67.168.135.45 (talk) |
Anachronist (talk | contribs) →NPOV not Vandalism: some comments |
||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
'''FOR THE RECORD:''' I registered the account User:Portunity at the (repeated) suggestion of User:Widefox, though that apparently has done nothing to assuage his aggressive, punitive, process-abusing, and most of all logic-defying behavior. I will be deleting said account (if at all possible) and returning to anonymous (and mostly typographical) editing. I find it strange that my good-faith work on a minor disambiguation matter has resulted in so much character assassination, while the other user is free to fill Wikipedia with useless duplicate links and information/navigation of extremely poor quality with impunity. This is why the Wikipedia project has been degrading lately -- when its editorship is composed of policy wonks and bullies rather than those with actual contributions to make, content will inevitably suffer.[[Special:Contributions/67.168.135.45|67.168.135.45]] ([[User talk:67.168.135.45#top|talk]]) 22:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC) |
'''FOR THE RECORD:''' I registered the account User:Portunity at the (repeated) suggestion of User:Widefox, though that apparently has done nothing to assuage his aggressive, punitive, process-abusing, and most of all logic-defying behavior. I will be deleting said account (if at all possible) and returning to anonymous (and mostly typographical) editing. I find it strange that my good-faith work on a minor disambiguation matter has resulted in so much character assassination, while the other user is free to fill Wikipedia with useless duplicate links and information/navigation of extremely poor quality with impunity. This is why the Wikipedia project has been degrading lately -- when its editorship is composed of policy wonks and bullies rather than those with actual contributions to make, content will inevitably suffer.[[Special:Contributions/67.168.135.45|67.168.135.45]] ([[User talk:67.168.135.45#top|talk]]) 22:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Accounts cannot be deleted. |
|||
:I do hope you continue using your registered account. Doing so, you might find (with some exceptions as you noted) that your edits are treated with greater respect, particularly when discussing a disagreement. |
|||
:Note that your blocking admin has posted a warning on Widefox's talk page regarding Widefox's behavior, such as characterizing legitimate edits as vandalism and improperly using rollback priveleges. Widefox temporarily lost his rollback rights as a result. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 22:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:54, 21 March 2012
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Letter Never Sent. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (67.168.135.45) is used to identify you instead.
In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
before the question on this page. Again, welcome!
Widefox (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Letter Never Sent
Re: [1] I don't even think this needs a disambiguation page. Anyone typing this into the search box in 2012 and not also including a band's name is NOT looking for a 30-year-old non-single by REM, but is looking for this recently re-released film.
- BEFORE you make this change to the redirect, 1. disambiguate at the film page (hatnote back to REM song) . ALSO reccomended 2. An account 3. 1. change the article title (as it seems to be the main usage, and not the literal translation) 4. you need to not discriminate against other articles, whatever your personal views are Widefox (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- "hatnote back to REM song" -- Yes, this is a good idea! I'm sorry that I didn't realize this is what you were suggesting. I thought you were suggesting that I set up a proper disambiguation page, something that I cannot do without first spending time setting up an account.
- My understanding is that past English-language distributions of the film in question have used one translation of the title, while more recent releases have used the other translation. It is therefore more important to ensure that searches for either title reach the article than it is for the article title to be altered. Hopefully, someone with access to Russian-language sources about the film's distribution history can add to the article's content.67.168.135.45 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hatnote added. I see that you've also added one other lesser-known English translation of the title. I will now switch the redirect back to the film as per the hatnote. I hope that you will consider this acceptable.67.168.135.45 (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
March 2012
Your recent editing history at Letter Never Sent shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Widefox (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Letter Never Sent, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Your recent editing history at Letter Never Sent shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Widefox (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Letter Never Sent. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- 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. Widefox (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Letter Never Sent, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NPOV problem - promoting film - redirect, then preferential DAB, removing rival namespace (REM) Widefox (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
- Honestly, Widefox is a hypocrite and a liar -- claiming vandalism when each edit was individually summarized and justified, mass-reverting entire suites of reasonable edits (three times!), and even creating multiple entries for one song so as to highlight his "preferred" disambiguated meaning!! I deny each and every charge and "warning" he has now added to my IP address, and I would really love to know how one can challenge such abuses of editing/warning privilege! 67.168.135.45 (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
NPOV not Vandalism
I do not understand why you claim to be editing here for years, but don't have the time to create an account as suggested (several times), or check the manual of style for DAB pages WP:MOSDAB so you understand why I have reverted your edits which do not follow it. You must engage more with me (and others) about your contentious edits on the talk pages, especially as an IP editor. I have reported your actions as edit warring and *not* vandalism. It appears from your pattern of edits (changing redir, reordering DAB) that you are favouring the film over other things, I have no edits of REM (AFAIK) and am discussing with you due to being alerted to your edits as vandalism (as 1 other editor was), and recognising that your edits are *not* vandalism but WP:NPOV leading to (edit warring WP:3RR). Widefox (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Widefox, it is DEFINITELY not your job to police people's reasons for registering or not registering. No further reverts were made to articles following your specious warning, and now you have gone and imposed a block anyway. This is unacceptable behavior.Portunity (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Wifione Message 13:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
67.168.135.45 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User "Widefox" reverted edits as "vandalism" when it was clearly just a difference of opinion, then denied doing so when called out on it. Widefox then issued multiple warnings on questionable grounds, finally proceeded to block IP address despite no further edits having been made. Blocker's stubbornness has now lapsed into abuse of power.Portunity (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblock requests must be made by the person who is actually blocked. A 24-hour block for edit warring is justifiable. Widefox didn't block anybody because Widefox is not an admin. Furthermore, ignoring the advice in WP:NOTTHEM pretty much invalidates any request for unblocking. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2012 (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 are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/67.168.135.45. Thank you. Widefox (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
FOR THE RECORD: I registered the account User:Portunity at the (repeated) suggestion of User:Widefox, though that apparently has done nothing to assuage his aggressive, punitive, process-abusing, and most of all logic-defying behavior. I will be deleting said account (if at all possible) and returning to anonymous (and mostly typographical) editing. I find it strange that my good-faith work on a minor disambiguation matter has resulted in so much character assassination, while the other user is free to fill Wikipedia with useless duplicate links and information/navigation of extremely poor quality with impunity. This is why the Wikipedia project has been degrading lately -- when its editorship is composed of policy wonks and bullies rather than those with actual contributions to make, content will inevitably suffer.67.168.135.45 (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Accounts cannot be deleted.
- I do hope you continue using your registered account. Doing so, you might find (with some exceptions as you noted) that your edits are treated with greater respect, particularly when discussing a disagreement.
- Note that your blocking admin has posted a warning on Widefox's talk page regarding Widefox's behavior, such as characterizing legitimate edits as vandalism and improperly using rollback priveleges. Widefox temporarily lost his rollback rights as a result. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)