|
{{ helpme}} I would appreciate if someone can explain to me what is the best way to deal with unhelpful editors that keep editing away perfectly valid information.
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on
talk:Human Rights Foundation, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -
Sinneed
16:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Please look over wp:talk page guidelines. When replying, please be certain to reply after a signature... otherwise it will appear that your words are those of some other editor, or that the words the other editor typed are yours. If one must refactor another's edit for clarity by answering in the middle, adding a {{signed|username}} may be acceptable, but it is rather wp:BOLD.- Sinneed 16:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
If a person is accused of a crime, and this is a matter of record visible in generally wp:reliable sources, then it is acceptable to report that in Wikipedia. It is NOT acceptable to call a person accused of statutory rape a pedophile, for instance, only to report that they were accused of the specific crime... and this MUST be backed by wp:RS that meet wp:BLP and must comply with the kagillion rules of WP... but it also must wp:NOT be censored.- Sinneed 16:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to
Human Rights Foundation, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the
welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
wp:NOT censored. Here, we follow
wp:consensus. You will find it relatively unproductive to
wp:edit war your changes into the article against multiple editors. If you believe the consensus is somehow damaging to the encyclopedia, or if you believe the wider community will not support it, you might consider
wp:dispute resolution. Since there are 3 editors here, perhaps an
wp:RfC. -
Sinneed
22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Here, you have duplicated both the source and most of the content of the previous sentence. Please give a read to wp:no ownership of articles and wp:tendentious editing. Your behaviour makes it difficult to continue to wp:assume good faith.- Sinneed 22:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Current article wording:
"Granma, the official organ of the Cuban Communist Party, considered it to be a CIA front organization.[6][7] Granma also considers Human Rights Watch a CIA front.[8]"
Source 8 and 7 are duplicates. Please note the wording:
Is immediately followed by:
Again, if you study carefully, you may be able to identify these as duplicate sentences, with a duplicate source. However, since this seems too difficult for you, I will leave the duplicate text in. I will convert the reference to a named ref, though. No need to confuse the readers... boring them with a duplicate sentence, while
wp:tendentious editing, at least does not mislead them.-
Sinneed
22:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
First of all, it is entirely besides the point to give undue weight to a propaganda organ of the Cuban regime. But since editors are engaged in POV pushing, and refuse to eliminate irrelevant information, balance must be included. So Granma thinks that HRF is a CIA front. It thinks the same about HRW and about every other human rights NGO that criticizes the horrendous human rights situation in that country. So what's the point? These are, I remind you, Wikipedia rules. If you don't like them, change them, if you can. Other than that, open your own blog and start ranting about the issues that concern you.-- Proofknow ( talk) 22:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
You are consistently ignoring 3RR if you continue your account will be nominated for blocking. Cathar11 ( talk) 23:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Human Rights Foundation. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Intelligent
sium
00:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
As you have welcomed me back to your talk page by discussion me, I will now notify you that your edits are the subject of a thread I have opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Again, if your decision to discuss me here was an error, please feel free to <s>Sinneed</s>, and let me know.- Sinneed 01:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. —
Kralizec! (
talk)
03:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Proofknow ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Unreasonable block/VISIT MY CONTRIBUTIONS PAGE
Decline reason:
Block is backed by the policy stated, ie you were edit warring, which is disruptive. You should consult the block appeal guidance linked to in the template to generate a proper request for a thorough review. Though consider my comments below first, as I have looked over the contribs, and essentially you broke a rule that is strictly enforced. NJA (t/ c) 12:57, 8 December 2009 (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.
Proofknow ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Unreasonable Block
Decline reason:
Obvious edit warring. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 16:21, 8 December 2009 (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.
Note that no admin will consider an unblock request when you're still obviously upset, and particularly when you're threatening to revert and thus continue to be disruptive. For the second time, I urge you to step away from Wikipedia for a while to cool down and collect your thoughts. NJA (t/ c) 16:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
|
{{ helpme}} I would appreciate if someone can explain to me what is the best way to deal with unhelpful editors that keep editing away perfectly valid information.
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on
talk:Human Rights Foundation, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -
Sinneed
16:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Please look over wp:talk page guidelines. When replying, please be certain to reply after a signature... otherwise it will appear that your words are those of some other editor, or that the words the other editor typed are yours. If one must refactor another's edit for clarity by answering in the middle, adding a {{signed|username}} may be acceptable, but it is rather wp:BOLD.- Sinneed 16:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
If a person is accused of a crime, and this is a matter of record visible in generally wp:reliable sources, then it is acceptable to report that in Wikipedia. It is NOT acceptable to call a person accused of statutory rape a pedophile, for instance, only to report that they were accused of the specific crime... and this MUST be backed by wp:RS that meet wp:BLP and must comply with the kagillion rules of WP... but it also must wp:NOT be censored.- Sinneed 16:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to
Human Rights Foundation, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use
the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the
welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
wp:NOT censored. Here, we follow
wp:consensus. You will find it relatively unproductive to
wp:edit war your changes into the article against multiple editors. If you believe the consensus is somehow damaging to the encyclopedia, or if you believe the wider community will not support it, you might consider
wp:dispute resolution. Since there are 3 editors here, perhaps an
wp:RfC. -
Sinneed
22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Here, you have duplicated both the source and most of the content of the previous sentence. Please give a read to wp:no ownership of articles and wp:tendentious editing. Your behaviour makes it difficult to continue to wp:assume good faith.- Sinneed 22:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Current article wording:
"Granma, the official organ of the Cuban Communist Party, considered it to be a CIA front organization.[6][7] Granma also considers Human Rights Watch a CIA front.[8]"
Source 8 and 7 are duplicates. Please note the wording:
Is immediately followed by:
Again, if you study carefully, you may be able to identify these as duplicate sentences, with a duplicate source. However, since this seems too difficult for you, I will leave the duplicate text in. I will convert the reference to a named ref, though. No need to confuse the readers... boring them with a duplicate sentence, while
wp:tendentious editing, at least does not mislead them.-
Sinneed
22:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
First of all, it is entirely besides the point to give undue weight to a propaganda organ of the Cuban regime. But since editors are engaged in POV pushing, and refuse to eliminate irrelevant information, balance must be included. So Granma thinks that HRF is a CIA front. It thinks the same about HRW and about every other human rights NGO that criticizes the horrendous human rights situation in that country. So what's the point? These are, I remind you, Wikipedia rules. If you don't like them, change them, if you can. Other than that, open your own blog and start ranting about the issues that concern you.-- Proofknow ( talk) 22:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
You are consistently ignoring 3RR if you continue your account will be nominated for blocking. Cathar11 ( talk) 23:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Human Rights Foundation. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be
blocked from editing.
Intelligent
sium
00:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
As you have welcomed me back to your talk page by discussion me, I will now notify you that your edits are the subject of a thread I have opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Again, if your decision to discuss me here was an error, please feel free to <s>Sinneed</s>, and let me know.- Sinneed 01:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first. —
Kralizec! (
talk)
03:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Proofknow ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Unreasonable block/VISIT MY CONTRIBUTIONS PAGE
Decline reason:
Block is backed by the policy stated, ie you were edit warring, which is disruptive. You should consult the block appeal guidance linked to in the template to generate a proper request for a thorough review. Though consider my comments below first, as I have looked over the contribs, and essentially you broke a rule that is strictly enforced. NJA (t/ c) 12:57, 8 December 2009 (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.
Proofknow ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Unreasonable Block
Decline reason:
Obvious edit warring. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 16:21, 8 December 2009 (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.
Note that no admin will consider an unblock request when you're still obviously upset, and particularly when you're threatening to revert and thus continue to be disruptive. For the second time, I urge you to step away from Wikipedia for a while to cool down and collect your thoughts. NJA (t/ c) 16:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)