User talk:Chairvoyance

Editting

Your recent editing history at C. S. Lewis shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Mo ainm~Talk 17:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have now breached the 3RR after I notified you about it, I would ask you to self revert to avoid sanctions being imposed on your account. Mo ainm~Talk 17:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not count? I reverted three times. The 3RR states you must not EXCEED 3 reverts, and I have not. Therefore, I have not broken the rule. It is not my fault your warning was premature.

Revert it yourself. Chairvoyance (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word."

1 [1]
2 [2]
3 [3]
4 [4]

Thats four in less than 20 minutes let alone 24 hours. You were given the warning before your 4th sorry, but there are guidelines and rules to go by .Murry1975 (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the wording. "that reverses the actions of other editors". Now look at that first post. Did I reverse anything? No I did not, I INSERTED something that was absent from the article. There was no action to revert -there was simply some missing information.

The first edit is clearly not a revert, but the inclusion of some information that was not present in the article. I was given a warning before I even made the 3rd revert, and I have not made a 4th. There are indeed guidelines to go by and I have not broken them - please, try and learn what they are so that you can avoid falsely accusing people in the future. Chairvoyance (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again "A "revert" means any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part", an editor had edited it out, your first edit was a revert of this , the following three brings it to four reverts.Murry1975 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because similar information had been removed the best part of a year ago, that does not mean I am reverting someone else's edits. The information was missing and there were no edits preceding this over the past few months that I could possibly be reverting. Clearly, this is nothing more than including missing information and therefore my first edit is NOT a revert, so I have only only made three reverts in total.

Furthermore, the information from the previous consensus was omitted, yet 1. the original content was reliably sourced and the successive edits changing the information were not; 2. there was no form of consensus, disccusion or dialogue in any way when the information was removed and 3. this provoked what seems to be a monumental edit war, despite another monumental edit war that preceded it only having concluded and the edit was made with full knowledge of his. Therefore, the removal of "British" constitutes as "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons", and so, even if my initial edit was a revert - which it clearly is not - then I would still not be in breach of the 3RR. In fact, I could go back and edit the article right now and not be in breach of the rules, the only thing stopping me is that I plan to be reasonable about this and not revert more than 3 times a day.

Go back and read the rules again. Chairvoyance (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the rules and guidelines. "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons" thats people who are alive. Please read these things clearly they will help your experience on Wiki.Murry1975 (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still counts as a highly disruptive and contentious edit, and thus not I am really breaking the 3RR. Not that it matters either way, as my first edit is quite clearly not a revert by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh, and please try and find me the part of the 3RR rule which says that information included a year ago being inserted again is somehow a direct revert? Oh that's right, it doesn't, and if such a rule was upheld then the inclusion of every piece of information that was EVER subject to an edit war would count towards the 3RR. So as far as you're concerned, including information that ties in with a subject that was once vandalised or edit-warred over should instantly count towards the breaking of a rule? Utter nonsense.

I didn't directly revert anything, I just included some information that was missing. Please actually bother to learn and think about this sort of thing, as it will stop you from tripping up in the future like you have done today. Hopefully you'll take what I have said onboard; it will surely make you a better editor than you are now. Chairvoyance (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really , last year? Two days into a new year. Show me a time limit.Murry1975 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, now this is why you need to read things better. I think you'll find the wording is "a year ago", i.e. approximately 365 days ago give or take, as opposed to "last year". Time for you to start paying attention a bit more, you'll make less mistakes.

Again if such a rule was upheld then the inclusion of every piece of information that was EVER subject to an edit war would count towards the 3RR. So as far as you're concerned, including information that ties in with a subject that was once vandalised or edit-warred over should instantly count towards the breaking of a rule? Utter nonsense.

Any admin would ridicule such a notion. Of course this is nonsense as it would completely break wikipedia, and you know it. There have been edit wars about just about everything, even something as petty as which lake should be the first picture seen in the article "lake". Should any change, for better or worse, be regarded as breaking some rule, simply because someone unreasonably decided to break the rules once upon a time and instigate an edit war? Preposterous.

The 3RR is quite clearly a bit more direct than that, and you know it. Chairvoyance (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Hello, and 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 User talk:Murry1975 with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. 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. Jim1138 (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was actually rather constructive, as it neatly concludes a discussion without breaking any guidelines. There was nothing wrong with it at all, actually. Chairvoyance (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars detract

Edit wars detract from the article , whether they are slow or like todays quick. They should be avoided and the talk page used which I notice you have not yet, it would help gain a knowledge of opinions and facts surround the subject being edited.Murry1975 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there should not have been an edit war as you should not have reverted. It is not my fault you chose to instigate an edit war.

The talk page has been used. Just because I have not commented, it does not mean that I have not read and understood it fully, which it is apparent that you have not. Reading the talk page and the edit history - something that you obviously do not need to contribute to to glean information from - reveals that the initial, stable form of the lede was "British", which was reliably sourced. An edit war was instigated - despite a gigantic one preceding it - and the information was removed without the talk page being used whatsoever. A huge argument erupted, of which there was no conclusion or consensus, nor successful rebuttals of points raised from the previous argument. Therefore, the rules of wikipedia state that we revert to the previous stable form of the article - which is to include the word "British" in the lede. I did this, and you chose to instigate an edit war about it, and would most likely have broken the 3RR yourself if Mo Ainm had not appeared.

I have done my research, and then some. It is quite apparent, however, that you have not. Please, have a read through the discussion page and the archives, and then take a look at what the guidelines for what we must do in such a situation. I'm sure you'll agree I took the correct course of action, considering that you practically quoted my own argument word-for-word on your talk page, albeit for a different edit war you were embroiled in.

Please have a read through the relevent material, as it will help you to avoid making such glaring mistakes in future editting. Chairvoyance (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bless, you actually think you have a point, don't you.

I think it's time you get around to reading the relevant material before you clutter up my page with more daftness. Happy new year, my endearingly confused friend. Chairvoyance (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:civil would be a good read for yourself.Murry1975 (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing uncivil about that, I think you'll find. Please, take the time to read the dictionary definition on such things, perhaps that will clear things up. Chairvoyance (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wonder how long you will spend stumbling round wikipedia searching for articles that tenuously make some ad hominem attack before you simply recognise that you are in the wrong?

Furthermore, how many more irrelevant articles will you read before you get round to reading the material I've recommended? Actually reading the material relevant to the topic at hand helps, you know. Chairvoyance (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TheFortunateSon (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given two good reasons for keeping the content on your talk page. Your only use of the talk page has been to blank it--since you don't seem interested in pleading your case, I have revoked your access to your talk page. If you have any requests, maybe for an unblock, you can email ArbCom or a friendly admin. Have a nice day, Drmies (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]