User talk:Spmdr

Welcome!

Hello, Spmdr, 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! Zad68 14:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC) (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Sunbeam Tiger. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Zad68 14:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to unblock early here if you agree to stop edit warring on the page in question. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:58, 13 September 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).

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

Request reason:

I have contacted both persons and offered to go over the misinformation in the published sources. Nothing can be done about published misinformation EXCEPT to NOT continue it here. I am willing to support ALL the changes I made in ANY way nessiary. I have owned a Tiger for 34 years and have been working on them (I can provide a list that includes ALL 3 Le Mans cars)since 1990. If there is something I don't know about the Sunbeam Tiger, I am the first who NEEDS to know. Seeing something in print does not make it fact. BTW, adding info to Wiki is not what I would say is "user frendly." ...I have attemped to add referances and failed. ...and I am failing spell check 101... Spmdr (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Also, please read WP:Edit warring and Mark Arsten's comment above before making another unblock request. Singularity42 (talk) 16:08, 13 September 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.

Will someone tell me how I am to deal with this:

Sunbeam Tiger info

Eric,

I'm prepared to defend the changes I made.

Where would you like to start? Spmdr (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to start with you fucking off. I don't have the time or motivation to deal with wankers like you. Eric Corbett 14:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And tell me how this fits into the world of Wiki? Spmdr

Well, not everyone here takes such a robust approach to editors with whom they disagree. You might like to read Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing with incivility. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what is seems to me you are saying is that it is MY problem?

I DON'T know how to be civil?

Look who is running the show at this point!

Mr. Civil! AKA Eric Corbett

Eric I can deal with, Wiki is, at this point, unknown.

...But not looking good.

Spmdr (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all ears. Help me understand.

Eric seems to be the problem.

Tell me where I'm wrong, based on what I have read about Wiki goals?

Spmdr (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you haven't received the most friendly welcome here. One problem is that you, perhaps unwittingly, chose to edit a "featured article" - that is, one of abnormally high quality, over which some editors have expended a great deal of time and effort and where unexplained changes to text are resisted, sometimes quite strongly. Secondly, you made the very common mistake of editing on the basis of what you believe (perhaps quite rightly - I've no idea in this case) to be correct, rather than editing on the basis of what reliable sources say is correct. That's somewhat in the nature of Wikipedia - it is not a place where original research can be carried out, it is a place that reports what other people have written. But, the particular editor you annoyed is in many respects not typical of editors here. Some of us try to be quite polite, when possible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Thanks!

I can see I have jumped into a process that I am not up on. The good news is that for those that think the Wiki Tiger info is good now, wait until it is based on facts...

...as they say, "not yet in evidence"

Thanks again!

Spmdr (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And just to be clear, I can not be more willing to SHOW / explain to anyone who has an open mind

Why I have made the changes.

Clearly there are those that believe, as fact, what they read.

...they MAY be beyond hope.

Spmdr (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best approach would be for you to find written sources that accord with what you've said and - once you've demonstrated that you are not going to break the "rules" like WP:3RR again and been unblocked - provide that information to other editors on the article talk page. Good luck. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2RR, not 3RR here, let alone bright-line. 2RR, same as Eric, but without the abuse. Then an immediate block. Eric had already reverted and a one-sided EW warning had been issued (which evidently had some effect), but still a block. Eric's abuse, as usual, goes unchallenged by admins. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Well, to be honest, I am an WP:INVOLVED admin with regard to Eric Corbett due to my past criticism of him and shouldn't be taking any admin actions against him for that reason at least. I also tend to privilege the authors of featured articles when they're reverting back to the version that passed FAC somewhat, although of course that shouldn't be a get-out-of-jall-free card. That being said, I can see why you think this situation was handled unfairly here, and looking over the evidence again today, you might be right. I'll think over the situation some more. If you feel strongly about the other party's conduct, I would recommend opening a thread about him at ANI, opening an RFC/U or even filing an arbitration request. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A clear explanation from you to the editor here - who had made a grand total of eight edits on this site before engaging with Eric (not 80,000, or 8,000 - eight) - of why he was blocked, when the person who told him to "fuck off" gets off with not so much as a slap on the wrist, might be in order, don't you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think all I can offer for an explanation is that I made a serious mistake. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi Spmdr, I apologize for blocking you yesterday. That was unduly harsh of me. While following WP:BRD is the best practice, blocking you for only two reverts was not the way to treat a new user. I'll note in your block log that that was an unfounded block. I generally try to encourage new users to stay and contribute, and since I seem to have done the opposite here, I'm deeply sorry. I hope you will continue to edit the project, and hope you don't face any other administrative misjudgments. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Spmdr (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. A grown-up admin who actually admits his mistakes and apologizes. Kudos, Mark Arsten. Writegeist (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]