| Revision as of 21:32, 16 October 2015 editMr. Magoo and McBarker (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,369 edits →October 2015← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:34, 16 October 2015 edit undoMr. Magoo and McBarker (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,369 edits →October 2015Next edit → | ||
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
| ::::::They have zero interest in even introducing the tiniest change I suggest. I have constantly dropped my edit to a more neutral stance but they aren't okay with '''anything'''. They constantly add stuff on their own which if I revert I will get banned because they have the support of each other. Like I wrote, the two are in cohorts outside Misplaced Pages and operate together. Oh and they (mostly Aquillion) constantly break the rule of "waiting and talking before reverting" themselves, yet you do nothing to them? --] (]) 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | ::::::They have zero interest in even introducing the tiniest change I suggest. I have constantly dropped my edit to a more neutral stance but they aren't okay with '''anything'''. They constantly add stuff on their own which if I revert I will get banned because they have the support of each other. Like I wrote, the two are in cohorts outside Misplaced Pages and operate together. Oh and they (mostly Aquillion) constantly break the rule of "waiting and talking before reverting" themselves, yet you do nothing to them? --] (]) 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::There is in fact a long justification on the article talk page for my revert. I had not finished typing it before you yourself reverted me. Briefly, ''1)'' you know there is no agreement to include 'labels' where they serve no purpose, it is the opinion of most of us that yours serve no useful purpose. ''2)'' You replaced sourced descriptions of a book with your own assessment of its contents. DRN or RfC are the ways forward if you don't agree with the majority. … … btw ''Like I wrote, the two are in cohorts outside Misplaced Pages and operate together'' is a very serious charge on WP, repeating it 5 or 6 times, compounds the felony. ].] (]) 21:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | :::::::There is in fact a long justification on the article talk page for my revert. I had not finished typing it before you yourself reverted me. Briefly, ''1)'' you know there is no agreement to include 'labels' where they serve no purpose, it is the opinion of most of us that yours serve no useful purpose. ''2)'' You replaced sourced descriptions of a book with your own assessment of its contents. DRN or RfC are the ways forward if you don't agree with the majority. … … btw ''Like I wrote, the two are in cohorts outside Misplaced Pages and operate together'' is a very serious charge on WP, repeating it 5 or 6 times, compounds the felony. ].] (]) 21:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::Where? I don't see any. On the removal of all political affiliations section you posted a short bit about me opposing "conservative" for some bizarre reason. I quickly replied, to which you didn't reply back. An hour and 20 minutes later you posted a big bit about only my edit warring (obviously ignoring Aquillion's). In that you talk about sources, but I myself pointed out that it was claimed Dinesh talked about mostly multiculturalism in his book when it's a minor sidenote and he mostly talks about victim's revolution as in victimization. I even posted about this on the talk page but you didn't bother. --] (]) 21:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | ::::::::Where? I don't see any. On the removal of all political affiliations section you posted a short bit about me opposing "conservative" for some bizarre reason. I quickly replied, to which you didn't reply back. An hour and 20 minutes later you posted a big bit about only my edit warring (obviously ignoring Aquillion's). In that you talk about sources, but I myself pointed out that it was claimed Dinesh talked about mostly multiculturalism in his book when it's a minor sidenote and he mostly talks about victim's revolution as in victimization. I even posted about this on the talk page but you didn't bother. I also notice you went complaining on Neil's talk page that that "no one" likes the current stance of the article and that it should be reverted. You don't even seem to think I exist. I'm some annoyance to be brushed away so that you can write what you want. You don't want concensus. You don't even want a single letter from me added to the article, even if it were apt. It doesn't fit your bias. --] (]) 21:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:34, 16 October 2015
Welcome!
|
October 2015
Your recent editing history at Political correctness shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- I did a single undo per person (there were two). Not in a row, by the way. After that and after finding out they aren't budging, I started removing bits from my own stance to get to a concensus progressively through edits. The descriptors of my edits also greatly pointed out that I were dropping my points to appease. At this point I didn't think this was being an edit war, but rather an editing process between two disagreers - realpolitik concensus. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Antifeminism while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Misplaced Pages's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- For context, see the this edit and the three that follow, and the string of edits made by the same IP at Antifeminism. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Very early on I informed you that this is not my user account because I don't have access to the password-saving feature. I also informed you I will shortly be back on my real user account. Very neatly you forget that and paint a bad picture of me. I posted a more comprehensive view on Doug's talk page if you want to take a look. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Note that your behavior with the IP will be included with your behavior using this account if a block is requested. Doug Weller (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
American Politics discretionary sanctions notification
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.October 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. NeilN 19:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Why in the world would I be blocked for making two reverts? I mean the edit history has Aquillion having done the same just below, yet he isn't blocked? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Magoo and McBarker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I made two reverts? The latter of which done when the other person didn't even bother explaining his revert on the talk page? Another editor just below in the edit history did two reverts as well and he wasn't blocked?
Decline reason:
WP:3RR is not an entitlement to revert thrice, twice, or even once a day. Max Semenik (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2015 (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.
You are blocked for your constant edit warring against multiple editors. There is no right to revert x amount of times. --NeilN 20:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- But the rule is the 24 hour period and three reverts? And there have been others "warring" against them, and "the other editors" (as in two) warring back? And the "multiple editors" (as in two) may very well the same person operating with a sock puppet (or at least they are in cohorts, messaging outside Misplaced Pages), as I proved on the talk page. Is the only way to make a change on Misplaced Pages a VPN, like the other editor? Does the truthfulness of your opinion not matter if you don't use a VPN to pretend to be multiple different editors? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- This appears on your talk page: "Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly." If you suspect sockpuppetting, open a case at WP:SPI. Bear in mind frivolous accusations can be seen as personal attacks. Finally, I see three editors saying there's no consensus for your changes. --NeilN 20:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't make the introduction change (which removed an obvious unsourced straw man), but another editor did. The other warrer INSTANTLY reverted this edit, but I reverted it back. Again, is numbers the only thing that matters on Misplaced Pages? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you are constantly being reverted by other editors, you need to stop, use the talk page, and wait until the dispute is resolved. This is a basic rule on Misplaced Pages, especially if you want to work on contentious articles. --NeilN 20:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- They have zero interest in even introducing the tiniest change I suggest. I have constantly dropped my edit to a more neutral stance but they aren't okay with anything. They constantly add stuff on their own which if I revert I will get banned because they have the support of each other. Like I wrote, the two are in cohorts outside Misplaced Pages and operate together. Oh and they (mostly Aquillion) constantly break the rule of "waiting and talking before reverting" themselves, yet you do nothing to them? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is in fact a long justification on the article talk page for my revert. I had not finished typing it before you yourself reverted me. Briefly, 1) you know there is no agreement to include 'labels' where they serve no purpose, it is the opinion of most of us that yours serve no useful purpose. 2) You replaced sourced descriptions of a book with your own assessment of its contents. DRN or RfC are the ways forward if you don't agree with the majority. … … btw Like I wrote, the two are in cohorts outside Misplaced Pages and operate together is a very serious charge on WP, repeating it 5 or 6 times, compounds the felony. Either 'put up' or 'drop it'.Pincrete (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Where? I don't see any. On the removal of all political affiliations section you posted a short bit about me opposing "conservative" for some bizarre reason. I quickly replied, to which you didn't reply back. An hour and 20 minutes later you posted a big bit about only my edit warring (obviously ignoring Aquillion's). In that you talk about sources, but I myself pointed out that it was claimed Dinesh talked about mostly multiculturalism in his book when it's a minor sidenote and he mostly talks about victim's revolution as in victimization. I even posted about this on the talk page but you didn't bother. I also notice you went complaining on Neil's talk page that that "no one" likes the current stance of the article and that it should be reverted. You don't even seem to think I exist. I'm some annoyance to be brushed away so that you can write what you want. You don't want concensus. You don't even want a single letter from me added to the article, even if it were apt. It doesn't fit your bias. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is in fact a long justification on the article talk page for my revert. I had not finished typing it before you yourself reverted me. Briefly, 1) you know there is no agreement to include 'labels' where they serve no purpose, it is the opinion of most of us that yours serve no useful purpose. 2) You replaced sourced descriptions of a book with your own assessment of its contents. DRN or RfC are the ways forward if you don't agree with the majority. … … btw Like I wrote, the two are in cohorts outside Misplaced Pages and operate together is a very serious charge on WP, repeating it 5 or 6 times, compounds the felony. Either 'put up' or 'drop it'.Pincrete (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- They have zero interest in even introducing the tiniest change I suggest. I have constantly dropped my edit to a more neutral stance but they aren't okay with anything. They constantly add stuff on their own which if I revert I will get banned because they have the support of each other. Like I wrote, the two are in cohorts outside Misplaced Pages and operate together. Oh and they (mostly Aquillion) constantly break the rule of "waiting and talking before reverting" themselves, yet you do nothing to them? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you are constantly being reverted by other editors, you need to stop, use the talk page, and wait until the dispute is resolved. This is a basic rule on Misplaced Pages, especially if you want to work on contentious articles. --NeilN 20:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't make the introduction change (which removed an obvious unsourced straw man), but another editor did. The other warrer INSTANTLY reverted this edit, but I reverted it back. Again, is numbers the only thing that matters on Misplaced Pages? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- This appears on your talk page: "Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly." If you suspect sockpuppetting, open a case at WP:SPI. Bear in mind frivolous accusations can be seen as personal attacks. Finally, I see three editors saying there's no consensus for your changes. --NeilN 20:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)