WikiManOne (talk | contribs) →Lila Rose: rply |
→Lila Rose: + |
||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
::::I think it's an excellent idea to step away from this page, and maybe similarly highly charged pages for a while. Editing contentious subjects on Wikipedia is usually a difficult and frustrating experience. These are the pages that are most likely to attract POV, wikilawyering and a battleground mentality. I'm not saying you shouldn't edit contentious pages, but I am saying that it's a much different experience than editing regular pages.--<span style="font-family: Maiandra GD">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 04:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
::::I think it's an excellent idea to step away from this page, and maybe similarly highly charged pages for a while. Editing contentious subjects on Wikipedia is usually a difficult and frustrating experience. These are the pages that are most likely to attract POV, wikilawyering and a battleground mentality. I'm not saying you shouldn't edit contentious pages, but I am saying that it's a much different experience than editing regular pages.--<span style="font-family: Maiandra GD">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 04:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::Lol, where have you been? Question, am I correct that it doesn't count as a revert if you take what someone else wrote and edit from there and do not revert it back to the previous version? I'm getting this from where it says "version reverted to" on the reports form, so if you're not reverting at all but just taking what people write and adding/removing portions from there, it's technically not a revert, right? Yes, I am trying to disengage from most of these high stress articles, mostly focusing on local things with some work here and there on others, as well as the [[Planned Parenthood]] since that's in a pretty good npov position now and I want to improve it. <sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiManOne|W]]</sub>[[User:WikiManOne|'''M''']]<sup>[[User_talk:WikiManOne|O]]</sup> 04:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
:::::Lol, where have you been? Question, am I correct that it doesn't count as a revert if you take what someone else wrote and edit from there and do not revert it back to the previous version? I'm getting this from where it says "version reverted to" on the reports form, so if you're not reverting at all but just taking what people write and adding/removing portions from there, it's technically not a revert, right? Yes, I am trying to disengage from most of these high stress articles, mostly focusing on local things with some work here and there on others, as well as the [[Planned Parenthood]] since that's in a pretty good npov position now and I want to improve it. <sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiManOne|W]]</sub>[[User:WikiManOne|'''M''']]<sup>[[User_talk:WikiManOne|O]]</sup> 04:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::It has been a very challenging day for me IRL. Wikipedia struggles are absolutely relaxing in comparison. In general, you are right that if your edit builds on the last edit, then it's not a revert. However, it is considered edit warring if your additions appear to be just a disguise for removing someone else's content. You don't want to be in a position to be arguing technicalities, just coming off a block. That being said, I looked through your newer contributions to the article and I didn't see any clear evidence of edit warring. It also looked like an article that's no fun to edit.--<span style="font-family: Maiandra GD">[[User:Kubigula|Kubigula]] ''([[User talk:Kubigula|talk]])''</span> 05:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== La Sierra Academy == |
== La Sierra Academy == |
Revision as of 05:07, 11 February 2011
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Lila Rose
Hi, you have started to revert again at this article, please take this as a continuation warning of the still open previous 3RRNB report and stop reverting and discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am trying to discuss, he's trying to unilaterally add material. :) This is ridiculous, there is no consensus to include and he persists in including the material. WMO 00:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Blocked
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
WikiManOne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
With all due respect, it is unfair that I am blocked for the same amount of time as an editor who has been blocked for the same violation three times previously, for involvement in the same incident. I also note that I repeatedly asked for discussion before the addition of the controversial material that I removed and that the editor did not participate until after the discussion. I have never been blocked before and even the other editor here was blocked for only 12 hours during his first block, this is his fourth. Considering that I have never been the subject of a edit blcok, I believe that my block was unfairly long for removing controversial content unilaterally and constantly readded by an editor with a history of edit warring who refused to discuss before adding. I realize I was wrong in engaging, but a 24 hour block seems particularly acrid under the circumstances, and I ask that it either be lifted or decreased. I apologize for the scattered nature of this message. WMO
Decline reason:
The other party's preventative block was effectively reduced to match your preventative block, based on the situation. 24 hours is the standard in cases like this, although it probably deserved longer for you. Read WP:EW and WP:DR over the next 24hrs so that we may not be forced to invoke this type of preventative measure in the future. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 10 February 2011 (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.
- I also recommend the block be reduced. While WikiManOne did edit war, this is his first block. I recommend that WikiManOne's block be reduced to 6 hours, if not removed altogether as time served. I would also recommend that WikiManOne consult a mentor to stay out of trouble in the future (worked for me) and I have taken the liberty of contacting my former mentor, an admin, User:Kubigula. The mentoring recommendation is optional and up to WikiManOne, but I feel it would be helpful to have someone kinda "lead the way" so problems don't occur in the future. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will accept the mentor if he offers, not sure how it all works however. Also, I want to note, my "edit warring" was simply removing undue information from an article and repeatedly asking the other editor to discuss, going as far as to start a discussion on the talk page which the other editor ignored. Regardless, I still shouldn't have edit warred, but I don't see how someone who's been blocked before, shows a pattern of being edit warring (fourth block), and refused to discuss gets the exact same block as I do, when I have never been blocked before and repeatedly wanted to discuss for consensus. WMO 02:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to work with you. Mentoring is no big deal - just someone to talk to and hopefully help you avoid getting yourself in troublesome wiki situations. It would help if you enable your email as Homer suggests below.
- As for the block, 24 hours is pretty standard for edit-warring, regardless of who is more at fault. 3RR is a quite firm line here. If the block is lifted early, will you commit to absolutely ceasing the edit war? It would probably be a good idea to step back from the article for a day or so anyway.--Kubigula (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will definitely stop the edit warring. If I look at it now it looks hopeless. I have some additions I would like to make to the Planned Parenthood page that I've been working on. I'm going to work on enabling my email (seems my email filter is somehow deleting it as I've sent it multiple times...) Is the 3rr really that strict on this? Because if you look at the block log of the person that caused the war, his first block was only six hours. But yes, definitely will stop edit warring. WMO 04:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- 3RR is the bright line, though the block length is not set in stone. As I am now involved, it's not appropriate for me to respond to the unblock request. However, I am contacting the blocking admin.--Kubigula (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Kubigula is a good guy to work with. He helped me keep my nose clean once I came back from an indef block (yeah, I have a block log), so you are in good hands with him. I will watch the fort at WP:ALVA until you get off block, so no worries there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Cool, how long does it usually take for these unblock things to get acted on?? I have a new version of the Planned Parenthood history section set to go whenever I get unblocked... WMO 06:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- It can take anywhere from 5 minutes to several days, depending on the request. Since this is under discussion here, and the issue has been at ANI (repeatedly), I imagine most admins are hesitant to review. I'm not that smart, though. Would you consent to a 1RR restriction on this article? In broad strokes, you would edit as normal, and could revert once. After that, you do not revert on the article - no matter what. The intent is to prevent the edit war from ever beginning. If an editor or editors are making unquestionably bad edits, or inserting material where consensus is clearly against inclusion, then other editors will have to deal with it. You've committed to stop the edit warring, this would formalize it - and maybe make an unblock easier to sell. What do you think? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Cool, how long does it usually take for these unblock things to get acted on?? I have a new version of the Planned Parenthood history section set to go whenever I get unblocked... WMO 06:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Kubigula is a good guy to work with. He helped me keep my nose clean once I came back from an indef block (yeah, I have a block log), so you are in good hands with him. I will watch the fort at WP:ALVA until you get off block, so no worries there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Heads-up on a few counts
- You're unlikely to get your unblock request approved by citing the faults of other editors. (WP:NOTTHEM)
- In general, I recommend you cool it a bit in talk pages. Your drive to improve Wikipedia's coverage of reproductive health issues is laudable, but it'll be wasted if you get yourself blocked for incivility.
- Your article Bart Slepian duplicated another article, Barnett Slepian. I copied over all content that wasn't already there, attributing it to you, and converted your article into a redirect. (Any other victims of anti-abortion violence who should have articles? I created John Britton and Emily Lyons...)
- Feel free to e-mail me if you have questions/want to talk. If you go to my user profile, you can "e-mail this user" from the left sidebar.
- -- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Make this a tad easier. If you want to email Roscelese, click here. Goes to the same place. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- It won't let me email, I never got the authentication email. :( Its okay though. Yes, we do need to expand coverage of notable anti-abortion violence victims. I'm working on the Planned Parenthood history section in a sandbox at the simple english wiki. WMO 02:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Go to My Preferences and scroll down to "E-mail options" under the User Profile" tab. There you can add your email address (make sure it is correct) and send another authentication email. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- It won't let me email, I never got the authentication email. :( Its okay though. Yes, we do need to expand coverage of notable anti-abortion violence victims. I'm working on the Planned Parenthood history section in a sandbox at the simple english wiki. WMO 02:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Make this a tad easier. If you want to email Roscelese, click here. Goes to the same place. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
PP History
Not sure if you saw my reply to you at my talk page: "It looks generally good, but what do you mean by 'the clinic was organized into the American Birth Control League'? (I also think examples/greater clarity would benefit the 'force a halt to population growth through coercive methods' part.)" Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, ok, do you have any ideas for those two? I'm getting very irritated at editors who bring up the same topics that were discuessed two weeks ago over and over again. I agree that it could use more clarity, I'll work on it slowly.. lol WMO 02:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Specifically, I mean: how was the clinic "organized into" the ABCL? Did its leadership become the leadership of a new and broader organization? Did it associate itself with an already-existing ABCL? As for "coercive methods," I've found the reference in your cited source (which you should link, by the way - it's on Google Books and it's page 473), but it doesn't go into detail - do you have another source that goes more into detail? Are we talking about forced sterilization - coercive economic incentives to get sterilized - economic punishments for people on welfare having more children, say??
- I don't need a whisperback, by the way, unless it's been days and days with no reply, or something. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, I don't have a better source, the others all say pretty much the same thing as does Planned Parenthood themselves. I don't remember exactly what coercive methods is referring to... I can check. Ok on the wbs, it makes things easy for me as I don't really check usually but if you don't need it that's fine. WMO 02:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Potentially can be used
http://books.google.com/books?id=kAJN-OcsZhAC - Planned Parenthood and religions. Might be helpful for article improvement. WMO 06:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Unblocked
Since Haymaker was unblocked, I don't see any purpose in maintaining yours at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Lila Rose
I can't believe you are straight back at it reverting on the same article, reverting away, seriously, your seem to not have been listening. Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Lionelt's talk page.
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Lila Rose
By my count you're way over 3RR. Not a warning, just an observation. Lionel (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, because there are no reverts, I didn't take anything back to a previous version, just make a new version based on people's edits. WMO 03:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, have it your way. Please stop edit warring WP:3RR. You may be blocked. This ia a warning.Lionel (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Where did I actually revert edits? WMO 03:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, I give up on that page, I'm taking it off my watch list, too many pov pushers there. WMO 03:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's an excellent idea to step away from this page, and maybe similarly highly charged pages for a while. Editing contentious subjects on Wikipedia is usually a difficult and frustrating experience. These are the pages that are most likely to attract POV, wikilawyering and a battleground mentality. I'm not saying you shouldn't edit contentious pages, but I am saying that it's a much different experience than editing regular pages.--Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Lol, where have you been? Question, am I correct that it doesn't count as a revert if you take what someone else wrote and edit from there and do not revert it back to the previous version? I'm getting this from where it says "version reverted to" on the reports form, so if you're not reverting at all but just taking what people write and adding/removing portions from there, it's technically not a revert, right? Yes, I am trying to disengage from most of these high stress articles, mostly focusing on local things with some work here and there on others, as well as the Planned Parenthood since that's in a pretty good npov position now and I want to improve it. WMO 04:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- It has been a very challenging day for me IRL. Wikipedia struggles are absolutely relaxing in comparison. In general, you are right that if your edit builds on the last edit, then it's not a revert. However, it is considered edit warring if your additions appear to be just a disguise for removing someone else's content. You don't want to be in a position to be arguing technicalities, just coming off a block. That being said, I looked through your newer contributions to the article and I didn't see any clear evidence of edit warring. It also looked like an article that's no fun to edit.--Kubigula (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Lol, where have you been? Question, am I correct that it doesn't count as a revert if you take what someone else wrote and edit from there and do not revert it back to the previous version? I'm getting this from where it says "version reverted to" on the reports form, so if you're not reverting at all but just taking what people write and adding/removing portions from there, it's technically not a revert, right? Yes, I am trying to disengage from most of these high stress articles, mostly focusing on local things with some work here and there on others, as well as the Planned Parenthood since that's in a pretty good npov position now and I want to improve it. WMO 04:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's an excellent idea to step away from this page, and maybe similarly highly charged pages for a while. Editing contentious subjects on Wikipedia is usually a difficult and frustrating experience. These are the pages that are most likely to attract POV, wikilawyering and a battleground mentality. I'm not saying you shouldn't edit contentious pages, but I am saying that it's a much different experience than editing regular pages.--Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, have it your way. Please stop edit warring WP:3RR. You may be blocked. This ia a warning.Lionel (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
La Sierra Academy
Don't prod it. See WP:NHS. Lionel (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)