Misplaced Pages

Mediation

I have decided to take your case at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-07 Mark Lane (author). I would like a short statement from you--Phoenix 15 13:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to include the info if another source is found? No matter how unlikely it is that a source will be found, I can close the case if you agree--Phoenix 15 19:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

From the Mediation page located here, you will please note:

• User:Xenophrenic is requesting a second, independent source be located to support the information User:TDC would like to insert into a Biography of a Living Person.
• Let's try to find a second independent source that supports Scott's incorrect statement. Xenophrenic 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Got a second source?
• Find a source other than Scott. Xenophrenic 02:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Suggestion 3: Come up with a second independent source.
• Find a second source showing Lane produced and distributed such a film, and then you can mention it in his biography.
• Just find a second source, Cudgel.

I'm sorry, I forgot the question. Could you please repeat it? Xenophrenic 08:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I would advise you to revert yourself at WSI, or you will be blocked. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I would advise you to avoid inserting your own speculations and conclusions into articles, and stick to adding only verifiable sourced information, or your additions will be edited mercilessly. Xenophrenic 00:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• While I have held that you have not violated the terms of the three revert rule and decided not to block you, please do not think that continually reverting is an acceptable way of editing. The Winter Soldier Investigation is a highly controversial subject and it is very important to maintain strict neutrality when writing about it; if you need guidance from neutral people, there are plenty of us about. Please take care not to become disruptive when you are editing; Misplaced Pages is not a contest. Sam Blacketer 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I haven't violated WP:3RR. I also do not "continually revert," and you'll notice I have let previously reverted edits stand pending further discussion -- long before you arrived on my talk page. It appears you have taken but a cursory glance at this situation, and shot from the hip in a predictable (and totally inappropriate) manner. Should you find yourself with some extra time, may I recommend that you look a little further into the edits upon which you comment, and provide me with some useable guidance? Xenophrenic 00:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for getting back to me. In deprecating reverting as a method of editing I was commenting generally, and I would not dream of making the provocative remark "If the cap fits...". It's normally best not to assume that other editors are making accidental edits, even if you can't understand them or think their edit is unconstructive. It is perfectly good editing practice to ask politely what they meant and to revert if you do not receive a reply. Sam Blacketer 21:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I had to force myself to assume the other editor's edit was "accidental." It's normally best to provide source citations, not delete them, and it is normally best to avoid inserting weasel word conclusions without a reliable source, such as "alleged." Just a couple of polite reminders, since they were apparently overlooked when you were commenting on the above edits and reverts. I won't be expecting a response, of course. Xenophrenic 00:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with many of the comments above. Misplaced Pages does not take sides and, as it has been written, much of the wording in the Winter Soldier article seems to take the position that the claims have been proven, when they have not. There has been a lot of work put into the project and it is admirable work, but that does not mean that Misplaced Pages should take sides and write the article as if every thing that is alleged is true. If it is an allegation then the article needs to say that it is an allegation.--JobsElihu 07:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is an allegation then the article needs to say that it is an allegation? Not exactly. If a reliable secondary or tertiary source says it is an allegation, then the article can say it is an allegation; accompanied by all necessary source citations, of course. Xenophrenic 08:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. If something is an allegation then it needs to say that it is an allegation. Have you ever heard of defamation laws?--JobsElihu 14:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest 3RR report

When involved in an editing dispute, it is best to avoid simply updating your version and ignoring the change made by others, which is what you seem to have done here. I do not accept your statement that you asked what JobsElihu meant and then reverted when you did not get a reply; you were in constant communication with him on his talk page and on the article talk page. Reverting after that is provocative unless you have come to an agreement, and you had not arrived at agreement.

You may not have broken the three revert rule but reverting can still become disruptive; and disruptive editing can lead to being blocked even if you do not actually break the 3RR. You have been able to collaborate with TDC to improve the sourcing of the article; you sometimes need to steel yourself to work with other people who have a different attitude. Sam Blacketer 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I wish to thank you for spending the time and effort to look into this matter. All of the advice and cautions you have provided are solid in their own right, and they are appreciated. However, once again I must disagree with a couple of your assertions, and I hope you will hear me out on this.

I agree 110% that when involved in an editing dispute, it is best to avoid simply updating your version and ignoring changes made by others. A good example would be this edit by TDC. Notice how his edit inserts dead links back into the article, deletes citations and removes punctuation, etc? These are clear signs that he has ignored changes made by others. His edit summary says misleadingly (here's the page #), which is another clear sign. Now let's take the example of mine you said caused you some concern. My edit, like TDCs, has numerous changes as well, so I direct readers to the Talk page for further explanation with this edit summary: (edits per Talk page). Looking through the changes made in my edit, you'll see I removed a dead link that was discussed on the Talk page. You will also see I removed the footnote pointer to that dead link. Per discussions on the Talk page, I discovered citations and punctuation were deleted accidently by JobsElihu, so I replaced them. Another edit summary, (a soldier is not an airman is not a sailor and is not a Marine), expressed concern with the word "soldier", so I replaced it with the more appropriate word, "serviceman." Far from "ignoring changes made by others," I integrate my changes with them. I think if you look closer at the edit of mine that you mentioned, you will see that you have mischaracterized it.

My recent edit has also removed the word "allegations" (again) from the article, per the Talk page discussion with JobsElihu. He expressed his position that he wanted that word in the article, and I in return said that's fine, as long as cited sources support it. (A fundamental Misplaced Pages rule.) We have communicated several times since then about politics and the article without going back to that item, so I removed those words from the article pending source citations. You called it provocative to revert without coming to an agreement, and again I feel you have mischaracterized my edit. I thought I was being quite civil, and anything but provocative in our communications. After all, every editor is already bound by the agreement that when you want to put words into an article, put the source citations in there with them. Please revisit the edits of TDC, JobsElihu and myself on that article, and tell me which are really disruptive. Thank you again, Xenophrenic 00:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not good enough to defend yourself against accusations of provocative editing by saying that others are being provocative. I am not able to take sides on the content of the edits. However I am concerned that you are continuing only to update your version and to disregard the fact that other editors still have problems with it.

Specifically you have come up to the three revert absolute limit in respect of these three edits:

18:27, 12 October 2007

01:29, 13 October 2007

03:40, 13 October 2007

Yes, I have spotted that TDC also has three reverts over the last sentence in the lead paragraph. I will be informing him, but please stay away from reverting the page and continue to discuss on the talk page to try to reach consensus. The reverting on this page is excessive, whoever is doing it. Sam Blacketer 09:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)