DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) →The moral of the story: wow, I apparently f'd up by using WP:AGF |
|||
Line 462: | Line 462: | ||
As far as I can tell, this story has one lesson: Admins, even at the highest level, are human, too. They make mistakes like we all do. (The ''only'' way you get blocked for your single good-faith edit is if the admins assume everything you did was done in bad faith, which, unfortunately, they seem willing to do. So much for AGF! But, I suppose we all judge too much by appearances). For my part in the drama, I apologize to you for antagonizing LHM while he was crying on Jclemens's shoulder, which probably contributed, somehow, to Jclemens's dumbfounding over-reaction. My apologies, Fountainviewkid. Punishment hurts enough when it's deserved; when it isn't, it can be intolerable. If you do decide to take a break, don't make it too long. On the brighter side, it is refreshing to learn Jclemens's COMMON SENSE approach to Notability (it must give the deletionists nightmares) and what kind of articles make Wikipedia better. So, there's hope! --[[User:Kenatipo|<span style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''<big>Kenatipo</big>'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kenatipo|speak!]]</sup> 20:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC) |
As far as I can tell, this story has one lesson: Admins, even at the highest level, are human, too. They make mistakes like we all do. (The ''only'' way you get blocked for your single good-faith edit is if the admins assume everything you did was done in bad faith, which, unfortunately, they seem willing to do. So much for AGF! But, I suppose we all judge too much by appearances). For my part in the drama, I apologize to you for antagonizing LHM while he was crying on Jclemens's shoulder, which probably contributed, somehow, to Jclemens's dumbfounding over-reaction. My apologies, Fountainviewkid. Punishment hurts enough when it's deserved; when it isn't, it can be intolerable. If you do decide to take a break, don't make it too long. On the brighter side, it is refreshing to learn Jclemens's COMMON SENSE approach to Notability (it must give the deletionists nightmares) and what kind of articles make Wikipedia better. So, there's hope! --[[User:Kenatipo|<span style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''<big>Kenatipo</big>'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kenatipo|speak!]]</sup> 20:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Thanks K. I'm still hitting the road from Wiki for a while. If a chorus of admins and even the victim themself can't bring justice then maybe Wiki has turned into Iran or Syria. Good day.--[[User:Fountainviewkid|Fountainviewkid]] ([[User talk:Fountainviewkid#top|talk]]) 21:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC) |
:Thanks K. I'm still hitting the road from Wiki for a while. If a chorus of admins and even the victim themself can't bring justice then maybe Wiki has turned into Iran or Syria. Good day.--[[User:Fountainviewkid|Fountainviewkid]] ([[User talk:Fountainviewkid#top|talk]]) 21:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
:: Holy crap, I go from being the good guy for reducing the block from 1 month down to 1 week, but suddenly I'm demonized for doing the right thing? Please don't tell me I did the wrong thing by [[WP:AGF]] here. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' [[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]] '''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 11:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Fountainviewkid's recent editing behavior == |
== Fountainviewkid's recent editing behavior == |
Revision as of 11:07, 13 July 2011
Your edits to Andrews University
Extended content
|
---|
Hello there. I have reverted your edits to Andrews University. I encourage you to read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, specifically the section on using websites as sources of information about the entities they are published by. Your addition to the article violates criterion #1 of that section as unduly self-serving material. Thank you. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 22:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Hi. Hopefully there are enough links at Andrews University not to cause any debate now. Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC) |
Collapsing threads
Extended content
|
---|
Out of curiosity, why do you have nested collapsing threads on your talk page? --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 02:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Honestly, because I saw it on a page and decided I liked the idea. I accidentally did it to all of them, and didn't feel like redoing it. What's ur recent interest in my User talk:Fountainviewkid page, if I may ask? Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC) |
April 2011
Extended content
|
---|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the username you have chosen (Fountainviewkid) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website. There are two issues with this:
Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. The article in question is [[Fountain View Academy]]. Thank you. BelloWello (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC) I am sorry but I have had this username for a very long time. You are right in that it is based on [[Fountain View Academy]], where I was a student several years ago. I use this username many places and have not had a problem with it. I believe however that you are exaggerating this issue. For example, if a person were to be a fan of a sports team and put "Bearsfan1" would you attack them as working on behalf of the Bears organization (be in University of California or Chicago NFL team)? The fact that my username just happens to be similar to an organization need not imply that I work on behalf of that organization. If you would notice I do not regularly edit pages relating to that organization, as I have no official ties other than having graduated high school there. If there were a true conflict of interest I would probably change my account, however none currently exists. Thank-you for the suggestions. Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC) 1:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC) You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Southern Adventist University. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. BelloWello (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Hello, Fountainviewkid. You have new messages at Talk:Southern Adventist University.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. |
I tried to warn you...
Extended content
|
---|
see here. BelloWello (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Geraty
Extended content
|
---|
I realize we don't seem to agree a lot... why not collaborate on this article? I think this is an opportunity for both of us to add verified statements to a truly, clearly, great Adventist mind and leader on here. I have created a sandbox to work on it here, WP:SDA/Larry Geraty. I would welcome your collaboration on this. BelloWello (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
|
May 2011:Fountainview Academy
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fountainview Academy. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
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.
- 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
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.
- 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
- Here we go again. I am trying to improve the Fountainview Academy article by adding references and changing wording. BelloWello (talk) has been messing up this article by trying to delete whole sections. I have been careful not to revert, but rather to revise in order to create a better article. I have been working on this article because it needs a lot of revision, but that doesn't mean it should be cut. As for "previous blocks, etc." those are from a long time ago and are a red herring. BelloWello (talk) has been following me around for a long time trying to engage in many edit wars. Fountainviewkid 23:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello Fountainviewkid. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. In general, if you edit articles related to you or your school, you represent a conflict of interest. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am not "affiliated" with the article I am editing. I am merely trying to work on improving a description of it. Having attended a place is not exactly the same as "affiliation". Fountainviewkid 23:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are affiliated - affiliated here being defined as having any sort of relation with, including being a former student.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia allows for those who have connections to pages to edit as long as the edits are in line. For example, on the Southern Adventist University article we have someone from the school editing the page, but he is allowed because he is keeping with the policies. Fountainviewkid 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- But you aren't.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I looked at the conflict of interest page, and do not seem myself as violating it. I am not representing any organization. Fountainviewkid 00:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually you are - being a former student makes it hard to write neutral things about your school. The tone of your additions was highly inappropriate in that sense.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I looked at the conflict of interest page, and do not seem myself as violating it. I am not representing any organization. Fountainviewkid 00:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- But you aren't.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia allows for those who have connections to pages to edit as long as the edits are in line. For example, on the Southern Adventist University article we have someone from the school editing the page, but he is allowed because he is keeping with the policies. Fountainviewkid 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are affiliated - affiliated here being defined as having any sort of relation with, including being a former student.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note - the editor on the Southern Adventist University article has not edited the article itself (only the talk page) since I pointed out his conflict of interest. BelloWello (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI
While not the subject, you have been mentioned in an incident here. Lionel (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
COIN
You have been mentioned at WP:COIN.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
COI
Even if you added references, it may still be a problem if the tone of your additions is not appropriate.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, though I believe the tone has been appropriate. I am working to make it a balanced and professional article. Fountainviewkid 2:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Formatting
If you use {{Collapse top}} multiple times on the same page, then you need to add {{Collapse bottom}} before each new {{Collapse top}} template, not all at the bottom. I've fixed it for you.
If you were trying to simply hide all of the old content in one block, then you only need one pair of
Extended content
|
---|
and |}: one at the top of the block, and one at the bottom, no matter how many section headings intervene. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC) |
ANI mention
I have mentioned you at WP:ANI.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Southern Adventist University. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
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.
- 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I believe I may be dealing with a sockpuppet. How do I go about dealing with such an issue. I don't want to keep reverting but I don't know what to do otherwise. Fountainviewkid 23:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have made a sockpuppet investigation. Don't revert unless the investigation comes out as a positive. But, it may be worth asking another user instead, as I don't completely understand either.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll take your advice. This seemed extremely random, especially since a certain user has gone silent for the last 45 minutes while this new user Tata has gone crazy. Fountainviewkid 23:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently, the new user had been WP:Canvassed. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- The grandpa thing sounds extremely suspicious. Note that one of the edits has already been reverted on it's page. Thankfully this led the SAU page to be protected. No more reversions for a while. Fountainviewkid 23:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently, the new user had been WP:Canvassed. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll take your advice. This seemed extremely random, especially since a certain user has gone silent for the last 45 minutes while this new user Tata has gone crazy. Fountainviewkid 23:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have made a sockpuppet investigation. Don't revert unless the investigation comes out as a positive. But, it may be worth asking another user instead, as I don't completely understand either.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
BelloWello
BelloWello has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of WikiManOne (talk · contribs) by a checkuser. Mathsci (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank-you for the update. A shocking and sad conclusion, but hopefully now we can get back to peace at Southern Adventist University and other pages. Fountainviewkid 23:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
SAU
Fountain you are at 3RR. Stop now. Tata is over 3RR and will be reported has been blocked. Lionel (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry I was trying to stop the vandalism. It seems we have another editor who is trying to remove the "progressive" designation. What can we do about this? Fountainviewkid 19:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
BelloWello again
Hello, I advise you to respect BelloWello's preference that you not post on his talk page. Repeated posting of messages that have been read and removed can be considered harassment. Please do not provoke someone who does not wish to be contacted by you. Thank you very much. Cullen328 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay sorry about that. I just wanted to let him know, that way it could be seen that I at least tried to communicate. I guess I thought the Talk page was for sending these kind of messages, as you did me on here. Perhaps I am wrong though. I will say away from his Talk page. If I have a message I will stay on the article Talk page. Fountain, viewkid 15:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are right in the case of two editors who have a cordial relationship, as I hope that you and I will have. You are wecome to visit my user page and talk page at any time. When two editors have a conflict, it is wise to heed one's request for the other to stay away. Please review WP:DRRC. If I can help mediate between the two of you, I am willing to try. Please avoid any editing that appears to violate WP:3RR. I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay thanks. That makes more sense. There have definitely been conflicts in the past between myself (as well as other editors) and this other editor. I am hoping however that the major conflict is being resolved. Fountainviewkid 20:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC
- I've tried to stay away from Bello, but he just returned the article and reverted it after we had agreed not to. I wrote on his Talk page since he's not responding on the article Talk page. Fountainviewkid 18:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay thanks. That makes more sense. There have definitely been conflicts in the past between myself (as well as other editors) and this other editor. I am hoping however that the major conflict is being resolved. Fountainviewkid 20:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC
- You are right in the case of two editors who have a cordial relationship, as I hope that you and I will have. You are wecome to visit my user page and talk page at any time. When two editors have a conflict, it is wise to heed one's request for the other to stay away. Please review WP:DRRC. If I can help mediate between the two of you, I am willing to try. Please avoid any editing that appears to violate WP:3RR. I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I again repeat my sincere, good faith request that you keep your discussion to article talk pages, and avoid posting on the user talk page of any editors who ask you to stay off their talk pages. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I know. Sorry. That's why I'm trying to self-revert there. I would note ,however that he keeps coming to my talk page even though I've told him not to and delete him comments immediately on here. The comment I posted was "stay off my page" or something to that effect. Can you please ask him to do the same you've asked me to do? I'm trying to follow through but it's not easy when I can't reply to him. Fountainviewkid 18:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
ANI-Southern Adventist University
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Simbagraphix (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
BelloWello
Hi, kid! The editor now called BelloWello used to be another user. He is the cause of the General Sanctions now in force on all Abortion-related articles. He is disruptive. He needs to be put under a 1RR rule for all articles he edits, and, he needs to be prohibited from bringing anyone to any noticeboard for anything. Apparently he talked a couple admins into letting him change his username, claiming "privacy" concerns, probably with the goal of ditching his block log. The change to a new username was so poorly handled that now everyone knows his new one. I vigorously butted heads with wm1 several months ago but backed off when I found out how old he was. Now that he's old enough to die for his country, the gloves, though not exactly coming off, are certainly getting a lot looser. Kenatipo speak! 16:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure this answers your question. There's a policy called WP:CLEANSTART that they're applying here, but I haven't read it. As you can see, I'm very cynical about his motives. AGF until someone's repeated behavior indicates it's time to ABF! Kenatipo speak! 16:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Kenatipo you crack me up. The "new" Bello did not apply for CLEANSTART: he stated this at ANI. He was an alternate account due to outing. This means that his disruption from his old account is supposed to follow him to Bello. It's my understaiding that Bello falls under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I can't believe how much time has been wasted on all of Bello's identities. Every night when I go to bed I say a rosary and pray that Bello takes up arthropodology. Lionel (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Any of you 2 willing to use your 1 RR and undo all of Bello's biased additions and changes? He basically did like 3 in one. Why don't those admins who are so willing to report violations do something about him or at least revert his edits back to the original? Fountainviewkid 00:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Kenatipo you crack me up. The "new" Bello did not apply for CLEANSTART: he stated this at ANI. He was an alternate account due to outing. This means that his disruption from his old account is supposed to follow him to Bello. It's my understaiding that Bello falls under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I can't believe how much time has been wasted on all of Bello's identities. Every night when I go to bed I say a rosary and pray that Bello takes up arthropodology. Lionel (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Notification of WP:AN/EW report
Hello Fountainviewkid,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 16:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:BelloWello. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -=- Adam Walker -=- 18:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's using my signature. I don't want those comments there so I removed them. Don't I have the right to remove what i post or at least not have my signature used against my will? Fountainviewkid 18:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sincere advice
I've been busy today and haven't had much time to keep up on everything going on with you today, but it looks like it's been rough. I will offer you some sincere advice, so I hope you take it that way. Just step away from the keyboard. Go take a walk and clear your head. BelloWello is pushing your buttons and gotten you all riled up. This is just an article on Wikipedia, don't let it ruin your day. If you get a block, spend time while it's in effect doing something else you enjoy. Life's too short to spend it bickering. Mojoworker (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can you explain one thing to me Mojo. Why am I the only one getting blocked? Why not Tata or BW? Both of them have engaged in the same actions or even worse than I have. Seriously I'm no conspiracy theorist but the actions I've seen almost make me believe there is one. There's really not a whole lot of evidence to dispute such a theory, though I wish there were. Fountainviewkid 20:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Tatababy is now blocked indefinitely.—Soap— 21:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why not Tata or BW? Well, as has been said, Tatababy has now been blocked and BW knows the rules well enough to push them to the limit and use them to his advantage. I know you may think I was arguing with you previously, but I really was trying to help you to understand some policies. Much as I tried to help Tatababy step back from the brink and perhaps become a constructive Wikipedian. I wish you had taken my advice and gone for a walk — it was pretty clear a block was coming, and with a cooler head, I don't think you would have responded to Kuru the way you did. If I were you, I would take Lionel up on the offer to forward an apology — perhaps you already have. Mojoworker (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks for the advice. Fountainviewkid 03:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocked
You've seen the edit warring templates enough, so I'll just type this out. You are aware of the 1RR sanctions on the Southern Adventist University article as you have been waving them in the face of other editors. Your edits at 15:53 and 16:19 are clear reverts of the actions of others. The rather disgusting display on Bw's talk page convinces me you're just not aware of your actions right now. As the previous blocks have had no effect, this one is for a week. I would strongly suggest you take the advice of your peer above, and take the time to step away. Kuru (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- As you've gone straight into personal attacks and nazi allusions, I have removed your talk page access again. Kuru (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Insincere advice
Just kidding. I know how much it bites to be on the right side and get kicked in the rear anyway while the real perpetrator goes his merry way. But, as I said above, the wheels of wikijustice grind slow but fine, and, it's only a matter of time before all receive their just desserts. Don't let it bother you too much and enjoy your break. We'll all work to see the article isn't degraded by irrelevant, negative crap when your vacation is over. Kenatipo speak! 22:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you need to forward an apology to someone you may have insulted in anger let me know. If you-know-who can get unblocked, anyone can. Lionel (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Apology
I want to apologize to Kuru (talk) for the personal insults (calling him authoritarian/Nazi, etc.). I also plan to take up the advice of several of you on here. Thanks for giving me positive suggestions. Hopefully we can all improve wikipedia no matter what editors we are dealing with. I will be back to editing (though not edit warring) in a few days. Fountainviewkid 2:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Welcome
Fountainviewkid, I want to say hello and welcome,
I dont know if you are SDA but you seem know your way around on the Adventist issues. I hope to see your work as I check some of the Adventist pages and working with us on Southern Adventist University and maybe even help us with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church.Simbagraphix (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Simba. Yes I am SDA and have studied our church for a while. I've also attended various SDA institutions (as a certain editor could detail). Sure I could help with Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, but how exactly would that work? I've a done a little bit of working on Andrews University, Fountainview Academy, and some SDA history articles. I've also worked in an official capacity for Adventist Heritage Ministry as well which has given me a lot of history knowledge. Fountainviewkid 1:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
About Fountainview Academy
Hey, FVK. I have some questions about Fountainview Academy. Please bear with me, I'm not SDA. Are Sabbath services held in a chapel or church on the campus? Are there SDA churches in Lillooet or Lytton -- I couldn't seem to find one. Is the academy closely affiliated with an Adventist "parish" church somewhere? I'm thinking about our use of the word "parochial" in the description of the Academy. Originally it meant "part of a parish". Now it means something broader. But it also can have a negative connotation. Secondly, the 9th-graders photos aren't shown on the FvA website, probably for privacy reasons. Do we know how many freshmen there are? I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks. Kenatipo speak! 16:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also, I had a conversation with Blueboar [2] about the removal of Speers Ponder from the Notable Alumni of SAU that you might be interested in. Blueboar talks sense. Kenatipo speak! 16:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good questions that I'm happy to help answer. This might be kind of long but hopefully understandable. Yes Sabbath services are held in the church on campus. There are currently 2 churches the academy helps "run". The main church is there on campus and is also called the "Lillooet SDA church", though there is a smaller church which the academy has started in the town of Lillooet (about 15 min. away). This link [3] provides the information to the church in town though you might notice that the Elder Byron Bol has a Fountainview e-mail as he is the Vice President of the school. This link [4] provides the information to the main church located on the campus. In the SDA church rather than having "parishes" we have "conferences". Here is the link to the local conference [5] which encompasses all of British Columbia. On this website the church listed for Lillooet is the church on the campus [6]. The school itself is not affiliated with the conference but has good relations with it (I can provide links for this if needed). Instead the school is a part of Outpost Center's International (OCI)[7] which helps run the school [8]. OCI is a part of ASI Adventist-laymen’s Services & Industries) which "is a cooperative network of lay individuals, professionals and ministries who share a common commitment to support the global mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church". ASI is offically under the NAD (North American Division) of the SDA church and has it's office at the church headquarters. In the Adventist system Fountainview is a part of what are known as "supporting ministries" which are not officially under the local conference in terms of funding and direction, but work with the local leadership in fulfilling the mission of the church. They can be distinguished from certain "independent ministries" which can often be antagonistic to the SDA church. As for the 9th graders, there are none anymore. In British Columbia Grade 9 is not accredited therefore it's never been seen a major class. At Fountainview it has always been the smallest class, so in order to make room for the large number of students on the waiting list Fountainview officially dropped Grade 9 within the last year or two. Hopefully that helps explain things better. I'm pretty sure Simba could also help as well. Fountainviewkid 20:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Fountainviewkid. Good information to know. I changed the grade levels based on the handbook, which is now out of date. Kenatipo speak! 23:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is, even though you have the latest facts, all the stuff on the FvA website still indicates grade 9 is still active (except the student photos, and I thought the freshmen weren't there because of privacy considerations). For example, the handbook still refers to 9-12 and the Music page of the website shows Choir 9-12 and Strings 9-12; and the online application still shows grade 9 as one of the options. Do you know of anything from the school available online that indicates grade 9 was phased out? I'll keep looking. Thanks. Kenatipo speak! 19:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can find. I know for a fact though that grade 9 does not exist. I don't know if you can get an archive of the website but if you were you would be able to see that Grade 9 students were also pictured as well. The Student photos page lists every student including Grade 9 (except now there is no Grade 9). The handbook hasn't been updated as it goes through a revision about once every five years or so. I'll see what I can find. Fountainviewkid 19:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is, even though you have the latest facts, all the stuff on the FvA website still indicates grade 9 is still active (except the student photos, and I thought the freshmen weren't there because of privacy considerations). For example, the handbook still refers to 9-12 and the Music page of the website shows Choir 9-12 and Strings 9-12; and the online application still shows grade 9 as one of the options. Do you know of anything from the school available online that indicates grade 9 was phased out? I'll keep looking. Thanks. Kenatipo speak! 19:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Fountainviewkid. Good information to know. I changed the grade levels based on the handbook, which is now out of date. Kenatipo speak! 23:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good questions that I'm happy to help answer. This might be kind of long but hopefully understandable. Yes Sabbath services are held in the church on campus. There are currently 2 churches the academy helps "run". The main church is there on campus and is also called the "Lillooet SDA church", though there is a smaller church which the academy has started in the town of Lillooet (about 15 min. away). This link [3] provides the information to the church in town though you might notice that the Elder Byron Bol has a Fountainview e-mail as he is the Vice President of the school. This link [4] provides the information to the main church located on the campus. In the SDA church rather than having "parishes" we have "conferences". Here is the link to the local conference [5] which encompasses all of British Columbia. On this website the church listed for Lillooet is the church on the campus [6]. The school itself is not affiliated with the conference but has good relations with it (I can provide links for this if needed). Instead the school is a part of Outpost Center's International (OCI)[7] which helps run the school [8]. OCI is a part of ASI Adventist-laymen’s Services & Industries) which "is a cooperative network of lay individuals, professionals and ministries who share a common commitment to support the global mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church". ASI is offically under the NAD (North American Division) of the SDA church and has it's office at the church headquarters. In the Adventist system Fountainview is a part of what are known as "supporting ministries" which are not officially under the local conference in terms of funding and direction, but work with the local leadership in fulfilling the mission of the church. They can be distinguished from certain "independent ministries" which can often be antagonistic to the SDA church. As for the 9th graders, there are none anymore. In British Columbia Grade 9 is not accredited therefore it's never been seen a major class. At Fountainview it has always been the smallest class, so in order to make room for the large number of students on the waiting list Fountainview officially dropped Grade 9 within the last year or two. Hopefully that helps explain things better. I'm pretty sure Simba could also help as well. Fountainviewkid 20:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay good news. I found several links that list it as 10-12. It's true that on the school's website that change isn't updated, several of these links demonstrate the change. The most official is the BC Ministry of Education website [9] which lists all the schools in District 074. It includes schools that are also 8-12 and under Fountainview Academy is says "Grades 10-12". Another listing is a website that lists all of the SDA schools in North America. Under Fountainview's grades it says "10-12" [10]. Hopefully those 2 websites provide the updated information. Fountainviewkid 19:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I also noticed there were some places on the article needing citations, one being "work experience". I'm still blocked so feel free to go ahead and add this citation [11] underneath the information about work experience. The link is from OCI an organization the school is affiliated with. Thanks. Fountainviewkid 20:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I used the OCI link to back up the 1975 founding date instead, and used the handbook and FvA website to support vocational education (unremunerated, yet!). What we really need is a couple beautiful photos of the school and Fraser Valley. Kenatipo speak! 23:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Pictures eh? Well I have many in my personal possession. What's the rule on them (as in copyrights?). Many of the pictures I have are private photos taken by myself or friends some of which were a part of the yearbook several years ago. Also there might be some pictures in the "public domain". Any suggestions? Fountainviewkid 23:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I know even less about putting pictures in wikipedia than I know about the SDA Church, but I'm sure there are little tutorials somewhere. I would start at wikicommons. Kenatipo speak! 00:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah okay. My only fear is that our best friend the former wmo now BW (or wherever he is these days) will have a field day finding some copyright violation or something. I need to find someone who knows about putting pictures on wiki. Maybe I'll get lucky seeing as I've had quite an interaction thanks to wmobw!!! I'll check it out. Thanks. Fountainviewkid 1:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just happened to be looking at your talk page today to see how things were going after the issues a few days ago. Adding pictures to WP is pretty easy if you are the person that took the picture. If someone else took the picture then copyright comes into play, even if the picture is on a web-site, that web-site still owns the picture. Beyond ownership issues, things like notability still apply and you should also be considerate of privacy issues (i.e. did you take a picture of a friend in front of a building you want to show.) See WP:Images for details on uploading and things like that. Don't let the run-in with an editor get you down, just learn to stick within the rules and let the other editor self-destruct or learn to behave, whichever comes first. And when things get real bad don't forget the numerous options available for dispute resolution. Marauder40 (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Some of the pictures are mine, but the best pictures are probably my friend's. Some of them like I said are from a yearbook CD. I definitely don't plan to put any of people in them so we can avoid any privacy issues. Basically want kind of permissions do I need to post pictures from friends or even from the school itself. Can I just take a picture of the website that is in a public location? And with the friend do I need a special letter granting me permission or can I just get it by e-mail? Thanks for your help, Marauder! Much appreciated. Fountainviewkid 13:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you actually go to the school, the easiest thing to do would be to walk in front of the school and take the picture yourself. That is what I did on one of the pages I created. It took me a whole five seconds when I was at the location one day. The yearbook CD is probably copyrighted. Most web pages have copyrights, either officially or by default, and you would need explicit permission of the owner of the page to use it, unless they have a disclaimer on the page giving permission for use that conforms to WP policies. Many of them are reluctant to give it because they are afraid what could happen. If your friend just took the picture with his own camera (not for a yearbook, or other venue that may own the pictures), you could just ask them to give you permission and if they have any problem letting you say that you "own" the picture.Marauder40 (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Or ask the friend to create an account on Wikipedia Commons, upload the pictures there, and license them for reuse. If the friend is a good photographer s/he might get interested in donating additional pictures. --Orlady (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah Orlady, forgot to mention that option. Fountainviewkid, One thing I forgot to mention is that it sounds like you are planning on putting up more then one or two pictures. Just as an FYI the number of pictures in an article should be in proportion to the size of the article, if you are planning on adding the pictures to the Foutainview Academy page, based on the size of the article any more then one or two pictures will probably be too much. Probably just a picture of the school or a picture of the school's sign or something like that will be enough, unless there is something reaaaaal distinctive about the school (distinctive to the outside world, not students/alumni.)Marauder40 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Or ask the friend to create an account on Wikipedia Commons, upload the pictures there, and license them for reuse. If the friend is a good photographer s/he might get interested in donating additional pictures. --Orlady (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you actually go to the school, the easiest thing to do would be to walk in front of the school and take the picture yourself. That is what I did on one of the pages I created. It took me a whole five seconds when I was at the location one day. The yearbook CD is probably copyrighted. Most web pages have copyrights, either officially or by default, and you would need explicit permission of the owner of the page to use it, unless they have a disclaimer on the page giving permission for use that conforms to WP policies. Many of them are reluctant to give it because they are afraid what could happen. If your friend just took the picture with his own camera (not for a yearbook, or other venue that may own the pictures), you could just ask them to give you permission and if they have any problem letting you say that you "own" the picture.Marauder40 (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Some of the pictures are mine, but the best pictures are probably my friend's. Some of them like I said are from a yearbook CD. I definitely don't plan to put any of people in them so we can avoid any privacy issues. Basically want kind of permissions do I need to post pictures from friends or even from the school itself. Can I just take a picture of the website that is in a public location? And with the friend do I need a special letter granting me permission or can I just get it by e-mail? Thanks for your help, Marauder! Much appreciated. Fountainviewkid 13:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just happened to be looking at your talk page today to see how things were going after the issues a few days ago. Adding pictures to WP is pretty easy if you are the person that took the picture. If someone else took the picture then copyright comes into play, even if the picture is on a web-site, that web-site still owns the picture. Beyond ownership issues, things like notability still apply and you should also be considerate of privacy issues (i.e. did you take a picture of a friend in front of a building you want to show.) See WP:Images for details on uploading and things like that. Don't let the run-in with an editor get you down, just learn to stick within the rules and let the other editor self-destruct or learn to behave, whichever comes first. And when things get real bad don't forget the numerous options available for dispute resolution. Marauder40 (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah okay. My only fear is that our best friend the former wmo now BW (or wherever he is these days) will have a field day finding some copyright violation or something. I need to find someone who knows about putting pictures on wiki. Maybe I'll get lucky seeing as I've had quite an interaction thanks to wmobw!!! I'll check it out. Thanks. Fountainviewkid 1:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I know even less about putting pictures in wikipedia than I know about the SDA Church, but I'm sure there are little tutorials somewhere. I would start at wikicommons. Kenatipo speak! 00:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Pictures eh? Well I have many in my personal possession. What's the rule on them (as in copyrights?). Many of the pictures I have are private photos taken by myself or friends some of which were a part of the yearbook several years ago. Also there might be some pictures in the "public domain". Any suggestions? Fountainviewkid 23:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I used the OCI link to back up the 1975 founding date instead, and used the handbook and FvA website to support vocational education (unremunerated, yet!). What we really need is a couple beautiful photos of the school and Fraser Valley. Kenatipo speak! 23:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Interesting answers. I think I have to clarify a little bit though. First, it's a bit hard for me to go to the school and take a picture as I am literally thousands of miles away from it and don't have any plans to be near it anytime soon. I did attend this school and graduated from there (i.e. I'm an alumnus) but that was several years ago. I currently have no direct association with the school other than what I've noted here. Okay so I'll scrap the yearbook pics. As for my friend's pics, he was the yearbook editor but the pics he used were his own and he didn't take them "just" for the yearbook. It's more that he happened to have his own pictures which he added to the yearbook. It would be from this category where I would grab my picture of the school. If all I have to do is ask permission from him, that should be relatively painless. He certainly I don't believe would have a problem with me posting it on here (and I would use his name if he wanted). The Wikipedia Commons is also not a bad idea, I'll have to look into that as well. Finally no I have no idea to put up more than one or two pictures. If you look at this discussion I wasn't even the one who suggested pictures, though I latched on to the idea, especially as I have access to that kind of material. My plan would be one main picture of the campus and yes maybe one of the sign. I'll see which pictures I have that are not copyrighted. Thanks all of you. Fountainviewkid 16:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- You WENT TO THE SCHOOL? This must be reported to WP:COIN ASAP. Lionel (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Too late. BW/WMO/whoever else he is reported this A LONG time ago. That's actually what brought me into the whole affair. I was attacked for my username, then accused of COI, then who knows what else. BW even fooled Jasper for a little who tried to tell me I couldn't edit the article "due to my former association". Thankfully it was all taken care of. Fountainviewkid 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I was being facetious. Anyway, I won't be watching SAU & FVA very closely so please drop me a note on my talk if anything important happens. Lionel (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Of course of course. Wait, you won't be watching SAU? Then I guess we'll be screwed under the mercy of Bello the BW the Wikiman one! May the good Lord (or in your case) Mother Mary have mercy on us. Oh and what's up with Birk? He seems to be a profession admin by he edits like Hrafn and maybe even BW. Fountainviewkid 23:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, the usual formula is "LORD have mercy" and "Mother Mary pray for us". And, when you drop Lionel a line, make sure you do it in a way that doesn't violate wp:canvassing. Regarding COI, the artist currently know as BelloWello did 137 edits on the article of the school he was attending, so he was hypocritical in accusing you of COI. Of course, there is no ban on students editing their school articles. Kenatipo speak! 17:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fountainviewkid, I notice something odd. You made edits here on the 5th and 6th, but they're showing as June 3rd. Kenatipo speak! 19:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah okay. Thanks for correcting me on Catholic theology. I don't think I did any canvassing (other than informing him), but yeah I'll make sure not to. As for COI, thankfully other admins have straightened that out. And yes you're right some of the dates are accidentally entered as "June 3". Sorry about that. Thankfully we can see the correct dates. Fountainviewkid 19:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- The date stamp is automatic and presumably correct if you sign your comments with four tildes or click on the signature icon. --Kenatipo speak! 21:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've previously noticed some weirdness with your signature Fountainviewkid -- signature cut off in the middle, etc. How are you signing your posts? Mojoworker (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- The date stamp is automatic and presumably correct if you sign your comments with four tildes or click on the signature icon. --Kenatipo speak! 21:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah okay. Thanks for correcting me on Catholic theology. I don't think I did any canvassing (other than informing him), but yeah I'll make sure not to. As for COI, thankfully other admins have straightened that out. And yes you're right some of the dates are accidentally entered as "June 3". Sorry about that. Thankfully we can see the correct dates. Fountainviewkid 19:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fountainviewkid, I notice something odd. You made edits here on the 5th and 6th, but they're showing as June 3rd. Kenatipo speak! 19:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, the usual formula is "LORD have mercy" and "Mother Mary pray for us". And, when you drop Lionel a line, make sure you do it in a way that doesn't violate wp:canvassing. Regarding COI, the artist currently know as BelloWello did 137 edits on the article of the school he was attending, so he was hypocritical in accusing you of COI. Of course, there is no ban on students editing their school articles. Kenatipo speak! 17:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- Of course of course. Wait, you won't be watching SAU? Then I guess we'll be screwed under the mercy of Bello the BW the Wikiman one! May the good Lord (or in your case) Mother Mary have mercy on us. Oh and what's up with Birk? He seems to be a profession admin by he edits like Hrafn and maybe even BW. Fountainviewkid 23:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I was being facetious. Anyway, I won't be watching SAU & FVA very closely so please drop me a note on my talk if anything important happens. Lionel (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
- Too late. BW/WMO/whoever else he is reported this A LONG time ago. That's actually what brought me into the whole affair. I was attacked for my username, then accused of COI, then who knows what else. BW even fooled Jasper for a little who tried to tell me I couldn't edit the article "due to my former association". Thankfully it was all taken care of. Fountainviewkid 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I've done it manually, sorry. I'll try to learn the officially correct way. Forgive the small mistakes. They're not intentional, unless I really am that stupid which hopefully I'm not. Fountainviewkid 23:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I noticed it before (the other thing was that your sig didn't adjust to my time zone setting) and was going to mention it, but forgot to. Mojoworker (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I always do it in UTC. I guess I need to try and learn the "official" way. If you have any tips, feel free to provide them. Thanks. Fountainviewkid 23:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I sign and timestamp my comments by typing four tildes. That's the character that looks like this: ~ . Three tildes writes your username, four tildes gives username and timestamp. The other way is to click on the icon at the top of the editing box; it's the fourth from the left after Bold and Italics and one I never use. The one you want looks like a blue ballpoint pen writing the letter "fr". Kenatipo speak! 01:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I heard about an automatic way of signing, but looking in "my preferences" I don't see how to activate it. It may only be an option when you send someone a template. Kenatipo speak! 01:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I always do it in UTC. I guess I need to try and learn the "official" way. If you have any tips, feel free to provide them. Thanks. Fountainviewkid 23:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
So this test will tell me if I did it right. Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- You used four tildes, right? If you click on the icon, it puts two hyphens in front of your username, like this: --Kenatipo speak! 03:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yuppo I did. Thanks. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Notification of WP:AN/EW report
Hello Fountainviewkid,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 03:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)
My Blocking
I think I'm getting blocked for a certain period of time. Thanks for all your advice. If you know any good mentors let me know. Hopefully this time I can keep my Talk page free (I promise I'll be nice to Kuru-a rather fair admin). Thanks again. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that was a close one. 'Kid, it wouldn't have helped your case to have me commenting at the ANI for you; it probably would have done more harm than good. You realize, don't you, that a block would have been justified? Somehow you need to learn how and when to pull back and I don't know how to tell you to do that. One more thing: you should avoid asking "allies" to assist you in a case like this because it's very likely canvassing. Anyway, be more careful. --Kenatipo speak! 14:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah you're right. I should almost drop that "kid" label since it't not exactly true anymore, though it makes the username unique. Oh and I wasn't trying to canvass. If you look at my contributions you'll see I posted that note on pretty much everyone who was involved in editing the Weimar article or commenting on the Talk page (both yay and nay). Yeah I was actually making significant progress over at the Weimar article when the "war" came up. Thanks for the advice. Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Just wanted to say hi. Great work so far, keep it up. A friend called--- CrossTempleJay → talk 20:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Possible mentors
Hi. Here's a program for finding a mentor. Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Master of Puppets just sent it to me. He also has a very artistic user page you might want to look at. --Kenatipo speak! 05:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- There's a space in there that's breaking the link. Try Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Mojoworker (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Pipim Article
Hi Fountainviewkid, the Pipim article is facing some major issues, IMO. See Pipim at BLP Notice Board. I think it may be wise to slow down, or stop, reverts until the veterans can help. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Thanks for the advice. I'll stop editing/reverting. I just don't like an unamed IP (who may be a previous instigator) making all kinds of controversial edits. Nevertheless, since you have sent notice of this to the community I'm happy to lay off. I look forward to seeing the outcome.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's good advice from Donald. No use getting blocked over a
sockpuppetanon editor. Has anyone else noticed the striking similarity of editing between these IPs and a certain editor who has recently gone on break? Lionel (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)- I did. It's over on the edit-warring noticeboard. --Kenatipo speak! 01:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's also at WP:SPI. Lionel (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- What is it with SDA and these perpetual, petty disputes? We Catholics got lucky: we got rid of our heretics centuries ago during the Spanish Inquisition. Lionel (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- We are "protesting Protestants". Isn't it obvious enough? --Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- What is it with SDA and these perpetual, petty disputes? We Catholics got lucky: we got rid of our heretics centuries ago during the Spanish Inquisition. Lionel (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's also at WP:SPI. Lionel (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I did. It's over on the edit-warring noticeboard. --Kenatipo speak! 01:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's good advice from Donald. No use getting blocked over a
Notification of WP:AN/EW report
Hello Fountainviewkid,
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them.
~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 20:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)
- Haha with the new IP aka (prob. BW). Maybe IP's will stop vandalizing Pipim.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi
I'm sorry to see your block. However, when you return, if you would like to be adopted, you can join on and most of my talk page stalkers are good people. My qualifications are on my user page. I'll watchlist this page, let me know. Having looked at your user page, just to let you know: I do not share, but I respect, your religious beliefs. --Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I would love to be adopted. I would note though that another admin who saw my situation has also offered. If I am allowed to go to both of you for advice and guidance I would be happy. I saw your user page and it seems you have a good understanding of politics and ideology. POV is one area where's there's been a lot of issues. That's fine your not a Christian Seventh-day Adventist. I just need a mentor who can help me and who I can go to for guidance. Also do I have permission to e-mail you? Thanks and I look forward to your mentoring me (whatever specifically that means). --Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I dont think a little extra help will hurt anyone. Certainly, you can email me.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your helpfulness and future guidance.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Fountainviewkid!
Good to hear from you again! Hope you're not too distressed by your recent brush with administrative justice. Experience shows that admins are a lot better at going by the book than they are at looking at the big picture. Any admin interested in the truth (am I allowed to use that filthy word on wikipedia?) would have seen that you were baited into it by an experienced SPA IP gaming the system, most likely BelloWello. Hang in there! --Kenatipo speak! 21:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have mentors now so hopefully their advice will keep on the "straight and narrow". --Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Oh, and don't listen to any mentor who advises you not to associate with agitators like me! --Kenatipo speak! 21:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe I'll let Lionel advise me on that one since he's not in the mentor category.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Lionel's cool. Good to hear that your shackles have been struck off early. Thanks, Atama! Now that you're free again, go have a look at user:angr's sandbox called /congrats. (I would have told you about it sooner but I didn't want you to think I had you in mind.) There's just something about it that tickles my warped sense of humor. I can't wait to drop it on our favorite editor the next time he's rewarded with a vacation. --Kenatipo speak! 03:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're a creative evil genius.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Lionel's cool. Good to hear that your shackles have been struck off early. Thanks, Atama! Now that you're free again, go have a look at user:angr's sandbox called /congrats. (I would have told you about it sooner but I didn't want you to think I had you in mind.) There's just something about it that tickles my warped sense of humor. I can't wait to drop it on our favorite editor the next time he's rewarded with a vacation. --Kenatipo speak! 03:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe I'll let Lionel advise me on that one since he's not in the mentor category.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Oh, and don't listen to any mentor who advises you not to associate with agitators like me! --Kenatipo speak! 21:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Pipim
I've reduced the protection on the article to semi-protection, which should deal with the gluttony of IP edit warring on the article. I completely understand how dealing with a anonymous editors who come and go and edit with almost immunity. However I'd strongly recommend you take a break from editing the article for the time being. Brandon (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Don't worry I won't be "editing" the article. I plan to mainly focus on the talk page and provide the information for others to edit. Thanks for your fairness.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts with SDA
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Awarded for defending Seventh Day Adventism articles against the infamous and notorious POV edit warrior and sockmaster BelloWello. – Lionel (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
GYC
Hi FVK, I have been vacillating between the two options, merge or try to maintain a separate article. I have put considerable history information in the 21st Century section on the SDA history article. But, this has made it unbalanced because little has been written about the 21st Century. Much can be written but so far there is little. Hrfan has shown these weaknesses quite effectively. He has also inadvertantly taught me a refreshing WP policy called Ignore all the rules. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I believe the GYC story and its development helps add to, or improve, Wikipedia. Your kindly counsel has been, and is, appreciated. Also, a few other editors have expressed an interest in a GYC article rescue. "An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed. Some writer worked hard on that article. Some reader can use that article. Those writers and readers, if reached out to, can help us preserve this worthwhile content." I plan to include this analysis on the talk pages related to this article, as a courtesy to all interested parties. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes thanks for your tireless efforts. I will continue pointing out the difference between sources such as the Adventist Review and Adventist Today & Spectrum Magazine. Hopefully we can have those sources included. We need such to be considered reliable and valid.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Fountainviewkid, wipe that silly smirk off your face, stop dancing on that grave, and listen up!
(this is copied from Courcelles's talk page)
Thank you, thank you, thank you! (I'm glad the verdict was practically unanimous). --Kenatipo speak! 04:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome, though I just express a little confusion as to what I'm being thanked for. Courcelles 01:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for being so oblique. I'm celebrating the banning of my wiki-nemesis Salegi, and thanking you for your role in it. --Kenatipo speak! 19:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- There's really nothing to celebrate. Banning a user is the ultimate remedy the community has, and is always something to regret, and never to look on with joy. There will be less disruption now, but in essence, what we have done is told another person that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, except him; and while this is a necessary duty, it is never a happy one. Courcelles 19:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Poor Courcelles! You sound like you just pulled the switch on the electric chair Salegi was strapped into, and now you're filled with remorse. Lighten up! He's not dead; you didn't send him to Hell for eternity. Lighten up! God help anyone who takes Wikipedia too seriously. To me, this banning is about as regrettable as taking a loaded weapon away from a 5-year-old who has already "accidentally" shot a few people with it. When BelloWello matures to the point that he realizes that the rules do indeed apply to him, then unban him! --Kenatipo speak! 21:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- There's really nothing to celebrate. Banning a user is the ultimate remedy the community has, and is always something to regret, and never to look on with joy. There will be less disruption now, but in essence, what we have done is told another person that Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, except him; and while this is a necessary duty, it is never a happy one. Courcelles 19:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for being so oblique. I'm celebrating the banning of my wiki-nemesis Salegi, and thanking you for your role in it. --Kenatipo speak! 19:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes. You about summed it up with the gun and the 5 year old example. I am personally happy every time a gun is taken away from him who has used it improperly to "shoot" a few people. I cannot cry for justice has been done, though long delayed it took. I only hope that now some wiki-peace will descend from above. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
New IPs
It looks like Jclemons and Brandon are both offline. You might want to drop a note to Kuru. I'd tell him myself, but I'm heading out the door. Mojoworker (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Looks like Donald beat me to it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
July 2011
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but 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. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I am under mentorship and would request my mentors review this action.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- This has to be a mistake by Jclemens. Fountainviewkid's recent edit to the GYC article is his first in TEN days! And it was a revert of Lithistman's sour grapes tag-bombing of the article following an unsuccessful
RfDAfD. --Kenatipo speak! 01:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- (ec with above) Fair enough, and here's a detailed enumeration of my rationale. First off, I think a month is excessive, but it would be a one-step escalation from your previous block for edit-warring, so that's what you get. So, you admit knowing how to count to 3RR by warning another editor. But then, you ignore my invite to self-revert, even when I gave you a specific rationale for the incorrectness of your edit. Finally, you claims the other involved editor has possibly breached NPA when your tag-teaming is called... tag-teaming. 3RR is a hard limit, not an excuse to revert multiple times per day, and the single, specific intervention that you indicate knew pushed another editor towards 3RR, combined with your extensive block log for edit warring, indicates premeditation to me. Thus, you are blocked for one month--which I expect will be reduced by whichever administrator reviews this block--for a single edit, taken in context of its edit summary, the warning you issued to the other editor, your failure to extricate yourself from that dispute when invited to do so, and feigned indignation that your tag-teaming was called. Any administrator is free to set appropriate conditions or require appropriate assurances, and may reduce the block with my blessing and without needing to consult me. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Who're your mentors? I'll be happy to notify them of this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- My mentors are Atama, and Wehwalt.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks JC. I'm hoping my mentors will be able to make a good judgment since they are uninvolved and recognize the circumstances.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- My mentors are Atama, and Wehwalt.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Jclemens also overlooks the fact that much of Fountainviewkid's block log comes from undoing the damage of an editor now banned, especially the last block in which FVK was suckered into a 3RR violation by BelloWello using a sockpuppet. --Kenatipo speak! 02:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're correct--I did not see any obvious notation in the block log that such was the case, and I didn't investigate further, just picked the next increment of length. That sounds like grounds for a length reduction to me, but the first step is for FVK to understand why the block was placed (and I do hope I've been appropriately thorough) and place a relevant unblock template explaining the way to move forward from this point. Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Very well JC. I shall take you advice and direction. To be honest I'm still trying to figure out what editing behavior is and is not appropriate. I thought that my own personal limit of 1 RR per 24 hours would keep this kind of stuff from happening. Further I thought that by staying on Talk pages I would keep out of trouble. Obviously I was wrong in that assumption as you have showed me. I do believe however that the result of my actions was excessive. I admit I'm still a "new" editor in some ways who is trying to learn the ways of wiki. The Bello episodes were a growing experience and sadly I'm trying to recover. I just ask for a little bit of mercy in this process from admins such as yourself and other editors who know more than I do, and obviously are better at not getting blocked. I look forward to the judgment of other admins.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're correct--I did not see any obvious notation in the block log that such was the case, and I didn't investigate further, just picked the next increment of length. That sounds like grounds for a length reduction to me, but the first step is for FVK to understand why the block was placed (and I do hope I've been appropriately thorough) and place a relevant unblock template explaining the way to move forward from this point. Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Jclemens also overlooks the fact that much of Fountainviewkid's block log comes from undoing the damage of an editor now banned, especially the last block in which FVK was suckered into a 3RR violation by BelloWello using a sockpuppet. --Kenatipo speak! 02:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I also want to note the irony that though BW is blocked as well as his socks this current saga is actually a continuation from something he began. Now that doesn't absolve any of us of the blame (including me) but it does seem factually interesting. Hopefully this will get resolved in a way that doesn't involve blocking people for long time periods.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think your next move is to formulate this into a {{unblock}}, and get an uninvolved administrator to review what's transpired here. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll work on it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I just wanted to make a few comments here, I'm not planning to take any administrative actions or pass any judgement on anyone or their actions. I'm not going to condemn or defend anyone, not at this point at least. So please keep this in mind with what I'm saying.
- Thanks. I'll work on it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I understand the block. It seems a bit unorthodox, where a single revert results in a edit war block. But I do understand it because it does give the impression of tag-teaming. Not only that, but FVK was explicit in his intentions with the revert by the edit summary he chose. Lionel is an editor whose sympathies he shares, and so I would not be surprised if FVK came in to help Lionel "win" an edit war. So I think the block was not inherently mistaken.
- I have mixed feelings about FVK's communication with LHM (the "other side" in the dispute). FVK's comments in this thread were not ideal, beginning with the sarcastic response and devolving from there. They weren't too much in breach of WP:CIVIL but they certainly did nothing to ease the conflict.
- On the other hand, I'm not sure that the escalation is appropriate. FVK has had a long-term problem with edit wars, as we traditionally understand them (a single editor who repeatedly overrides other people's contributions at a page rather than discussing the disagreement). This has been through the violation of 3RR, or whatever xRR has been enforced at the pages he has edited. This most recent infraction seems to be very different, though tangentially related to the overall problem of using the "undo" button rather than the discussion page in conflicts. It still wasn't correct behavior, but it is different behavior, and I don't think an escalating block is warranted as would be the case when an editor stubbornly refuses to change and maintains a disruptive pattern.
- So I would advise at least reducing the block. But I won't do so myself. I don't believe that I'm "involved" here, but since I have been helping FVK, I don't want to create the impression that I plan to be his Guardian Administrator. But I'd like anyone reviewing this situation to consider my analysis. Thank you. -- Atama頭 04:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like tag-teaming only if you Assume Bad Faith. Lionel went to the 3RR noticeboard and got advice on whether LHM's tags could be reverted. He was advised by an editor that the tags could be removed, so he did. He was in good faith. So was FVK when he removed the tags. Yes, he was advised by Jclemens to revert his edit, but how is he supposed to know whether the 3RR noticeboard is correct or Jclemens? Does no one see the quote marks around "edit war" in FVK's edit summary? Are they meaningless? FVK makes ONE edit on the article in TEN days, and gets blocked for a MONTH! This cannot stand, period. It needs to be reversed, period. --Kenatipo speak! 05:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- It was clearly edit-warring and the edit summary sure makes it look like tag-teaming as well. I have to agree with JClemens analysis on this one. However, I also appreciate Atama's comments and I am encouraged that FVK's comments here show some self-awareness - I respect that he's following a personal 1RR, and I strongly suggest just walking away from anything that even smells like an edit war. All in all, I support shortening the block as well.--Kubigula (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Another response to Jclemens's detailed enumeration of his rationale: FVK's warning to LHM about passing the 3RR limit was genuine and sincere -- FVK knows, from personal experience, the consequences of violating 3RR. FVK doesn't bait other editors this way, at least from what I've seen. He's not devious or hateful like the now-banned editor he had been going up against. No-one violated 3RR here, and FVK was nice enough to warn another editor of his approach to it. FVK did not understand that your invite to self-revert had the force of a command from ArbCom. He may not even know you are on ArbCom. He was acting in good faith, as was Lionel, based on information received at the 3RR Noticeboard from North8000. It turns out North8000's advice was incorrect, but how is FVK supposed to know that? Since Lionel and FVK were in good faith in trying to apply what they thought was acceptable, they can't be accused of tag-teaming. It was FVK's first edit on the GYC article in ten days. Is that edit-warring? One edit in ten days? The case for "premeditation" does not hold up. And regarding the edit summary of this single edit: joining the "edit war". Do people not see the quote marks FVK put around 'edit war'? FVK did not think he was edit-warring. That's why the phrase is in quotes. FVK's indignation is not feigned when he is accused of tag-teaming; it's genuine. Isn't falsely accusing someone of tag-teaming a violation of NPA? FVK's history of edit-warring blocks is mostly due to his opposition to the disruptive, POV-pushing edits of the now-banned Salegi W. BelloWello. In my opinion, all of us who spent the past five or six months trying to control BelloWello's damage deserve barnstars, not long blocks. I'm saying that FVK's block log greatly exaggerates his "edit-warring" tendencies because he was only undoing BelloWello's disruptions. I'm sorry to have to say so, Jclemens, but interpreting every single action by FVK in the worst possible light is a failure to Assume Good Faith. This is clearly a bad block, and it should not just be decreased in length, but completely undone. --Kenatipo speak! 18:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- FVK knew it was an edit war, see this comment where he acknowledged that there was edit war behavior occuring. FVK then intervened to assist Lionel with the edit war. And yes, falsely accusing someone can be considered a personal attack, but this was tag-teaming, so such a question has to be rhetorical. I'll assume that FVK did not realize what he did was tag-teaming, but he did realize that 3RR was close to being breached, and intervened to assist Lionel (and he mentioned twice that he knew he was doing it). That's almost the definition of tag-teaming. My recommendation, however, is to shorten this block to 24 hours because I believe this is the first incidence of this behavior from FVK. It has been nearly 24 hours since the block occurred, I would point out. -- Atama頭 18:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Another response to Jclemens's detailed enumeration of his rationale: FVK's warning to LHM about passing the 3RR limit was genuine and sincere -- FVK knows, from personal experience, the consequences of violating 3RR. FVK doesn't bait other editors this way, at least from what I've seen. He's not devious or hateful like the now-banned editor he had been going up against. No-one violated 3RR here, and FVK was nice enough to warn another editor of his approach to it. FVK did not understand that your invite to self-revert had the force of a command from ArbCom. He may not even know you are on ArbCom. He was acting in good faith, as was Lionel, based on information received at the 3RR Noticeboard from North8000. It turns out North8000's advice was incorrect, but how is FVK supposed to know that? Since Lionel and FVK were in good faith in trying to apply what they thought was acceptable, they can't be accused of tag-teaming. It was FVK's first edit on the GYC article in ten days. Is that edit-warring? One edit in ten days? The case for "premeditation" does not hold up. And regarding the edit summary of this single edit: joining the "edit war". Do people not see the quote marks FVK put around 'edit war'? FVK did not think he was edit-warring. That's why the phrase is in quotes. FVK's indignation is not feigned when he is accused of tag-teaming; it's genuine. Isn't falsely accusing someone of tag-teaming a violation of NPA? FVK's history of edit-warring blocks is mostly due to his opposition to the disruptive, POV-pushing edits of the now-banned Salegi W. BelloWello. In my opinion, all of us who spent the past five or six months trying to control BelloWello's damage deserve barnstars, not long blocks. I'm saying that FVK's block log greatly exaggerates his "edit-warring" tendencies because he was only undoing BelloWello's disruptions. I'm sorry to have to say so, Jclemens, but interpreting every single action by FVK in the worst possible light is a failure to Assume Good Faith. This is clearly a bad block, and it should not just be decreased in length, but completely undone. --Kenatipo speak! 18:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I will be putting in an unblock request soon. I want to thank K for his defense of me and everyone who has commented. I wasn't trying to edit war, though I did end up doing such an action. I'm still not sure what tag teaming is but it appears I engaged in the action. I appreciate Atama's assumption that it wasn't realized. I admit I did wrong and was at fault. I still believe it wasn't intentioned, but I'm willing to accept my just due. I think we agree though, that 1 month block is probably excessive. I will put in my unblock request and I thank you all for your thoughts. Hopefully I can engage in less troublesome behavior in the future.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Atama. I appreciate your recommendation for a much shorter block, and maybe I better read up on tag-teaming, too! --Kenatipo speak! 19:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks K for fighting the good fight for me. I need someone who will speak on my behalf to the admin, especially since most people seem to understand the situation.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Fountainviewkid (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am appealing this block though I am aware that what I did was wrong and admit that the block was not unjustified based on my editing behavior. While it was only one revert, it was an edit war which I should not have engaged in.
I was in a back and forth with the user:Lithistman on the Talk page of an admin discussing edits and actions relating to Generation of Youth for Christ. In the process I moved from simply discussion to words that reflected a WP:Battleground mentality. Unfortunately I was too busy discussing to notice it. When it was mentioned and pointed out by Lithistman and the admin I ignored the statements. I also began a discussion on the Talk page of the user which whom I was debating which further extended the "battle". Around the same time an editing situation was occurring on the article in question Generation of Youth for Christ between the editor I was disputing with and another editor Lionelt. There were multiple reversions that occurred and I noticed that Lithistman had come close to 3RR. I probably shouldn't have said anything since it turned out wrongly but I mentioned it to him making it appear I was trying to bait him. This was another wrong move on my part which escalated the "dispute".
As the dispute became more heated I started using sarcasm and phraseology that while not illegal on wikipedia, was certainly not within the best taste. Lithistman also started a discussion on the Talk page of the article Generation of Youth for Christ about the disputed edit where I also commented in a wrongful sarcastic matter. I made my biggest mistake, however when I entered into the dispute by reverting one of Lithistman's edits. His edit was a dispute he was having over whether to place a "notability" tag. As can be seen through my log I have a history of being blocked, mainly in dispute with the now banned user Bello Wello and his various socks. Therefore, I have set a personal limitation to not engage in my previous wrong behaviors by only reverting once in a 24 hour period. This is self-imposed as I truly want to be a productive editor here on Wikipedia. Unfortunately this edit went to far and when asked to self-revert by the admin, I refused and replied with an accusation against Lithistman (the user I was "fighting".
Furthermore it appears I was "tag teaming" with the other editor Lionelt in order to try and "bait" Lithistmas into a block for going over 3RR. Personally I believe this was accidental, however that does not excuse my behavior. I was wrong in those actions and should not have spoken sarcastically, reverted, or made any false accusations. As a result of my refusal to self-revert (and for the other listed wrongs) the admin blocked me for one month. As can be seen from the many comments above, even the admin realizes this was excessive, but felt it was the "next level". Other have noted, however that my last block was for reverting a sock of the banned BelloWello.
I recognize I did wrong and am trying to work to make things right. I will work to stay away from sarcasm and agree not to make anymore false accusations. I know my history looks bad, but I please ask that the reviewing admin try to see the whole picture and especially the comments of those above. I am under mentorship by 2 admins who have reviewed the block and suggested a reduction , possibly to 24 hours. The blocking admin has also noted that any decision by the reviewer is acceptable. Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Although I am using the "DECLINED" template, I am in the process of reducing this block. The blocking admin noted that 1 month would be the appropriate escalation, and I agree fully...especially with a 3RR-related block log as long as my ... ermm ... The challenge is between protection and punishment. Do I think you will edit war again? Damn right, yes I do ... there are no excuses for violating 3RR except for obvious vandalism and BLP violations. I do not do punishment, but clearly this project requires additional protection, and that might include more work between you and your mentors, and a far better understanding of WP:DR. I am going to go out on a limb, and give you faith that you can work with your mentors for a week before this block expires. I wholeheartedly say though, that your NEXT block for 3RR/EW should be 3 months, no matter what (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:36, 11 July 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'd just like to state for the record that at no time did Fountain and I "coordinate" our editing. Any appearance of "tag teaming" is just that: an appearance. Fountain and I were both extensively involved at the AfD of GYC. So he is fully up-to-speed on the rationale for deletion and the validity of the notability tag. IMO my argument to remove the notability tag was very persuasive. I can state unequivocably that his revert was based on my arguments and not on coordination. That said his edit summary was ill-advised and I told him so at the time before he was blocked. It indicates a battleground mentality. This IMO is a residual effect of his experience with BelloWello. Some editors have observed that Bello took advantage of Fountain's inexperience and targeted him for baiting. I am one of those editors. And yes, Fountain took the bait and now has quite a block history. But as has been pointed out this offense is a different kind of animal from previous missteps. Fountain has turned over a new leaf. He took the initiative to ask for help and now has 2 great mentors. He has a self-imposed 1RR limit. Fountain's rehabilitation is a model for wayward editors. He has a ways to go, but he is on the right track. I endorse Atama's recommendation for a reduction to 24 hrs. – Lionel (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
From LHM, regarding the block
I am in no way opposed to a reduction of this block. As I noted below, I'm learning very quickly that editing religious articles leads to raised emotions, and sometimes irrational behavior. I've become flustered at points, simply from my being unable to clearly make my policy concerns understood, so I can only imagine the frustration when it goes beyond that, to the core of a person's belief system. It's clear to me that FVK is an editor who means well, and who wants to improve the project, but sometimes becomes frustrated and lets that dictate his editing behavior. While I've found it frustrating to deal with at times, I think his participation here is a net positive, and as such, I support reducing his block length, as per what both Jclemens and BWilkins mention above. Best, LHM 23:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. It looks like Bwilkins has reduced it from 1 month to 1 week. I'm glad of that. Best, LHM 00:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks I saw what you did. You never cease to amaze me. This is the second time you've helped on something I care deeply about. I appreciate it.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. It looks like Bwilkins has reduced it from 1 month to 1 week. I'm glad of that. Best, LHM 00:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
To LHM
I can't post on your wall (at least no yet) so I'm writing here. I request that anyone who sees this please inform LHM. I am sorry and apologize for my behavior in the interactions I had with you, especially over the past 24 hours. I should not have spoken sarcastically to made false accusations to you. Also I should not have reverted your edit. When requested I should have backed away which I did not do. For all this I apologize and hope that we can still work collaboratively even if we disagree over various issues.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I also regret being too heavy-handed during this episode. I wikilawyered the situation and was perhaps dismissive of LHMs position. It certainly wouldn't hurt to listen better to my fellow editors. – Lionel (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- First, I'd like to thank Lionel for informing me of this thread. Second, I hold no ill will towards anyone involved. I think we all have as one of our goals on this wiki, the improvement of the encyclopedia, and as such I look forward to working with either one (or both) of you in the future. One thing I've really appreciated about all of this is that I've read up a lot on the SDA. I've known a couple of members of this denomination, but never knew the history and such. While reading through various articles linked at the SDA portal, I've really become a lot more educated about -- and gained a greater appreciation for -- Seventh Day Adventists. Additionally, I've come to understand the emotions engendered by discussion of the religious articles on the project. So, I say all that to say this: I accept the apology, and if either of you ever need assistance working up an article, copyediting, or whatever, don't hesitate to drop a note at my talkpage. Best regards, LHM 23:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't get discouraged.
I know you're feeling bad right now, but don't be discouraged. Perhaps instead of taking an official wikibreak, you could just consider these last 3-4 days of the block as a shorter break. You have the potential to do really good work here, and I'd like to see you stay around to edit productively. LHM 19:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know. I follow the advice of my mentors and get blocked. The all of wiki comes to bat for me (including you my victim and multiples admins) and the reviewing admin gets defense and starts trying to give a lecture about how I need to "learn". It's ironic too considering one of the admins supporting me was the mentor of my old nemesis Bello. Personally I'd rather take a break now than just hang out on Talk pages all day. Give me a guarantee I won't be blocked just for making one edit and I could return. That won't happen though, and hence I will probably disappear for a bit.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think Bwilkins is being defensive. I think he feels like he's been as generous with his good-faith as he feels the situation warrants. While I don't necessarily agree with his decision, I understand his reasoning. One thing I would caution you about regarding your note here is that statements describing your block as being "for making one edit" don't look the best. Jclemens explained that it was a combination of the edit itself, the edit summary, and your refusal to self-revert that caused the block. I know you're frustrated still, though, so if you feel a bit longer of a break will help you to clear your head, I fully respect that. Best regards, LHM 19:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The moral of the story
As far as I can tell, this story has one lesson: Admins, even at the highest level, are human, too. They make mistakes like we all do. (The only way you get blocked for your single good-faith edit is if the admins assume everything you did was done in bad faith, which, unfortunately, they seem willing to do. So much for AGF! But, I suppose we all judge too much by appearances). For my part in the drama, I apologize to you for antagonizing LHM while he was crying on Jclemens's shoulder, which probably contributed, somehow, to Jclemens's dumbfounding over-reaction. My apologies, Fountainviewkid. Punishment hurts enough when it's deserved; when it isn't, it can be intolerable. If you do decide to take a break, don't make it too long. On the brighter side, it is refreshing to learn Jclemens's COMMON SENSE approach to Notability (it must give the deletionists nightmares) and what kind of articles make Wikipedia better. So, there's hope! --Kenatipo speak! 20:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks K. I'm still hitting the road from Wiki for a while. If a chorus of admins and even the victim themself can't bring justice then maybe Wiki has turned into Iran or Syria. Good day.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Fountainviewkid's recent editing behavior
Fountainviewkid's mentor, Atama, told us that when FVK's edit-warring block was lifted on June 28, 2011, that FVK imposed on himself a 1RR rule for all articles. In the 13 days following, FVK made 9 edits in article space spread among 3 articles. Eight of the edits are reverts of sock-puppets of banned user BelloWello. All the edits, except one, have a descriptive edit summary. The nine edits are spread fairly evenly over the 13 days: 2 on June 30th, 2 on July 1st, 1 on the 4th, 2 on the 7th, 1 on the 8th, and 1 on the 11th. It is obvious from this that FVK was keeping his promise to stop edit-warring. On the 11th of July, FVK reverted an edit by Lithistman, in order to remove a notability tag. FVK's edit on July 11th earned him a one month block. FVK is accused of edit-warring, tag-teaming, "refusing an invitation to self-revert", "feigning indignation", "warning another editor", etc. But the recent history of his editing shows he was keeping to his self-imposed 1RR limit. His sole edit on the 11th was the first he'd made to that article (GYC) in ten days. The GYC article is not under any editing restrictions. It's not 0RR or 1RR; it's just a normal 3RR article. If blocks are supposed to be preventive instead of punitive, this one missed by a mile because there was nothing to "prevent" here. FVK had already modified his editing behavior since 28 June. FVK's block does not make any sense. You can arrive at the conclusion that a block is justified only if you assume that FVK was repeatedly acting in bad faith (he wasn't), but making that assumption is contrary to our AGF policy. A SINGLE REVERT EDIT TO AN ARTICLE IN TEN DAYS IS NOT EDIT-WARRING!
And the smart people sit around scratching their heads, asking "Why are we losing editors?" --Kenatipo speak! 02:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree completely. This block is a bit overkill, to say the least. The reviewing admin is completely correct, there is no excuse for violating WP:3RR (exemptions aside), however this is not a 3RR violation. Hell, even if this were a WP:1RR article he wouldn't have violated that bright-line rule. As has been noted, he self-imposed a one-revert type activity, and there has been no indication that that activity has not been followed, so I must ask: what is being "prevented" here? - SudoGhost™ 05:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)