Viticulturist99 (talk | contribs) |
Demiurge1000 (talk | contribs) →/ * note - BLPN - Richard Boyd Barrett * /: the definition of a revert is broader than you think it is |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. If edit warring continues, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing without further notice.''' <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 03:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC) |
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. If edit warring continues, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing without further notice.''' <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 03:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::: This is a completely dishonest and [[frivolous]] warning. I haven't done a single [[reversion]] but kept editing and improving the article according to the consensus reached on the talk page. Your intervention amounts to [[harrassment]]. I give you a warning to stop. --[[User:Viticulturist99|Viticulturist99]] ([[User talk:Viticulturist99#top|talk]]) 04:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC) |
::: This is a completely dishonest and [[frivolous]] warning. I haven't done a single [[reversion]] but kept editing and improving the article according to the consensus reached on the talk page. Your intervention amounts to [[harrassment]]. I give you a warning to stop. --[[User:Viticulturist99|Viticulturist99]] ([[User talk:Viticulturist99#top|talk]]) 04:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::Please read the link to [[WP:3RR]] that I provided. In particular, the part in the pale blue sausage shaped container, which says this: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." The concensus on the talk page, and at the BLP noticeboard, was that there were issues with neutrality and weight regarding the version that you insisted on repeatedly reverting back to, whether partially or wholly. Also, comments like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=412272837 this] (which you have now repeated multiple times in different places) lead me to think you have a problem with [[WP:OWN|ownership]] of this article. Finally; repeatedly accusing other editors of being dishonest, biased etc., as you've now done many times, does not fill well with [[WP:NPA|no personal attacks]]. Please try to take things a bit more calmly. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 04:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:14, 6 February 2011
Welcome!
Hello, Viticulturist99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Your previous edits on Richard Boyd Barrett were reverted and reworded due to the lack of neutral point of view. Exiledone (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
February 2011
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Richard Boyd Barrett. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is a blatant lie. You criticise me for what you are doing yourself but I am not. You keep removing well sourced material from Richard Boyd Barrett replacing it with your own, ungrounded fabrications e.g. the one about president Mubarak's government banning the conference. I left a note on your talk page. Viticulturist99 (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
/ * note - BLPN - Richard Boyd Barrett * /
Hi, your desired addition is being reverted and there is a report opened about the addition at the BLP noticeboard here, please don't re add your desired addition without consensus support either on the article talkpage or at the BLPN, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I changed the quote according to the article published in The Irish Independent and restored it to the text; so any future claims that the article has been misquoted will be nothing but lies. Anyone can follow the link and check it. I reserve the right to defend my point of view against a biased editor who tries to whitewash Richard Boyd Barrett before the elections. The article is well balanced at the moment, it is neutral, and it shall remain this way. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Richard Boyd Barrett. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
- 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 wording, and content 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is a completely dishonest and frivolous warning. I haven't done a single reversion but kept editing and improving the article according to the consensus reached on the talk page. Your intervention amounts to harrassment. I give you a warning to stop. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the link to WP:3RR that I provided. In particular, the part in the pale blue sausage shaped container, which says this: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." The concensus on the talk page, and at the BLP noticeboard, was that there were issues with neutrality and weight regarding the version that you insisted on repeatedly reverting back to, whether partially or wholly. Also, comments like this (which you have now repeated multiple times in different places) lead me to think you have a problem with ownership of this article. Finally; repeatedly accusing other editors of being dishonest, biased etc., as you've now done many times, does not fill well with no personal attacks. Please try to take things a bit more calmly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is a completely dishonest and frivolous warning. I haven't done a single reversion but kept editing and improving the article according to the consensus reached on the talk page. Your intervention amounts to harrassment. I give you a warning to stop. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)