User talk:Tatababy

Hello, Tatababy, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Mojoworker (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right at WP:3RR at Southern Adventist University. If you make 1 more revert you are subject to having your account blocked and your editing ability suspended.Lionel (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tatababy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello.
Message added 23:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I'm not edit warring! I'm removing lies from an article!

First you'll have to show that what you're removing is lies. I was very clear when I warned you about edit warring 9 days ago - it has a very exact definition that you just happened to have met.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He never thought of himself as progressive. So i have to prove something isn't true to take out a lie? What if I wrote that Douglas is idiotic, would that then have to be proven to be a lie before being removed? Shouldn't it be the other way round when someone lies about someone trying to discredit them?

There is a difference between all-out lies and subtle ones. These lies appear to be subtle if they are lies. You need to prove that they are lies.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not supposed to do that.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Adventist University

Please stop reverting on the Ideology section of the article. On the Talk page we are working towards a compromise consensus. Feel free to comment there. Fountainviewkid 18:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding a lie to the article. Thank you. 20:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Southern Adventist University. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the text in contention that is supported by the link to Bluehost.com is a reliable source and this may fall under WP:BURDEN and/or WP:CHALLENGE -- so Tatababy's edit may not actually be edit warring, but a justified reversion. This whole shitstorm may need to go to WP:RSN or WP:ANI. Mojoworker (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the merits of the edit, Tatababy is edit warring and being disruptive. There is a way to deal with controversial issues, but simply continuing to revert and insisting that the other side is adding lies is not the way.--Kubigula (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been brought up at WP:ANI.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of the edit warring on the Southern Adventist University page, the consensus of the community is that the article should be subject to a WP:1RR restriction. This means that no editor may make more than 1 reversion per 24 hours to the article. Given your history on the article, I strongly caution you to adhere to the restriction.--Kubigula (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What mojo said, my edits don't count. They are "justified reversions." I don't understand why people want to smear him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatababy (talk • contribs)

Tatababy, that was the situation at the time, since the edits you were reverting then were not properly cited at the time. You got into trouble for the way you went about it, and accusing people of "lies" is not going to get you very far here. Now, however, there is a valid citation in place of James Walters saying that Cottrell "called for progress" and supported "progressive positions". If you don't think that depiction makes him a "Progressive Adventist" it appears there are others in agreement with you and you should discuss it at Talk:Southern Adventist University to try to work with the other editors to form consensus on acceptable wording. But I should warn you that there is a history of adversarial relationships among editors of this article, so you might want to bring your raincoat and a thick skin, so to speak. Because of this acrimony, reverting of other editors wording has been limited to once per day. I urge you to heed what Kubigula has told you -- do not undo changes again today, and not more that once a day after that. There are policies and procedures here on Wikipedia, even though some obtuse individuals choose to ignore them. If you have information to add to the article, you can make additions as often as you like, but make sure you have a proper source for them -- see: Wikipedia:Verifiability. I see you have not been properly welcomed, so I've included a welcome message at the top of this page. I would urge you to follow the links and read them and if you like it here, become a valued contributor to Wikipedia. Also note that you should "sign your name" on talk pages (like the one I'm posting on now, which is "your" talk page) as described at the top of the welcome message. I've signed your previous post for you. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mojo. I'll only come once a day then, I'll try to find some friends to help. Why can't we just force people to stop adding lies to the article? Tatababy (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tatababy, there are rules and policies on how to go about things on Wikipedia. If you look at WP:Verifiability you will see that the very first line of text in the article says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." So if there's a reliable source for the information, it can be included. Now you can also include a reliable source for information taking and opposing view and include that too, to provide balance. But you are best off participating in a discussion on the article's talk page before you make large changes. Mojoworker (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because we "fundamentalists" are liers. We're dishonest, we're evil and we like to vandalize the SAU article and say bad stuff about SAU. Fountainviewkid 19:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fountainviewkid, I realize you are frustrated and are being facetious with that comment. I offer you some sincere advice on your talk page. Mojoworker (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentalist Southern?

Please do add the controversial description "fundamentalist Adventist" to the Southern Adventist University page without first discussing it on the Talk page. Thanks. Fountainviewkid 18:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not controversial, common fact. The only people who disagree are fundamentalist themselves. Cottrell said it is, so did Spectrum. It's settled. Nothing to discuss. Tatababy (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this last comment explains why I don't like the idea of you freely editing. It is a debated point, not common fact. I guess everyone who disagrees automatically gets a label, eh? Fountainviewkid 19:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tatababy, with that edit, you reverted some legitimate changes by Kenatipo. I would revert you myself, but I've already made changes today that could be construed as a revert under the 1RR rule. I would guess that someone else will revert you shortly. You need to be more careful about your edits if you want to be taken seriously. If there are things you disagree with, discuss them first, or at the very least only remove the minor point of contention. There is obvious disagreement on the wording -- don't alienate everyone here by throwing out the non-controversial changes. If you can figure out how to self revert, please go back to Kenatipo's last version. I am leaving and don't have time to explain it to you. Mojoworker (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have but I'm blocked now. I don't know why. Tatababy (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Hi Tata, I just removed your last comment because it was a borderline personal attack. Please read the policy on WP:NPA if you have any questions. b W 19:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline personal attack? Kuru (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(outing removed)

Block notice

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your account is only being used for edit-warring and attacking other editors.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kubigula (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Well, at least I gave it an attempt and tried to get Tatababy to step back from the brink, but I think I may have been a bit too late with the welcome template and the advice. I don't know if this person could have become a constructive editor, but I fear we may never know. I feel badly they were bitten so severely for jumping into the midst of this dogfight — probably couldn't have chosen a worse place to make their first edit. Mojoworker (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I hope that Tata will make an unblock request and agree to more discussion rather than simply making the same change over and over again. I regret that we were never able to see what the response to my warning regarding civility would have been, or to your comments Mojo. It seems s/he was visibly offended by the (I still consider incorrect, and quite frankly, I agree that it is a lie to assassinate Cottrell'c character by some factions here) attempt to marginalize Cottrell's comments and was dealing with it best s/he knew how... b W 03:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ILl start discussing? Thats what i was supposed to do and didn't, right? Nobody hbe me a chance after telling me. Also, I've stopes removing the lie more than once a day after you told me. Tatababy (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As your talk page is now protected, you can email me if you want to make an unblock request.--Kubigula (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]