Jump to content

Edit filter log

Details for log entry 755670

17:04, 17 July 2009: 76.114.133.44 (talk) triggered filter 65, performing the action "edit" on User talk:76.114.133.44. Actions taken: Tag; Filter description: Excessive whitespace (examine)

Changes made in edit

But there's NOTHING contentious about the previous marriage and divorce. Those are facts. And either they are poorly or properly sourced.
But there's NOTHING contentious about the previous marriage and divorce. Those are facts. And either they are poorly or properly sourced.
At the moment, in this matter, we are not contending that issue. We agree. So let's note it and move on to getting it properly sourced. Rather than poorly censored.{{unsignedIP|76.114.133.44}}
At the moment, in this matter, we are not contending that issue. We agree. So let's note it and move on to getting it properly sourced. Rather than poorly censored.{{unsignedIP|76.114.133.44}}

:It's your opinion that there is nothing contentious about a potential previous marriage and divorce. Others may not share that opinion. It should be removed, and stay removed, until '''after''' a source is provided. I have other things to do now...so I'll have to let someone else deal with it. Enjoy your block when they get around to reviewing the issue at [[WP:AN3]]. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 14:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
:It's your opinion that there is nothing contentious about a potential previous marriage and divorce. Others may not share that opinion. It should be removed, and stay removed, until '''after''' a source is provided. I have other things to do now...so I'll have to let someone else deal with it. Enjoy your block when they get around to reviewing the issue at [[WP:AN3]]. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 14:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
::I blocked per a request at RfPP. This edit-warring is not acceptable. And yes, that information need a source. [[User:Enigmaman|'''<font color="blue">Enigma</font>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Enigmaman|''<font color="#FFA500">msg</font>'']]</sup> 15:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
::I blocked per a request at RfPP. This edit-warring is not acceptable. And yes, that information need a source. [[User:Enigmaman|'''<font color="blue">Enigma</font>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Enigmaman|''<font color="#FFA500">msg</font>'']]</sup> 15:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Who said the information didn't need a source? Again, even a casual user of Wikipedia sees the advance of information before the sourcing catches up. Flagging/questioning information, or a source, would make far more sense than what's occurring here. (Anyone familiar with Oliver Wendell Holmes and the marketplace of ideas?)

As for the preceding response, so glad you see the "joy" in blocks over the..."heartache?" of free-flowing information.
Again, what "opinion" is there to stating the FACTS of a previous marriage and divorce of a public figure? How are FACTS contentious? There is no opinion in stating a FACT.
If you don't believe the FACT, if you question the FACT's source, then either is worth noting.
Here's an opinion for you, though: censorship sucks. Take comfort in the annals of that behavior, would-be Comstockers. : )

Action parameters

VariableValue
Name of the user account (user_name)
'76.114.133.44'
Page ID (page_id)
'23638100'
Page namespace (page_namespace)
3
Page title without namespace (page_title)
'76.114.133.44'
Full page title (page_prefixedtitle)
'User talk:76.114.133.44'
Action (action)
'edit'
Edit summary/reason (summary)
'/* You'll need sources if you want the information to stay */ '
Whether or not the edit is marked as minor (no longer in use) (minor_edit)
false
Old page wikitext, before the edit (old_wikitext)
'==July 2009== I will warn you once. Do not undo my edit on [[Rebecca Quick]]'s article. Next time you revert, I’ll report you to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for edit warring, and putting unsourced & inappropriate edit to a living person’s biography, as you did to this article. [[User:KeltieMartinFan|KeltieMartinFan]] ([[User talk:KeltieMartinFan|talk]]) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Keltie -- if it's appropriate to mention a marriage in a living person's biography, then it's certainly NOT inappropriate to mention previous marital information. C'mon, wake up. ::I never said it was inappropriate to mention one person’s marriage. You are severely misunderstanding. Divorce however is a different story. Whether or not that information is true about Miss Quick, that is her own personal information. As far as all I know, that is not one she is not willing to divulge, and therefore is none of yours or mine business to say. No official source was ever published of the matter. And therefore, everyone, INCLUDING YOU, should respect her privacy in that matter. And I see you have not been civil with what I've been telling you. Therefore, I'll going to report you. [[User:KeltieMartinFan|KeltieMartinFan]] ([[User talk:KeltieMartinFan|talk]]) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Keltie -- You don't know what you're talking about! Divorce is NOT a different story. Marital information is marital information, marriage or divorce. One isn't public and the other private. Divorces are PUBLIC information, recorded in the same manner as marriages. Plus, Ms. Quick is a PUBLIC figure. You are the uncivil one, as I can see from your contentious editing history. It's time to report you again, apparently. ::You are right, I have been reported before. All of them by obnoxious editors like you, who put derogatory information. All who have reported on me in the past...they were ALL silenced one way or another by administrators. There was never a legitimate reason for an administrator to hand down an administrative action to me. Let this be another warning to you the next time you try to downgrade my credibility. [[User:KeltieMartinFan|KeltieMartinFan]] ([[User talk:KeltieMartinFan|talk]]) 13:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC) ==You'll need sources if you want the information to stay== [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Introduction|Welcome]] to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions{{#if:|, including your edits to [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographical information about living persons]] must not be [[Wikipedia:Libel|libelous]]. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|sources]]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-biog1 --> <br/> Also, please be aware of the [[WP:3RR|3 revert rule]]. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 13:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC) It may be inadequately sourced, but previous marriage and divorce -- especially by a public figure -- is not even close to being libelous. {{unsignedIP|76.114.133.44}} :I never said that it was libelous. It still needs a source to stay. And you will have reverted past 3RR after being warned if you add it again. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 13:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC) What kind of debate is this? 1. You first referenced libel in your message. 2. Even casual users of Wikipedia (like myself) see data sourcing regularly questioned/flagged. Did either you or the previous "editor" do that in this case? No. One decides to be an arbiter on public taste, as if divorce is undisclosed cancer. You choose to censor first rather than ask for more verification. 3. 3RR sounds like a solid rule, and would have worked well if applied to the previous arbiter. 4. The previous marital information is on the web. You know this is a short profile. You know it's not heavily sourced throughout. Can't we have a bit of decency here in a little lag-time on sourcing? ::The word 'libelous' is mentioned in the templated warning. I never said that this material was libelous. It could be a controversial statement depending on who you ask. In any case, please read [[WP:BLP]]. This information needs a source. It will continue to be reverted if you continue to add it without one. Also, please note that 3RR doesn't apply when reverting BLP vios. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 14:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC) If you include reference to libel, then you're implying it. Again, divorce is a publicly recorded proceeding, and this is a PUBLIC FIGURE. Yes, sources will resolve this. But rather than censoring, choose to do what I've seen in many other instances: flag/question it for the moment as poorly sourced. (That's not an unreasonable accommodation.) :[[WP:BLP]]. Please read it. This information needs a source. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 14:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, so please choose to flag as poorly sourced. (Edit with a scalpel, not an ax.) :If you still think that flagging it as poorly sourced is a reasonable accommodation, then you still haven't read [[WP:BLP]]. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 14:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC) And, with all due respect, you don't understand what "contentious" means. Is the glass half full or half empty? We could contend that all day, given opposing views. But there's NOTHING contentious about the previous marriage and divorce. Those are facts. And either they are poorly or properly sourced. At the moment, in this matter, we are not contending that issue. We agree. So let's note it and move on to getting it properly sourced. Rather than poorly censored.{{unsignedIP|76.114.133.44}} :It's your opinion that there is nothing contentious about a potential previous marriage and divorce. Others may not share that opinion. It should be removed, and stay removed, until '''after''' a source is provided. I have other things to do now...so I'll have to let someone else deal with it. Enjoy your block when they get around to reviewing the issue at [[WP:AN3]]. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 14:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC) ::I blocked per a request at RfPP. This edit-warring is not acceptable. And yes, that information need a source. [[User:Enigmaman|'''<font color="blue">Enigma</font>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Enigmaman|''<font color="#FFA500">msg</font>'']]</sup> 15:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)'
New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext)
'==July 2009== I will warn you once. Do not undo my edit on [[Rebecca Quick]]'s article. Next time you revert, I’ll report you to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for edit warring, and putting unsourced & inappropriate edit to a living person’s biography, as you did to this article. [[User:KeltieMartinFan|KeltieMartinFan]] ([[User talk:KeltieMartinFan|talk]]) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Keltie -- if it's appropriate to mention a marriage in a living person's biography, then it's certainly NOT inappropriate to mention previous marital information. C'mon, wake up. ::I never said it was inappropriate to mention one person’s marriage. You are severely misunderstanding. Divorce however is a different story. Whether or not that information is true about Miss Quick, that is her own personal information. As far as all I know, that is not one she is not willing to divulge, and therefore is none of yours or mine business to say. No official source was ever published of the matter. And therefore, everyone, INCLUDING YOU, should respect her privacy in that matter. And I see you have not been civil with what I've been telling you. Therefore, I'll going to report you. [[User:KeltieMartinFan|KeltieMartinFan]] ([[User talk:KeltieMartinFan|talk]]) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Keltie -- You don't know what you're talking about! Divorce is NOT a different story. Marital information is marital information, marriage or divorce. One isn't public and the other private. Divorces are PUBLIC information, recorded in the same manner as marriages. Plus, Ms. Quick is a PUBLIC figure. You are the uncivil one, as I can see from your contentious editing history. It's time to report you again, apparently. ::You are right, I have been reported before. All of them by obnoxious editors like you, who put derogatory information. All who have reported on me in the past...they were ALL silenced one way or another by administrators. There was never a legitimate reason for an administrator to hand down an administrative action to me. Let this be another warning to you the next time you try to downgrade my credibility. [[User:KeltieMartinFan|KeltieMartinFan]] ([[User talk:KeltieMartinFan|talk]]) 13:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC) ==You'll need sources if you want the information to stay== [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] [[Wikipedia:Introduction|Welcome]] to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions{{#if:|, including your edits to [[:{{{1}}}]]}}. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographical information about living persons]] must not be [[Wikipedia:Libel|libelous]]. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|sources]]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-biog1 --> <br/> Also, please be aware of the [[WP:3RR|3 revert rule]]. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 13:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC) It may be inadequately sourced, but previous marriage and divorce -- especially by a public figure -- is not even close to being libelous. {{unsignedIP|76.114.133.44}} :I never said that it was libelous. It still needs a source to stay. And you will have reverted past 3RR after being warned if you add it again. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 13:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC) What kind of debate is this? 1. You first referenced libel in your message. 2. Even casual users of Wikipedia (like myself) see data sourcing regularly questioned/flagged. Did either you or the previous "editor" do that in this case? No. One decides to be an arbiter on public taste, as if divorce is undisclosed cancer. You choose to censor first rather than ask for more verification. 3. 3RR sounds like a solid rule, and would have worked well if applied to the previous arbiter. 4. The previous marital information is on the web. You know this is a short profile. You know it's not heavily sourced throughout. Can't we have a bit of decency here in a little lag-time on sourcing? ::The word 'libelous' is mentioned in the templated warning. I never said that this material was libelous. It could be a controversial statement depending on who you ask. In any case, please read [[WP:BLP]]. This information needs a source. It will continue to be reverted if you continue to add it without one. Also, please note that 3RR doesn't apply when reverting BLP vios. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 14:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC) If you include reference to libel, then you're implying it. Again, divorce is a publicly recorded proceeding, and this is a PUBLIC FIGURE. Yes, sources will resolve this. But rather than censoring, choose to do what I've seen in many other instances: flag/question it for the moment as poorly sourced. (That's not an unreasonable accommodation.) :[[WP:BLP]]. Please read it. This information needs a source. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 14:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, so please choose to flag as poorly sourced. (Edit with a scalpel, not an ax.) :If you still think that flagging it as poorly sourced is a reasonable accommodation, then you still haven't read [[WP:BLP]]. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 14:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC) And, with all due respect, you don't understand what "contentious" means. Is the glass half full or half empty? We could contend that all day, given opposing views. But there's NOTHING contentious about the previous marriage and divorce. Those are facts. And either they are poorly or properly sourced. At the moment, in this matter, we are not contending that issue. We agree. So let's note it and move on to getting it properly sourced. Rather than poorly censored.{{unsignedIP|76.114.133.44}} :It's your opinion that there is nothing contentious about a potential previous marriage and divorce. Others may not share that opinion. It should be removed, and stay removed, until '''after''' a source is provided. I have other things to do now...so I'll have to let someone else deal with it. Enjoy your block when they get around to reviewing the issue at [[WP:AN3]]. --[[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 14:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC) ::I blocked per a request at RfPP. This edit-warring is not acceptable. And yes, that information need a source. [[User:Enigmaman|'''<font color="blue">Enigma</font>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Enigmaman|''<font color="#FFA500">msg</font>'']]</sup> 15:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Who said the information didn't need a source? Again, even a casual user of Wikipedia sees the advance of information before the sourcing catches up. Flagging/questioning information, or a source, would make far more sense than what's occurring here. (Anyone familiar with Oliver Wendell Holmes and the marketplace of ideas?) As for the preceding response, so glad you see the "joy" in blocks over the..."heartache?" of free-flowing information. Again, what "opinion" is there to stating the FACTS of a previous marriage and divorce of a public figure? How are FACTS contentious? There is no opinion in stating a FACT. If you don't believe the FACT, if you question the FACT's source, then either is worth noting. Here's an opinion for you, though: censorship sucks. Take comfort in the annals of that behavior, would-be Comstockers. : )'
Whether or not the change was made through a Tor exit node (tor_exit_node)
0
Unix timestamp of change (timestamp)
1247850299