| Revision as of 21:44, 11 October 2007 editSam Blacketer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers25,217 edits →3RR: Reply and guidance.← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:51, 12 October 2007 edit undoXenophrenic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,497 edits →3RR: another "too busy to check" admin breezes throughNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| I would advise you to revert yourself at WSI, or you will be blocked. ] 20:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | I would advise you to revert yourself at WSI, or you will be blocked. ] 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.'' ] 00:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *While I have held that you have not violated the terms of the ] and decided not to block you, please do not think that continually reverting is an acceptable way of editing. The ] 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. ] 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * |
:*While I have held that you have not violated the terms of the ] and decided not to block you, please do not think that continually reverting is an acceptable way of editing. The ] 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. ] 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Of course I haven't violated ]. 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? ] 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. ] 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 ] 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. ] 00:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:51, 12 October 2007
Notice to posters: Let's try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may also refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Thanks. Xenophrenic (Talk)- Incivility: I reserve the right to remove uncivil or disruptive comments and/or threads from this talk page.
- Spam: I also reserve the right to delete any bulk messages that I regard as spamming.
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)
- From the Mediation page located here, you will please note:
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)