Misplaced Pages

3RR

Removing unreferenced material from a BLP, that has been questioned, is exempt from the WP:3RR. See Talk:Patrick Holford. This was not contentious as the editor I was reverting had questioned this material, and I explained in edit summaries, on the talk page, and via correct warnings on their page. I'll remove your warning, thanks. Verbal chat 07:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthias I of Hungary

Hello. Before I begin, I would like to assure you that I wish I wouldn't be involved in a dispute about the Matthias I of Hungary article, or any article for that matter. But, when you wrote your message, you did not read the discussion of that article, or followed the editing history of that article. Hungarian revisionists are a strong and organised group on the English Misplaced Pages, and they take advantage of the indiference of the neutral administrators here. I do not understand how they can remove my information from an encyclopedic article, since I quoted 4 contemporary sources. History might be debatable, but I think contemporary sources - by 3 Humanists and a king - are reliable enough to maintain the "theory" of his Romanian ancestry on his father's side. I don't even want them to remove the "Cuman" claim, I give up - but if it is an encyclopedic article, I fail to understand how they can delete my valid sources. Thank you for your time. --Venatoreng (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: IP soft blocking for 21st Century Breakdown

It didn't stop him. I still think that semi-protection is the best option. He's inserted the same unreferenced OR now at least 20 times today, from 3 different IPs, and there have been several other unrelated IP vandalism/OR/POV issues over the last few days. Would you reconsider semi-protecting the article? --IllaZilla (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :-) --IllaZilla (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Luka Kovac

Thank you for protecting the pages involving the ER character John Carter. Another editor and I have struggled to get Q102josh to work toward consensus to no avail. There is a similar problem with an edit he persists in making without a rationale and despite repeated warnings and requests for consensus on the Luka Kovac page (also an ER character.) Could that page be protected as well? Drmargi (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will follow up with a report on the admins board, since we cannot get this guy to work within the system at all. He's convinced he's got it right, despite two of us laying out for him how he's wrong, and he won't let it go. Drmargi (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

3RR template

() Please; I have been here for over three years now, and whilst I appreciate your intentions, I must admit that I do not hold the same level of appreciation for the template :p ninety:one 22:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• sigh* - what I was trying to say was Misplaced Pages:DTTR. I know the 3RR rule applies to everyone, and I had no intention of breaking it... ninety:one 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Black Jesus

It's a common nickname for him. And don't spout notability/verifiability arguments, you know damn well that Obama is called that. 99.144.156.71 (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use warnings for content disputes. 99.144.156.71 (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you even reading this? 99.144.156.71 (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You watch out for WP:DICK but you clearly assume that I am a troll. Please know that I supported Barack Obama in the election and continue to support him. Racism or trolling is not an issue here, it is an edit referencing satire. I would at least appreciate an explanation to your disagreement without systematic warnings in what is again a content dispute, not the replacing content with "GAY". 99.144.156.71 (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed my last message. At worst it's a block for BLP violations, but not vandalism. Instead, replacing content with "Black Jesus is an idiot" is vandalism; there's a clear difference between BLP and VANDAL. I'd prefer not to be called a "vandal". 99.144.156.71 (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Might want to hold off on that warning...? 99.144.156.71 (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

TIME is a reliable source for a simple disambiguation page. 99.144.156.71 (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the cooperation, thank you.

Does Huggle allow you read edit summaries? Just curious. 99.144.156.71 (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What's up with the lack of communication and those vandalism warnings? I'm not angry or anything (it's the internet after all), just curious. 99.144.156.71 (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, admin work can be exhausting or so I hear at WR. :p Good luck I suppose. 99.144.156.71 (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Calc

I think you missed the point. I removed an emotive statement and added a direct comparative limitation which you promptly reverted. How about letting an edit be tweaked before hitting the undo button so promptly. 59.167.40.111 (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Teddy Long

While it was a derogatory name, Teddy Long was in fact referred to as Peanut Head; the unflattering moniker was given to him by Jim Ross in 1989 during his first heel turn. As always J.R. was a supporter of the faces and the sheepish fans began using the term almost immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Texbooty (talk • contribs) 06:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

ZOG is not anti-semitic, your a fucking idiot if you think so. Its a valid theory held by countless educated people, unlike your self. Get an education and realize the truth. --Runstaffers (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)The guy whose can see what your too blind too.

Irfan Yusuf

I would suggest you contact Irfan Yusuf directly. Misplaced Pages is being used to defame him, and he is filing court proceedings in this matter. Would you like his contact details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oncewereradicals (talk • contribs) 09:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

John Patterson

Well I added two references to the patteson edit I made. I dunno how to use this site very well, (sorry) but in the intrests of truth please clean it up for me if you want. Patterson is mentioned in many phych texts as a total lunatic. There is no libel in reporting that Tabloids of the time reported he abused women. (see chris brown) Patterson has been the subject of a number of books which include subjects like Howard Hughs and examine the clear mental illness they suffered from. The reason I came here to edit this is that the article before the edit is totally biased and even goes so far as to call Patterson a "progressive". It references the only one of 100s of biographys that paints patterson in anything other than a monsterous light. I mentioned that the choking reports are suspect becuase they are of tabliod source. But the man was clearly a control nut and mentally abused everyone who ever met him by those individuals own multiple and verifyable accounts. I referenced a Web article and a paper and spine book. There are so many references to Patterson's extreme mental and verbal abuse of everyone in his life that it is absolutly not in question. Violence towards women may be more difficult to prove as it always is. But I can prove he was accused of it in print and report that accusation. It is also worthy to note PAtterson did not sue the tabloids for Libel, perhaps to prevent them calling his wife or others to the stand to recount his behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.21.154 (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Tennents Vital

The changes I made to the article were genuine. I added in the link to the actual press release where it was cancelled in 2007. I fail to see how this is advertising or false. In fact it adds to the article because people can read the whole press release! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.203.189 (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your protection of Cold fusion; gaming of protection by Hipocrite

Thanks for protecting the article. One aspect, though, you may not have considered, it's not clear to me, and you did not comment on it.

The protection was presumably at the request of User:Hipocrite, who, in the request, misrepresented what was taking place. Hipocrite was the only clear edit warrior involved, and apparently gamed the system, making his last highly controversial edits after requesting protection, knowing that it would be likely that protection would come down fairly quickly, protecting his edits, and not standing article consensus.

Hipocrite has been highly disruptive at Cold fusion and related topics and discussions, on many pages, but I'm not asking you to review this; rather only this specific incident, on its own merits, and a reference to the last protection. Here is the history with my comments:

Edits by Hipocrite

• 00:03, 1 June 2009 Cold fusion ‎(It's sourced. It's also true, and just because some patent examiner missed claim 14 doesn't mean it's not true. WP:V.) 1RR
  • reverts edit by GetLinkPrimitiveParams (at 1RR)
• Cold fusion 02:42, 1 June 2009 Cold fusion ‎(Further developments: Absolutly not - OR by synth) 2RR
  • reverts edits by Abd and Coppertwig (both at 0RR)
• 02:43, 1 June 2009 Cold fusion ‎ (rv to coppertwig, this has been discussed and rejected scores of times) contiguous edit
  • reverts different edits by Abd (at 0RR or 1RR, depending on interpretation, was partly an assertion of previously reverted content -- more than a week earlier -- with additional sourcing, plus an addition of a recent major publication to the bibliography.) Revert was a bald revert, no attempt to use what might be usable.
• 02:51, 1 June 2009 Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection ‎ (Current requests for protection: Cold fusion)
  • At this point, Hipocrite was at 2RR, other editors were at 0RR (Coppertwig and maybe Abd) or 1RR (GetLinkPrimitiveParams or maybe Abd). Hipocrite is the principal edit warrior at this point, in opposition to three other editors; his report implies quite the contrary, plus his claim that changes were not discussed is just plain wrong, but I won't add diffs now.
• 02:59, 1 June 2009 Cold fusion ‎ (time for tags, into per talk page)
  • Having requested protection minutes before, Hipocrite now heavily modifies the introduction, without consensus in Talk, making a change he'd know would be controversial, and makes other major modifications, plus he tags as unsourced a section that has three asserted independent reliable sources.

You then protected the article at 03:50, 1 June 2009. There was no controversy, however, requiring protection if Hipocrite were banned from editing the article, at least pending review. The other editors of the article are generally able to negotiate consensus in his absence. Some editors, on one end of the spectrum, however, may support Hipocrite because his extreme rejection of cold fusion is closer to their POV, but they do not behave in the disruptive fashion that he does.

The last protection was by William M. Connolley on May 21. On that occasion, there was edit warring, with Hipocrite at 3RR, and myself at a level that depends on interpretation of what is edit warring and what is a normal process of modifying edits to satisfy objections. At the extreme end of interpretation, with that incident, I was at 4RR. Normally, I self-limit at 1RR, I do not use edit warring as an editing technique, that incident was quite unusual for me, I can't think of another example. As can be seen then and with the current incident, Hipocrite's editorial behavior invites reversion, thus GetLinkPrimitiveParams reached 2RR as well. I did not use reversion on 1 June.

The common factor in both article protections is Hipocrite, edit warring with both, and, if we look back, prior to the previous protection, there was extensive use of bald reversions and the only reason that these did not become edit wars was the patience of other editors. I lost patience a week ago, because every objection had been satisfied, and objections were simply being multiplied. This time, I did not lose patience and other editors stepped in. The abuse of an article protection request by an edit warrior should receive immediate attention; I would suggest, in fact, unprotection of the article at this time, accompanied by a block or ban for Hipocrite, pending review. His positions at Cold fusion and elsewhere show contempt for Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, which established that alleged fringe opinions cannot be excluded based solely upon claims that they are fringe, and the sources used for the Be-8 theory section (which is only claiming that a theory has been advocated, not that it is true) clearly meet ordinary RS standards, except for arguments that they are "fringe." Which is actually preposterous for the latest source, but at least it's a debatable assertion. (RS is determined by the publisher and the nature of the publication, not by authors or opinions expressed in a document.)

I believe that if Hipocrite were not a factor, there would be no article protection needed, neither this time nor the last. My own edits from the last time were half-accepted by the time the protection came down, and the others from then were accepted in Talk, one without objection, the other with explicit acceptance and modification by me to increase consensus; it was all rejected by Hipocrite, without any compromise. Nevertheless, an ad hoc ban by an admin need not prohibit him from editing Talk. Just the article.

An alternative, if you wish to leave protection in place, would be to revert the article to the time of Hipocrite's request, thus removing the changes to the introduction which no non-COI editor other than Hipocrite has accepted, and countering his gaming of protection process, or to the version before his edits that immediately preceded protection, or to a version before the edit warring began, any one of these would be better than the present state, where the introduction is highly biased, whereas the lead should reflect the highest possible consensus. Thanks for your time looking at this. Note that there is discussion begun on the Talk page of what version to revert to, but that may take time, and, meanwhile, we have an awful lead.

I would notify him of this request, but he has prohibited me from editing his Talk page and has explicitly waived notification.--Abd (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit-notice

Your edit notice has a line <h2>'''Please read these policies before posting.'''<h2>. The second hs need to be a /h2.

Secondly, I am happy to discuss whatever changes Abd wants to change in the protected article, and have already offered (and been rebuffed) to support a consentual change of the article to the pre-edit war status-quo, with his preferred introduction and my preferred lack of poorly-sourced theoretical explanations. I don't think that asking admisntrators to block your opposition on a protected page is really in keeping with the concept of page protection, is it? Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, you may assume that my position on Cold fusion is incorrect or even "POV-pushing," for purposes of reviewing Hipocrite's behavior. You will note that, above, I actually suggested what he now states as a "rebuffed" suggestion, but, beyond this, I think the evidence is clear and I only inflict this on you because you could cut the Gordian knot most efficiently. If you think the article needs protection from me as well, though I certainly did not edit war in what led up to your article protection, please impose a topic ban on me such that I may not edit the article page, pending resolution, or you could similarly impose a 0RR restriction. I would have no objection if this would result in quick protection of the article from Hipocrite, while allowing other editors to implement consensus or otherwise attempt to improve the article. The only serious, repetitive edit warrior here has been Hipocrite.

However, I had no history of using reverts to enforce a position on the article (or anywhere) and that one incident only arose because of how totally preposterous his bald reverts seemed to me, and there had been much complaint about my discussion of article issues on the talk page -- from him -- so I decided to take the more efficient route (when it works) of actually making the edits; and, in fact, the result with the first edit war was progress, because Hipocrite, instead of totally taking out one section, did a much more proper thing of balancing it -- though even that, in the long run, will probably not stand as-is because he was balancing secondary peer-reviewed and academic source from 2007 (and, later, 2008 and 2009) with weak, passing-mention, non-PR secondary and tertiary source from 1998, I think, and 2002, as I recall. But it was better than a pure revert, and so I accepted it and have not attempted to alter it. First things first, and the first thing is to start to get into the article the abundant information available from reviews published in peer-reviewed journals or by academic publishers, and Hipocrite has steadfastly opposed this based on continual assertion of "fringe" and whatever argument he could find, subverting the very foundation of how we determine due weight and verifiability of text; if his position were confirmed, it would make every article on a controversial subject into a battleground, as editors from different points of view wikilawyer about source details that, legitimately, only arise when there is conflict of sources, where we must then investigate degree of reliability. Sorry, again, to inflict this on you.

--Abd (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have accepted Abd's offer of mutual restriction on his talk page. We will hash out some sort of agreement and return to RFPP. with some sort of consensus. Hipocrite (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Abd#0rr I have proposed specific terms covering how the ban expires, as you can see. I accepted the total article ban, instead of the more complicated alternative Hipocrite proposed; my text becomes effective if Hipocrite accepts it or if it is ratified or imposed by an administrator (or as modified by an administrator), but I think it creates a very simple and minimally disruptive set of conditions that can cause no harm. Because, as I noted above, the edit warring requiring protection (both times) would almost certainly not have existed if Hipocrite had not revert warred, I believe that, if Hipocrite has accepted my response, or if you decide to impose this agreement or some altered version of it on both of us, you may go ahead and unprotect, the apparent need having disappeared. Thanks for your consideration of this. It will enable the other editors to fix the article and proceed without undue hindrance. --Abd (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)