25162995
Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
- Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
- If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
- Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
- To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
- You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Edit warring at Amanda Knox
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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.
The full report of this case is at the 3RR noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
25162995 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
contribs) . . (34,074 bytes) (+98) . . (Again reverted back to sources. No consensus is needed because it is clearly stated that conviction stands. This is stated in sources in black and white. DO NOT 3rr" in an attempt to stop 3rr followed by a request to "(Go to talk. Do no start an edit war. Provide a source that says she was not convicted and prove this in talk. Then revert when you have proven your case in comparison to black and white facts. WP:BOLD)" (this can all be seen in the WP:Amanda knox-edit history page) at which point the users simply reverted again (as the have been doing for many weeks with other users) and stated in TALK:"Not interested in arguing with someone that won't consider other views and will aggressively push their view into the article. This is something that has been extensively discussed here and on the MoMK page. For now, see the WP:EWN report. Ravensfire (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)" The fact of the matter remains that with regards to this article the sources are clear in stating the conviction. I am asking for my ban to be reverted due to the fact that this "3rr" comes under WP:NOT3RR "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption" and is a 3rr exception because the reversions by users:Ravensfire/Binksternet clearly provide no evidence thus coming under "poorly sourced contentious material" 25162995 (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were edit warring. You have shown that you have no interest in collaboration, because your opinion is RIGHT and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you have explicitly stated that you do not intend to accept consensus. Your attempts to wikilawyer round the subject, and represent your refusal to accept Wikipedia policies as based on some higher and superior reading of policy is not more convincing here than it was on the article talk page or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2014 (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.
25162995 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do not believe that i am being a "wikilawyer" when i am following the rules this website clearly specifies with regards to one of its core principles which is WP:V. My edits/reverts were done because the information in the lead of the aforementioned article is poorly sourced contentious material based on opinion with no verifiable source to back up (unlike my highly verifiable sourced data from three of the world leading news providers). I would also reiterate that no matter how arrogant i sound in affirming i am as you call it "RIGHT" this if checked is actually the case due to the fact the other reverting editors claim "no consensus" and yet have no verifiable sources to back up there supposed consensus. Therefore i feel that upholding the block and the accusations of my supposed "superior reading" is tantamount to WP:NOPUNISH due to the fact that i have not been disruptive. Failing this appeal i will to take the issue to WP:ARB and submit my case via email. 25162995 (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were unambiguously edit warring. Feel free to attempt to get ArbCom to validate your edit warring. Or just stop doing it; the latter will be much easier. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:11, 6 March 2014 (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.
25162995 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You claim i was edit warring and yet provide no feedback on the fact that the reversions by the two other users who reinstated opinion with no verifiable sourced information-I dont believe its edit warring and in future i will do exactly the same again in the same circumstances where black and white verifiable fact outweighs outsourced POV because i believe that my actions were WP:NOT3R as stated before 25162995 (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Pledging to resume in the behavior = you're doing it wrong. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:58, 6 March 2014 (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.
You were edit-warring. Read this link: Wikipedia:Edit warring. That is pretty black-and-white verifiable fact.
Oh, and proclaiming that you'll continue edit-warring when your block expires pretty much guarantees that said block will become permanent, so I'd rethink that statement if I were you: blocks are not punitive, but preventative, and this would be a textbook case for an indefinite one. --Calton | Talk 16:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- I never once said i would continue edit warring. I said i would revert if i saw it as WP:NOT3R which is exactly what this case is. Evidently you and other admins care only about trivial edit wars and not the exact ins and outs of this case which shows an extreme example of why people may distrust WK in general or be put off from actually editing. 25162995 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Edit-warring to force your version when multiple editors disagree with you will not help. You'll end up blocked and lose any chance to further make your points. You're in a dispute and there are better ways to try and resolve it. You've got a couple of noticeboards that might help (WP:BLPN and WP:NPOVN are the two most likely). Also read through the various dispute resolution options. After your block expires, please don't try to force your version into the article. Yes, be WP:BOLD, but you also need to discuss. WP:BRD, remember? Bold change that gets Reverted means Discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Its not "my version" its a citated verifiable fact in black and white which admins clearly ignore. 25162995 (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Buffaboy. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Björk because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Buffaboy talk 20:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
November 2015
edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Buffaboy talk 20:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
edit
Hello, 25162995. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
edit Hello, 25162995. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)