User talk:Caleb Murdock/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Oversoul Seven Trilogy

I started an article on the Oversoul 7 Trilogy . . . right now it's just a stub, but thought I would let you know in case you wish to aid in expanding it. NoVomit (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I never read those books. I should do that.-Caleb Murdock (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The first one is the best, second not so great, then the third picks backs up again. Jane tries to take the Seth concepts and put them into novel form, and its quite entertaining. I thought that some of the "Jane books" be given consideration as well. Since you seem to have the Seth article well in hand, I figured I would try getting some of the others down. References may be hard to come by, but at least I have the stub there. NoVomit (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD for Jane Roberts

Someone submitted the Jane Roberts article for deletion via AfD. You may want to join the discussion. NoVomit (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Jane Roberts

Whatever. Numerous people think there's no need for both articles, as evidenced by the many attempts to merge them. I'm not acting in bad faith- just according to notability policy and consensus of several editors. Please WP:AGF rather than having a go at other editors. I just don't think we need both these articles, which are mainly on the same subject (numerous other editors think we don't need one, or possibly both, of them either.) An ok job has been done on the SM article but we don't need both of them. Just mine and many other editor's opinion. Sorry if you mistrust people having different opinions than you, but please WP:AGF :) Sticky Parkin 23:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not bothered. It's not my life , quite the opposite :):):) I put it up for further discussion at AfD because several other editors were clearly of the same mind due to their attempts to merge. Sticky Parkin 00:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'm far from the first to think they should be merged, as you well know:) Per the tool available at the bottom of everyone's contribs page, to Jane Roberts you have made 349 edits, to Seth Material, 108 edits. I've made about three to each. We all have our hobbies and interests, I suppose.:) Sticky Parkin 01:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol, how helpful do you think self admitted (per their own userpage) WP:SPAs trying to push a certain subject, who are so close to the subject they lose it and breach WP:NPA are? Anyway, I'll leave you to your wikifun. A tip- you may enjoy it more and get on better with your fellow editors if you edit different articles or subjects more often. Sticky Parkin 17:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Warnings

January 2009

In relation to this edit:

Regarding your comments on User_talk:Sticky_Parkin: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Coldmachine^Talk 18:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not forcing you to do anything, and I don't know what you mean by I've done it twice now. All I've done on these articles is similar to what other editors have done as it's not a unique opinion. Anyway, we are getting nowhere with this discussion so you enjoy your wikifun and I'll enjoy mine and let's leave each other to it. Sticky Parkin 21:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Seth Material. 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. I suggest you self revert to show good faith, or restore to the last stable version Verbal chat 21:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What nonsense! You are the one who is doing the warring! You are the one who refuses to discuss specific issues on the Discussion page!--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

I have requested that an uninvolved administrator examine your edits to Seth Material, as it is my opinion that you have been engaged in an edit war. The request is here. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 10:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As an admin, I have looked over the report at WP:AN3#User:Caleb Murdock reported by User:2over0 (Result: ). My concern is that your statements do not sound collaborative. You see yourself as the gatekeeper for what should go in the article. The single worst thing I noticed was your removal of tags, which are a signal to others about what aspects need work. I request that you make a plan for how you will edit differently in the future. Otherwise, you may be sanctioned under our edit warring rules. If you are willing to change your approach, let me know. For instance, you could agree to stay away from Seth Material for a while to allow other editors to work on it. Broader exposure to Wikipedia might help you learn our policies. (You could take some time to work on other articles). Let me know what you decide. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you haven't made the same request of Verbal. I think I made it clear that Verbal is doing as much warring as I am. Indeed, I think his attitude is less collaborative than mine since he won't discuss specific issues on the Discussion page. If he'll say why he wants this or that portion deleted from the article, then it can be discussed, but he won't say. If I take a break from editing the article and Verbal doesn't, I'll return to an article which is half the size. Once information has been deleted from the article, it will be hard to put back in -- especially since Verbal feels that he can roll back all of my edits with impunity (which it would seem he can, since you appear to be siding with him). It took a lot of effort on the part of a lot of editors -- not just me -- to build the article to where it is now. To me, this entire situation is absurd. The power seems to be on the side of editors like Verbal who are ignorant of the subject matter.

If Verbal will also take a break of equal time, I'll be happy to take a break. Otherwise, I can't agree. (Actually, what will happen is that Verbal will call in his friends to make the cuts he wants.) I would like to suggest an alternative: that both Verbal and I agree to discuss any changes on the Discussion page before they are made, and that the changes not be made unless we both agree. If we both do this for, say, a month or two, then perhaps we'll learn to collaborate. (Again, however, I'm concerned that Verbal will call in his friends to cut down the article, and I won't be able to stop them.) Perhaps all revisions by everyone should be agreed to first on the Discussion page. As things stand at present, Verbal seems to think that he can make changes freely while I have to get his permission. Again, it's an absurd situation, especially since he is not a knowledgeable editor.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Verbal declined the proposal. Unless there is a further offer, the report will most likely be closed with either a block or a formal restriction of you. I don't agree with your 'absurd situation' comment, and in fact Verbal is much closer to the mainstream of Wikipedia opinion than you are. Verbal is correct about our usual standards for what material should go into articles, though he may not be a subject matter expert. You are way out in left field with respect to policy. Whenever there is a dispute, admins are expected to notice which side is sticking closer to Wikipedia policy.

If you will agree to limit yourself to one revert per day (1RR) on this article for six months, the report can be closed with no block or other sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If I have to limit myself to one revert a day in order to continue to edit the article, I'll do so. However, it astonishes me that you are unable to see that Verbal has a biased agenda where the article is concerned, or that his behavior is provocative. If the rules support Verbal and not me, then the rules are cockeyed. The rules should favor editors who have actual knowledge to contribute, not the controlling, rule-driven, self-appointed censors like Verbal.

If you go over to the Jane Roberts article, you'll see that it's been taken over by skeptics. It is now one-third to two-fifths criticism of Jane Roberts. They have insisted on keeping enough of the Seth Material information (that was moved to the new article) to justify a Criticism section, and now that section is overly large. When I try to delete the Seth Material information from that article (because it now has its own article), they restore it because it justifies their overly large Criticism section. Wikipedia's refusal to control non-knowledgeable editors who are pushing biased agendas is damaging the encyclopedia.

Regarding that one revert a day, if I do a revert at 3:00 p.m., do I then have to wait until 3:00 p.m. the next day to do another revert? Or do I get to make one revert in a calendar day? If I am limited to one revert in 24 hours, then that puts me in the position of having to watch the clock, and it effectively gives me less than one revert a day.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Since your declaration to revert each time is a declaration to engage in slow edit warring, a complete topic ban seems the only solution. You would be violating the spirit of 3RR, which is often enforced even for less than three reverts. You really do need to learn how Wikipedia works by editing other articles on totally different topics. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is totally unfair. I never did more than two reverts in one day. Verbal did almost as many reverts as I did. He started it by repeatedly reverting my edits, which I made in good faith, without discussion. HE was the one who started the edit war. I was always willing to discuss things on the Talk page, but he would never get specific. His behavior, overall, was inflammatory. If you ban me from editing the only article I care about, then you have no objectivity and no fairness.

I made an overture to Verbal yesterday to bury the hatchet, but he hasn't responded. If he does respond, he will make only a half-hearted attempt and then he'll quit. He acts like Moses coming off the Mount with the Ten Commandments -- he doesn't think he needs to collaborate. Why you would back him up is beyond all logic and reason.

I did NOT say above that I would revert every day for sure -- I was merely ascertaining how reverting works. If Verbal takes me up on my peace offering, reverting won't be necessary. But you just keep checking the Discussion page and you'll see that he will make only a half-hearted attempt. Clearly, Verbal is monitoring this page, so he will make some attempt, but it won't be a serious attempt. I know this guy.

INCIDENTALLY: Above you said that if I limited myself to one revert a day, I would not be further blocked. Now you are going back on your word. (Note: I didn't realize at first that it was Bullrangifer who made that last comment.)

On the discussion page for Seth Material, see "Coming to an understanding" at the bottom.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed something: Two administrators have made comments to me on this page. Who is making the decision?

EdJohnston, I agreed to limit myself to one revert a day, so is that the deal? If that's the deal, I want you to know that I don't think it's fair. Just in the last day, Verbal has made cuts to the article with no attempt to collaborate with me, even though I made a clear overture in that direction. It seems to me that the rules are being applied unequally. Verbal gets to wage war without a reprimand, while a higher standard is applied to me. I am told to collaborate, but Verbal is not. Verbal gets to revert my revisions, but I don't get to revert Verbal's cuts. If verbal will not collaborate, then I may indeed use that one revert a day to protect the article from his hatchet.

Let's have your decision.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)