Basic Bicycle

Jason Isaacs

In reply to the query below: I have edited the page in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia - large portions of contentious information in the article were incorrectly cited or not cited at all. I am now working on adding non-contentious and correctly sourced and cited information. In the meantime, please refrain from attempting to undo my edits - they are fully within the rules of Wikipedia (please read the page about why information about living persons must be verified and correctly cited) or I will have to report you for vandalism. Thank you in advance for your co-operation.

Can you please explain why you felt the need to delete large amounts of information from the article above ??? 89.242.202.34 (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The next time, discuss on the talk page rather than delete it with not explaining why. 89.242.202.34 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jason Isaacs. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tiptoety ^talk 23:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Tiptoety ^talk 23:17, 12 June 2015 (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).

Basic Bicycle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

An anonymous user as well as one named Ebyabe persistently undid my very reasonable edits and replaced with information that is un sourced and/or poorly cited. I responded to them to explain why contentious and non cited information had to be remove only for the anonymous user at IP 89.242.202.34 to call me a "troll" on my user talk page (I subsequently removed this for them). I did not intentionally engage in edit warring but rather was attempting to keep the page free of contentious and un cited information in line with WIkipedia's regulations about biographies of living persons. Therefore I would like to please request that my editing block be undone. I can further elaborate and explain if necessary. Thank you, Basic Bicycle.

Decline reason:

The information that you removed appears to be sourced. Could you be more specific and say exactly what text was removed in accordance with the biography of living persons policy? PhilKnight (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2015 (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.

Hi. The information I removed concerned a variety of matters, including religious beliefs, family relationships, career and political positions. I only removed information that was incorrectly cited (such as, from a we page that no longer existed and thus could not be verified) or in cases where the cited source did not back up the given information. The page itself has a banner asking for contributions and noting that it contains a lot of poorly sourced information. Wikipedia's policy on articles about living persons very clearly states that the material must be backed up by correct citations. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basic Bicycle (talk • contribs) Basic Bicycle (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Edits such as this violate Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. Specifically, IMBD is not considered a reliable source, which is likely why it was removed. Regardless of whether or not you or the other party thinks they are right, it is disruptive to continually revert one another. All this does is damage the Encyclopedia and achieves nothing. I suggest that you sit out the 24 hour block and take that time to read Wikipedia's policies on edit warring and reliable sources. Once the block expires, I encourage you to bring up your concerns on the article's talk page and/or the biographies of living people noticeboard. As for the IP editor, they have been warned about WP:3RR. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 23:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi again and thank you for your reply. I am happy to wait out the block for now, but just wanted to add that I was not the one who used Imdb as a source nor did I intentionally attempt to revert the edit that removed it. Rather, I was attempting to undo the reverts that the IP editor was persistently and without explanation doing to my edits. I responded to their post on my Talk page as rapidly as possible and they responded with an abusive message. The intention of my edits, as I am sure is very clear to those who check them, was to remove all contentious, speculative and poorly sourced information ahead of adding properly sourced and up to date information. I am still in the process of looking for good sources of information and tried to put something on the Talk page in order to ask others for assistance but was blocked before I was able to post. I hadn't reported the IP editor for their vandalism yet, as I had hoped they would be reasonable once I had replied to them, but this was not the case. In future, I will report these persistent reverts accordingly. Regards, Basic Bicycle.

IP User on Jason Isaacs page

An IP user using the address 89.242.202.34 made 4 reverts on all edits I had made on the actor Jason Isaacs page and then posted several messages on my Talk page asking for reasons for the edits, which were provided at the time I made the edits, as well as in direct response on my UserTalk page. They then resorted to abusive name-calling. As a result of attempt to undo their vandalism , I was then temporarily banned for "edit warring". I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing and am unsure of where to log a complaint or report this users' highly disruptive behaviour. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Basic Bicycle (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You can report them to the administrators noticeboard, or if they are edit warring you can report them to the edit warring noticeboard. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 09:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I DID NOT resort to abusive name calling, I simply stated DISCUSS Before making significant changes to the article. 89.242.199.80 (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting this type of thing on my Talk page. I am very happy to discuss matters regarding the article in question in the appropriate area (the Talk page of the article itself) but will not engage with name-calling, and un-constructive posts that are clearly designed to provoke a fight. In the meantime, I would like to direct your attention to my edits on the article (which you will find in the "history" tab section), in which I state very clearly next to each edit what the reason for the removal was. By reading the page on Biographies of living persons and the need for citations against statements, you will see that I was doing my best to try and make that particular article more intelligible, reliable and credible. If you have further questions or comments, please try to keep them reasonable. Hopefully we will meet around here again in happier circumstances. All the best, Basic Bicycle Basic Bicycle (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Basic Bicycle: Looking at your edits to the article, I noticed something. You removed material cited to an article in the Daily Telegraph on grounds of being an archive. You misunderstand the sourcing requirements. It's perfectly ok for a reference to be to an archived version of a web page that is no longer online (for example we often use the Internet Archive to save references). And in fact that url is the newspaper's own archive of old news stories, so not even an externally hosted capture. Moreover, even broken links should not be removed; instead, mark them as dead links, because often the page has simply been moved to a different URL and given the article title and other identifying information, it's possible to find it again. Or to find it on the Internet Archive. See WP:PRESERVE. Moreover, although it's easy to forget, we also accept offline references - sometimes there is a newspaper article or book that is a good source but is not available online. Only truly unreferenced material should be removed as unreferenced, even on a BLP, and if it is not particularly contentious and has a good source, it really doesn't matter whether that good source is now only available via an archive site. Please look again at what you cut in light of this; I am not suggesting all your cuts to the article were in error, but I believe some of them were based on a misunderstanding. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yngvadottir and many thanks for your input here. I did indeed initially remove the Daily Telegraph article on the grounds that it was a web-archive source and Wikipedia historically did not permit this as a credible source. However, you will see that is now back up there and will remain so for the time being. Not to be pedantic or anything, but webarchive.org it is not in fact the Telegraph's own archive (the URL would not include webarchive.org if that were indeed the case) but rather a generic archiving tool. I'm unsure how this makes something a credible source, as the very fact that it had to be put into a separate, user-made capturing tool indicates that the article most likely contained enough erroneous information to make legal action against the author and/or newspaper a potential reality. I haven't seen the use of offline references permitted on any Wikipedia page yet, but I will keep this news in mind for future reference. As for not removing unsourced information (and if the link provided article no longer leads to the cited article, it is classified as unsourced), I will have to deeply contest that advice, as Wikipedia's information on BLPs very clearly states that unsourced information needs to be removed immediately. The article on actor Jason Isaacs is a particularly troublesome one and has been lingering untouched for quite some time with an alerting banner on it indicating that editing is very much needed. I don't think any of my edits whatsoever have been made based on misunderstanding, and the only one that was in error was the web archive source delete. If you can find any that any that fit the description for "in error" or "based on a misunderstanding", could you please present them to me either here or, preferably, on the Jason Isaacs Talk page itself. Be sure to be as specific as possible as I would rather not have to continually address grand generalisations. All the best, Basic Bicycle (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aurora Prince, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

McGeddon (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Everybody On My Dick Like They Supposed To Be for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Everybody On My Dick Like They Supposed To Be is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everybody On My Dick Like They Supposed To Be until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)