User talk:Ifinteger

May 2014

Hello, I'm Flyer22. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ephebophilia, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Your recent editing history at Richard Quest shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one day for edit warring, as you did at Richard Quest. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:32, 29 June 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

The information I was attempting to add was reliably sourced. I am new to Wikipedia and was confused why this info kept being removed because it was of a sexual nature, and I thought this was censorship. I will not attempt to insert the sexual details of Quests's arrest into the article again. Please unblock me, thank you. Ifinteger (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's not censorship. You were warned very specifically about edit warring. You also seem to still be confused about reliable sourcing; this is not a tabloid. Kuru (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2014 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

NYPost is a reliable source, why do you call it a tabloid? Again, I will not insert any sexual or lurid details about Quests's arrest back into the article, there is no reason for me to still stay blocked, thanks. Ifinteger (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; user is no longer blocked. Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2014 (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 New York Post is a tabloid by format and colloquially, meaning it thrives on gossip and sensationalism. In addition to adding sexual details, you also battled over the phrase "while walking with a man" (I think that's it), which also violated WP:BLP as WP:COATRACKy.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 I have no idea how the text "walking with another man" is controversial in any way or WP:COATRACK (I checked COATRACK and based off those rules there doesn't seem to be an issue with that particular phrase being in the article). Maybe you can enlighten me where I'm wrong here, thanks.

P.S. Is the New York Post considered a reliable source on WP? Ifinteger (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't always respond to users immediately depending on what I'm doing both on- and off-wiki. The subject was Quest's detention on drug charges. The inclusion of walking with another man obliquely highlighted his sexual orientation. Your addition of the sexual material only reinforced the smearing implications of the material. Ask yourself a question before you include material. Why are you including it? Some editors mistakenly believe that as long as material is sourced, it can be included, no matter what it says. That is not a correct interpretation of policy. It's true that material must be reliably sourced before it's even considered for inclusion, but even if it is, other reasons may militate against its inclusion. Thus, that phrase was coatracky because it was a tangential subject designed, intentionally or not, to bias the reader and to tar the subject (the BLP issue).

I can't tell you whether the New York Post is a per se unreliable source, but my assumption is that for articles about BLPs, it is. Some sources are inherently unreliable, e.g., blogs, and personal websites. However, other sources' reliability depends on the material they are being cited for. One way to get some input on the subject is to post a message at WP:RSN. However, before doing so, I would search the archives of the board to see if the subject has been discussed before.

To avoid the problems you encountered, besides just paying more serious attention to user warnings, is not to edit controversial articles until you're more experienced. As I recall, since creating this account, you've edited only two articles, this one and another relatively controversial article. Go slower in the beginning. That way you're less likely to get in trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]