User talk:Joebin

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to High five, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ... discospinster _talk 15:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies that your first interactions with us have to be so blunt, but given how long the article's been something of a playground I'm inclined to be a bit firmer than I might be, otherwise. Do you have any reliable, secondary sourcing that mentions this style? If you'd like to keep a less strict list on a blog or some other site, please feel entirely free -- it's a copyleft project, after all. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to these messages; see WP:TALK for help using talk pages. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to take this sort of tone, but: please respond, indicating you understand that Wikipedia's reliable sourcing guidelines and verifiability policy. As it stands currently, consensus is that this content should not be included. You can argue to change that consensus, but simply reverting without further comment isn't going to accomplish anything. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High five

Please stop adding "The Slick" to the high five article. The entry is unencyclopedic and does not indicate that it's a common gesture rather than something that was done once in a movie. If you continue to add it you could be blocked from editing. ... discospinster _talk 15:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to High five, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Alansohn (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to High five. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Alansohn (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on High five. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Tikiwont (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at High five. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tikiwont (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, the three revert rule is improper in this case. There was not reverting, there was adding. Apparently the Wikipedia users that feel as if they have ownership of the high five page are unwilling to follow their own guidelines properly. Second, as stated many times, "the slick" was properly cited using a primary source. While pointing to the movie Blank Check numerous times, with specific guidance to the exact time the slick could be found on YouTube.com, the parties exerting ownership over the High Five page have ignored any proper high five variation that is not their own. The Slick is not the only variation to fall victim to the dictatorship that exerts ownership over the page. There seems to be no effective mechanism of approval to this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebin (talk • contribs)

Well, we are not talking about a three removal rule. Reverting refers to any reversal of the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. That includes your repeated undoing of their reverts by readding the same stuff, aka Edit warring. If you want to make a formal unblock request I'd leave it for others to review, but you should realize that you simply have not obtained yet the peer approval for your edits and that is as effective a mechanism as it gets here. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been a chance to leave it up for "peer review" because of your insistence on its removal. Which peers would you be referring to? The history of the page would display the constant removal of most variation, including "properly" cited variations. Peer review would imply that there is some feedback mechanism and some chance for review, not immediate removal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebin (talk • contribs)

I see a talk page section at Talk:High_five#Unsourced.2C_unencyclopedic and some editors discussing this with you and together with the removal by numerous editors this amounts to current consensus against inclusion. My links above lead to more elaborate forms of dispute revolution. Once the block expires you're invited to pick up the conversation, but it may be difficult to convince others that a single scene directly from a film warrants inclusion. I understand your frustration but the one message I have to give here is that edit warring is not the answer.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't retract people's talk post Tikiwont. Joebin did no such retracting. The "citation needed" comments added were an obvious form of peer review. See below.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebin (talk • contribs)

Nor is it helpful to change other talk posts.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what you did. Boom. Roasted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebin (talk • contribs)

Not that i am aware of. I reverted your changes and still have to add the unsigned templates. Please sign your posts.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think I had to sign my page since it is my talk page. Should I cite to something instead?Joebin (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a courtesy especially elsewhere and helps to deliminate things, especially when you talk of yourself in the third person. Actually a customized signature can link to something. But I think we can now return to our respective editorial problems. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deliminate things? Perhaps you mean delineate, as in to mark the outline of. Referring to the profile itself would not be considered the third person. Additionally, it would be unnecessary for the signature to link to something as it is in the location of the profile.Joebin (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that I only bothered about your signing as there where IP edits as well and you talked suddenly above about 'Tikiwont' and 'Joebin'. And there are various options to link and customize but I can't help there as I only ever use the standard one. How about diversifying your edits, though? --Tikiwont (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I will diversify the edits if it remains up.Joebin (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well editing something else would help you to understand why we put such an emphasis on references. But if getting your way is the prerequisite to further collaboration...Anyways, I've now commented on the content question as well and offered a different version. Maybe there is some common ground. Either way, please don't simply revert it without others having the chance to evaluate it as yours was now up for some time as well.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're awesome

I noticed what you did to the High Five page, and I salute you. You are completely right on with "the slick" entry too...we used to do that type of high five all the time! I may have to do a survey or publish an article so you can further verify your claim (even though verifying something so trivial seems pointless to me).

Wikipedia has some people (and they know who they are) who ruin the site by taking down articles that are uncontroversial or that are clearly true so readers don't really need to verify it's accuracy. I am honestly surprised that this whole site hasn't collapsed from these editors' overly narrow interpretation of the Wikipedia Guidelines.

Anyway, I will not argue against them completely because I am sure they do a good job of keeping real vandals from truly compromising the integrity of the site. (You are clearly not a vandal, Joebin, even though you were blocked from future edits.)

Well, take care man and I support your accurate edits to this website. I am not sure if any of the Wiki-moderators can see this, but "the slick" is 100% real if that changes anything. 98.214.241.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion of "The Slick"

I have started a discussion about "The Slick" on the High five talk page. Please discuss the impugned section there instead of simply re-adding it to the article. Thank you, ... discospinster _talk 13:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is greatly appreciated.