Leave messages for me below: Renseim ( talk) 13:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Please stop adding uncited interpretations of his BBC interview to Darcus Howe; see WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV for reasoning. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you please fix your report at WP:AN3? The diffs are not readable. You should also add your signature at the bottom of the report. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 00:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Formally given for your violation of the edit war policies of Wikipedia. Please self-revert or a report shall be made on the appropriate noticeboards. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
From WP:RS:
Youtube is not a "published source."
Claims that a person interrupted someone repeatedly, cut off a person etc. are "contentious" and need strong published reliable sourcing.
Wikipedia editors are not to interpolate any claims not specifically made in the published source. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Black Kite (t)
(c)
17:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Renseim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I realized that I may have technically gone beyond 3 reverts. But ALL of my edits were good-faith efforts to converge toward a consensus, and it can be seen that I backed off on portions of text which defied consensus. In other words, I was not usually reverting to the exact same wording but trying to test compromise wording (in fact, the bulk of the current text in that section originated from me!). My position thus shifted over time in response to pressure from other editors, as is proper. The only time I made wholesale reverts was when someone made a edit which was radical or had already been rejected by consensus but was trying to re-introduce it, and where there was NO JUSTIFICATON or DISCUSSION either on the talk page or in edit summaries. (Also several incidences of vandalism were reverted.) It's not a big deal to me to get unblocked quickly, and I am mainly posting this because I don't think I did anything wrong and seek vindication. So please don't waste much time considering this if you have better things to do (which I'm sure you do). My conscience is clear. Renseim ( talk) 1:53 pm, Today (UTC−4) :Also I will add my specific motivation in editing this page for accuracy and completeness. The BBC interviewer in question displayed an ugly racist attitude toward this black militant that was extraordinary and has angered many people. She defamed the interviewee (and the BBC subsequently issued an apology for the portion which could be covered under British libel laws), which is a relevant fact regarding the biography. However a large number of white racist opinion (and I am certainly not applying that label to all of the editors I disagreed with) immediately identified with her and sought to erase the incident from history: witness the multiple cases of IP users with no previous editing who tried to blank the entire section. Following my block, some of the editors reduced the paragraph to the one aspect of the abuse that the BBC apologized for, removing all mention of his being repeatedly interrupted (as was reported by RS's). This would be like if the article on Hitler only mentioned crimes for which he apologized! Give me a break.
Decline reason:
"I realized that I may have technically gone beyond 3 reverts"- Let me stop you right there. That's edit warring and it's not permitted. Period. It doesn't matter what sort of justifications you come up with after the fact. TN X Man 18:09, 10 August 2011 (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.
Leave messages for me below: Renseim ( talk) 13:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Please stop adding uncited interpretations of his BBC interview to Darcus Howe; see WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV for reasoning. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you please fix your report at WP:AN3? The diffs are not readable. You should also add your signature at the bottom of the report. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 00:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Formally given for your violation of the edit war policies of Wikipedia. Please self-revert or a report shall be made on the appropriate noticeboards. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
From WP:RS:
Youtube is not a "published source."
Claims that a person interrupted someone repeatedly, cut off a person etc. are "contentious" and need strong published reliable sourcing.
Wikipedia editors are not to interpolate any claims not specifically made in the published source. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Black Kite (t)
(c)
17:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Renseim ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I realized that I may have technically gone beyond 3 reverts. But ALL of my edits were good-faith efforts to converge toward a consensus, and it can be seen that I backed off on portions of text which defied consensus. In other words, I was not usually reverting to the exact same wording but trying to test compromise wording (in fact, the bulk of the current text in that section originated from me!). My position thus shifted over time in response to pressure from other editors, as is proper. The only time I made wholesale reverts was when someone made a edit which was radical or had already been rejected by consensus but was trying to re-introduce it, and where there was NO JUSTIFICATON or DISCUSSION either on the talk page or in edit summaries. (Also several incidences of vandalism were reverted.) It's not a big deal to me to get unblocked quickly, and I am mainly posting this because I don't think I did anything wrong and seek vindication. So please don't waste much time considering this if you have better things to do (which I'm sure you do). My conscience is clear. Renseim ( talk) 1:53 pm, Today (UTC−4) :Also I will add my specific motivation in editing this page for accuracy and completeness. The BBC interviewer in question displayed an ugly racist attitude toward this black militant that was extraordinary and has angered many people. She defamed the interviewee (and the BBC subsequently issued an apology for the portion which could be covered under British libel laws), which is a relevant fact regarding the biography. However a large number of white racist opinion (and I am certainly not applying that label to all of the editors I disagreed with) immediately identified with her and sought to erase the incident from history: witness the multiple cases of IP users with no previous editing who tried to blank the entire section. Following my block, some of the editors reduced the paragraph to the one aspect of the abuse that the BBC apologized for, removing all mention of his being repeatedly interrupted (as was reported by RS's). This would be like if the article on Hitler only mentioned crimes for which he apologized! Give me a break.
Decline reason:
"I realized that I may have technically gone beyond 3 reverts"- Let me stop you right there. That's edit warring and it's not permitted. Period. It doesn't matter what sort of justifications you come up with after the fact. TN X Man 18:09, 10 August 2011 (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.