User talk:87.74.12.83

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Limits on reverting

Hi. It looks like you're engaged in something of an edit war on the Tony Blair article. Edit wars are bad, and so to nip them in the bud we have a rule which limits the number of reverts someone can do in a 24 hour period. That number is three, which by my count is the number of times you've reverted today. The rule is described in detail at Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. So, please don't revert that article any more. Instead, please use talk:Tony Blair to discuss your proposed change. If you, or indeed any other the other individuals involved in the dispute, reverts an article more than the permitted three times, I will block them, or you, from editing wikipedia. Please read these pages I've linked above carefully. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your threats. I am aware of the rules, and I don't need to be threatened. I do find it somewhat odd that users can revert pages within 30 seconds, when the content is not clearly nonensical, especially when those users are US-based, and are not necessarily aware of the relevant issues. 87.74.12.83 23:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not a threat, just a fair warning. It's only reasonable that someone tell you about rules before blocking you on them. I'm not interested in the details of your edit war; the rule applies regardless of whether you're right or not. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Finlay's advice is well-meant, and it would be a good idea to take the dispute to talk:Tony Blair if you get reverted again. That said, as a Labour Party branch officer I think your edits are fair reportage of what has been said of TB, and I've said so on the talk page of Hall Monitor who's already reverted you twice. If you do get blocked under the 3RR for this article, I'll unblock you if it happens before I go to bed (the 3RR says offending users may be blocked for up to 24 hours, which clearly includes any shorter period so honour would be served on all sides!). It would however be best to avoid being blocked in the first place :) -- Arwel (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Blair

Take your edit to Talk:Tony Blair. Do not keep reverting. David | Talk 00:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

The fact that you reported David for violating the 3RR rule won't redeem you for having then crossed it yourself. This is not the way to get your way in the debate. Please stop, SqueakBox 01:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't though - see my comments on the admin noticeboard. Don't make false accusations. 87.74.12.83 01:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting

87.74, you seem to spend your time at WP, with this and your other IP address, deleting material and reverting on articles where you don't like the opinion expressed, as though your views are NPOV and everyone else's POV, but that's not how Wikipedia works. When others revert your deletions and reversions, you accuse them of waging a "vendetta" against you, or of following your edits in order to revert you, whereas in fact it looks as though it's the other way round. You've already violated 3RR at least twice (that I'm aware of), and have been blocked for it once. If this serial reverting continues, you may be blocked from editing whether or not you've violated 3RR; gaming the system is a blockable offense. If you disagree with a POV, then add counter-balancing, relevant, well-sourced material, rather than instinctively deleting other people's work. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You are extremely tedious. You have been reverting my edits wherever you have found them for an extended period of time. You have been obsessing about IP addresses (home/work, even when I haven't actually used any IP address but this one since last week), mentioning them on what must now be a dozen occasions. I have reverted what you correctly describe as your 'opinion' on monkey, and other pages, e.g., Center for Consumer Freedom (where the edit history shows that you reverted from a page that I had edited from a point where it had been criticised by around 10 people on Talk:Center_for_Consumer_Freedom for being biased to add neutrality; your revert made the page less neutral: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom&diff=27986980&oldid=27485273), because it lacks any neutrality. I have not accused anyone of waging a vendetta, except you. And the reason I have done this is because you have consistently weighed in against me, at any possible opportunity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:dbiv_and_User:87.74.12.83, on my talk page, at Talk:SHAC, and in other places.
On the monkey page, I deleted the comment for instance 'Unlike human primates, non-human primates are not regarded as persons in law, and their individual interests are therefore not protected.'. This is a blatantly point of view statement, as it stresses the connection between humans and monkeys (that both are primates), it implies that monkeys *should* be seen as having individual interests (rather than simply protection under animal protection legislation). This statement is indisputably not NPOV, and everyone but you seems to see it.
Again, you see your POV as not a POV but simply fact, and any opposing POV as unacceptable. This is not how Wikipedia works. I encourage you to become familiar with our policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I can't see anyone that agrees with you, and your insistence on images of caged monkeys [1]. Equally on Talk:Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, I have objected to your biased images, as have other users. You stand alone in claiming the image is neutral. Your attitude to anyone opposed to your animal rights agenda is to revert. You do this repeatedly and consistently on multiple pages. When I presented objections to your image on SHAC, your response was that we should leave things for the time being, in other words, do nothing, continue to perpetuate your biased point of view. The result of your bullying attitude, insinuations about IP addresses, etc., is that any change opposed to your bias is reverted, and your opinion is perpetuated for as long as you wish.
My contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=87.74.12.83&offset=0&limit=500 Of these, you have reverted at least half a dozen. You have weighed in to criticise me on pages you have not been involved with. Looking at my edits, I see that with the exception of your reversions, they have been accepted as improvements to the pages I have been editing, so your claims that I am not following NPOV or anything else aren't accurate.
Where have I "weighed in to criticize [you] on pages [I] have not been involved in? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
You claim I have violated 3RR (I haven't), and that I have been blocked for it (I haven't). I really wish you would stop trying to push your agenda, and further stop continually reverting everything I have done. I did think you had agreed that you would cease, but evidently not. 87.74.12.83 01:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm aware of two recent 3RR violations by you, one at Tony Blair, and another at SHAC, the second of which you were blocked for. [2] I'm also aware of your constant system gaming by reverting up to your limit, waiting 24 hours, then reverting again; or reverting so that a page has to be protected, declining to discuss the issue during protection, then reverting again within hours of protection being lifted. No one at Wikipedia appreciates that kind of behavior. Again, I encourage you to familiarize yourself with our policies, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:3RR.
As for reverting your edits, if you stop deleting other people's work, you'll find they'll stop reverting you. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../8/7/2E/User_talk%7E87.74.12.83.html"