This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk | contribs) at 01:39, 30 August 2009 (→Personal attack). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:39, 30 August 2009 by Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk | contribs) (→Personal attack)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Template:Archive box collapsible
Personal attack
This is a personal attack. I suggest you refactor your comment about editor Rlevse and confine your comments to the editorial content of the article and do not comment on the other editors; remember to Comment on content, not on the contributor. Dreadstar ☥ 21:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest You look at my archive since You, alongside Rlevse Wrongly accused me of edit warring! See my archive! You and him are the ones that need to retract Your personal attacks.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please provide diffs of what you believe are personal attacks against you. Even you were personally attacked, that's no excuse for your violating WP:NPA policy, and if you continue, you will be blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 22:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest You look at my archive since You, alongside Rlevse Wrongly accused me of edit warring! See my archive! You and him are the ones that need to retract Your personal attacks.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do apologize to you dreadstar, I thought you were user Deadalus (he was the one involved). I got confused with your names. Anyways, here is the link to what I'm talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Knight_Prince_-_Sage_Veritas/Archive_1#Warning Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Another thing dreadstar, do Not warn me for simply giving my opinion about rlevse! And also, the argument is between me and him. Not You! You really need to apologize.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see any evidence of Rlevse or anyone else personally attacking you. However, "simply giving your opinion" by saying someone is not reliable is indeed a personal attack. Please read WP:NPA policy, which make it very clear that your comment is a derogatory remark about another editor and you quite simply have no evidence to back up your claims. Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. On the other hand, you were indeed edit warring and simply pointing that out or warning you of it is not considered a personal attack - and had you heeded the warning, you would have avoided being blocked. I would highly recommend that you refrain from commenting at all about other editors, until you have a firm grasp of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Dreadstar ☥ 23:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Another thing dreadstar, do Not warn me for simply giving my opinion about rlevse! And also, the argument is between me and him. Not You! You really need to apologize.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I am talking about the ridiculous warning that Rlevse and daedalus gave me for what they said was revert warring (which was a Lie) on article Margaliot. That indeed was a personal attack. Or, if you'd like, it could be called harassment. Either way, it was wrong and there was no edit warring on Margaliot (You can read the talk page and then click on history in Margaliot. Heck, as soon as I proved there was no edit warring there, they simply dropped the issue completely!! Wow! As for the article Joseph Barbera where there was an edit war, I was blocked but Rlevse, who was Also edit warring, was Not! hmmm Is that fair? I think Not. So again, Rlevse is indeed Not reliable for those reasons. Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, you were edit warring on Margaliot: , and then you crossed the WP:3RR bright-line threshold with your fourth and fifth reverts in 24 hours on the Joseph Barbara article: , whereas Rlevse only had two reverts and did not cross into the 4RR threshold. That's why you were blocked and he wasn't - you broke the three-revert rule. Dreadstar ☥ 23:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough about the Joseph Barbera article. However, on the Margaliot article. There was no edit war. Edit warring is when an editor continuously reverts another editors posts without discussion. That was not what happened on Margaliot. Here I'll explain in detail. I first made this post on Margaliot and then user Zero0000 made this edit including as a comment, "Lebanese identity of Margaliot: partial revert. In 1924 there was no Lebanese government that could act independently of France." So I took this into consideration and then made this edit, re-writing my original edit. And as you can see, user Zero0000 did not revert it or anything since there was nothing wrong with it anymore. Then, several hours later, user Blofeld made this revert, removing a template and replacing it with another. He removed the "Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War" template and replaced it with one specifically about the area of Safed. Taking into consideration that the article is about a village that was depopulated and whose history (along with others like it), the template was about, and since the original template that was there was this one "Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War", also taking into consideration that the latter template includes the district of Safed, I reverted his edit (which user Blofeld gave no reason for in the first place). So, again, there was no edit war.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- You've got to be careful, it's important to discuss, but discussion doesn't cancel out edit warring. A revert is any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part; and an edit war is when when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions - from the reverts you made on Margaliot, it appeared that you were headed down the path of edit warring - so just be careful and make sure you give details in the edit summary, unlike the edits and reverts you made here here, and here - reverts without edit summaries are often viewed as purely edit warring . Instead of reverting, discuss, agree on the removal or change, then revert. Read through WP:BRD, it will give you more ideas on the "bold, revert, discuss" editing cycle. But no, the edit war warnings for Margaliot were in no way out of line and certainly not an attack. Dreadstar ☥ 01:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- The whole misunderstanding is probably because I had not included edit summaries. Had I included them, there would have probably been no misunderstandings. Here is what the edit warring article says, "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". So what this means is that there was no edit war going on, on the Margaliot article, and Rlevse had no right to accuse me of edit warring. By the way, I really thank you for helping out in this matter. :) Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- You've got to be careful, it's important to discuss, but discussion doesn't cancel out edit warring. A revert is any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part; and an edit war is when when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions - from the reverts you made on Margaliot, it appeared that you were headed down the path of edit warring - so just be careful and make sure you give details in the edit summary, unlike the edits and reverts you made here here, and here - reverts without edit summaries are often viewed as purely edit warring . Instead of reverting, discuss, agree on the removal or change, then revert. Read through WP:BRD, it will give you more ideas on the "bold, revert, discuss" editing cycle. But no, the edit war warnings for Margaliot were in no way out of line and certainly not an attack. Dreadstar ☥ 01:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough about the Joseph Barbera article. However, on the Margaliot article. There was no edit war. Edit warring is when an editor continuously reverts another editors posts without discussion. That was not what happened on Margaliot. Here I'll explain in detail. I first made this post on Margaliot and then user Zero0000 made this edit including as a comment, "Lebanese identity of Margaliot: partial revert. In 1924 there was no Lebanese government that could act independently of France." So I took this into consideration and then made this edit, re-writing my original edit. And as you can see, user Zero0000 did not revert it or anything since there was nothing wrong with it anymore. Then, several hours later, user Blofeld made this revert, removing a template and replacing it with another. He removed the "Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War" template and replaced it with one specifically about the area of Safed. Taking into consideration that the article is about a village that was depopulated and whose history (along with others like it), the template was about, and since the original template that was there was this one "Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War", also taking into consideration that the latter template includes the district of Safed, I reverted his edit (which user Blofeld gave no reason for in the first place). So, again, there was no edit war.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, you were edit warring on Margaliot: , and then you crossed the WP:3RR bright-line threshold with your fourth and fifth reverts in 24 hours on the Joseph Barbara article: , whereas Rlevse only had two reverts and did not cross into the 4RR threshold. That's why you were blocked and he wasn't - you broke the three-revert rule. Dreadstar ☥ 23:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I am talking about the ridiculous warning that Rlevse and daedalus gave me for what they said was revert warring (which was a Lie) on article Margaliot. That indeed was a personal attack. Or, if you'd like, it could be called harassment. Either way, it was wrong and there was no edit warring on Margaliot (You can read the talk page and then click on history in Margaliot. Heck, as soon as I proved there was no edit warring there, they simply dropped the issue completely!! Wow! As for the article Joseph Barbera where there was an edit war, I was blocked but Rlevse, who was Also edit warring, was Not! hmmm Is that fair? I think Not. So again, Rlevse is indeed Not reliable for those reasons. Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Margaliot&diff=309133833&oldid=308484760
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Margaliot&diff=309133833&oldid=308488924
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Margaliot&diff=309133833&oldid=308506460
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Margaliot&diff=308935754&oldid=308506460