User talk:TreadingWater

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Spellcast (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this user was blocked because they were autoblocked due to the Silent hippo block, I would urge a reconsidering: all their edits appear to be in good faith. It's likely a school. See also User talk:Ezekiel 7:19#Unblock request. –xeno (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the editor, not an autoblock, this is a direct block [1],— Ѕandahl ♥ 22:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock reviewed|1=I respectfully ask you to please unblock this account because it was definitely mistakenly blocked. This account--TreadingWater--is the only Wikipedia account which I have, so it would be impossible for me to be "abusing multiple accounts". The only guess that I've been able to come up with for why a Wikipedia administrator or autoblock would block this account is that perhaps someone else in this building has edited similar articles, since I know there are some overlapping interests among some of us here. Or perhaps multiple Wikipedia accounts from the same building were mistakenly assumed to be all from just one person? I don't know, those are just a couple of guesses, and I wasn't given any kind of warning, so this is all a surprise and mystery to me. But again, I give you my unequivocal word that this is the only Wikipedia account which I have, so I would appreciate it if you would please unblock this account. Thank you for your consideration.}}

Please compare [2] and [3]. Do you have an explanation for this? Sandstein 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history there, you'll see that I definitely am not the person who wrote that vandalizing Lance Armstrong reference; I was trying to undo the vandalism (as I wrote in my edit summary: "undid vandalism"). I have absolutely no interest in vandalizing Wikipedia articles, and resent people who do; if I was unsuccessful in my attempt to undo a vandal's work, I am genuinely sorry. I am very new to Wikipedia, and have only tried to do a few edits, so I'm still learning how to do this. Is that why I was blocked, because I was unsuccessful in trying to undo a vandal's work? I had no idea that I goofed up that attempt to undo that vandalism, really. If you unblock me, I promise to be very careful in learning how to correctly do edits.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I've gone ahead and unblocked based on the circumstances, and my comment above. Happy editing, –xeno (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: –xeno (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

My apologies if I got this wrong. The main reason for the block was reinserting this edit 8 hours after the vandalism was removed. Spellcast (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, TreadingWater! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! –xeno (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your contributions

Your recent unsourced contributions to page such as Bat, Generation and Dream border on vandalism. Please don't repeat such edits, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sandstein 20:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You put a comment on the bottom of my talk page which I am responding to. I genuinely don't understand why you put that comment there, could you please explain to me what you believe is problematic about the edits I made? You said that the edits I made to the Bat, Generation, and Dream articles bordered on vandalism, but I have no idea wht would give you that impression. I believe that the facts I used in those edits were correct, and reflect common usage. The facts for the Bat and Dream page I found on this web page: http://www.davesdaily.com/interesting/40-interesting-facts.htm. I have no reason to believe that the facts on this page are innacurate. I think interesting but relatively unknown facts like this are helpful contributions to Wikipedia articles. The edit I made on the Generation page reflect what I believe to be a consensus about these generational demarcations. Even if I accidntally got one of these facts wrong, I was certainly acting in good faith. I just checked on Wikipedia's vandalism article and it says: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". I want to continue to be a helpful editor on Wikipedia, so if I am somehow inncorrectly editing, please tell me specifically what I am doing that is incorrect. I don't believe that I have engaged in vandalism of any kind here, but just in case I have, I would like to know how, so I don't do it again. Thank you.TreadingWater (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for mistaking your edits for vandalism. Here's what whas wrong with them:

They were unsourced, causing me to believe that you have made them up. Always provide a source when adding information to an article. WP:REF tells you how.
The webpage http://www.davesdaily.com/interesting/40-interesting-facts.htm is not a reliable source. Always take your information from reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not random websites. WP:RS explains this in more detail.
Their tone was inappropriate. In this edit, you speak of "wasted children", even though the topic of the article is starvation, not "wasting", whatever that may mean.

Again, I apologise for not assuming good faith in your case, but I ask you to please observe the advice above if you want to prevent more misunderstandings of this sort. Thank you and feel free to ask me if you need any help. Sandstein 08:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hey could job on your resent edit on the Generations page. I feel we need to get away from all Generation names in the Generations article and it should be more of a definition as to what a generation is. I understand there are various schools of thought on where generation types or names start and stop, but this isn't the article for that. Keep up the good work!--208.110.215.58 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Generation X, you will be blocked from editing. Ledboots (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Ledboots has used this tactic of making innapropriate accuasations of vandalism repeatedly against those who dare to offer opinions different than his on the Generation X article. He knows fully well my edits are in good faith and don't in any way fit into any Wikipedia definition of vandalism. Yet he accuses me, as he has accused many other editors of vandalism, where there is no vandalism. Look at Ledboots' history which will tell you everything you need to know about what kind of editor he is and why all of us need to be vigalant to keep editors like this from hurting the good name of Wikipedia.TreadingWater (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing me of bullying, yet I'm striving (and others) to reach a middle ground and you're still insisting on your precious 1965. Who's the real bully? We have been actively discussing this, so you need to join in, and stop with the edit war! Ledboots (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and references

Treading. While you're reflecting on how we're going to improve the Baby Boomer article, could you take a moment and clean up those sources? Like Author, Date, Article, Periodical, Link. Take a look at WP:FOOT. Thanks! --Knulclunk (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up what sources? TreadingWater (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Generation Jones sources on the Baby Boomer page are just links. Really they should be formatted as per WP:FOOT. That allows users to follow up and research on their own. It also associates the reference with an author and a periodical, strengthening credibility.--Knulclunk (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

baby boomers

Let's try it my way for a few days and get some consensus, please --Knulclunk (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my page.--Knulclunk (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I can't find any evidence that you've been warned for 3RR, only for disruptive use of sock puppets, so:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Baby Boomers. 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 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

In addition, if you happen to be 170.170.59.139, I would advise you to self-revert your last edit immediately, or you'll be blocked again as using IP addresses to evade edit warring complaints. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor TreadingWater: This is a copy of a comment I just posted on Arthur Rubin's user talk page, in response to something you wrote there.

Without getting into the substance of the edits to which you refer above (since I probably have not read the articles or the edits in question), I would like to make a general comment.

You state that one of your "main concerns" is that Arthur Rubin "edit[s] articles about topics which [Rubin has] only limited knowledge about [ . . . . ]." You also state: "I see that you [Arthur Rubin] edit a huge number of articles on Wikipedia, and you can’t be expected to be knowledgeable about so many different topics, but your approach results in too much inaccuracy in Wiki articles."

With all due respect, TreadingWater, your concern is misplaced. In Wikipedia, there is no requirement that anyone have any expertise in a given field to edit an article in that field -- even if the field is highly technical in nature.

That means, for example, that if I try to edit Wikipedia articles on mathematics (especially higher mathematics), editor Arthur Rubin (a recognized expert in mathematics) would have no reasonable ground for expressing concern because I am editing a Wikipedia "topic about which I have limited knowledge". (Arthur might well be frustrated, however, by my lack of mathematical knowledge; the void in the area of my brain where the knowledge of higher math should go is certainly immense, I assure you).

Again, as to the other parts of your complaint with Arthur Rubin, I can express no opinion pro or con, as I have not read the edits in question.

Just my two cents worth. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of generations

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of generations, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of generations (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Helicopter parent has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 18:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Generation Jones

An article that you have been involved in editing, Generation Jones, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones (3rd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. A. Yager (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones (3rd nomination): Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Also, please do not accuse users who bring articles to AFD of vandalism, as you did here. MuZemike 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cite

TreadingWater, you may wish to consider using the reftools gadget to improve the readability of the citations you add to Gen Jones. After all links on their own don't provide much information to us humans. A. Yager (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an SPI about the Generation Jones fiasco

The investigation page can be found here. Unitanode 19:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. You may appeal using {{unblock}}, e-mail the blocking administrator, or use the unblock-en-l mailing list. See WP:UNBLOCK for more information. --Kanonkas : Talk 13:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Reverting to the last version of articles before you were blocked is not generally considered productive. It may be wrong to call your edits vandalism, but it's certainly wrong to call them productive. Please do not edit against the consensus of all editors during the time you were blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are in reference to your edits, not you personally: You continue to show the bad faith editing and lack of knowledge about generations which you have exhibited so often, Arthur Rubin. Your claim of a consensus against GenJones is laughable...there isn't anything a million miles from a consensus supporting your minority view. Even you have acknowledged in the past that GenJones should be included on the other generation pages. In fact, it is only you, and a couple of other uninformed editors, who object to GenJones at all. So please stop editing against the consensus of the other editors here.TreadingWater (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Generation Jones. 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. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're an SPA

You need to stop edit-warring. Rubin and I are under no obligation to reargue the discussions that you and your sockpuppets lost three months ago. Unit Anode 00:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I have opened a thread regarding your disruptive editing. It can be found here. Unit Anode 00:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I did not invite User:Unitanode to comment on your edits; a reviewing Admin on one of the 3RR reports did so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I believe the admin's name was Ed Johnston. Unit Anode 00:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

per this complaint at WP:AN3. I understand that your original indef block from June 30 was shortened based on promises of good behavior given to Fred Bauder on IRC. Since you resumed POV-pushing about Generation Jones across 32 articles less than a day after your 3-month block expired, I believe you have not reformed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]