User talk:69.86.190.128

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for experimenting with the page Larry Craig on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.--Rudjek 22:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The comment is already mentioned and sourced in the article. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 23:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

Contents

[edit] Larry Craig

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Larry Craig. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. You're on 3. A fourth will be a block.--Tbeatty 23:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Nope. I entirely re-wrote the content. I have only reverted twice. You are making things up to justify blocking the truth. 69.86.190.128 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are reverting in the exactly the way you are accusing me of. Who will block you? What exactly is your agenda with this article? Be honest. 69.86.190.128 23:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked wp:blp as you suggested. And writing an objective fact about allegations and sourcing it, as I did, is not controversial. What is controversial is you trying to block people knowing about what is being written about Larry Craig and threatening me with censorship, especially when you are reverting a lot yourself, just as much as me. 69.86.190.128 23:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Craig

No Pat, you removed sourced articles about Larry Craig. And nowhere else is it mentioned in the article. 69.86.190.128 23:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, someone else removed it. I will add it back in, but not in such a "ha ha, gotcha" kind of fashion. Besides, you're in violation of the WP:3RR rule. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 23:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I've made the additions to the article; I don't think anyone will contest them now. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 23:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but I'm not homophobic. So I don't regard reporting that someone is gay as "defamatory." And I didn't make the claim, I correctly inserted the REALITY that multiple mainstream news sources have reported this. Would it be defamatory to say someone eats Tacos? No, only if you think Tacos are awful, like YOU think being gay is awful. WIkipedia should not have censorship policies based on homophobia. What is written are FACTS. It does not say he IS gay. It says an independent journalist has FOUR confirmed soucres he is. And this has been reported in mainstream news outlets. ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO READ ABOUT IT. Ok? 69.86.190.128 04:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


All things considered, please mind 3RR, a rule designed to prevent edit warring. I've only just stumbled across this, I haven't had time yet to form an opinion beyond noticing that you've made well over three reverts. Luna Santin 04:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. FYI your on your 3rd revert ina addition to the BLP violation above. Tbeatty 04:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation

This is your last warning. The next time you violate the three-revert rule, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 15:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


You have been blocked for 3RR violation at Larry Craig for a period of 24 hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Luna Santin 04:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please keep a cool head in disputes; it's best to avoid edit warring and instead use talk pages to reach a civil consensus with your fellow editors. Please consider the dispute resolution process instead of continued edit warring, once the block expires. Thank you. Luna Santin 04:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.

Request reason: " No 3rr Violation"

Decline reason: "3rr stands Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 11:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.


I didn't actually violate the rule. Look at the time stamps. Thanks. 69.86.190.128 11:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


  1. 03:40, 24 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig (added current events about craig)
  2. 13:15, 23 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig (remove insertion of pov language)
  3. 11:58, 23 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig (remove pov)
  4. 11:57, 23 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig (→Unconfirmed rumors)
  5. 04:35, 23 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig (→Unconfirmed rumors)
  6. 04:07, 23 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig (rv unjustified censorship vandalism)
  7. 04:01, 23 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig (remove pov)
  8. 03:59, 23 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig (remove pov slant and placed in correct section)
  9. 03:56, 23 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig (rv vandalism by tbeatty)
  10. 11:54, 22 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig
  11. 01:43, 22 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig (added extra fact, removed POV.)
  12. 01:39, 22 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig (removed pov)
  13. 23:27, 21 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig (no dispute, i checked all the sources personally. if you are disputing, you are censoring it. check the sources yourself.)
  14. 23:23, 21 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig (rv vandalism)
  15. 23:16, 21 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig (sourced reporting)
  16. 22:30, 21 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig (has been verified)
  17. 12:05, 21 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Larry Craig

I count 17 edits in less than 3 days, all but one or two of which were reversions. That's 6 per 24 hours, easily a 3RR violation. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 15:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

[edit] Larry Craig

You have made an edit to Larry Craig that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. --Tbeatty 06:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this material should be in the article, but I don't think you should continue to edit war over it. If you insert this material into the article, please insure that your contributions are WP:NPOV. Gamaliel 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you've chosen not to listen to what, Gamaliel the only administrator on your side, and myself, the only non-admin on your side, had to say. I've mostly been with him; but continuing to add the information in this manner has turned quite a few people off to the possibility of it being added at all (myself included). I ask you, please, if you will reinsert the comments, to drop the NPOV exhibited in edits like this. Again, I am removing your comments; I beg of you not to violate 3RR. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BTW

Concerning our "right wing censorship", I think you might like to take a look at WP:ROGUE. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Bucketsofg 03:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Continuing this edit war is pointless and only strengthens the case of those who disagree with you. Many people wish the Craig page to be in a semi-permanent state of protection and having you immediately restart an edit war every time the page is unlocked just gives them a reason to justify that protection. This is not a way to get the information in the article, it only insures that it will remain out of the article. I suggest you get an account, start using the talk page, insure your contribuitions are neutral in tone, and make a case for incusion using discussion, not pointless reverting. Gamaliel 23:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/9/2E/User_talk%7E69.86.190.128.html"