Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WJBscribe (talk | contribs) at 00:47, 11 February 2008 (→Unblock request: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Request reason:

All I am saying is that we need a neutral unbiased description of the film and THEN bash the film. Misplaced Pages NPOV instructions forbid bashing the film when describing the plot and further bashing the film Furthermore, indefinite block is abuse of the admins power and shows his temper. He will justify it by his "warning" but it was just a show and an excuse because he wanted to do it and said he would (said your editing career will be short). I am no religious zealot and want to bash the film but in a fair way. All my writings have been explained in talk pages and have been modified after objections even though the objectors never compromised and often didn't explain. Misplaced Pages should NOT let JzG block all others except those that agree.-----Look at my last talk page edit....I follow WP MOS, if not please tell me what is in violation. We have consensus for NPOV. IF you violate NPOV, you violate consensus, even if you have a mob of POV warriors. Let's make sure we don't violate NPOV. What's the opposition to my edits as I have added nothing pro-film, just removed NPOV. I have kept paragraphs and just moved them around so the anti-film stuff is together.Fairchoice (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed" That is NOT tenacious editing. I kept other's paragraphs and just made a small organizational change to see if reasonable people would agree and as a small step in fixing the article. I am being blocked for ideological reasons. ---- There is a serious flaw with the blocking administrator. He says that I am not NPOV but he is but look here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves By this, we must describe the film in a neutral way before we bash it, we shouldn't have a negative description of the plot to begin with and then bash it...............http://en.wikipedia.org/User:JzG/help By the blocking administrator's own instructions, I will go through dispute resolution. Unblock me to allow this if you want me to take this route, if you don't, then unblock me and let me explain on talk pages the NPOV way

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for your opinions, but for your unseemly conduct. I am inclined to agree with JzG's assessment, in particular given your unnecessarily aggressive unblock request ("everyone but me is the problem!"), but I agree that an immediate indefinite block might not be warranted. I may be inclined to talk with JzG about unblocking you if you convince me that you have understood why you are blocked and show how you intend to productively contribute in accordance with our norms of conduct, preferably to some other article than Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. — Sandstein (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2008 (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.

On the one hand, you have a point: disclaiming EVERYthing with "claims" or "alleges" gets to a point where it sounds like the article is purposely painting a negative picture. And the article may be unbalanced. On the other hand, your solution to this was to remove all the language that describes the things in the film as claims, which distorts things badly in the opposite direction, and apparently did so repeatedly. Mangojuice 20:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice:
1. Do not be angry.
2. Take Mangofuice's advice, edit slowly and with discussion even if others don't discuss. You are here to improve Misplaced Pages even if other's don't.
3. Proofread your edits so that there is no accusatory tone, which may even be unintended.
4. I'm not unblocking you right now because this would create controversy. Cooperation, even if I don't fully agree, is necessary. Note to other admins: My reasons for unblock are as a result of others comments, see Sandstein "but I agree that an immediate indefinite block might not be warranted." and Mangojuice "On the one hand, you have a point: disclaiming EVERYthing with "claims" or "alleges" gets to a point where it sounds like the article is purposely painting a negative picture. And the article may be unbalanced." Archtransit (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been unblocked. The unblocking is automatically set for 48 hours from now. Have a cup of tea and come back on Friday. Archtransit (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• The reason I did not set a block expiry is that this user has shown absolutely no sign of accepting that there is any problem with his behaviour. I don't mind your setting an expiry, provided you are content to assist in monitoring this editor's behaviour and reblocking if the problems continue. I'm not convinced this user has any intention of being anything other than a warrior, but would be happy to be proved wrong. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice

If you want to change a "claim" or two to "state", so what. However, we do not just cut huge swaths of sourced material out of an article because you personally do not like it. There was far more material supporting the film's thesis as I wrote to you a couple of times before, and it was removed because people thought it was too much of a paen of praise to the film. I disagree and would like my material that is pro-creationist and pro-ID restored. The answer is not to remove what you do not like in a fit of pique, but to restore the balancing material so one has a fuller article. I said this to you a couple of times and somehow this has not quite sunk in. Do you understand what I am saying here? You cannot do what you have been doing or you will get more blocks etc. We can put the previously deleted material that is pro-ID and pro-creationist back in however for balance. Get it?--Filll (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ever helpful, I've added some advice on the talk page. In a nutshell, study the linked policies carefully, and discuss your proposals on the article talk page instead of edit warring. .. dave souza, talk 22:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am back

I am back. Of course, I am going to be good. You will notice that I did not create any sockpuppets to edit the movie article.

I am shocked that someone would compare me to Profg. I am not pro-intelligent design. I merely want a neutral summary of the plot of the film. After that section, then others are slam the film. When you see the plot in other Misplaced Pages articles, commentary of the film comes after the plot. Fairchoice (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

continued advice

Several people object to your unblock. Don't make me have egg on my face. Edit responsibly. Consider a diversity of articles to edit, not just the film article. With the film article, think carefully before editing, if you edit it at all. With Dana Telsey, you can probably rapidly change the article with just a little discussion. That's not so with the film article. Archtransit (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

On 5 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anna Loginova, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK!

On 6 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dana Telsey, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! Ruhrfisch _><>° 19:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

If you are not unblocked now (which might be possible, and you just need to reset things), you probably will be. If you are unblocked, please edit cooperatively with us and try to understand why we do what we do. We are not jerks. We are following the rules on Misplaced Pages. Good luck.--Filll (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reducing the agony 1%. Can you find someone and ask for unblock? ANI? I have stayed away from the controversial article (Expelled: No Intel....) but Guy still blocked. Please help. Fairchoice (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I will try to ask, although if I remember correctly you were giving me trouble on my Expelled article. We do things by consensus and none of us can get our own way here. And I am no exception. Lots of things here I have had to give in on, because you can't win them all.--Filll (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think that I gave you trouble, then going to ANI will show you have good character. Actually, I moving away from that article into other articles. Thank you for your help. Fairchoice (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll, don't ask Archtransit! Archtransit won't do anything because people are jumping on his back in the Request for Comment. Please go to ANI if you want someone to hear this. Please do stop this agony. Fairchoice (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed your unblock requests and various other trolling, and strongly recommend you to wait about a week, and then try asking to be unblocked again - in a calm and coherent way. (If you don't succeed, you may try e-mailing me or another administrator.) For now, request to unblock denied. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• • In reply to your e-mail, and in view of this, I agree with Mike above. Sandstein (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • Mike, for what behaviour are you refusing this unblock request? I'm having difficulty seeing problematic behaviour by Fairchoice between his block being reduced by Archtransit and his being reblocked by JzG. I see no subtantiation of the sockpuppet claim. I'm not sure how you could have been able to review this block and find it valid in the circumstances.... WjBscribe 23:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Account unblocked after receiving an unblock request from the user and assurance from WJBscribe taht it's not a sockpuppet account. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, to be clear - I said that I have seen no evidence of his being a sockpuppet, JzG has not provided any and blocked no other accounts. But I support the unblock - if a proper sockpuppetry case can be made against the user, he can always be reblocked if a consensus forms that there has been an abuse of multiple accounts. Given this user's recent good behaviour, I think its right to give them the benefit of the doubt. WjBscribe 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)