User talk:Rogerman/Archive1

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Rogerman/Archive1: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! Dick Clark 22:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Just a reminder that reverting an article to previous content more than three times in a day can lead to being blocked temprorarily. Instead of reverting please try to reach a consensus on the talk page. There's always tomorow. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert the page again your editing may be blocked. -Will Beback 04:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial

Please don't add "controversial" to the lead sentences of biographies. On Wikipedia we try to avoid spoon feeding the readers. You'll see that Shakespeare isn't "great", Hitler isn't "evil", Paris Hilton isn't "famous", etc. If the subjects have been invovled in famous disputes, then certainly we make sure those are included in the article. But labelling someone as "controversial" in a biography prejudges the matter, and is weak writing. Thanks, -Will Beback 00:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I once added "controversial" to an intro (Hans-Hermann Hoppe), but was convinced of my error. -

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Saw your comment on the deletion page for that article. All I can say is, you ain't seen nothing yet. Lurk around on the conspiracy and leftist pages for awhile if you really want to get an idea of how off-kilter Wikipedia really is. Cheers. Morton devonshire 02:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Thanks for watching out for my user page, but I added that myself. It's a rant that was posted on Wikipedia:Requests for investigation, and I guess I thought it was amusing. I'll take it down eventually. -Will Beback 02:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Sobran

I'm not sure what text you changed at Joseph Sobran, but you omitted all of the text formatting. Please change the text without copying in an old, unformatted version. Thanks, -Will Beback 00:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is not my opinion, but thanks, I'll take your comments into consideration...NOT! DJac75 00:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please work towards consensus on the article talk page. Your previous edits have, for the most part, been viewed as attempts to push a POV. A little extra effort in arguing for your edits would go a long way in helping other editors collaborate with you. Cheers, Dick Clark 23:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I'll keep watching the page.

Adam Holland 23:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes?

What can I do for you? -Will Beback 21:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus of Wikipedia editors is increasingly towards avoiding rampant use of the word "controversial", especially in biographies. Half of the people with Wikipedia articles are controversial, so it adds little information. We don't use the word "famous" much either, for the same reason. It is better to describe the controversy, or the fame. In the case of Sobran I thik we do a good job of summarizing the controversy surrounding him, in proportion to the article. We can probably do better, but I am not interested in researching the topic myself.

I can't see why we should omit that he also has an interest in Shakespeare. It is not simply a hobby, as he has written a book and probably some articles on the topic. It is certainly verifiable and relevant. -Will Beback 00:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a WP:3RR violation at Joseph Sobran in the last few days, but maybe I'm not looking hard enough. The best way of avoiding revert wars is to spend more time talking through the dispute in search of consensus and WP:NPOV. -Will Beback 21:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please list the four reverts within 24 hours which constitute the violation? Also, please sign your name using four tildes ("~"). Thanks, -Will Beback 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sobran

Greetings--thanks for the note. I took a quick look at the article, the reverts, and the two sides, but since I'm at work I can't study it right now in detail; I've heard of this guy (Sobran), I thought he was an anti-Semitic nut-job, but I'm absolutely not an expert on the topic. Maybe having an NPOV tag at the top (as it currently stands) while working it out on the talk page is the way to go? I can protect it if the edit war remains hot; let me know. Generally I don't like blocking for 3RR, but if violation of 3RR is an ongoing problem you can report it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. Generally there are a lot of people watching that page. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, false 3RR reports aren't good form. Stop doing it, and stop POV editing like your last edit at LewRockwell.com. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record everybody, no false report was filed. Here's the back and forth:

User:Badlydrawnjeff

Three revert rule violation on LewRockwell.com (edit · talk · links · history · watch). Badlydrawnjeff (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log):

1. (cur) (last) 21:36, 23 March 2006 Badlydrawnjeff m (→Criticism - fmtg)
2. (cur) (last) 21:35, 23 March 2006 Badlydrawnjeff (rv. Do not falsely accuse people of vandalism. See talk page about changes.)
3. (cur) (last) 21:17, 23 March 2006 Badlydrawnjeff (rv to factual version. See link to what IHR actually claims on talk.)
4. (cur) (last) 20:37, 23 March 2006 Badlydrawnjeff (rv. Your version is not accurate, period. Do not edit war over this, see the discussion at the Sobran page)

Reported by: Rogerman 01:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

Comments:

Violation of 3RR

Actually, 3 reverts (one, two, three) and a formatting edit of my own edit. User would probably be better off worrying about his own POV editing on the article than creating false 3RR reports. Not his first false report, either, as shown on this page. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I left one out. Please add this edit to the list of violations:

(cur) (last) 21:34, 22 March 2006 Badlydrawnjeff (→Criticism - fixing criticism section for NPOV and facts, leaving note on talk)

Rogerman 01:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

Actually, that edit was at 16:34. No wonder you didn't include the diff links yourself. Absolutely incredible. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 01:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sir, that information is not correct. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LewRockwell.com&diff=45001321&oldid=44957624 to prove that this [21:34, 22 March 2006 Badlydrawnjeff (→Criticism - fixing criticism section for NPOV and facts, leaving note on talk)] edit did indeed take place. Please leave it up to the administrators to decide whether or not you violated 3RR. Cheers,

Rogerman 01:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

I'll leave it to ya'll to decide.

Rogerman 01:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman[reply]

re: 3RR

Please do NOT post 3RR reports on my talk page. Please see several of the reports above your own to see how you to correctly report a 3RR violation. Also note that a user needs to revert 4 times to be blocked. —Ruud 02:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you are giving me a hard time. I demonstrated that the user had enacted 4 reversions, which as you say is the requirement to be blocked. The reason I posted to your talk page was you deleted my post from the 3RR page. If I had reposted it, you might of just as well yelled at me for reposting after you had deleted it. If you take a look, you will see that I have demonstrated the evidence of a violation of 3RR.

Rogerman 02:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman[reply]

I see only three reverts. However, I may be wrong which is why you should report in the correct format. —Ruud 02:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rogerman, may I suggest a less stress-filled approach to editing? Take it easy, this is a long term project and we don't have to get it perfectly right today. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

watchlist

Is it possible to watch a particular user's contributions? Rogerman 17:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Rogerman

Each editor has a list of contributions. For example, yours is here: Special:Contributions/Rogerman. Cheers, -Will Beback 20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon talk pages

I've noticed that you left some notes on the talk pages of anonymous users saying that you will be watching their edits for possible problems. However, based on the wording, I'm afraid that new users might wind up getting the mistaken impression that this is some sort of official warning from Wikipedia. Please consider using a different wording to make it clearer that you speak for yourself, and make sure to sign your comments using four tildes. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right, I should be nicer. My comments above stand, but I'm going to reword them. Feel free to change that back if you prefer to preserve the historical record. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sobran

You're currently in violation of 3RR at Joseph Sobran, but I'm not going to report you because I want to see this worked out properly, among other reasons. Please consider explaining your wholeslae reverts on talk instead of working toward seeing the article protected again. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at my talk page. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi rogerman- you were reported for 3rr, but on the request of badlydrawnjeff and the user who reported you, you won't be blocked. Just please be aware of 3rr and please try to find some concensus rather than continuing to revert on a recently unprotected page . . . --He:ah? 20:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of your blanking at WP:RFCU

Do not do that again. Consider this a final warning that blanking notices on official process pages (WP:AIV, etc) has a very low tolerance and will lead to blocks for vandalism. Syrthiss 20:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, my work doesn't allow instant messaging software. Syrthiss 20:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sent just now. Syrthiss 20:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

I have unblocked your account, subject to the following terms:

First and foremost, that the blocking admin, Syrthiss, doesn't object.
Second, you must participate in the discussion of how to resolve the situation, located here.
Third, you're under an informal mentorship with me; if you have questions, you need to bring them to me, and if others have questions about your actions, they'll ask me where appropriate.
Fourth, you're not to participate in any further disruptive activity; no more revert warring, no meatpuppeting. You need to be sure to use clear edit summaries, and when reverted, take it immediately to the talk page for discussion.
Fifth, if the other parties agree, you need to request mediation on the issue that started all this. If you need help with this, let me know.

Those are the terms; it'd be helpful for you to post to ANI right away to address any concerns that have been brought up.

Welcome back to Wikipedia, and lets make it a better stay for everyone this time. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 01:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]