User talk:InTheTrees

Welcome!

Hello, InTheTrees, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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!

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Crawford Notch may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[Image:-18 Hill, T., Crawford Notch, 1916.15TN.jpg|250px|thumb|right|''Crawford Notch'' (1867), by [

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hello InTheTree, just letting you know that Men's rights movement-related pages have been placed on article probation. This includes Male privilege (and possibly other articles you have edited). Please familiarize yourself with the terms of the article probation (e.g., the recently renewed WP:1RR restriction) on Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Thank you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating WP:1RR at Men's rights movement (per Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation). 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. Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have made a single revert to the MensRights page. The first edit I made on the page was a modification to an earlier edit made by SonicYouth86. It was not a revert of his change, I modified what he added to include additional material from his source. He reverted my change with what I felt was no attempt at improving the content, but simply to undo my change. So in total, I made one edit to the page and reverted one change. If 1RR means that any change to another editor's update that he/she does not like, please let me know, because that is certainly not what I understand a revert to mean.

Decline reason:

"One revert" means one revert. As you said yourself, you made a single revert to the page - thus, "one revert". I can't see how to make this any clearer. The validity or otherwise of the revert isn't in question; the page was under sanctions, which you were aware of, and you chose not to abide by them. This block is therefore justified. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:50, 1 November 2013 (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.

You should familiarize yourself with the definition of a revert in the context of edit warring, particularly given that you are editing articles that are subject to sanctions for violating that policy - and have been warned about it, informally, formally, and each time you edit the MRM article. "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." (WP:3RR - just change "three reverts" to "one revert").--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am being mentioned here: InTheTrees did not include additional material, he changed sourced content without consensus and then reverted despite the lack of consensus and detailed explanations on the article talk page. Perhaps it's also worth mentioning that I was the one who notified him of the article probation a few days ago and that his first edit in men's rights movement was a revert of my addition. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since SonicYouth wants to discuss this (which is welcomed) my addition was the inclusion from his source, of what I felt was relevant content (ie, "This individual rights framing "emphasizes the values of universal protection of the law to each individual regardless of social status (whether disadvantage or privileged)"). In any case it appears another editor has already made what looks like a better and more concise edit than either of ours, although I still believe the inclusion of Professor Leachman's text that highlights some of the conflicts between men's rights groups and women's groups is relevant.

also, and not to quibble, I'm still vague on "an edit that undoes other editor's actions", since to be absolutely literal, ANY change to a page undoes another editors actions. So even were I to simply add a sentence following another edit, it could be considered to be "undoing" the other editors actions. Can you please clarify on this bbb23?

An addition of brand new material is not an undo of another editor's action. Almost anything else is, although administrators do have discretion to discount very minor changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]