediation and have continued to attempt to reach a consensus (without agreeing to ignore wikipedia guidelines against weasel words). As it stands, it's just bully tactics being employed to make me give up and go away. agapetos_angel 00:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Or abide by policy... take your pick. FeloniousMonk 00:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)