Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:55, 4 February 2010

Welcome

Hello, DuKu! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. 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! SpikeToronto 07:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Misplaced Pages • Article Creation Wizard 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 Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines 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

Euclid Data missing from the english wikipedia.

We read15 that “Euclid, son of Naucrates, grandson of Zenarchus16 , called the author of geometry, a philosopher of somewhat ancient date, a Greek by nationality domiciled at Damascus, born at Tyre, most learned in the science of geometry, published a most excellent and most useful work entitled the foundation or elements of geometry

15 Casiri, Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis, I. p. 339. Casiri's source is alQifti (d. 1248), the author of the Ta'rīkh al-H<*>ukamā, a collection of biographies of philosophers, mathematicians, astronomers etc.

“Basilides of Tyre, O Protarchus, when he came to Alexandria and met my father, spent the greater part of his sojourn with him on account of their common interest in mathematics. And once, when examining the treatise written by Apollonius about the comparison between the dodecahedron and the icosahedron inscribed in the same sphere, (showing) what ratio they have to one another, they thought that Apollonius had not expounded this matter properly, and accordingly they emended the exposition, as I was able to learn from my father. And I myself, later, fell in with another book published by Apollonius, containing a demonstration relating to the subject, and I was greatly interested in the investigation of the problem. The book published by Apollonius is accessible to all-- for it has a large circulation, having apparently been carefully written out later--but I decided to send you the comments which seem to me to be necessary, for you will through your proficiency in mathematics in general and in geometry in particular form an expert judgment on what I am about to say, and you will lend a kindly ear to my disquisition for the sake of your friendship to my father and your goodwill to me.”

The idea that Apollonius preceded Euclid must evidently have been derived from the passage just quoted. It explains other things besides. Basilides must have been confused with basileus, and we have a probable explanation of the “Alexandrian king,” and of the “learned men who visited” Alexandria. It is possible also that in the “Tyrian” of Hypsicles' preface we have the origin of the notion that Euclid was born in Tyre. These inferences argue, no doubt, very defective knowledge of Greek: but we could expect no better from those who took the Organon of Aristotle to be “instrumentum musicum pneumaticum,” and who explained the name of Euclid, which they variously pronounced as Uclides or Icludes, to be compounded of Ucli a key, and Dis a measure, or, as some say, geometry, so that Uclides is equivalent to the key of geometry! http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Euc.+1 --DuKu (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware that articles related to climate change are particularly sensitive at the moment

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climate change denial, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Template:Z9 The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:DuKu reported by User:Finell (Result: 31h). EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

See above section about my cooperation, after i was adviced about takeing part in an edit war. Here is the discussion where Finell also took part. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Euclid#Consensus_and_Opinion_on_adding_link_to_Perseus_and_beyond --DuKu (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

After Clovis Sangrail made me aware that i'm part of an edit war, i stopped so and acted as advised by him. Further i started a new discussion on the talk page of euclid, where Finell also took part. Later he asked for action, even though i did not further tried to edit the wiki page. I cannot answer on the block page, but Finell is makeing wrong statements about my behaviour. Nowhere do i say that euclid is of oriental origin. Beside he is considered already from alexandria (see current wiki). All i want is to add missing information on euclid origins, which not yet covered by the article. Further i acknowledged not to add a certain source. In this regards Finell is twisting this with later edits up.

Decline reason:

Without comment to the merit of this arguement, it seems rather moot to unblock at this point since the block expires in 1 hour. Jayron32 03:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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.

Novangelis - About "no personal attacks" and reporting content disputes as vandalism

The Misplaced Pages policy on personal attacks means you restrict the discussion to constructive content. If comments like "seems to have no intrest in science" are not clear violations (and it is close), they are clear violation of civility (1. Direct rudeness.... (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts.

Do not throw around threats of reporting vandalism until you learn what it is not. There are legitimate reasons for deleting a link that is slow to load (as it turns out, it does load eventually) and is labeled by a personal interpretation rather than its content.Novangelis (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Information regarding the user Novangelis http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Novangelis#Euclid_Vandalism --DuKu (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Finell's accusations (related to my bann)

DuKu is editing warring over Euclid, a long stable article, against consensus (2 editors other than me have also reverted him) and is mis-characterizing one source to contend that Euclid is of "oriental origin". I added the external link that DuKu wanted to add, but with a correct citation and without the editor's mis-description of the link as being about Euclid's "oriental origin", in the References section, but that did not satisfy DuKu.

Before DuKu's most recent edits and reverts, he added a link to a self-published paper by someone who is not a reliable source on the topic and who promotes a WP:FRINGE POV on mathematics history, which was discussed and settled a long time ago on the article's talk page (Talk:Euclid#Uclides_-_The_Key_to_Geometry and subsequent sections). Before that, he linked a blurb for a pamphlet on Amazon by the same fringe author.

The issues were discussed with DuKu on the article's talk page (at the end of the Talk:Euclid#Uclides_-_The_Key_to_Geometry section and Talk:Euclid#Consensus and Opinion on adding link to Perseus and beyond)—DuKu raised the issue, after he was reverted, but then went ahead with no consensus—and also at User talk:Finell#EUCLID 3.

DuKu accused another experienced editor of vandalism for reverting DuKu's edits, and has been uncivil and tendentious in the talk page discussions referenced above.

DuKu is a new user, who became very active very quickly, and is clearly not fluent in English. Therefore, I am not asking for a block. Rather, some firm guidance by an administrator on all of these issues may be sufficient; comments by other experienced editors do not seem to make much impression on DuKu. Thank you.—Finell 03:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

* Result - 31 hours for edit warring. A comment such as 'Re-adding for the fifth time..' suggests that he is unlikely to be receptive to advice. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:AN3#User:DuKu_reported_by_User:Finell_.28Result:_31h.29

Accusations of Finell from above report.

1.)Finell:"I added the external link that DuKu wanted to add, but with a correct citation and without the editor's mis-description of the link as being about Euclid's "oriental origin", in the References section, but that did not satisfy DuKu." He added a citation to the references, after my 3rd or 4th revert. His statement of mis-descriotion is misleading, as the point of my edit reason was to apply more historical infromation about euclid's origin, which btw is not contrary to the existing wiki. It just would mean more historical data.

2.) Finell: "has been uncivil and tendentious in the talk page discussions referenced above." He links to my talk page here - which is contradicting, see statement of Clovid Sangrail :"Thanks for your cooperation. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)" He links to Novangelis talk page, where i state the reason from Novangelis wiki reverts - "Link does not support claimed content or display any content text", though this is total wrong, as the page displays content and his claim "it does not support my arguments", therfor are unjustified.

3.) EdJohnston, obviously did not read my talk page or any of the provided links, as he states, EdJohnston:"suggests that he is unlikely to be receptive to advice". Which is again contradicting to the talk page discussion on finding a consensus, which took place after i tried to add the external link to the Perseus website.

4.) Finell filled the report about me, after i started a talk page discussion to find a consensus. In this discussion he states:"Perseus is not a source. It is a digital library. The source that you were linking was Chapter 1 of Heath's edition of Elements, which is Heath's biographical summary." Firstoff, Perseus displays a rich resource on Euclid, which is not contradicting from the wikipage. Secondly it contains crucial commentary, which is not mentioned on the wikipedia. I asked Finell about the wikipedia policy which he claims forbidds adding such external links. The next action he took was filling the report.

5.) Finell:"and is clearly not fluent in English." Well i don't know why he is keeping saying this, but he is the first one who is saying this.

6.) Further i tried to discuss the matter with Finell on his talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Finell#EUCLID_3 This was after i tried to add a link to C.K. Raju's publishings. And i agreed with him on the matter. However beside i clearly agree with him and present total diffretn data and source, he keeps on talking about C.K. Raju and is not commenting on the data i posted on his talk page. He keeps on writing about C.K.Raju and stateing im not fluent in english, useing fringe theories etc.

Conclusion

First i added a link to a paper by C.K. Raju - which got rejected. Than i tried to add a published paper from C.K.Raju found at amazon on the matter, which got also rejected (beside the oxford journal reviewed it ... ). I accepted this and this was the first thing i wrote Finell on his talk page - and here clearly Finell was not responding to my posts!

After more research i tried to add a link to the Perseus library, which is now also rejected - as a link. But internet user rather visit a link instead of buying the referenced book. So this solution now prevents many from reading it.

After i got aware that the reverting on my part was considered "edit warring" i stopped in doing so and started as adviced a talk page discussion to find a consensus. All im now asking is to add a link which is partly in the references already. Finell rejected this too and when i asked Finell why the wikipedia is not considering this as a reliable source, he went reporting me. I see no reason why the link should not be added to the wiki of euclid. Perseus extra encourage the linkage of their websites and it has a rich historical database.

Because of Finell's action on reporting me, beside my cooperation to revert or add the link of Perseus library and the bann result. I fill this report now to defend myself against such accusations and report Finell for his unjustified accusations. --DuKu (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Finell's accusations the Continuum

Beside the conflict was settled after a consensus was reached, he keeps on posting on my talk page - which i consider spam and insulting. I asked Finell now several times to stop with the insults see his talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Finell#Civility and on my talk page below. --DuKu (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Further i filled a report earlyer against Finell. Beside i was not using the correct form i deleted the report, because i thought this was settled. However Finell seems still to have a high intrest in keep on battling and insulting, read below (And above if you intend to make a statement). --DuKu (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

DuKu: Actually, you continued reverting and adding the external link after I put the same link in References.—Finell 00:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes and that is what i wrote. Oh it wasn't on the 4th revert - it was on 3rd. What a diffrence! --DuKu (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop posting pointless staetjments on my talk page. Or i will report you for spamming my talk page without a valid reason. --DuKu (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Responding to your comments on your talk page is a legitimate use of your talk page; it is not "spamming". Please stop threatening to "report" me and other editors, stop accusing editors of Vandalism for conduct that is not vandalism under Misplaced Pages's policy, be civil, and try to get along with other editors instead of battling with them. Misplaced Pages depends on a collaborative environment and works on consensus of editors. You have gotten yourself into quite a few disputes in the short time that you have been here. Please read the introductory material about how to edit Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, linked in the Welcome message at the top of your talk page (that is why it is there), and follow the links in this message. It will help you get along with other editors. Thank you.—Finell 01:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply, if any, here on your Talk page)

Please stop posting on my user page your made up claims. I pointed out a lot of your accusations which turned out to be wilde accusations. Also stop spamming my user page with your advises. Looks liek you have way to much time and as i said before you keep on threaten me with policy's without any substance. If you do not stop i will report you for repeating behaviour and claims. --DuKu (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Doc9871 - 3RR Report

Hello, DuKu! Filing a 3RR at the noticeboard is a very specific process, and if an editor doesn't follow procedure properly, many times the nominator is blocked and not the nominee. You should carefully read the instructions at the top of the page, and look at other reports there to show you how it is done. Of course, reporting to this board should be a last resort, and you should always try to work things out on a talk page before even considering filing a report there. Hope this helps, and happy editing! Doc9871 (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doc9871, as you read i guess - i tried this approach and 2 users in particular keep accusing me. One reported me and the admin? EdJohnston banned me, even though i tried to find a consensus. Finell and Novangelis seem to have no slight of intrest in a consensus. It is now about a link.

Maybe you can point me to the correct form to use in this case here? Thank you. --DuKu (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay... gives me a few minutes to assess the situation. In the meantime, again, very carefully read WP:3RR and the instructions at the top of the page. You must have concrete proof of 4 revisions within a 24-hour period, and if you have made the same amount of revisions, you will be blocked. There is no room for error. Doc9871 (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Though 1st off i do not like reporting, but as finell did this and to my understanding as a result i got banned unjustified - how can i react now?

Ironicly Novangelis did revert my edits with unjustified revert reasons 4 times. Should i report him now? --DuKu (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

DuKu, you should also carefully read #11 here. Fan sites must be official... Doc9871 (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. --DuKu (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it alright if I remove the report? I don't want you to get into any more trouble; and there are always so many reports on this page. It's always best to talk about it on the Talk Page before reporting to this board (again, I have seen many editor's reports "backfire" because they weren't familiar with what should be reported here)... Doc9871 (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

First off i asked you some questions, which you not answered one yet. Second i agree to remove threport if you tell me where or how i can fill it propper. Third if i get banned again i will start an edit war. As i a) tried to settle it b) got banned already beside my cooperation and of wrong accusations. c) it starts to piss me really of. Im looking forward for a consensus and an equal judgement on the user Finell. Cheers. --DuKu (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you threaten to "start an edit war", your chances are not very good, I'm afraid. An admin has already blocked you for edit warring, and you are not in a position to negotiate. I would recommend against edit warring, because it will lead to a block, probably of longer duration... Doc9871 (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I ask you now the 4th time how to fill the complain propper. --DuKu (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't walk you through the process. I've pointed you in the direction you need to go. If you've truly read what I've cited - read it again. I don't know what else to tell you right now, but hopefully the blocking administrators "on duty" are watching, and they can do what is necessary in this situation... Doc9871 (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you post the link to the correct form? And i read the top of the page, nowhere i can read something about howto complain to this bann on that page. Again i tried to settle it before. Though to my understanding than that very page is the correct one. --DuKu (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the same page. At the top of the page, below the box that says "Click here to add a new report", there is a box that has "Listing instructions". After carefully reading these instructions, and then when filing a report, you must list each appropriate violation in the proper place according to WP:DIFF, warn the user you are reporting on their talk page, and have absolute concrete proof that the editor you are reporting has violated 3RR (and that you have not). I have other things to do, and I'd like to help you more, but it will have to wait and you must familiarize yourself better with the rules. Happy editing... Doc9871 (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you did not had the time to read the complain. --DuKu (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you. If you read the rules I have pointed you towards, you will be okay.... Doc9871 (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Finell did not break the 3RR rule (Novangelis did btw), Finell filled a report which is full of wrong and twisted accusations. EdJohnston banned me without reading the cited links. The intention of my complain was now to fill a complain against Finell, because he used twisted accusation. You can read all about it in the filled report on the user Finell.

Beside all this. i try to add a link to the euclid wiki, which is not against the external link rule! SO if i start now adding this link again. Finell and Novangelis revert it again. And as they apparently work together on this, would lead to a bann again. So how can i add the link which is not again the rules??? --DuKu (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok i see the page is linked. If now Finell gets a warning for his wrong accusations im totaly satisfied. --DuKu (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley - Civility

Don't accuse people of vandalism in edit summaries unless it is justified. Just because you don't like someone removing links is *not* a reason for that summary William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I base my sumamry on other related summarys i came across, where user deleted content - filled under vandalism. So before i revert your change again, tell me how you justifie the deletion of those 2 links (beside there are missing a few more). If you read the wiki there are content which is connected to those links. --DuKu (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You should read WP:VANDALISM. Removing a link you don't like is not vandalism. Vandalism is a bad-faith attempt to harm the encyclopaedia; an edit summary accusing any long-term good faith editor of such is liable to be resented (see-also WP:CIVIL). Your correct response at this point is an apology. As to the links: the first is redundant, as I said. The other links to bits of exxon don't seem very useful; having large see-also link farms isn't good William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstoff there are just 2 links now, which considered the size of this company and talking about link famr, seems pretty unreal. 2nd i already apologized for the wrong term (see your user page), when i reverted your deletion process. Moreover you started to threaten me. --DuKu (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies: so you did. I've struck my request. Threats: no, that was advice. 2 links: the ideal is none William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are wrong that none links are optimal. Please provide the rule which suggest that no external links is optimal. --DuKu (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The user got sanctioned, see here --DuKu (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're now over 4R, and Readding Link - user who deletd link earlyer got banned. And he provided no sound reason see talk page is incorrect. Please self revert before you get blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Hi there Connolley, what do you talking about, you seem confused. --DuKu (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

William M. Connolley - Requests for enforcement

Please see Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#AbbaIkea2010_and_DuKu William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Clovis Sangril - Euclid

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC) As you can read on my talk page i try to find a consensus. --DuKu (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to try and find consensus on the talk page of the article. This means that more editors can be aware of the changes you're trying to make and provide an opinion as well. Apart from the two editors you have been interacting with, other people are unlikely to read your personal talk page. You should create a new topic on the talk page, and state clearly what changes you would like to make and why. Other editors (apart from the one's you've been involved with) can also provide opinion, and when consensus is reached the changes can be made.

Separately, adding material with references is encouraged. Adding references that are not linked to any particular part of the text and were not used in its creation is less so, as people often try to sneak in links for advertising like this

Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I noticed you reverted an edit on Aristotle. I think you may have misunderstood why they deleted the material. The issue was that there were no in-line references supporting the arguement. If you restore the text, you should be adding the references into the text, as per the other editors summary. Putting a note in the edit summary is not suitable for referencing. Thanks Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

iI just answered on your talk page. I will do as you ask, but please consider my message on your talk page. --DuKu (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I did as you advised me and added a topic to the talk page, to find consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Euclid#Consensus_and_Opinion_on_adding_link_to_Perseus_and_beyond

About Aristotle, i will add the link there now accordingly. --DuKu (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Clovis Sangrail - Civility

Duku, the purpose of a RRR block is necessarily to punish, but to prevent unneccessary edits and allow people to cool down. You were blocked as you had clearly breached the RRR rule, and while your movement of the issue to the talk page may have been suffient to overturn the block, the ban was due to your original rule breach. Please note that Finell did not ask for you to be blocked, he requested an administrator give you some guidance. Seeking to have him (or her) punished when you are likely to work on articles together is going to be counterproductive.

There is also an issue with the changes you are trying to make. You are trying to add links to references. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links, so the addition of new links to articles where nothing new is added is discouraged. If you add content to an article and use supporting references, then that is ideal. In addition, the pdf link appears to be a self published document by the author, which is unlikely to meet wikipedia standards unless the article is about the author. There was no reason in the article text for the inclusion of the other link.

If you want to contribute to wikipedia, please try to respect / listen to other editors and familiarise yourself with wikipedia policy. Your experience will be much more fulfilling. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Clovis, the link i reverted 5 times - is of Perseus library. And after my 4th revert it found it's way to the references - as a link. --DuKu (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While you may have reverted in good faith, once 3 reverts have been passed then administrators are justified in taking action. Reverting is best left for removing inappropriate changes rather than using it to try to add new information. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i understand. A message warnig me about this rule, would had helped preventing this. --DuKu (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Clovis Sangrail - Edit Warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You have reverted 4 different editors in the same article. This is again a breach of wikipedia rules. If you cannot follow wikipedias policies, you will be blocked for an extended period. Also please do not continue to deliberately annoy other wikipedians. You have only been on wikipedia for a few days and the majority of your edits are related to conflict. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Clovis, please can you show me where i engage in edit warring? Or where exactly i breach wiki rules? Your claim the majority of my edits are related to conflict, is not substanional. --DuKu (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A. Please read wikipedia's policy on reverting. Just because something was changed by a user who was sanctioned does not mean it is invalid, and other users who agree with the change have the right to support it. You have reverted edits by at 4 different users on 1 article. Therefore you are in breach of RRR again.

B. Calling WMC 'confused' is deliberate provocation, which is not needed in wikipedia, and can lead to being blocked. Please read the policy on civility.

C. Over half your edits are regarding controversial edits, deletions, reversions or talk page accusations and defence. This suggests that you are not making an effort to work cooperatively with other users and are working against the spirit of wikipedia.

Clovis Sangrail (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Clovis, A) Well if you read the summary carefully it is. A2?) I did reverted 2 times Connoley and 1 which i found consensus (see talk page) and the last revert i started a conversation on the user user page. B) Than you can tell me maybe what he is tryoing to say? His sentence makes no sense, im sorry. C) Well maybe you read what you wrote here 2 days ago Clovis: "Thank you for your cooperation", somehow you contradicting yourself. Please research propper, before you start pointing fingers or contradicting your own statements. Thank you. --DuKu (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He's clearly saying he things the link belongs elsewhere. This is supported by edits by: Awickert, William M. Connolley, Prolog and Tasty monster. Clearly there is no consensus. I did thank you for your cooperation but anyone who can understand basic grammar, would realise that the word 'thank' is in past tense. Your behaviour appears highly uncooperative, as suggested by deliberate provocation of users William M. Connolley, Finell and Novangelis. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Awickert - I found consensus (as i just wrote you ... ) Connoloey - got sanctioned for editing/removing stuff. Tasty - has added n absurd summary reason, so my revert is valid. Prolog - It was not my intention to remove something from Prolog, if so i will readd it, if still needed. I apologize for this. I think you done a bad research and i ask you now to stop insulting me. I have no idea what provocation you now refering to - maybe read again the history of ExxonMobil. If you can now please stop insulting me, otherwise im forced to report you for unsubstanional claims. --DuKu (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Add me to the people disagreeing with having that link at that article. That's an advocacy video by an advocacy group (a Greenpeace-related org advocating against Exxon). That belongs to Greenpeace or to any article that lists the campaigns made by Greenpeace, or that lists ecologist campaigns, or whatever. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This talk belongs on the wikipage talk page of the related article. And a hint for you this has nothing todo with greenpeace. I advised you herby to stop useing my talkpage for wikipedia talk page discussion. Cheers. --DuKu (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob - 3RR note

Your recent editing history at Global warming shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. User Off2riorob added this. Advised him to sign his post. --DuKu (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Hello, i reverted "diffrent" edits and 1 was because he edited the same time as me. The user was reported for vandalism. --DuKu (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob - 3RR note

Your recent editing history at ExxonMobil shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Off2riorob again, if you had lookedd at the wiki in question, the history and talk page AND here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DuKu#Clovis_Sangrail_-_Edit_Warring (see above warning from Colvis), you would know that i did not engage into an edit war. I hope this helps in regrads to your concerns. Further if you keep posting unsubstanional warnings on my user page i will report you for your bad research and your claims in this matter. --DuKu (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

While these 2 3RR reports filled by Off2riorob still pending, he deleted information on his user page.

Please sign your posts. --DuKu (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No ones perfect. Off2riorob (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please also note that i did not broke the revert rule. (see diffrent edits which took place). --DuKu (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You are close to breaking it, it is in your interests to stop reverting, that is all. Off2riorob (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway - Reverting of External Link at ExxonMobil

Posting this here because the user User talk:Tony Sidaway deletes his talk page entrys.

You state that the link was edited and it needs consensus before it gets added. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ExxonMobil&curid=18848197&diff=341857882&oldid=341857568 Please check the history of this article, the link was part since month. The user http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:William_M._Connolley reveted several entry's and was sanctioned a few hours ago. One of his "edits" been the external link section of this wiki. --DuKu (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User just deleted a talk page entry, i advised the user to stop doing so and reverted the delete. --DuKu (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't have: Misplaced Pages:Don't restore removed comments. Assume it has been read if the user chooses to blank it.Novangelis (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite - Vandalism

I'm concerned that you might be calling edits that are not vandalism vandalism. Please note that per WP:VAND vandalism is made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Typically, edits by editors of with more than a handful of article edits never vandalism - they are either mistakes or content disputes. Specifically, I think this, while probably unhelpful, is not actually vandalism, but actually a content dispute. Probably bettter to err on the side of not calling things vandalism unless you are very sure they are. Hipocrite (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You should check the process and the talk page respectivly, BEFORE you start such assumption user Hipocrite. --DuKu (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that the other user in the edit war is behaving poorly. However, I really dislike the misues of the term "Vandalism." Content disputes and edit wars really arn't vandalism - see also WP:NOTVAND and WP:ATWV. Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston - Violation

You have broken the WP:3RR rule at Global Warming. Your four reverts were at 08:02, 10:24, 10:30 and 16:55 UTC on 4 February. Your claim to be reverting vandalism is not valid. This is a content dispute. If you undo your last change to the article, it may help you to avoid sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide teh relevant information on your claim that the revrt was a) not valid and b) a content dispute. Thank you for the cooperation. --DuKu (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the revert was totally valid, but 3rr is a bright line - even if you are on the side of angels, you'll still get blocked for it. You might want to consider what Ed reccomended. Perhaps someone will take up your sword on the talk page if you demonstrate a willingness to compromise! Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You should read wikipedias policy on vandalism. You should read the talk page of the gw wiki and you should read about the editor in question. I hope this helps. Further post will be ignroed and i warn you now about further claims/accusations or i will fill a report in this regards. Note to other users, have a look on user Hipocrite contribs. Cheers. --DuKu (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a straight application of well-known policy, and I have closed many 3RR cases, so I know the rules. I am offering this option to you as a courtesy, to avoid a block. Our tolerance is somewhat reduced since you've been recently blocked for 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean you recently blocked me. --DuKu (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reported the 3RR violation at WP:ANI#Simple 3RR case offered for possible action by Some Other Admin. You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Marknutley - Global Warming

You are edit warring on global warming you have broken the wp:3rr rule, please self revert your last revert --mark nutley (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello user Marknutley, your question/concern/claim has been answered above. --DuKu (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry no, this is a content dispute, if you fail to self revert i will have to take you to RFE thank you --mark nutley (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Template:Z10

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock