User talk:128.104.truth/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, 128.104.truth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dayewalker (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll Lose

I applaud your efforts on Brittny Gastineau, but you're going to lose. I agree with what you're doing, but there are too many people who disagree and care way more about keeping it their way. Whether they're right or not (and they are wrong) doesn't factor in, they're too zealous for you to be able to succeed. I'll post that I agree with you, but it's not worth my time (or yours) to bother keeping this fight going. Good luck if you decide to try. --Spidey104 (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll lose without you, but I think we can win if you help me. 128.104.truth (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, not worth my time to fight. Please stop bothering me about it. --Spidey104 (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Brittny Gastineau. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Onorem ♠Dil 21:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. 128.104.truth (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Onorem ♠Dil 22:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brittny Gastineau

Having a reference doesn't address the WP:UNDUE aspect brought up on the talk page. In situations where WP:BLP is a concern, there should be clear consensus to include the material before it's re-added. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the talk page and look at the history of the page. Consensus is to include the material. It is other editors that have recently been on a crusade to have the information removed. I am only restoring consensus. (By the way, if you revert my edit of the page you will be breaking the three revert rule. I will have only reverted it twice because my first edit today was adding new information.) 128.104.truth (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be breaking 3RR by reverting you again. 3RR requires more than 3 reverts...although it could be considered edit warring. I disagree that current consensus is to include the material. It may have been when only a couple people were paying attention, but every new comment I've seen since this made it's way to various noticeboards has seemed to agree that it is undue weight to include. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all. There was another editor, Spidey104, who agreed with me, but he has only posted a couple times. Don't discount his opinion because he isn't vocal. 128.104.truth (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was one of the few watching before it made its way to the various noticeboards where people without agendas noticed and came to give their input. I'm not discounting his or your opinions, I just disagree with them and don't think you can claim consensus for a BLP based on a few people once more people show up that obviously disagree. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. :-) 128.104.truth (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to interject here, perhaps we've get ourselves get bogged down in old arguments. Whether or not a previous consensus existed isn't relevant. If two editors agree on including something on a page, their consensus wouldn't trump clear wikipedia policy, especially if that policy is WP:BLP. Wikipedia takes BLP's very seriously. Neutral editors have come to this page (and the BLPN board) and without exception, have said it doesn't belong here. 128truth, if you disagree, please explain how this material (even if it is sourced) warrants a mention on a BLP page, when everyone else except you (and Spidey104) agrees it's undue, possibly taken out of context, and nonencyclopedic regardless. Dayewalker (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Jackson

There is no grey area on this one. Without a source, this information is completely unacceptable. Also, please read WP:HOUND. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. I would call it inspiration. 128.104.truth (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Can't you find something productive to do? Onorem ♠Dil 21:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you don't understand the rule. I'll be heading to the edit war noticeboard now. --Onorem ♠Dil 21:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Brittny Gastineau. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Kevin (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

128.104.truth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I only reverted three times. Onorem/Dayewalker is a sockpuppet pair that should be blocked first.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The first edit counts because you were reverting to a previous version of the article...a version that consensus was clearly against. If you're going to toss out accusations of sockpuppetry, I hope you have some evidence to present. --Onorem ♠Dil 22:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 3RR isn't an entitlement. You can be blocked for edit warring even if you haven't broken that bright line rule. --Onorem ♠Dil 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that it's not very solid "evidence" for sockpuppetry, but for stuff like that it usually isn't. You guys bounce back and forth between who is edit warring with me. That's why I suspect you're the same guy. 128.104.truth (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then please file a case at WP:SPI. Otherwise, forget it. Your edit isn't being reverted because of two sockpuppets against you, it's being reverted for a multitude of other reasons by many other editors, as you can see from the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for so brilliantly illustrating my point. I would place a formal complaint, but it's too much effort. I know I don't have strong enough evidence to prove my point even if I am right, so I'm not going to waste my time. 128.104.truth (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]