Hi Scientiom, i'm unsure if you have already joined but you may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies where you will have access to a wider community of editors working towards the same goals as you currently appear to be. Thanks and have a nice day ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit warring
Hi there, Scientom. An editor recently notified me of this edit you made yesterday. That was in fact your fourth revert on that page in 24 hours, which meant that you were in violation of the three revert rule. I understand why you did it - the problematic editor had just been blocked for edit warring and you were restoring what seemed to be the consensus - however, for you to do that was probably inappropriate. While I am sure you had goon intentions, it would have been best to wait for an uninvolved editor to make the changes they felt necessary (and, had an admin seen it yesterday, you might have been blocked yourself). I will remind you that edit warring is never appropriate, even if you do not break 3RR, and the best practice is to avoid getting anywhere near three reverts (try discussion or dispute resolution if necessary). The other editor's block expires soon; I hope not to see any further edit warring from either of you. Let me know if you have any questions. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice, I had thought that such an edit would be fine since I was only restoring material from before the edit war (i.e. from the stable version). --Scientiom (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
What you did was necessary: thanks for getting the problematic user blocked, and for your sane input to that discussion. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I simply did it because it's up to those who want to make controversial changes to an article to get consensus for their change on the talk page - and while that happens the stable version is to be kept. So it was simply for the reason of keeping to policy I did what I did. --Scientiom (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Re this comment, "maintaining the stable version" is not a valid reason for edit warring. Please review the relevant policy, particularly that you should not edit war even if you think you are right. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Trans4life
The user should clearly be reported, having WP:Edit warred across several articles and having changed solidly sourced definitions to biased, poorly-sourced definitions using the bisexualindex.org.uk as one source. This source clearly does not trump scholarly sources or even GLAAD sources. He or she particularly changed text in a biased manner regarding pansexuality and asexuality. Yes, pansexuality is generally subsumed under bisexuality, but that does not mean that a user should edit Wikipedia articles to impose his or her views that there is no validity in distinguishing the terms. I've reverted the editor on some articles (three in my case so far), but I don't believe that the user is likely going to stop this type of editing. 41.219.180.202 (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Urm, I'm not an admin - and anyone can report users, including IPs. You don't need to get someone else to do so. --Scientiom (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Welcome
Hi, Scientiom, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and intersex people. LGBT Studies covers people, culture, history, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful:
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! |
Not minor
I've noticed that some of your edits are marked as minor but actually make substantial changes to the meaning of the passages. Please follow WP:MINOR. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Your reversion
- I noticed you undid several of my edits in one fell swoop, however you appeared to undo two section edits when your edit summary indicated you were changing something in the lead. I assume this was unintentional on your part. I took the liberty of restoring my non-lead edit in its own diff.
- I also reinstalled my lead (mostly, I took into account some intervening edits) because of WP:LEAD. If you or anyone else reverts, I won't restore until we get some consensus.
Regards little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- The first one was indeed unintentional, and I have no objections to that addition. To the second however, as the RFC's consensus was for including the designation (nothing else was properly discussed or supported), until there is consensus to include the extra part, it should not be included. Thanks, --Scientiom (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying the first was a mistake. We all make em. We can talk about the 2nd issue on the talk page, but please remember the RfC is not all encompassing. If an RfC said "we must include A", then we include A. It says nothing about including A and excluding everything else. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 16:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)- The first was not a mistake, as the second confirmed it. If you want to go start a third RfC after due time, you are free to. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying the first was a mistake. We all make em. We can talk about the 2nd issue on the talk page, but please remember the RfC is not all encompassing. If an RfC said "we must include A", then we include A. It says nothing about including A and excluding everything else. little green rosetta(talk)
Part 2
Let's examine this diff [1]. In that edit I changed The SPLC is named as a resource by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Bureau's fight against hate crimes to The SPLC is named as a resource by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with an edit summary of Remove unsourced material. That would imply (at least to me) that the in the Bureau's fight against hate crimes bit is unsourced. The link on the FBI website doesn't seem to support statement. In fact the link just makes it seem that the SPLC is a reader resource. The 2nd link is also unclear as to the nature of the partnership between the SPLC and FBI. I further notice the body of the article does not contain this seemingly unsourced and superfluous assertion. Since you undid the edit, perhaps you could explain? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 13:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
August 2012
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to American Vision, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International
Yes, I read it. The body of the article said A Tennessee principal also had to apologize to students in 2004 "for any controversy or heartache the assembly generated." The lead now says which have caused heartache among students. That's not the same thing at all. The phrase "captive" audience" is also a loaded term and POV - it was obviously used by a critic, and is totally inappropriate for the lead. The "mislead" bit is also someone's opinion (and spelt incorrectly, by the way). Finally, the assemblies are dealt with in paragraph two of the lead, anyway. StAnselm (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please see my thoughts on this issue. Thanks. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
Edit warring
Scientom, I have noticed that you have been walking a fine line with respect to edit warring lately. When someone reverts your change, please discuss the revert on the talk page first. If you think the reversion requires immediate attention, then take it to ANI. While you don't always get to 3RR, admins will take your recent history into account when considering blocks. By the content of your edits, I assume you take exception to the unjust treatment of LGBT people, a position that I personally am not unfriendly with. By the content of other peoples edits, I gather they are not friendly to LGBT persons. The problem is that despite ones personal beliefs, or bias, we as editors must do our very best to put our bias aside and edit neutrally. The best way I've found to do that is to let the sources do the talking. If your goal is to make Wikipedia articles match your bias, no matter if your bias is moral and just, you don't belong here. To put things in perspective, try and write a brief lead for a BLP for some people you thoroughly detest. Compare that to the actual BLP and note the differences. A good editor should be able to write neutrally even about a scumbag. I think you can make some great contributions here, but you've got to make the leap from being a good person to being a good editor. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to politely suggest that it's possible to oppose one for of bias without supporting the opposite form. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Mind your own business. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)- That's an uncivil demand on your part. I am entirely free to comment. If Scientiom would prefer that I avoid their talk page, I would honor that request within certain constraints, but you lack the standing to make such a request. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Mind your own business. little green rosetta(talk)
Category for Gay Wikipedians
Hello, I'm writing here to let you know that I've recently begun a discussion to review the deleted and redirected Category:Gay Wikipedians (which now points to Category:LGBT Wikipedians. instead of being it's own category) If you have the time, please add your thoughts on the deletion review to the current Discussion. Thanks! Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
SPLC insertion
If you are going to quote BRD, you had better participate in the 'D' part. There is a consensus on the page to remove that information. Failure to discuss will cause the statement to be removed again and a subsequent reinsertion without discussion will be considered edit warring. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 12:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- WP:BRD says that it's up to person making the Bold change to initiate a discussion to get consensus to change the article from its longstanding form. --Scientiom (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- And discussion has been taking place and a new consensus has been formed. Please go to the talk page and participate or stop editing this article. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 13:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)- I checked the talk page and I don't see any consensus for removing the information. --Scientiom (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- 2nd to last section. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 13:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)- Okay, I had a look, and I see a discussion with only a small amount of editors participating for one day. That's not consensus - and if disagree on this point, I recommend an RFC on this issue which can be closed by a neutral admin who can say what the consensus is. --Scientiom (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- 2nd to last section. little green rosetta(talk)
- I checked the talk page and I don't see any consensus for removing the information. --Scientiom (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- And discussion has been taking place and a new consensus has been formed. Please go to the talk page and participate or stop editing this article. little green rosetta(talk)
Prop 8
Also discuss. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
Edit warring
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
{{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. Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Scientiom (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Firstly, I'll begin by saying if unblocked, I will not be doing any more reverting on the article, and will stick to the talk page. To explain why I did what I did: I was frustrated that my concerns were being ignored, and my reasoned objections overlooked on the talk page and the article. I was not interested in entering any sort of edit-war - indeed, I had planned to start an RFC to resolve the matter, just before being blocked. I kindly ask that I be unblocked. Thank you. --Scientiom (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I'm going to accept you at your word that you will not be making any changes to the article. However, I'd like to note a few things for the future. First, you have been blocked before (June of this year) for edit-warring. Second, you have been reported for edit-warring in between your June block and this one. Third, you seem to have some misunderstandings about WP:3RR and what constitutes a revert. Please read the policy carefully, but the safest way to interpret revert is any change to the article, no matter how innocuous or whatever the motive (other than clear exemptions), constitutes a revert. Content disputes belong on the talk page. If I see any evidence of warring, whether it be on this article or any other, you risk not only another block but a longer one. Try to keep cool, and if you feel yourself getting too frustrated, walk away from it. I'm sure the article and Wikipedia will survive.Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)