User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2011/January

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hippo43. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Advice

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Since you're asking, continuously reverting the content on the page, without coming to an agreement on the talk page, is still effectively edit warring. I don't see anything in the additions that would rise to the level of exceptions that would necessitate an immediate reversion. I don't see any more insults at least, and you at least seem to be using talk. Let me propose this; can you voluntarily adhere to a WP:1RR restriction on that article for three months? Please respond before making any more edits. Kuru (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Only one correction, if I may: while hippo43 is indeed using talk, he uses it (in my opinion) to play dumb and force editors to keep the discussion going long after he has been corrected and/or asked to quit politicking and splitting hairs. This is pretty much what constitutes a troll and this is why I have given up direct dialogue. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Kuru, sorry for the slow reply, been away for a while. I'm not sure that agreeing to a 1RR restriction would be useful in this case. It really is a specific problem - Hearformewesique has been determined to include material that is not reliably sourced. He has refused to take part in the discussion (and has stated as much above), so coming to an agreement on the talk page has been impossible. As you noted above, I have been willing to discuss this. If an editor refuses to discuss an article, what can anyone do? My agreeing to such a restriction, without him being under the same restriction, would reward his approach - refusing to discuss an article by claiming that the editor who disagrees with him is a troll.

Since your comment above, another editor (Hairhorn) likewise removed the disputed item and cautioned Hearformewesique against edit-warring. Hearformewesique then added a Google search as a "source" for his claim, which shows that he clearly doesn't understand the issue of reliable sources.

What I can state is that I will continue to discuss topics there and will not take part in edit wars. I've been away for a bit, so things may have cooled down, and the discussion may attract some other interested voices. Perhaps you, as an uninvolved party, could take a look at the original disagreement itself? Let me know your thoughts. --hippo43 (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Irish Rugby flag

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} You are receiving this message as you previous participated in a Irish rugby flag related discussion (WP:RUIRLFLAG). There are two ongoing discussions which may interest you here and here GnevinAWB (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I write because you participated in editing Teachable moment. In the months since I created this article, the topic has taken on an unanticipated personal relevance. I wonder if you might consider joining other co-mentors in a mentorship committee for me?

Perhaps you might consider taking a look at an old edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

AWB

You are trying too hard. Let it rest. Wizzy…☎ 09:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You are probably right. Thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rugby League Positions

Settle down Hippo. The page does not belong to you. B. Fairbairn (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nor you. I, however, have been willing to discuss it. --hippo43 (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What? Discuss it with yourself?

;-)

Okay, okay. You are right. The page was becoming too full of personal opinion. Jerk79 should never have added 'notable players' in the first place. Even links to Halls of Fame are topical. It should really be just Rugby League positions, not players. B. Fairbairn (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would discuss it with other people, but you know Wikipedia - so many of them round here are idiots! ;) I --hippo43 (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Edit War Asian Fetish

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I think it is interesting that you accuse me of edit-warring after you sweep into a very important section of the article that has been up for years, strip it down to half with no discussion, no consensus, and no agreement with the other editors who have worked on this article a long time. I was not the one who changed anything at all. We are simply asking for consensus before you make changes. You have refused to do that. And you refuse to act with integrity in this regard which is unfortunate. But the proof is all in the history. And I will be working to make sure other editors know about your activities. And then also, anyone can look in your archives and see it has always been an issue with you. Thanks. Computer1200 (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you want to make this personal - I didn't accuse you of anything, I just wanted to let you know you were at 3RR (you might not have realised) so you wouldn't encounter any problems. I'm absolutely open to discussing things, as I have done recently. It's difficult to improve the article via consensus when you refuse to shift at all in your position, and haven't suggested any kind of compromise. Please don't try to make this about some mythical "us" and "you". Abductive's recent edits show that there is not broad agreement for your position. Discussion is not required prior to making changes, and every change I've made has been consistent with policy.

Your edit history is a list of reverts to this article and refusals to compromise in the discussion. Some of your edits on the discussion page seem to be motivated by a personal attachment to the subject, rather than a dispassionate encyclopedic view. The fact that you are apparently only interested in this article and Mail order brides, coupled with your insistence that I seek your approval before making changes, strongly suggests you have issues of ownership. Please give it some thought. --hippo43 (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Take this edit, for example:

"...The reason that white men stop by this incredibly out of balance wikipedia entry is because you and others have chosen to define us according to your own twisted obsession with making us look bad because we have happened to date women of other races, including asian women. Sorry: we don't bow to your definitions of us, and we do not allow you permission to define us. Again, sorry."

Who is "us" in this diatribe? Can you honestly say you are approaching this article in a neutral way? --hippo43 (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your name's been mentioned...

Here: User_talk:Camelbinky#Incivility_to_the_point_of_.22hostility.22.2C_again -- Rico 15:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Best to avoid discussions with Camelbinky - rational debate is not one of his strong points. --hippo43 (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That's kind of impossible, after his ally -- who couldn't get consensus for inclusion of external links -- summoned him, even though Camelbinky had never discussed or edited the article. -- Rico 19:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If they're being ridiculous, I'd suggest you open some kind of RfC, get input from neutral users. Camelbinky has in the past accused me of wikihounding and various other made-up crap, he has some real ownership issues and doesn't respond well to reason - I don't intend to waste any time on him. --hippo43 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A head's up

Just to let you know I am going to let UpstateNYer know about the AN/I since as far as I know he is not aware of it and yet he is a major player in the discussion. I just wanted to let you know I was going to tell him I am very happy you've been quite understanding and very polite to me in the discussion. I didnt want you to think I was doing anything behind your back and again I want to thank you for being polite and to apologize for anything you may have believed I did wrong to you in the past.Camelbinky (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hippo43, I just want you to know that I think you are drop-dead gorgeous, intelligent, charming, and a beautiful human being -- and I am in no way trying to influence you or trying to act like your friend at this coincidental time -- and I hope I'm not being too transparent. -- Rico 02:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Relax, there's more than enough of me to go around. --hippo43 (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I don't understand the nature of ANI. Your comment at the bottom seems wise, even though I don't understand it. When accused of wrongdoing, one is not supposed to vigorously defend oneself? -- Rico 04:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

A Study in Human Psychology

Hippo43 -- Wow! I'll bet some grad student could write a thesis (or dissertation) on the behavior patterns of people in computer "meeting areas". (Someone probably already has...)

I think I oughta keep that "the less you know the more you know" thing that HearForArtThou posted. Wow. Words cannot describe it. (BTW, no insult is intended; I can't pronounce his username and that's all I can remember of it.)

Anyway, I think there is an important principle at stake here. Thanks for hanging in there! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. We got the right result in the end. --hippo43 (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Fastily#Talk:List of common misconceptions#Music examples

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hi Hippo43. Would you care to explain yourself here? Just so we're on the same page, I have no issues with reimposing that old indefinite block on your account; that being said, you may want to defend yourself ASAP. Regards, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning about disruptive behavior

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Your behavior at List of common misconceptions is starting to become disruptive. You are deleting items that are sourced to reliable sources for no good reason.[1] Please cease and desist at once. I'd rather not have to report you to AN/I. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Report me if you like - I have done nothing wrong here. I have provided clear edit summaries, referred to the relevant policies, and engaged in discussion. More importantly, other editors have agreed with my views. You, on the other hand, have edited against the clear conensus on the discussion page. Please cease and desist at once. --hippo43 (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't insult my intelligence by pretending that you're not aware that you're being disruptive. You've already been blocked more than one for this type of behavior. It's unfortunate that you apparently haven't learned anything from your past blocks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not insult me by posting baseless accusations on my talk page, or try to smear me by referring to historic blocks. You are the one editing against consensus. It is childish to throw accusations of "disruptive" around when others disagree with you. Perhaps you are wrong? Please go away. --hippo43 (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What baseless accusations? You are deleting items that are sourced to reliable sources for no good reason.[2] (Did you read the diff?) Further, you are now mistating the facts, there is no consensus against this. This is why you were blocked before and if you keep it up, you're going to be blocked again. I'm warning you on your talk page first as a courtesy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the discussion. Read the policy (MEDRS). Notice the other editor who removed your addition. If you continue to add stuff that is obvious nonsense, it will be reverted. --hippo43 (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have, and WP:MEDRS is a guideline, not a policy. In any case, Nature, The New York Times, Scientific American and Discovery Magazine satisfy the guideline. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Except you didn't add these sources to the entry you started discussing here (the ridiculous "men think about sex every seven seconds.") In any case, discuss it at the article talk page, not here - see if consensus is reached. --hippo43 (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm discussing this here because the problem is not a content issue. It's behavior issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Then stop arguing over content. Please address your own disruptive behaviour before lecturing me. --hippo43 (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I'm sorry that you've returned to edit warring at List of common misconceptions. As this seems to be a recurring problem that you cannot seem to self-correct, please consider this your final block before this account is permanently disabled. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by edit-warring in this case? I see that I have just, inadvertently, broken 3RR by reverting to the earliest form of English spelling on that article. If I hadn't made that very minor edit, which did not relate to content, I would not have broken 3RR.

I have, however, over the last few weeks, engaged in discussion there and been careful to maintain consensus versions of the article, while one other editor has repeatedly edited against the consensus formed at the talk page. A month-long ban, and a threat of permanent disabling seems extremely harsh when I haven't been causing conflict here at all. Perhaps a warning that I had broken 3RR, and the chance to self-revert, would have been appropriate? --hippo43 (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have been delighted to do so, but there's a clear cycle here of aggressive editing, whether or not you've managed to technically skate a pure 3rr violation. I think the rapid back and forth this morning is a pretty good example of the problem. I'm personally not in favor of any unblocks without restrictions on your editing, as previous feedback on how to avoid this has not been utilized voluntarily. Kuru (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused - what do you mean 'would have been delighted to do so'? If I had not accidentally reverted for a 4th time today, a revert that was extrememly minor, is supported by policy, and had nothing at all to do with recent content disputes, would you have blocked me for a month? If you had seen this morning's edits before my most recent revert, would that merit a block?

Looking at my edits recently, I think it's clear I have genuinely tried to avoid getting into edit wars. I've consistently engaged in discussion, as you advised above, and reverted to versions supported by consensus. See for example, Talk:Afrikaner_Weerstandsbeweging; I suggested a rename, argued for it, didn't get consensus, so left it. Certainly User:A Quest For Knowledge's recent approach at List of common misconceptions has wound me up, but I think there's a real difference between reacting quickly (while engaging in discussion) and edit-warring.

My edits this morning were, AFAICT, consistent with WP:BRD and with the consensus established on the talk page. They were in response to edit-warring by another editor, who has repeatedly refused to accept the outcome of various discussions. I'm confused as to why I'm being sanctioned - am I the one who has caused conflict here? --hippo43 (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hippo, you've been given ample opportunity to correct your conduct but it has not shown much, if any, improvement. In fact, you seem to be more combative since your return from being blocked. Before, you used to only revert content that wasn't sourced, but now you even remove content cited to reliable sources. When you return from your block, I hope you reconsider how you approach your editing here on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Quest, it's clear you have repeatedly edited against consensus - your opinion of my edits, given your recent behaviour, is laughable. If you had only edit warred against my view, you might have a point, but your recent succession of reverts has been against the clear consensus of numerous editors, and your unwillingness to accept that on the discussion page is puzzling. Your contribution to this discussion is not constructive. --hippo43 (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hippo, when your first instinct is to automatically revert everyone else's contributions, something is wrong. Successfully writing of Wikipedia articles requires cooperation, collaboration and compromise. But I don't want to get into a debate with you when it's apparent that you still don't think that you've done anything wrong, so this is my last post to you. Have a good day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

Hippo43/Archives/2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'd be grateful if an admin could look at this situation and consider unblocking me. I've asked Kuru above to explain what he meant in a comment a few days ago, but got no reply. In January of this year, he wrote "continuously reverting the content on the page, without coming to an agreement on the talk page, is still effectively edit warring." I believe I've followed this advice, and at the article in question my edits have been consistent with the clear consensus established via discussion, and with policy. Within 5 minutes of inadvertently making a fourth revert in one day, I was blocked for a month. This block seems extremely harsh, where a warning would have been more appropriate. This was a very minor edit, to the point of being trivial (changing one letter), and one which is also consistent with policy. I would have been glad to self-revert if Kuru or anyone had pointed out that it was a fourth revert. If Kuru had felt that previous edits of mine were "aggressive" he could have brought it to my attention. In the article in question, one editor in particular has been repeatedly editing against a broad conssnsus, and my edits there were in response to that. For me to be blocked as a result of this seems wrong, and it also seems inappropriate to me that Kuru, having blocked me once, has apparently watched my edits and waited for me to break a rule and then imposed a very harsh further block. Perhaps it would be more appropriate for another admin to be involved, so the situation is not coloured by personal history. --hippo43 (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not the first time that you have been blocked for edit-warring, so you understand the WP:3RR rule quite well. Nobody needs to remind you, and after all those blocks there is not such thing for you as "indavertant". The reason that this is a 1 months block is due to the escalating nature of blocks - you've had 3x 24hr blocks, 48, 72, a week, 2 weeks ... now it's escalated to a month. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:58, 19 May 2010 (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.

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).

Hippo43/Archives/2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

BWilkins, you are right, I do understand 3RR by now. However, of course, like anyone else, I can mistakenly break a rule. WP:3RR says "If an editor breaks the three-revert rule by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion." I broke the rule by mistake, simply because I didn't realise I had already reverted three times. If I had known I had reverted three times already, I would not have done so a fourth time. If anyone had pointed out to me that this trivial edit was a fourth revert, instead of blocking me within a few minutes, I would have of course reversed it. Although Kuru is not required to warn me about previous edits he thought were "aggressive", I still don't see why he wouldn't. If he thought my edits on the morning of 13 May were inappropriate, why did he not say so? As to the length of my block, although I understand the principle behind increasing blocks, given that the blocking policy relates to disruptive or damaging behaviour, a month seems inappropriate in this case. My editing was not damaging or disruptive to the encyclopedia; in fact, overall I make a positive contribution, and I have clearly recently engaged in discussion instead of being drawn into edit warring. So given the various options available - a warning, and the chance to self-revert, or a very short block, for example - a block of a month seems both excessive and pointless. I realise that a block, and one of this length, fall within the range of options available. However, I do not believe that Kuru's action was the most appropriate one for this situation, and have not heard an explanation yet as to why it would be. --hippo43 (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Don't get all hung up on 3RR. The point is that edit warring, whether you violate 3RR or not, is not acceptable. Since you've been repeatedly blocked for edit warring and yet apparently didn't even realize you were doing it again, a one month block strikes me as overly lenient. If you can't understand why edit warring is not tolerable you may not posses the competence required to edit Wikipedia in a useful fashion. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2010 (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.

(Edit-conflict on decline) Blocks escalate in length, especially when a user is repeatedly blocked for the same thing. A shorter block would not have been appropriate for a user's seventh edit-warring block; indeed, most people would be indefinitely blocked before getting to a seventh block. When it expires, you should be very careful about undoing other users' edits, because the next block may well be indefinite. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Do NOT resume your disruption

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I find it very troublesome that as soon as your latest block has ended, you immediately announce your intention to resume your edit-warring. Do not resume your disruption or you will be blocked again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As you know, I did not announce any intention to edit war or disrupt anything. If you wish to convince other editors of why your preferred text should stay, please do so at the discussion page. You have not done so thus far, and have reverted to your preferred version 4 times already, in breach of the clear consensus at the talk page. It seems that any time I revert your belligerent edits, I end up blocked, so if you do this again I will have to take it to ANI. --hippo43 (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edit here is a personal attack

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Your edit here is a personal attack.[3] If you continue your disruption, I will report you to ANI. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. It was not honest of you to misrepresent the discussion around the article when you opened a thread at RSN. It was not honest of you to do so without letting interested editors know at the article talk page. It was not honest to state that material had been in the article for 'about a month' when it was actually 19 days. I know we disagree on content, but please try to behave with more integrity when editing that article. --hippo43 (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reported you to ANI

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Rangers F.C.

Nice edit. Please don't get blocked as we need some neutral voices on these articles. I commented at the AN/I thread as well. I really think you should try to walk away from that article; it's probably true that it's a dreadful article but in the great scheme of things I feel there are other areas where you can more meaningfully contribute. Please don't lose your ability to. Cheers. --John (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your support yesterday.

On the 'List of misconceptions' article, I haven't made any edits to it since being unblocked, so how anyone could claim I'm being disruptive is beyond me. I've restarted the discussion, so will wait to see if anything new develops before changing the text. I'm a little confused at how Quest can edit so often against consensus there, four times on this latest point, ignoring BRD each time, and never face any sanction. I'm entirely open to some kind of truce, but always find it difficult to cooperate with the type of editor who runs squealing to admins, trying to get an opponent sent off. --hippo43 (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You announced your attention to resume your disruption. That's what I reported you for. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What I announced was my intention to restore the article to the consensus version, after your repeated edit-warring, if you couldn't achieve consensus for your view in a reasonable amount of time. You reported me, bleating about being attacked, when I pointed out your transparent dishonesty. --hippo43 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

See, I find this very troubling. Even after multiple blocks, you still apparently don't think that you're doing anything wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm so sorry you're troubled. You reported me to ANI after I made a true statement about your dishonesty, and everyone who commented there concluded that I'd done nothing wrong since being unblocked. Nevertheless, you know better as always. As far as I can tell, there is still no consensus for your preferred text at the article discussion. Perhaps your energy would be better directed there? --hippo43 (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hippo you really are contradictory

I'm entirely open to some kind of truce You are only ever open to a truce if it entirely suits you.

but always find it difficult to cooperate with the type of editor who runs squealing to admins, trying to get an opponent sent off As opposed to employing aggressive bullying edit tactics and wearing opponents down never trying to get any form of neutral outside opinion.(Monkeymanman (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Monkey, you're just making yourself look stupid when you make comments like that. Take a look through my contributions - I have called for, opened, and taken part in RfCs in the past, and would be happy for one to be opened at both of these articles (Rangers FC and List of Common Misconceptions).

In these two cases, we have editors who want a particular version of the text, have faced clear objections in the article discussion, but who have gone ahead and made the changes anyway - repeatedly so, despite consensus against their position. If robustly standing up to that kind of arrogance, while offering to discuss the way forward in both cases, makes me a bully on your planet, I guess I'll have to live with that. --hippo43 (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Here we go play dumb.

I have called for, opened, and taken part in RfCs in the past, and would be happy for one to be opened at both of these articles Then why did you not do this on both articles then instead of reverting material without discussion.

have faced clear objections, If there was such clear objection on both articles then why was the text not reverted then while you were blocked for edit warring.

while offering to discuss the way forward in both cases, you have shown no formal dispute resolution processing and have not tried to get any outside help(Monkeymanman (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

"Why did you not do this on both articles then instead of reverting material without discussion." Again, you have this backwards - per BRD, there is no need for me to discuss before reverting. The onus is on you to discuss after you have been reverted and then reach consensus. This is especially true as editors had already objected before your contentious edits were made. I suggest you read the policies WP:BRD and WP:CON.

"Why was the text not reverted then while you were blocked for edit warring." I've no idea, I'm not a mind-reader. Perhaps because your bullying editing tactics and refusal to discuss in reasonable and intelligent way had worn other editors down? The fact that some other editors don't care as much as you do, or have less time to spend on Wikipedia, does not make you any less wrong. The point remains that as soon as I was unblocked, I did what you know I would have done at the time. There was no consensus for your edit - that I was blocked and unable to stand up to you at the time does not make that less true.

"you have shown no formal dispute resolution processing and have not tried to get any outside help" So what? I've tried to engage in discussion in both cases. I suppose I think adults should be able to resolve these kinds of disagreement without running off to ANI or looking around for someone new to take their side. In these cases, I don't think any other process is necessary yet, but if it is set in motion by another editor, I'll happily take part. --hippo43 (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing my edits without proper consultation. You are no stranger to the disciplinary proceedings at Wiki, your behavior at the Rangers article is disruptive to those of us trying to work towards a better article and not a platform for your own agenda. Should you disregard this I will report your behavior to the relevant authorities.SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I knew you would surface again eventually. I don't need to consult you about undoing your edits. If you believe that, you fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia. Moreover, there is an obvious consensus at the discussion there. The only person pushing an agenda here, and a a thoroughly unpleasant one, is you. I'm about to revert the Rangers article to the consensus version. Please do not edit war to restore your POV version - if you do, I will have to seek admin action to resolve this. --hippo43 (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Your behaviour on multiple occasion shows you as a disruptive influence on any article which does not represent your point of view, masking your sectarian attitudes behind WiKi rules is fooling no-one. The consensus you allude to exists only in your bigoted mind. Im sure given your track record for disruption, I have no need to tell you of the consequences of your edit warring.SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Do NOT edit war at Bad Medicine (song)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} It's called WP:BRD, not WP:BRRD.[4][5] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It's called WP:V. BRD is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. --hippo43 (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that you invoked WP:BRD at Sectarianism in Glasgow [6] just a few days ago. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I did, in quite different circumstances. BRD is an essay, V is a core policy. As far as I know, essays do not supercede key policies. --hippo43 (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that you cited WP:BRD on your very own talk page, in the discussion right above this one: "Again, you have this backwards - 'per BRD, there is no need for me to discuss before reverting. The onus is on you to discuss after you have been reverted and then reach consensus. This is especially true as editors had already objected before your contentious edits were made. I suggest you read the policies WP:BRD and WP:CON. "[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. What point are you trying to make? BRD exists, and has value, but it does not supplant verifiability as a key requirement of wikipedia material. I don't see anywhere that BRD supports restoring unsourced material, which V clearly states can be removed, and cannot be restored unless sources are supplied. Likewise, the R of BRD does not give users licence to restore BLP violations, vandalism, patent nonsense etc. --hippo43 (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is onus on to achieve consensus in the WP:BRD cycle? Is it the person who makes the bold edit or the person who reverts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

When unsourced material is removed, the onus is clearly on the editor who wishes to restore material to provide sources, or achieve consensus to restore it. This policy obviously has precedence over BRD. --hippo43 (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is where some clarification regarding how to correctly apply Wikipedia rules would be helpful. Is it legitimate to challenge material solely for the sake of it being unsourced? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before, and you're erecting another straw man. I removed this material because it is, IMO, inaccurate, as well as unsourced. An encyclopedia is not the place for an editor's personal interpretation of a song. Of course, if you have sources that support this interpretation, I have no objection to it being restored. --hippo43 (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the diffs don't appear to support your claims. The reason you cited in your edit summary is "rm unsourced".[8]

The reason you cited on the article talk page is "I removed this section as it is all unsourced commentary."[9]

I find it troubling that the diffs seem to disagree with what you claimed to be true at ANI. Perhaps you should refactor your comments at ANI so they are factually accurate? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

My comments are factually accurate. We've been over this before - it goes without saying that I thought the material was incorrect, or I wouldn't have removed it. If you assumed I removed info but didn't think it was inaccurate, that's your misunderstanding. --hippo43 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm....unfortunately, that's not what you said. You said that the items were removed because they were unsourced.[10] [11] Diffs don't lie. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You often seem to misunderstand what I write - on this very point some months ago, for example. Perhaps you should read what I told you then, and maybe I should write more clearly and simply so you know exactly what I mean. I guess I hadn't realised that you would be scrutinising each of my edits so carefully, especially as you had never edited this article before. If you misunderstood my short comments, and somehow thought I was removing it only because it was unsourced, I can't help that. --hippo43 (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, since I was the one who quoted the article's lyrics first, it seems more likely that you came to this article simply because I was the one quoting it's lyrics. You had never edited the article until I started quoting the song's lyrics. This only reinforces my precious question. Are you allowed to challenge material not because it is wrong, but solely because it's not sourced? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with your "precious question". Are you allowed to endlessly repeat irrelevant questions on talk pages? --hippo43 (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please Stop Edit Warring Rangers FC-Sectarian Section

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I would ask that you refrain from reverting other editors contributions without discussing with them first. Your behaviour is becoming more disruptive and is detracting from the articles progress. The subjects you wish to discuss have articles of their own and your contributions would be better suited to them. Should you continue to edit war in the manner you have, you leave me no choice but report your behaviour. cheers SeekerAfterTruth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

You don't know what you're talking about. If you think that editors have to discuss with you before they undo your edits, you are mistaken. Doubly so when your contribution to the encyclopedia is so biased and infantile. Before you start patronising other editors, please read the relevant policies. --hippo43 (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You leave me alternative but to report you as you have no intention of compromise and for your comments on John's talk page, seeking to influence an Admin, in order that he remove another editor. I see you are currently on a couple of blocks and this type of behaviour is typical of your disregard for other editors on Wiki. Your record speaks for itself.

SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free. Bear in mind that when an editor complains about another user, the complainant's behaviour is also scrutinised. Your 'record', such as it is, also speaks for itself. --hippo43 (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with defending my position with any Admin, you, however, may be on extremely thin ice, given your previous behavioural issues (and subsequent bans)with them.SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

For the love of god, stop edit warring

[12] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Simply repeating a claim doesn't make it true. I reopened discussion on this and waited for some time. Despite the numerous objections to your preference, how many times have you reverted to your version? --hippo43 (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, nobody has disputed this content since the discussion at WP:RSN. Indeed, since then editors have added additional sources to the entry. If you think the discussion at WP:RSN was wrong, then you should re-open the discussion. Do NOT edit war again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

slow computer

'm working on a very slow computer and am working step by step. Please give me a little time as by standing over your computer and reverting immediately you not giving me time to put the stuff - your stuff mainly - back in. Mattun0211 (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No - I don't agree with your material and have reverted it with good reason. If you want to discuss alternatives please do so at the talk page - please don't continue to make these edits after you've been reverted and haven't engaged in discussion there. --hippo43 (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As I explained (both here and in edit summaries) - I'm on a slow computer and was saving as I went along so needed my initial draft to work on. By reverting every ten seconds you were disrupting this process. I see from the above you're no stranger to edit warring ;) Mattun0211 (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Your slow computer is irrelevant. It is no excuse for adding material that is unsourced, giving undue weight to one source, and removing sourced content. You chose not to discuss when you were reverted, contrary to WP:BRD. Please revert yourself. --hippo43 (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mattun0211

I have reported Mattun0211 here for gis edit warring on the Celtic page and his edits and threats in the past on the Green Brigade page. Adam4267 (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I hadn't seen his comments on the Green Brigade article. --hippo43 (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)