User talk:Wikiscient/Archive 2

< Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  ... (up to 100)

Re:

Not meaning to be uncivil, but stop acting like an idiot and blank reverting a legitimate edit. Read the page history and talk page, instead of jumping of recent page patrol. There is no need for those tags, being added only as POV-pushing devices. The use of rollback by u and the other guys in violation of rollback policy ... which you should have been informed about and read. 88.239.86.113 (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear, you are not a competent interpreter of policy. Following me about blank reverting and using rollback to do it. Read WP:Vandalism particularly the part what vandalism is not. Thanks. 88.239.86.113 (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no vandalism. I understand this better than you. I wanted to open a AN discussion in order to prompt someone you'd respect to inform you of policies and guidelines, but being an anon was unable to. 88.239.86.113 (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been interested in the content of these articles up until now, why take an interest now? Why not read WP:Vandalism and WP:Rollback instead of worrying about how I edit articles? As you will see from all of those talk pages, the position I've edited for in each edit has already been defended. But no matter. You forced me to violate 3rr (surprised you didn't speedy ahead to that channel!), so undoubtedly one of your admin protectors will block me in the next hour or so. 88.239.86.113 (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Additionally, you should only use rollback when edits are clear cut vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism. While you are blocked, please read What vandalism is not, and WP:ROLLBACK. In content disputes, discuss the edits with the user, instead of just reverting them. We need to treat users equally on Wikipedia, and not offering the same courtesy to anonymous users, merely because they are anonymous, is discouraged. If necessary, seek dispute resolution. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to contest this block on the grounds that my reversions in this case were not a matter of "edit warring" but of "fighting vandalism".
It would be greatly appreciated if an admin would look more than cursorily into the sequence of reversions, warnings, and comments in this case. I'm certain it would then be quite clear that my reversions were justified, my use of TW templates to warn the vandalizing user were appropriate, and my abuse-report made after the "final warning" was given to this user should certainly not have resulted in blocking me.
Note also that I discontinued reverting the vandalism in question after having made the report, and did not violate the 3RR policy myself.
Also please note that I did indeed treat the anonymous user in question with a courtesy and respect that was not, frankly, reciprocated, and that the anonymous user declined my invitation to discuss and justify the edits in question with a glib and disingenuous reference to previous glib, disingenuous, and insufficient comments the user had made in response to having already been challenged and reverted by editors other than myself.
I would greatly appreciate it if any admin could now look into my abuse report, take the appropriate action on it, unblock me, and then also note in any log of that block that it was not in fact justified.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter, and please also in any case have a nice day!
Sincerely, Wikiscient 17:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 ::In response to Irpen's comment below, I can only refer the reviewer to the edit-history since my reversions of the two articles in question: ::*Roman empire, and ::*Soviet famine of 1932-1933 ::My reversions have been reinstated and upheld by other editors, and in the case of Roman empire the page has indeed been blocked at the request of another editor with the comment "IP edit-warring last few days - same guy, same removal of content, he's past taking it to talk, and now just having some fun with an IP edit war, I think. He's on his third IP, 2 others are already blocked. A few days semi-protection to ease the administering of the page?" ::Thank you again for your attention to this matter. I look forward to contributing to Wikipedia again as soon as this matter has been resolved. ::Wikiscient 19:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block endorsed. Adding "Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων" to the Roman Empire infobox is not vandalism, but a content dispute. This is not changed by the fact that there is clearly no consensus for this addition and that the IP(s) making this addition have also been edit warring. —  Sandstein  21:19, 29 June 2008 (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.

After reviewing your contributions in more detail, I agree that the contributions you reverted probably do qualify as vandalism. I may not unblock you unilaterally, but please stand by while I contact the blocking admin.  Sandstein  22:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. The diffs for Roman Empire show an alternative spelling for a Roman figure, and a different addition to the infobox. The spelling, nor the addition, was vandalism. Unless I'm completely missing something here, I don't see why they qualify? Sorry if I'm just being thick. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Without having ever seen that article before, going only by what seemed to be the consensus of the regular contributors there, along with what I believe to be common knowledge about the Roman empire, I reverted what in all good faith appeared to me to be a clear case of vandalism. The user making the edits was doing so from an anon IP address, and had just previously made what I still consider to be unjustified deletion of material from the other article in question (which you do not mention). Finally, instead of politely disputing with me the applicability of the text of the warning-message-templates I placed on the user's talk page and my justification for having done so, the user quite presumptuously insulted my intelligence and provided me with no sufficient explanation for his or her deletion of valid and worthwhile content from these articles.

I did not violate the 3RR policy. I discontinued reverting those articles after having made my justified and appropriate abuse report.

I would like to ask you again to undo this block. I understand that on the surface it may look like something other than it is, but I am very certain that a reasonable consideration of the material in question and the sequence of events would convince any Wikipedian that I did nothing to deserve this block.

Thank you, again, for your time and consideration of this matter.

Wikiscient 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiscient, this is crap/ Absolute crap. You bumbled into an article you didn't have a clue about assuming because it was anon it was bad, and then followed the ip about. Then left a series of ridiculously inappropriate messages on the user talk page, which you tried continually to enforce (violating 3rr in the process there). Your understanding of consensus is as diabolical as your understanding of WP:Vandalism, not that you even read the talk page where you would have discovered the best contributions argue that the current version of the article is childish and moronic. Which it is, though demographic forces there are similarly childish and moronic. Users with expertise get blocked for arguing with ignorami who can proudly boast they're maintaining an article which would make even the most junior scholar of late antiquity laugh in derision. Matter had been discussed umpteen times, as you would also see. The idiots in question there know there know that well enough, and it speaks mightily of them that they don't bother to point this out to guys like you. But, no, you didn't read the talk page, just b-s-ing here to get an administrator into unblocking you. Are you going to apologise to the other user you misrepresented, slandered and got blocked? Probably not ... but I guess that's no surpise. I am sorry if this experience was not pleasant for you, buit this was mostly determine by your own approach. 81.215.73.199 (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What a laugh, you insult everyone you run into in Wikipedia, and you want an apology for slander?

And listen to the lecturing, what a joke. You're actually telling him "sorry if this experience was not pleasant for you, buit this was mostly determine by your own approach." - lol when you went off on your third IP to continue the edit war after the other two were blocked? Yes, too bad we all can't be as clever as you and just hop IP's once we're at 3RR. It would make for much more pleasurable experiences, I'm sure. Brando130 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am restoring my comment below that your removed as you seem to be trying to deceive the reviewers. --Irpen 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Wikiscient, I noticed your edits to an articles that were on my watchlist and I think your actions indeed were in contraversion with the Policy. There was a valid content dispute as you could see if you bothered to read an article talk and what anon did was removing tags from the article persistently inserted by an SPA who was reverted by 3 other editors. Your edits were effectively your taking one side in a content dispute but if you chose to do so, you should have joined a talk page discussion. Your use of rollback in the content dispute was also inappropriate. There was no vandalism involved in any way and your summary above indicates that you still think otherwise. Besides, misuse of rollback may read to removal of this privilege. Please familiarize yourself better with what constitutes vandalism and reread WP:VAND and WP:ROLLBACK. I don't think you should remain blocked once you indicate that you learned from your mistake since the purpose of the block is prevent the counterpolicy edits. --Irpen 18:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

I'm still not certain about this. The edits, in my opinion, were not vandalism. I don't see how they were. But with such a short time before this block is due to expire, I'm going to assume good faith. If you truly believed the edits were vandalism, 3RR wouldn't have applied (and you did revert three times, as did the IP). Concerns by Sandstein over the legitimacy of the block also cast doubts over my actions.

For the record, I am truly sorry if you believed I blocked you in error. I certainly don't make a habit of blocking established users, and I get no joy from it. I'm also particularly sorry because I pride myself on my care and caution with administrative actions. Nevertheless, I can also accept when I'm wrong, and if I was wrong, I accept it.

Having said that, I ask you to be more cautious with the use of rollback. To the untrained eye, to mine, and to Sandstein and Irpen, the edits were not vandalism. If you had the rollback privilege, it would have probably been revoked. If it was vandalism, it certainly didn't look like it, but you are more of an expert than I am in the history of the Roman Empire.

In short, I hope we can move on, and that your judgement upon me has not been clouded. I, for one, sincerely respect the civil tone that you displayed in your emails and on your talk page. Happy editing, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much!

For my part, I will redouble my efforts to be as careful and conscientious about the reverts I make while on RC patrol as I possibly can be.

I am very glad to have arrived at the appropriate and just outcome of this situation, but I also remain as willing -- and as glad! -- as ever to civilly discuss any error of judgment or knowledge I may have made over the course of its development.

Sincerely, humbly, respectfully, and appreciatively yours,

Wikiscient 03:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This block was silly, imo, and so is all the advice about "watch out, next time" - the only thing Wikiscient could possibly be cited as doing wrong is using the word "vandalism" in his edit summary (and perhaps using rollback? I'm unfamiliar with those policies) - but he was the third regularly contributing editor to undue new, disputed changes being introduced by brute-force by an anonymous editor who was on his third IP in 24h; the other two being blocked for the same edit war. Instead of blocking yet the third IP, you block Wikiscient. On top of that, he didn't even go over 3RR. Are you guys bored or something? I know its hot outside, maybe some basketball? (Now its me doing the condescending. :) )Brando130 (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to reply to this, just this once, and leave the issue alone. The block itself was not disputed, but endorsed (see above). The only thing that was disputed was the labelling of the edits as vandalism. 3RR would not have been broken if the edits were vandalism, but it was unclear; no one really knew. I would appreciate if everyone can drop this now. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I remain quite certain that this is a clear-cut case of vandalism, not "edit-warring."

I do agree that further discussion of this matter would more appropriately take place on the talk page(s) of the article(s) in question.

Thank you again, though, PeterSymonds, for your time and attention to this matter.

Wikiscient 04:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman Empire and your email

Hello, I received your email regarding your block and the article Roman Empire. Since Peter has unblocked you, the first issue is obviously no longer a problem. The reason that you cannot currently edit Roman Empire is that I have protected (locked) the page in order to prevent any editor from editing it, except administrators. I did this in order to stop the edit-warring that was taking place. It was not designed to prevent any specific user from editing the page, rather it was (and remains) my intent to temporarily prevent all users from editing of the page. I did so in response to a request at requests for page protection. I have asked for a discussion on the talk page to determine consensus on the issue of dates for the end of the Roman Empire, as it was not clear to me that a consensus existed. As soon as consensus is clear on this issue, I will unprotect the page. Failing that the page will automatically be unprotected at 14:22, 6 July 2008 (GMT). I would much rather lift the protection early so I would encourage you to join the discussion on the talk page. CIreland (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It was really only concerning the first issue, now resolved :), that I wrote you email. I seem to have inadvertently got caught up in what to some seems to be, or has become, an "edit war." My concern was, and is, with the vandalism on that page. In any case, I intend to have a look at the discussion there as soon as I have the opportunity, and will try to contribute to it constructively myself in some way if at all possible. Regards, Wikiscient 17:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hit the nail on the head

Thanks, for a couple of minutes there I truly believed that no one cared about the article any more (fighting against windmills does this to a user :). I advise you strongly not to lose the moral high ground (no personal attacks of any kind, no edit wars). As you can see I did my duty and called the cops (filled a complaint). They will eventually take over and reach a fair decision. One can only hope that they do it soon.

I truly wish to improve the article later (along much better lines, currently it is simply a huge embarrassing mess), but I'm busy at the article Reconquista (and it is a slow going) and I'm not keen in leaving it half done. It will probably take a more than a couple of months. But it will be done. Flamarande (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Washmonbat.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Washmonbat.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrongly convicted

I reverted vandalism, but it was false. Realized that yet? And remember, Assume good faith. ConCompS (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, my bad! Just started with Huggle... :S Wikiscient 23:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)