This is Beleg Strongbow's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
If I were you, I would stop bragging about how I'm not interested in agreement. This is not likely to reflect well on your propensity to collaborate as an editor. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You've violated the one-revert-per-day rule, which is laid out in the page's edit notice which you see any time you edit the page. I recommend that you revert yourself to avoid sanction (also because your edit violated our sourcing policy and reverting would just be better). – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Beleg, thanks for your encouraging words. However, please note that I am at the Maafa-article for making it a good article, not because I agree with the movies contents. So please don't be disappointed if the article won't develop in the way you would have liked it. Anyway, best regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 13:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I userfied your working material on the article's talk page, bringing it to your space here: User:Beleg Strongbow/Maafa 21. The main reason for this action of mine is that the material has been getting no consensus for inclusion, and with it staying on the article's talk page it was serving as an alternate version, a distraction to the public because it is not ready to be seen. You can continue to work on it in private. Binksternet ( talk) 15:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Statement of intent to go against consensus, followed by that action. Ish dar ian 03:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The Purple Barnstar | ||
For your fortitude in intrepidly battling the odds until and even after help arrived. Badmintonhist ( talk) 06:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC) |
Is under a 1RR restriction, you just broke it. Please self revert. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
You have been reported to WP:3RRN for violation of 1RR. Feel free to offer your viewpoint at the noticeboard. Binksternet ( talk) 00:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting all administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
Beleg Strongbow ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been accused of violating 1RR. An administrator has apparently agreed with the accusation and Blocked me for 24-hours. I disagree with the accusation and with the Block because I was not intending to perform two reverts and thought that I was performing only one true revert. What is being called my first revert was a restoration of text that had been agreed upon weeks ago by the editors involved. (See this and this.) I did not realize that restoring this text would be considered my first revert, such that my intentional revert would then be considered a second and consequently be in violation of 1RR. If my previous understanding of 1RR is incorrect, I apologize and will be more careful in the future not to violate it again. It certainly has never been my intention to edit war. Please consider removing the Block. Thank you. -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 13:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC) (P.S. If you read through the lengthy NPOV Notice Board discussion cited above, you will also get an idea of the motivation behind Roscelese's and Binksternet's desire to have me blocked, as they have been pushing a POV for nearly a year at the article in question. See Roscelese's gaming of the system here, here and here while the editors were making an effort to come to an NPOV. Notice in particular comments like the following from Roscelese: " while waste-of-time discussion continues, let us try another way of dealing with the FRINGE issue." Her reference to a "waste-of-time discussion" is aimed at the NPOV Notice Board discussion that was not going her way.)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You have made two changes at Maafa 21 in less than 24 hours. This one was put up by you thinking incorrectly that you had consensus, but it was reverted by me. Badmintonhist subsequently made a change that appeared workable to me but you reverted before I had a chance to see it and comment positively on it.
I hold that your first change is a reversion as it was edit warring to return to your preferred version, wording which removes the Katz quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway." You removed that exact quote here on March 27, here on March 28 (with the edit summary of "Spelling", probably an edit conflict), here again on March 28, here on April 3, and finallly here on April 4 less than 24 hours later. The text you are warring over is the same text each time, that is, the April 3 edit is a reversion, not a "recommended update" as you put in your edit summary.
I offer you the opportunity to revert yourself to preserve 1RR. Binksternet ( talk) 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
You have been reported to WP:3RRN for violation of 1RR. Feel free to offer your viewpoint at the noticeboard. Binksternet ( talk) 15:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
3RR Notice Board Conclusion: No action was taken, though warning and advice were offered.
-- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 14:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Beleg, and the encouragement. I probably should get away from Wikpedia for a while, refocus on my music . . . maybe write some poetry. I've always liked Joyce Kilmer's work. How's this for the start of a poem?
Well even if you don't like it, Best Regards in any case. Badmintonhist ( talk) 02:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
This is Beleg Strongbow's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
If I were you, I would stop bragging about how I'm not interested in agreement. This is not likely to reflect well on your propensity to collaborate as an editor. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You've violated the one-revert-per-day rule, which is laid out in the page's edit notice which you see any time you edit the page. I recommend that you revert yourself to avoid sanction (also because your edit violated our sourcing policy and reverting would just be better). – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Beleg, thanks for your encouraging words. However, please note that I am at the Maafa-article for making it a good article, not because I agree with the movies contents. So please don't be disappointed if the article won't develop in the way you would have liked it. Anyway, best regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 13:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I userfied your working material on the article's talk page, bringing it to your space here: User:Beleg Strongbow/Maafa 21. The main reason for this action of mine is that the material has been getting no consensus for inclusion, and with it staying on the article's talk page it was serving as an alternate version, a distraction to the public because it is not ready to be seen. You can continue to work on it in private. Binksternet ( talk) 15:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Statement of intent to go against consensus, followed by that action. Ish dar ian 03:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The Purple Barnstar | ||
For your fortitude in intrepidly battling the odds until and even after help arrived. Badmintonhist ( talk) 06:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC) |
Is under a 1RR restriction, you just broke it. Please self revert. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
You have been reported to WP:3RRN for violation of 1RR. Feel free to offer your viewpoint at the noticeboard. Binksternet ( talk) 00:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting all administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
Beleg Strongbow ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have been accused of violating 1RR. An administrator has apparently agreed with the accusation and Blocked me for 24-hours. I disagree with the accusation and with the Block because I was not intending to perform two reverts and thought that I was performing only one true revert. What is being called my first revert was a restoration of text that had been agreed upon weeks ago by the editors involved. (See this and this.) I did not realize that restoring this text would be considered my first revert, such that my intentional revert would then be considered a second and consequently be in violation of 1RR. If my previous understanding of 1RR is incorrect, I apologize and will be more careful in the future not to violate it again. It certainly has never been my intention to edit war. Please consider removing the Block. Thank you. -- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 13:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC) (P.S. If you read through the lengthy NPOV Notice Board discussion cited above, you will also get an idea of the motivation behind Roscelese's and Binksternet's desire to have me blocked, as they have been pushing a POV for nearly a year at the article in question. See Roscelese's gaming of the system here, here and here while the editors were making an effort to come to an NPOV. Notice in particular comments like the following from Roscelese: " while waste-of-time discussion continues, let us try another way of dealing with the FRINGE issue." Her reference to a "waste-of-time discussion" is aimed at the NPOV Notice Board discussion that was not going her way.)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You have made two changes at Maafa 21 in less than 24 hours. This one was put up by you thinking incorrectly that you had consensus, but it was reverted by me. Badmintonhist subsequently made a change that appeared workable to me but you reverted before I had a chance to see it and comment positively on it.
I hold that your first change is a reversion as it was edit warring to return to your preferred version, wording which removes the Katz quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway." You removed that exact quote here on March 27, here on March 28 (with the edit summary of "Spelling", probably an edit conflict), here again on March 28, here on April 3, and finallly here on April 4 less than 24 hours later. The text you are warring over is the same text each time, that is, the April 3 edit is a reversion, not a "recommended update" as you put in your edit summary.
I offer you the opportunity to revert yourself to preserve 1RR. Binksternet ( talk) 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
You have been reported to WP:3RRN for violation of 1RR. Feel free to offer your viewpoint at the noticeboard. Binksternet ( talk) 15:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
3RR Notice Board Conclusion: No action was taken, though warning and advice were offered.
-- Beleg Strongbow ( talk) 14:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Beleg, and the encouragement. I probably should get away from Wikpedia for a while, refocus on my music . . . maybe write some poetry. I've always liked Joyce Kilmer's work. How's this for the start of a poem?
Well even if you don't like it, Best Regards in any case. Badmintonhist ( talk) 02:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)