User talk:142.167.127.98

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Canadian residential school system. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. - Alison ☺ 07:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You have violated the three-revert rule. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. - Alison ☺ 07:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • You're over your limit now. Last chance - Alison ☺ 07:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Alison ☺ 07:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. You had every chance. And please - don't accuse me of First Nations bias. I've no particular interest in the article and its contents - Alison ☺ 07:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • You need to understand this. You went way over the limit on your revert-warring on Canadian residential school system (at least 5 reverts in one hour), you were causing disruption and you refused to discuss the matter with anyone until this message. Then you accused me of First Nations bias [1] which I find offensive in the extreme on a number of levels. You are now blocked for revert-warring for 24 hours. Please do come back after this time and try to re-work your changes on the talk page with other editors this time. One particular editor asked for the page to be protected to lock you out of editing it. I found this inappropriate and tried to work with you instead. You refused - Alison ☺ 07:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

you know, if i was intent on just being a jerk, then i would just disconnect my internet and reconnect, thus aining a new IP, and beignable to continue insisting people at least consider changing the wording, becasue of the reasons i have attempted to specify, see, i have a bit of a bias myself, agsint the founders of hte school, and i am one of hte ones who started the aricle a long time ago, but i forgot my old password, as i may or may not have siad, tho,that the words i tried to use are more in keeping withthe spirit and intent of the acts commmited agsint hte native population of canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.127.98 (talk • contribs) ok so im not the oldarticles starter but i really wish iwas, it wopuld be much more in depthg in what was done to the natives to show the full scope of the attampted cultural genocide.

  • I genuinely don't believe you are intending to be a jerk here. But you are breaking the rules here. If you want to go get another IP address from the pool and start up again, I'll protect the article from editing and that'll be that. I can understand your bias as, being from Ireland, my family has a history of abusive schools and orphanages - something I don't want to go into here - but I feel very strongly about. I wrote large parts of the Brendan Smyth, Sean Fortune and Magdalen Asylum articles, though it stuck in my throat to try to remain NPOV. Seriously, though, work with other editors and explain where you're coming from here. Something can be done - Alison ☺ 07:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I notice you tried to talk with User:Shoeofdeath on his/her talk page but they blanked your request. I've restored it and left a gentle warning about it. That's not right - Alison ☺ 07:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


i have heard of some of the stuff that happened in ireland, and im actually sorry i heard it, i dont like crying ... sorry if im being too hotheaded, its a habit of mine. any chance, that if i cant seem to advocate the use of a few of the terms i suggest,, that we might at least present it to the courts at large? did you know that before contact there were several million people on this continant, and only a few years after ( bout fifty or sixty after settlement began, or as some natives remember it, slow invasion...) there population was decimated by guns and sicknesses and forced displacement. need proof farther that candians do worse then most? check outthe beuthuk(spelling?) who were exterminated because the settlers didnt know how to share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.127.98 (talk • contribs)

  • Yeah. Bad things happened here too, up to relatively recent times. BTW - did you know that during the famine of the 1840s in Ireland, that the Cherokee Nation got together funds to send aid to the Irish people? And that was immediately after the Trail of Tears. Anyway - tomorrow, when your block is up, maybe bring some of the statements to the talk page and go over what you'd like to see changed. I'm pretty sure something can be done to change things, while keeping it encyclopedic and NPOV. I'll stick around and try to help out - Alison ☺ 08:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from user page

[edit] genocide

re: your note on my page

I am *not* arguing against your statements, but you're changing sourced and cited text to statements. There was, for example a quote on there that had a 'citation needed'. You removed it, stating merely that the wording was correct. That's *not* good enough for an encyclopedia. They were calling for a citation that would actually *support* your arguments; removing it so that people like myself, who go through looking for 'citation needed' notes to cite won't know that the fact needs to be supported. That means, in half a year, when you're on vacation for a month, someone might come across it and say, 'Huh. That's not cited. Out it goes.'

While it might feel like a blog or regular website, the point of Wikipedia is to provide knowledge. When you make changes such as referring to the schools as fomenting genocide without citing it, you're not helping the people who will come here looking for information. If you have books, scholarly references, newspapers and such to support your view, we'd LOVE it to be added to the article. My issue has nothing to do with whether its genocide or not, but with uncited things that could be opinions (especially because of their emotional load) being added.

Use scholarly language, keep emotion out of it, and document your work with citations and the info that you no doubt have, and no one will revert your work. --Thespian 07:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reducing block

I'm taking you on faith here and have reduced your block to 8 hours from 24. Please try working with others on this one. I reckon from your knowledge, you have a lot to offer and, working with editors like Thespian, we can make it an article that's well-cited and irrefutable. Because if it's well cited and encyclopedic in tone, it's awfully hard to dismiss it. See my point?

Trusting you here, ok? Your block should be up tomorrow morning. If you start revert-warring again, I'll just semi-protect the article this time. Somehow, I don't think you'll do that - Alison ☺ 07:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please come to the talk page and discuss things.

The other editors of Canadian residential school system mostly support your view, but they can't work with the information you're plastering across the page. Please come to the talk page and work with them to help get your information into the article encyclopedically, or you will be blocked again. --Thespian 07:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)