User talk:Patrick Harrigan
December 2007
[edit]Your edits to Internet Infidels
[edit]In the last few days, you have made multiple changes to the Wikipedia article on Internet Infidels which violate wikipedia policies against edit warring ( WP:3RR ), editing with a non-neutral point of view ( WP:NPOV ), and fighting external battles on Wikipedia or trying to turn it in to a soapbox ( Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not ).
Though actions by a number of editors individually and in concert violated Wikipedia policy to the extent that normally leads to editors being temporarily blocked from editing, I am at this point merely leaving warnings for everyone on all sides who have participated in the problems.
Please slow down and stop making controversial edits to the article. Any further editing should be accompanied by discussion on the article talk page about the nature of the changes made, and any disputes should be discussed on the the article talk page prior to editing one way or the other.
In addition to these warnings, the article is semi-protected for the next week, and editing by new accounts (less than 4 days old) and IP address anonymous users is currently on hold. This does not extend to the talk page, where everyone is currently free to discuss in depth. It also will not be an excuse for older accounts to edit with impunity - additional administrator attention is focused on the article, and further abuse at this time will be dealt with more severely.
We welcome many contributors, including those with opposing viewpoints on events and issues, but we like Wikipedia to operate by consensus (discussion on talk pages, coming to agreement on issues via discussion) rather than fighting (edit warring on ariticles themselves). I hope that you and all the others involved can work these issues out on the talk page in good consensus form.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
Sorry, and thanks for not blocking me from the discussion. Since I don't want to clutter the II discussion page, this is a better place to refute II Officer Johnson's factually incorrect declaration that I do not meet NPOV criteria. I did not add the RantsnRaves link to the existing Recent Events material. Rather, I moved it and added links to three other sites where former IIDB users have congregated subsequent to the new censorship policies at IIDB. IIDB announced a new policy to restrict users ability to leave links to other sites frequented, so I did this out of a misguided 'ignore all rules' sense of fairness. I have no financial interest or any allegiance to any discussion board. I defy Mr. Johnson to find where I have said anything complimentary about the site in question, much less advertised or touted it.Patrick Harrigan (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)