From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] September 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Translation. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Brianga 07:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Translation. 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. Dreadstar † 08:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Tell that to the other guys. They vandalize my valid and legally verified updates. They have trouble accepting legal rulings from a court judge and want to abuse formatting issues in order to censor content. This is in violation of Wiki's 5 pillar principles. I hope you do not abuse your privileges and breach Wiki's 5 pillar principles.
I thus escalate a complaint about this to Wiki peers, and to the Wiki peer quality manager.
The text under Translators' liabilities is not conclusive if you delete the source it refers to, by the way. I added the source again.
- You need to read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes as well as Wikipedia:Consensus. Your method of edit warring will not get your version or content into place. Dreadstar † 08:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am waiting for responses in the discussion that address the content dispute with evidence. As long as this does not happen. Edited and up-to-update entries with reference information are valid. The deletion of validated information is here the problem. The other guys are vandalizing valid content and not participating in the discussion, this is a breach of Wiki's 5 pillar principles. If you choose to protect and shield this behavior, I have good reason for a valid complaint regarding the abuse of your privileges.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.
Request reason: "I am waiting for responses in the discussion that address the content dispute with evidence. As long as this does not happen. Edited and up-to-update entries with reference information are valid. The deletion of validated information is here the problem. The other guys are vandalizing valid content and not participating in the discussion, this is a breach of Wiki's 5 pillar principles. If you choose to protect and shield this behavior, I have good reason for a valid complaint regarding the abuse of your privileges.
Look at the discussion, still no response to the content dispute. I wish to escalate this behavior to Wiki peers and the Wiki quality manager.
The artistic descriptions of the approaches in the article traditionally imply an almost sure-shot law-of-nature "how should you do it" self-purposed prescription to the measuring of translation success, on the one hand. Yet, on the other hand, the weeping toils and the most-extreme difficulties of translators with words and meanings are also artistically-well described, thus actually delivering a well and efficiently compiled list of risk and unquality sources, in the final. Some traditional antangonists of these topics yet go further, and blindly continue to dangerously downplay the actual and live litigation and liability risks incurred, even though a growing body of translation error case studies exist. It was only a matter of time until judges in law courts brought this illusion down.
The article discussion in Wiki under Translation gives a case study insight to recurring and standard resistance and implementation problems due to lack of basic knowledge, such as basic terms, legal requirements, and the history of quality management etc. Adequate change management measures and training must be performed as in all organizational development processes, see benchmarking.
Wiki's policies are the 5 pillar policies. I do abide by them. They support content facts and not the censoring of content facts, as here is happening. Editing rules are governed by these over-ranking policies.
I wish to escalate this behavior to Wiki peers and to the Wiki quality manager. People censor facts here, and I get blocked.
You abuse your priviledges."
Decline reason: "You are required to abide by our policies if you wish to edit here. WP:3RR is one such policy. — Yamla 16:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)"
Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.
Check this too: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg9xxrf5_49d4htr7
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.
Request reason: "Wiki's policies are the 5 pillar policies. I do abide by them. They support content facts and not the censoring of content facts, as here is happening. Editing rules are governed by these over-ranking policies.
I wish to escalate this behavior to Wiki peers and to the Wiki quality manager. People censor facts here, and I get blocked. You abuse your priviledges. You are required to abide by Wiki' 5 pillar principles.
Even Wikipedia administrators get caught up in Efficient Causes Aristotle (like mechanical formatting, editing, and blocking rules - they are simply under-staffed), and do not observe the Final Causes of Wikipedia's 5 pillar principles (from a generic and organical content viewpoint). Antagonists have at times an advantage here by faking some mechanical processes, then they cry-for-the-administrator for the purpose of actually censoring inconvenient content, instead of participating in the content dispute and Wikipedia discussion by contributing substantial evidence. This is detrimental to Wikipedia's purpose for up-to-date and conclusive fact-finding.
Where are the rules that require content input to the discussion prior to blocking and other over-inflated formatting nonsense?
As long as the article content is inconclusive, valid facts added must rank higher than just mechanical clicking.
"
Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.
 | This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address.
[WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]
|
