User talk:Gise-354x

Welcome!

Hello, Gise-354x, 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --John (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ty :) Gise-354x (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

Are you aware that the article Climatic Research Unit email controversy is under 1RR restriction? That means you cannot perform more than 1 revert per 24 hour period. On top of that, it seems you actually have gone over 3RR, which is just a general rule. I suggest you self-revert all the changes over 1RR you have done, and that you read this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Climate_change:_discretionary_sanctions.--Cerejota (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which RR should that be? You should look at a proper translation what REVERT means, i did not a single revert Dude. Gise-354x (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reversion is any removal of material in 24 hours. I am not going to provide you with the entire sequence, but here you violated 1RR and 3RR in under 20 minutes, removing material from multiple editors: [1][2][3][4]. I suggest you speak to an un-involved admin if you doubt my word.--Cerejota (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you link me to the page where it says that removal of content is considered a revert? And for the content you cite, i re-added one of those and moved parts to the HADCRUT wiki where it belongs. And please use the section you started, instead of posting your reply randomly on my user page, thank you. Gise-354x (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you restored the material in question, that is all I asked for, and then there is no problem.--Cerejota (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quote about Storch i re-added, 2 others i moved to the HADCRUT wikipedia entry and the 4th was wrong, it stated that there has been only 2 investigations. Gise-354x (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure you understand: 3RR is explained here, WP:3RR. I already linked you to discretionary sanctions. However, in the above line you admit, clearly, to WP:3RR, and by implication 1RR: there are no exceptions to these rules that cover moving material to other articles, nor if the material being reverted being "incorrect". Unless you are speaking of removal of obvious non-sense, or obvious vandalism, which none of your edits were, the purpose of the edits is irrelevant - its a quantitative not qualitative rule. Again, if you feel I am being unfair, ask an un-involved admin at WP:ANI for comment. --Cerejota (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I did not break that rule. And i suggest you go read the RULE yourself because i edited my own additions. I consider you are trolling people. If you do not stop i will seek help from an admin, because you 1.) do not act with good faith 2.) i did not break the 3 RULES you claim. Gise-354x (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't edit your own additions, as those additions were in place before your account was created. Unless, of course, you are an unlabeled second account for someone else? Anyways, there is nothing else for me to say. It is clear you have all the information you need in this matter. Further issues around this should be addressed with parties uninvolved in this topic area, and as I have told you before, if you feel I am being unfair, go toWP:ANI.--Cerejota (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude first you say i edited stuff from people in under 24h now you say i edited stuff from people which existed before i created this account. What is it? Gise-354x (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gise, here is the specific wording that you are seeking:

Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.

If any of your edits involved changing something another editor has done within a (reasonable timeframe (>1day)) more than once - then you have broken 1RR. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This[5] is a revert of this edit[6] by Tillmann

I haven't checked whether you did other reverts - but with that amount of changes - i rather suspect that you did. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first off so far i understand revert means "revert of an revision". Secondly i'm not aware that i "reverted" any contends from someone within 24hours time frame. In the future i will take care about edits i make within the correct timeframe. And it is not clear to me from the above user accusations, that i broke this rule. Because as i said above, i re-added and moved contends and only deleted what was not in scope or wrong. To check fact my argument read my edit comments. You might find also interesting that the user Cerejota, who accuses me of breaking 4 rules, started a sockpuppet investigation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yopienso Gise-354x (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is any edit that undoes another editors work, in whole or in part. <-- that is the definition. And in most cases changes an editors work when the edit converts the text back to something that is the same or like a previous edit. Please read WP:3RR carefully, and it would be a good idea to watch some of the cases on WP:3RRNB. Generally on a 1RR article, you should do edits only in one block of edits - if other editors intervene in your edits - then back off - since you may end up blocked. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody intervened on my edits. I did not converted anything back. And what you suggest that i do edits only in 1 block, please show me the rule for that, ty. Gise-354x (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC) And i disagree with your definition above, as you probably mean within 24 hours as stated in the rule. Own edits are not effected per definition, which is must be considered here. I did 1 alteration i'm aware that was i removed "Verify source" tags because in the meantime the source has been verified. And i think that is well covered within the 1 or 3RR rule. Gise-354x (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When i say "block" i mean multiple single edits to an article not interspaced with edits from other users in the same sections of the article. These are considered as 1 edit per the rules in WP:3RR (i know - since i was up for 3RR once where this was a major point). Any changes to the parenthesized climate gate in the lede is by the 3RR rules most certainly a revert btw. Since this a sentence that has been modified multiple times by other users in recent history - so by editing that, you undo another editors work. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News Corp Scandal

Hi Gise, I reviewed the discussion at News Corp Scandal and Vsevolod is giving you very good advice and showing moreover a great deal of patience. Please give up on the News Corp / Climategate link as you presently don't have any reliable sources supporting such a link. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you claim that the New York Times is not a reliable source? Gise-354x (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette discussion

I have begun a discussion about you atWikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:Gise-354x. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun a discussion about you at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:VsevolodKrolikov Gise-354x (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation

Take it or leave it:

VsevolodKrolikov - when someone has an ego the size of a black hole in the central core of a galaxy, it is best to avoid them until you can communicate your points without falling into their trap. He's made numerous personal attacks against me and he's made up things I've never said because that's the way he rolls. I've tried to ignore most of his nonsense and you should too. Don't take the bait.
Disputes - often times you'll find editors trying to go off-topic. Bring the discussion back on topic and address the central point. Don't use article talk pages to talk about the behavior of other editors. Always stick to the subject and focus on how we can improve it. Don't wade into the deep end of personal attacks and petty remarks. They'll try and drag you there and then blame you for going there yourself. Don't take the bait. Follow dispute resolution when you run into problems. Use process to move things forward, not to hold progress back. Editors who try and misuse the system will be noticed.
1RR - stick to one revert per article per day to prevent yourself from getting in any trouble. Otherwise, you will end up blocked for edit warring, not for violating the 3RR.

Hope this helps. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you some kind of admin or why do you suggest i should limit myself to 1 revert per day?

Not an admin, and I explained why you need to limit yourself to 1RR. Read Wikipedia:Edit warring to find out. If you make more than 1RR you can still be blocked for edit warring. 3RR will never come into play at all. Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me why you think i "could" get banned for edit warring. I ask because someone filed a 3RR about me which i believe is not correct. Please be more precise when you "warn" me. Please refer from using my wiki talk page for what you call recommendations, thank you. Gise-354x (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, see you in the block log. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Gise-354x (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS and WP:BLP

Are exceedingly important on Wikipedia. If you wish to raise any issues thereon, the correct noticeboards ar WP:RS/N and WP:BLP/N Note any article which is connected to a "living person" is required to adhere to WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Collect, the wiki entries in question are about a company, about Koch Industries, unless you claim now that companies are people? Please stop with removing the sources, other edits and new additions from reliable sources, ty. Gise-354x (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where an article mentions living people, WP:BLP applies. It has no exemption that companies are not living <g> as loong as the article itself includes specific mention of living people as your cites (such aes they are) do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. You should provide a reason to make your argument. I edit the Koch Industries wiki, and you remove everything, not just sources you claim are not reliable. You remove new content and an entire section. That is clearly not ok. So i ask you again to link to the page where it says that scientific Greenpeace studies based on Koch Industries document are unreliable. Further the fact that Greenpeace sources are already part of the wiki page in question, makes me believe that you make this claim up to push your own agenda. Gise-354x (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted - all articles referring to living people are subject to WP:BLP. In additions, Wikipedia requires "reliable sources" as defined in WP:RS. If you have a dispute, the noticeboards are at WP:BLP/N and at WP:RS/N respectiviely. While you are at it, read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning for Koch Industries

Please apprise yourself of WP:3RR. If you do not self-revert anon, the report will be filed at WP:AN/EW. Edit war can be dealt with by blocks. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone can't count it seems. File the report im not aware of any wrong doing, Dude Gise-354x (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you count your reverts on that page for a 24 hour period. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop your threatening behavior together with uncivil remarks you made earlier here

Quote "The problem is that you know 'what ain't so'. You ascribe specific ulterior motives to a person who is not the "creator" of the Tea Party, which rather means all else of your syllogism fails. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)" Gise-354x (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user can no longer claim ignorance of WP:3RR. Next time there are issues with edit warring we should just report, as apparently good-faith warnings are just met with hostility and not seeing how they are correct. A 24 hour block soon if this continues might allow this user some time to reconsider becoming a productive contributor. --Cerejota (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we" Cerejota? If i remember you reported me for sockpuppeting, why don't you stick to the topics you know best? Do not involve yourself in this without any clues, and stop threatening me, Dude.Gise-354x (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"We" is the wikipedia community, writ large.--Cerejota (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Gise-354x. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 00:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Cerejota (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gise-354x. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 00:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see [7] WP:AN/EW

The 3RR report you asked me to file has now been filed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find that insulting, to claim i ask for it. For the record i did 2 reverts not 3. Gise-354x (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been repeatedly informed edit warring is defined by behavior, not by the number of reverts. Get it? Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have not been repeatedly informed that the 3RR thing is about behavior, at no point did i read that the 3RR rule is about behavior. Also you obviously follow an agenda to discredit me. Gise-354x (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last message

When you are eventually blocked and ask to be unblocked, I'll make sure an admin doesn't unblock you until you acknowledge that you understand the rules. So far, you have shown ZERO understanding of the problem. And that problem does not exist outside of your own edits. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification what are you talking about, link? And i find it insulting how you threaten me. Gise-354x (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A prediction is not a threat. Learn to tell the difference. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you post your ideas on your user page, this is now the second section you created here, i don't want your recommendations, where you suggest i should limit myself to 1 revert per day. :::: You might be not aware but what you do and suggest is insulting and threatening, an overall uncivil behavior. In another discussion you actively ignore points i made and have not a neutral position.Gise-354x (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[insert block here]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of One Week for Disruptive Editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:50, 20 August 2011 (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).

Gise-354x (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked without warning. First off i did not break any rule im aware off, secondly the policy which has been provided states that i repeatedly edited the same content. But that is not true. In the instance where someone alleges i broke the 3RR rule i only did 2RR, the other edits has been on content older then 24h, in fact much older. For what the block reason now concerns "refusal to get the point", does not apply here. Because i did an edit which has nothing todo with earlier additions. Also i introduced this on the talk page of the wikipage from Koch Industries and nobody had anything against it. In the previous dispute with user Collect, it was about new additions, which i did not re introduced. --Gise-354x (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on your comments below, it appears you do not want to edit again and therefore I am declining this request. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:46, 20 August 2011 (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.

I haven't looked at the all the circumstances behind the block, but you were warned directly above. –MuZemike 03:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you look at the circumstances, the user above vandalized my user page and has not a neutral stand with me. I did not break the 3RR rule , i did 2 reverts and other content i edit was not in dispute, as i mention above. Also the normal block time is 24h ,now for first incidence without warning and without 3RR i get 1 week. There are clearly people here at wikipedia who follow an agenda to prevent edits on certain wikipedia pages and treat these editors differently. Look here an admin really things im a sockpuppet because i edited the same page in a close timeframe with another user. There is absolutely no basis for any wrong doing here to assume im a sockpuppet. But this admin also is sure that im blocked now. Several user conspire to revert certain wikipedia entries and admins seem to help them. Gise-354x (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I t is now several hours that i have been banned from the wikipedia while contributing and trying everything to get consensus where dispute arise. Apparently the Admin Fastily did not bother to provide a.) any explanation for his block b.) did not warn me . WIkipedia seems to be over taken by groups with agendas which are not neutral. I do not say all editors/admins are like this but most i had contact with are in some way very strict, basically ignorant. If someone would look into my contributions you can see that i edit honestly with good intentions, what has been acknowledged by a few other users here and there. The allegations against me are that im sockpuppeting or doing disruptive editing, which has no basis and can be judged by everybody when you look at my contribution page or the several disputes where i defend myself against various accusations. Im aware that i edited a view wiki pages which are known to be of interest to certain groups, but the way the wikipedia works is, that these groups control the pages they monitor and thus prevent certain content from being published. The wikipedia therefor is not free. I would say partially free.

Maybe my addition will in the future be found interesting by someone. It was interesting to be part of working on the encyclopedia, but it's sad to see that the judgement and communication here is so flawed. I might read some pages from time to time but in the future i think i will stay away from the wikipedia for above reasons. I don't think that i will come back. Bye bye Gise-354x (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]