This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Since you're asking, continuously reverting the content on the page, without coming to an agreement on the talk page, is still effectively edit warring. I don't see anything in the additions that would rise to the level of exceptions that would necessitate an immediate reversion. I don't see any more insults at least, and you at least seem to be using talk. Let me propose this; can you voluntarily adhere to a WP:1RR restriction on that article for three months? Please respond before making any more edits. Kuru (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} You are receiving this message as you previous participated in a Irish rugby flag related discussion ( WP:RUIRLFLAG). There are two ongoing discussions which may interest you here and here GnevinAWB ( talk) 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I write because you participated in editing Teachable moment. In the months since I created this article, the topic has taken on an unanticipated personal relevance. I wonder if you might consider joining other co-mentors in a mentorship committee for me?
Perhaps you might consider taking a look at an old edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.
Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. -- Tenmei ( talk) 02:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
You are trying too hard. Let it rest. Wizzy… ☎ 09:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Settle down Hippo. The page does not belong to you. B. Fairbairn ( talk) 09:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I think it is interesting that you accuse me of edit-warring after you sweep into a very important section of the article that has been up for years, strip it down to half with no discussion, no consensus, and no agreement with the other editors who have worked on this article a long time. I was not the one who changed anything at all. We are simply asking for consensus before you make changes. You have refused to do that. And you refuse to act with integrity in this regard which is unfortunate. But the proof is all in the history. And I will be working to make sure other editors know about your activities. And then also, anyone can look in your archives and see it has always been an issue with you. Thanks. Computer1200 ( talk) 10:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Here: User_talk:Camelbinky#Incivility_to_the_point_of_.22hostility.22.2C_again -- Rico 15:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Just to let you know I am going to let UpstateNYer know about the AN/I since as far as I know he is not aware of it and yet he is a major player in the discussion. I just wanted to let you know I was going to tell him I am very happy you've been quite understanding and very polite to me in the discussion. I didnt want you to think I was doing anything behind your back and again I want to thank you for being polite and to apologize for anything you may have believed I did wrong to you in the past. Camelbinky ( talk) 02:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Hippo43 -- Wow! I'll bet some grad student could write a thesis (or dissertation) on the behavior patterns of people in computer "meeting areas". (Someone probably already has...)
I think I oughta keep that "the less you know the more you know" thing that HearForArtThou posted. Wow. Words cannot describe it. (BTW, no insult is intended; I can't pronounce his username and that's all I can remember of it.)
Anyway, I think there is an important principle at stake here. Thanks for hanging in there! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hi Hippo43. Would you care to explain yourself here? Just so we're on the same page, I have no issues with reimposing that old indefinite block on your account; that being said, you may want to defend yourself ASAP. Regards, FASTILYsock (TALK) 02:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Your behavior at List of common misconceptions is starting to become disruptive. You are deleting items that are sourced to reliable sources for no good reason. [1] Please cease and desist at once. I'd rather not have to report you to AN/I. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I'm sorry that you've returned to edit warring at List of common misconceptions. As this seems to be a recurring problem that you cannot seem to self-correct, please consider this your final block before this account is permanently disabled. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Hippo43/Archives/2011 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'd be grateful if an admin could look at this situation and consider unblocking me. I've asked Kuru above to explain what he meant in a comment a few days ago, but got no reply. In January of this year, he wrote "continuously reverting the content on the page, without coming to an agreement on the talk page, is still effectively edit warring." I believe I've followed this advice, and at the article in question my edits have been consistent with the clear consensus established via discussion, and with policy. Within 5 minutes of inadvertently making a fourth revert in one day, I was blocked for a month. This block seems extremely harsh, where a warning would have been more appropriate. This was a very minor edit, to the point of being trivial (changing one letter), and one which is also consistent with policy. I would have been glad to self-revert if Kuru or anyone had pointed out that it was a fourth revert. If Kuru had felt that previous edits of mine were "aggressive" he could have brought it to my attention. In the article in question, one editor in particular has been repeatedly editing against a broad conssnsus, and my edits there were in response to that. For me to be blocked as a result of this seems wrong, and it also seems inappropriate to me that Kuru, having blocked me once, has apparently watched my edits and waited for me to break a rule and then imposed a very harsh further block. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for another admin to be involved, so the situation is not coloured by personal history. -- hippo43 ( talk) 14:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not the first time that you have been blocked for edit-warring, so you understand the WP:3RR rule quite well. Nobody needs to remind you, and after all those blocks there is not such thing for you as "indavertant". The reason that this is a 1 months block is due to the escalating nature of blocks - you've had 3x 24hr blocks, 48, 72, a week, 2 weeks ... now it's escalated to a month. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:58, 19 May 2010 (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.
Hippo43/Archives/2011 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
BWilkins, you are right, I do understand 3RR by now. However, of course, like anyone else, I can mistakenly break a rule. WP:3RR says "If an editor breaks the three-revert rule by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion." I broke the rule by mistake, simply because I didn't realise I had already reverted three times. If I had known I had reverted three times already, I would not have done so a fourth time. If anyone had pointed out to me that this trivial edit was a fourth revert, instead of blocking me within a few minutes, I would have of course reversed it. Although Kuru is not required to warn me about previous edits he thought were "aggressive", I still don't see why he wouldn't. If he thought my edits on the morning of 13 May were inappropriate, why did he not say so? As to the length of my block, although I understand the principle behind increasing blocks, given that the blocking policy relates to disruptive or damaging behaviour, a month seems inappropriate in this case. My editing was not damaging or disruptive to the encyclopedia; in fact, overall I make a positive contribution, and I have clearly recently engaged in discussion instead of being drawn into edit warring. So given the various options available - a warning, and the chance to self-revert, or a very short block, for example - a block of a month seems both excessive and pointless. I realise that a block, and one of this length, fall within the range of options available. However, I do not believe that Kuru's action was the most appropriate one for this situation, and have not heard an explanation yet as to why it would be. -- hippo43 ( talk) 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Don't get all hung up on 3RR. The point is that edit warring, whether you violate 3RR or not, is not acceptable. Since you've been repeatedly blocked for edit warring and yet apparently didn't even realize you were doing it again, a one month block strikes me as overly lenient. If you can't understand why edit warring is not tolerable you may not posses the competence required to edit Wikipedia in a useful fashion. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:37, 19 May 2010 (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.
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I find it very troublesome that as soon as your latest block has ended, you immediately announce your intention to resume your edit-warring. Do not resume your disruption or you will be blocked again. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Your edit here is a personal attack. [3] If you continue your disruption, I will report you to ANI. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Nice edit. Please don't get blocked as we need some neutral voices on these articles. I commented at the AN/I thread as well. I really think you should try to walk away from that article; it's probably true that it's a dreadful article but in the great scheme of things I feel there are other areas where you can more meaningfully contribute. Please don't lose your ability to. Cheers. -- John ( talk) 16:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I knew you would surface again eventually. I don't need to consult you about undoing your edits. If you believe that, you fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia. Moreover, there is an obvious consensus at the discussion there. The only person pushing an agenda here, and a a thoroughly unpleasant one, is you. I'm about to revert the Rangers article to the consensus version. Please do not edit war to restore your POV version - if you do, I will have to seek admin action to resolve this. -- hippo43 ( talk) 07:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} It's called WP:BRD, not WP:BRRD. [4] [5] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I would ask that you refrain from reverting other editors contributions without discussing with them first. Your behaviour is becoming more disruptive and is detracting from the articles progress. The subjects you wish to discuss have articles of their own and your contributions would be better suited to them. Should you continue to edit war in the manner you have, you leave me no choice but report your behaviour. cheers SeekerAfterTruth ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC).
SeekerAfterTruth ( talk) 23:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
[12] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 11:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
'm working on a very slow computer and am working step by step. Please give me a little time as by standing over your computer and reverting immediately you not giving me time to put the stuff - your stuff mainly - back in. Mattun0211 ( talk) 11:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have reported Mattun0211 here for gis edit warring on the Celtic page and his edits and threats in the past on the Green Brigade page. Adam4267 ( talk) 17:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Since you're asking, continuously reverting the content on the page, without coming to an agreement on the talk page, is still effectively edit warring. I don't see anything in the additions that would rise to the level of exceptions that would necessitate an immediate reversion. I don't see any more insults at least, and you at least seem to be using talk. Let me propose this; can you voluntarily adhere to a WP:1RR restriction on that article for three months? Please respond before making any more edits. Kuru (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} You are receiving this message as you previous participated in a Irish rugby flag related discussion ( WP:RUIRLFLAG). There are two ongoing discussions which may interest you here and here GnevinAWB ( talk) 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I write because you participated in editing Teachable moment. In the months since I created this article, the topic has taken on an unanticipated personal relevance. I wonder if you might consider joining other co-mentors in a mentorship committee for me?
Perhaps you might consider taking a look at an old edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.
Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. -- Tenmei ( talk) 02:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
You are trying too hard. Let it rest. Wizzy… ☎ 09:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Settle down Hippo. The page does not belong to you. B. Fairbairn ( talk) 09:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I think it is interesting that you accuse me of edit-warring after you sweep into a very important section of the article that has been up for years, strip it down to half with no discussion, no consensus, and no agreement with the other editors who have worked on this article a long time. I was not the one who changed anything at all. We are simply asking for consensus before you make changes. You have refused to do that. And you refuse to act with integrity in this regard which is unfortunate. But the proof is all in the history. And I will be working to make sure other editors know about your activities. And then also, anyone can look in your archives and see it has always been an issue with you. Thanks. Computer1200 ( talk) 10:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Here: User_talk:Camelbinky#Incivility_to_the_point_of_.22hostility.22.2C_again -- Rico 15:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Just to let you know I am going to let UpstateNYer know about the AN/I since as far as I know he is not aware of it and yet he is a major player in the discussion. I just wanted to let you know I was going to tell him I am very happy you've been quite understanding and very polite to me in the discussion. I didnt want you to think I was doing anything behind your back and again I want to thank you for being polite and to apologize for anything you may have believed I did wrong to you in the past. Camelbinky ( talk) 02:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Hippo43 -- Wow! I'll bet some grad student could write a thesis (or dissertation) on the behavior patterns of people in computer "meeting areas". (Someone probably already has...)
I think I oughta keep that "the less you know the more you know" thing that HearForArtThou posted. Wow. Words cannot describe it. (BTW, no insult is intended; I can't pronounce his username and that's all I can remember of it.)
Anyway, I think there is an important principle at stake here. Thanks for hanging in there! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hi Hippo43. Would you care to explain yourself here? Just so we're on the same page, I have no issues with reimposing that old indefinite block on your account; that being said, you may want to defend yourself ASAP. Regards, FASTILYsock (TALK) 02:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Your behavior at List of common misconceptions is starting to become disruptive. You are deleting items that are sourced to reliable sources for no good reason. [1] Please cease and desist at once. I'd rather not have to report you to AN/I. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I'm sorry that you've returned to edit warring at List of common misconceptions. As this seems to be a recurring problem that you cannot seem to self-correct, please consider this your final block before this account is permanently disabled. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Hippo43/Archives/2011 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I'd be grateful if an admin could look at this situation and consider unblocking me. I've asked Kuru above to explain what he meant in a comment a few days ago, but got no reply. In January of this year, he wrote "continuously reverting the content on the page, without coming to an agreement on the talk page, is still effectively edit warring." I believe I've followed this advice, and at the article in question my edits have been consistent with the clear consensus established via discussion, and with policy. Within 5 minutes of inadvertently making a fourth revert in one day, I was blocked for a month. This block seems extremely harsh, where a warning would have been more appropriate. This was a very minor edit, to the point of being trivial (changing one letter), and one which is also consistent with policy. I would have been glad to self-revert if Kuru or anyone had pointed out that it was a fourth revert. If Kuru had felt that previous edits of mine were "aggressive" he could have brought it to my attention. In the article in question, one editor in particular has been repeatedly editing against a broad conssnsus, and my edits there were in response to that. For me to be blocked as a result of this seems wrong, and it also seems inappropriate to me that Kuru, having blocked me once, has apparently watched my edits and waited for me to break a rule and then imposed a very harsh further block. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for another admin to be involved, so the situation is not coloured by personal history. -- hippo43 ( talk) 14:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not the first time that you have been blocked for edit-warring, so you understand the WP:3RR rule quite well. Nobody needs to remind you, and after all those blocks there is not such thing for you as "indavertant". The reason that this is a 1 months block is due to the escalating nature of blocks - you've had 3x 24hr blocks, 48, 72, a week, 2 weeks ... now it's escalated to a month. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:58, 19 May 2010 (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.
Hippo43/Archives/2011 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
BWilkins, you are right, I do understand 3RR by now. However, of course, like anyone else, I can mistakenly break a rule. WP:3RR says "If an editor breaks the three-revert rule by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion." I broke the rule by mistake, simply because I didn't realise I had already reverted three times. If I had known I had reverted three times already, I would not have done so a fourth time. If anyone had pointed out to me that this trivial edit was a fourth revert, instead of blocking me within a few minutes, I would have of course reversed it. Although Kuru is not required to warn me about previous edits he thought were "aggressive", I still don't see why he wouldn't. If he thought my edits on the morning of 13 May were inappropriate, why did he not say so? As to the length of my block, although I understand the principle behind increasing blocks, given that the blocking policy relates to disruptive or damaging behaviour, a month seems inappropriate in this case. My editing was not damaging or disruptive to the encyclopedia; in fact, overall I make a positive contribution, and I have clearly recently engaged in discussion instead of being drawn into edit warring. So given the various options available - a warning, and the chance to self-revert, or a very short block, for example - a block of a month seems both excessive and pointless. I realise that a block, and one of this length, fall within the range of options available. However, I do not believe that Kuru's action was the most appropriate one for this situation, and have not heard an explanation yet as to why it would be. -- hippo43 ( talk) 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Don't get all hung up on 3RR. The point is that edit warring, whether you violate 3RR or not, is not acceptable. Since you've been repeatedly blocked for edit warring and yet apparently didn't even realize you were doing it again, a one month block strikes me as overly lenient. If you can't understand why edit warring is not tolerable you may not posses the competence required to edit Wikipedia in a useful fashion. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:37, 19 May 2010 (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.
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I find it very troublesome that as soon as your latest block has ended, you immediately announce your intention to resume your edit-warring. Do not resume your disruption or you will be blocked again. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Your edit here is a personal attack. [3] If you continue your disruption, I will report you to ANI. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Nice edit. Please don't get blocked as we need some neutral voices on these articles. I commented at the AN/I thread as well. I really think you should try to walk away from that article; it's probably true that it's a dreadful article but in the great scheme of things I feel there are other areas where you can more meaningfully contribute. Please don't lose your ability to. Cheers. -- John ( talk) 16:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I knew you would surface again eventually. I don't need to consult you about undoing your edits. If you believe that, you fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia. Moreover, there is an obvious consensus at the discussion there. The only person pushing an agenda here, and a a thoroughly unpleasant one, is you. I'm about to revert the Rangers article to the consensus version. Please do not edit war to restore your POV version - if you do, I will have to seek admin action to resolve this. -- hippo43 ( talk) 07:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} It's called WP:BRD, not WP:BRRD. [4] [5] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I would ask that you refrain from reverting other editors contributions without discussing with them first. Your behaviour is becoming more disruptive and is detracting from the articles progress. The subjects you wish to discuss have articles of their own and your contributions would be better suited to them. Should you continue to edit war in the manner you have, you leave me no choice but report your behaviour. cheers SeekerAfterTruth ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC).
SeekerAfterTruth ( talk) 23:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
[12] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 11:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
'm working on a very slow computer and am working step by step. Please give me a little time as by standing over your computer and reverting immediately you not giving me time to put the stuff - your stuff mainly - back in. Mattun0211 ( talk) 11:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have reported Mattun0211 here for gis edit warring on the Celtic page and his edits and threats in the past on the Green Brigade page. Adam4267 ( talk) 17:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)