Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Japanese garden is on my watchlist, so I noticed the link you added there. Please feel free to get in touch with me any time if you have any questions at all about editing here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Please thoroughly read WP:3RR which states that you should not revert an article more than three times in 24 hours. This relates to any content, and while that article is an unusual case because of the high volume of edits you have repeatedly removed the Scottish teenagers content specifically. Please be aware that you could be blocked for further edit warring. violet/riga [talk] 21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
As I said it's high traffic and an unusual case. The problem with your edits is that you have warred on the same content. Don't worry, now that you have been reminded of the 3RR policy I'm sure that you'll avoid any problems. violet/riga [talk] 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Funny I just came here to tell you the same thing, and the same argument. At 2011 England riots, you have already violated 3RR, period. You are not being blocked because we are trying to convince you to stop edit warring, but if you continue to edit, you will be blocked. The behavior of others is immaterial, although feel free to raise any 3RR violations you see in the article with those editors, or ask an admin to look into it. Lastly, we all go over our limit from time to time, and I understand 3RR is rather dense rule with spotty enforcement, but when enforced it is always enforced with a block for a duration according to severity. PROTIP: if you are already at 3RR, take a break, or engage other editors in the talk page. If your point is agreed upon other editors, they might do the edit for you, no need to do it yourself - what should matter is what is put in the article, not who puts it in the article. -- Cerejota ( talk) 23:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me show you how consensus can change:
Attempt to build "consensus" with two people and a friendly admin Community bounces backs and protects longstanding consensus
Took 20 days for the whole cycle. There is no deadline. You do not need to make all edits yourself. BTW, one of the "stealth renamers" got topic banned for trying similar stunts in the same topic area. He, unfortunately, didn't listen when others told him that his passion for the topic doesn't mean the rules do not apply to him. We all do that from time to time, but that is no excuse. -- Cerejota ( talk) 11:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I saw your comment, and I know what you mean. Many many many moons ago, when I gave a fuck, I thought the same thing. However, that is not how it works, and it will never change, so trying to do so is quixotic.
Why, you might ask?
Short course:
1) WP:NOTDEMOCRACY - Wikipedia is not a democracy: "Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting". Consensus is not voting or majority rule. Consensus is whatever the stable version of an article is in a given frame of time.
2) WP:CCC - Consensus can change: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions." Consensus is not written in stone, it can change. It can change from one day to the other, or from one hour to the other, or from one year to the other. Since consensus can change, it cannot be defended against change.
3) WP:BRD - A useful essay. You edit/revert, you are reverted, you discuss. The circle of wikilife. It never ends. Why? - because:
4) WP:DEADLINE - There is no deadline. An article is never done, ever. It can always be improved, it can always get worse, it will always be subjected to editing. That is why we edit.
Faced with this reality, I have decided to live only by three principles:
1) WP:NPOV - Always edit neutrally, even if I am contradicting what I take to be the truth of a given matter. In fact, I try to stay away from controversies that are close to myself, because it can be soul-crushing to edit against one's own beliefs - which is often required in order to be NPOV. In my case, I also take this to mean verifiability, not truth, but other 3 rule people have different takes.
2) WP:DICK - Try not to be a dick, which includes assuming good faith, specially when being criticized.
3) WP:IAR - The rules usually help make good encyclopedic content, but when they don't, fuck em and send 'em to hell.
However, successful IAR is hard to pull off, and requires both boldness and understanding when the conditions are snowy, so most of the time, follow the rules.
All this said, if you wan't sound advice, read this:
WP:DONTPANIC. --
Cerejota (
talk)
00:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
My mistake. I was getting it confused with the shooting of Duggan. Gregcaletta ( talk) 23:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
FactController, I believe that your behaviour concerning 2011 England riots is obstructing progress on the article. Your ceaseless argumentation about issues long after it has become clear that the overwhelming weight of opinion is against you is disruptive. You show no signs of recognising when there is a strong consensus of opinion against you. By repeatedly making edits to the article against long established consensus, you have shown a lack of respect for other editors and you have needlessly forced us to revisit issues already discussed, and to spend an inordinate amount of time in doing so. What is far more worrying to me than that is that your pre-conceptions about the distribution and impact of the English riots appear to be so fixed and rigid, that when faced with clear and reliably sourced counter-arguments, for example mine and Cerejota's in the current discussion, your immediate response has been to find reasons why the evidence we've provided can be disregarded. In my case, you also implied strongly that my argument on the West Yorkshire issue was based on cherry picking, flouting WP guidelines and resorting to hearsay and rumours; that is nothing less than offensive. I find this type of behaviour so annoying, and so needlessly time consuming, that it has put me off wanting to work on the article at all. In summary, you have demonstrated on the talk page that you cannot be trusted to use reliable sources correctly on this topic, or to respect other people's use of reliable sources. I think this suggests that the net effect of your unsupervised edits will be to endanger article neutrality. I think that you should take a break from editing this article, and any related articles, and take some time to reflect on how you are approaching the tasks of editing and communicating with others. Rubywine . talk 13:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:FactController_reported_by_User:Cerejota_.28Result:_.29 I take no great pleasure, but it had to come to this. We tried, its all I can say. -- Cerejota ( talk) 22:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:FactController reported by User:Cerejota (Result: Warned), which contains a warning for you. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Japanese garden is on my watchlist, so I noticed the link you added there. Please feel free to get in touch with me any time if you have any questions at all about editing here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Please thoroughly read WP:3RR which states that you should not revert an article more than three times in 24 hours. This relates to any content, and while that article is an unusual case because of the high volume of edits you have repeatedly removed the Scottish teenagers content specifically. Please be aware that you could be blocked for further edit warring. violet/riga [talk] 21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
As I said it's high traffic and an unusual case. The problem with your edits is that you have warred on the same content. Don't worry, now that you have been reminded of the 3RR policy I'm sure that you'll avoid any problems. violet/riga [talk] 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Funny I just came here to tell you the same thing, and the same argument. At 2011 England riots, you have already violated 3RR, period. You are not being blocked because we are trying to convince you to stop edit warring, but if you continue to edit, you will be blocked. The behavior of others is immaterial, although feel free to raise any 3RR violations you see in the article with those editors, or ask an admin to look into it. Lastly, we all go over our limit from time to time, and I understand 3RR is rather dense rule with spotty enforcement, but when enforced it is always enforced with a block for a duration according to severity. PROTIP: if you are already at 3RR, take a break, or engage other editors in the talk page. If your point is agreed upon other editors, they might do the edit for you, no need to do it yourself - what should matter is what is put in the article, not who puts it in the article. -- Cerejota ( talk) 23:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me show you how consensus can change:
Attempt to build "consensus" with two people and a friendly admin Community bounces backs and protects longstanding consensus
Took 20 days for the whole cycle. There is no deadline. You do not need to make all edits yourself. BTW, one of the "stealth renamers" got topic banned for trying similar stunts in the same topic area. He, unfortunately, didn't listen when others told him that his passion for the topic doesn't mean the rules do not apply to him. We all do that from time to time, but that is no excuse. -- Cerejota ( talk) 11:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I saw your comment, and I know what you mean. Many many many moons ago, when I gave a fuck, I thought the same thing. However, that is not how it works, and it will never change, so trying to do so is quixotic.
Why, you might ask?
Short course:
1) WP:NOTDEMOCRACY - Wikipedia is not a democracy: "Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting". Consensus is not voting or majority rule. Consensus is whatever the stable version of an article is in a given frame of time.
2) WP:CCC - Consensus can change: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions." Consensus is not written in stone, it can change. It can change from one day to the other, or from one hour to the other, or from one year to the other. Since consensus can change, it cannot be defended against change.
3) WP:BRD - A useful essay. You edit/revert, you are reverted, you discuss. The circle of wikilife. It never ends. Why? - because:
4) WP:DEADLINE - There is no deadline. An article is never done, ever. It can always be improved, it can always get worse, it will always be subjected to editing. That is why we edit.
Faced with this reality, I have decided to live only by three principles:
1) WP:NPOV - Always edit neutrally, even if I am contradicting what I take to be the truth of a given matter. In fact, I try to stay away from controversies that are close to myself, because it can be soul-crushing to edit against one's own beliefs - which is often required in order to be NPOV. In my case, I also take this to mean verifiability, not truth, but other 3 rule people have different takes.
2) WP:DICK - Try not to be a dick, which includes assuming good faith, specially when being criticized.
3) WP:IAR - The rules usually help make good encyclopedic content, but when they don't, fuck em and send 'em to hell.
However, successful IAR is hard to pull off, and requires both boldness and understanding when the conditions are snowy, so most of the time, follow the rules.
All this said, if you wan't sound advice, read this:
WP:DONTPANIC. --
Cerejota (
talk)
00:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
My mistake. I was getting it confused with the shooting of Duggan. Gregcaletta ( talk) 23:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
FactController, I believe that your behaviour concerning 2011 England riots is obstructing progress on the article. Your ceaseless argumentation about issues long after it has become clear that the overwhelming weight of opinion is against you is disruptive. You show no signs of recognising when there is a strong consensus of opinion against you. By repeatedly making edits to the article against long established consensus, you have shown a lack of respect for other editors and you have needlessly forced us to revisit issues already discussed, and to spend an inordinate amount of time in doing so. What is far more worrying to me than that is that your pre-conceptions about the distribution and impact of the English riots appear to be so fixed and rigid, that when faced with clear and reliably sourced counter-arguments, for example mine and Cerejota's in the current discussion, your immediate response has been to find reasons why the evidence we've provided can be disregarded. In my case, you also implied strongly that my argument on the West Yorkshire issue was based on cherry picking, flouting WP guidelines and resorting to hearsay and rumours; that is nothing less than offensive. I find this type of behaviour so annoying, and so needlessly time consuming, that it has put me off wanting to work on the article at all. In summary, you have demonstrated on the talk page that you cannot be trusted to use reliable sources correctly on this topic, or to respect other people's use of reliable sources. I think this suggests that the net effect of your unsupervised edits will be to endanger article neutrality. I think that you should take a break from editing this article, and any related articles, and take some time to reflect on how you are approaching the tasks of editing and communicating with others. Rubywine . talk 13:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:FactController_reported_by_User:Cerejota_.28Result:_.29 I take no great pleasure, but it had to come to this. We tried, its all I can say. -- Cerejota ( talk) 22:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:FactController reported by User:Cerejota (Result: Warned), which contains a warning for you. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)