User talk:67.100.49.172

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, thank you for the message you left on my Talk page. First can I clear up some confusion. I am not an administrator on Wikipedia. I am simply an editor with exactly the same rights and responsibilities as you. Could I also ask you to remain civil and avoid resorting to personal attacks - they do not help move the discussion forward and threatening the people who can help rectify the situation is very rarely a productive method of getting what you want.

With all that said, I have no opinion about the ongoing dispute about help pages on The Da Vinci Code article. My only action in this matter was to warn a user who was persistently vandalizing that page. Whatever the merits of one "side's" argument or the other, vandalisim of pages is never justified and will lead to the editor(s) concerned being blocked from editing, which is what happened in this case.

If you want to resolve this matter, you should start by discussing it on the Talk page of the article. Continual reversion of pages in violation of WP:3RR and vandalism of those pages will not get you the result you desire.

Thanks, Gwernol 17:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain a few things Gwernol - you're the only one who has thus far. The fact remains that the person who violated the positive community of Wikipedia in the first place is the one person whose links remain on the article and the one person who appears to be defended by Wikipedia mods, which makes absolutely no sense, probably because nobody bothered to read the facts of what's been going on. There is valuable content that has been removed by that user and as a result there is no resources at all for the original webquests due to his selfishness. I and one or two others will continue to vigorously follow this up. Thankyou.

One more thought. If by "vigourously follow this up" you mean you and others will continue to vandalize pages then I'm afraid the only outcome is that you will be blocked from editing. I strongly urge you not to go down that route. It will not end in the result you desire. This is a content dispute: the right way to resolve this is to discuss it on the talk page. Wikipedia works by reaching consensus. Make your argument (in a civil manner) on the talk page and persuade the community that your approach is the right one. If the consensus agrees with you, your changes will be made in the article and will be appropriately defended by other editors. Making unilateral changes to the article itself will not work. Gwernol 18:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Frustration ruled supreme last night and I apparently was not the only person trying to put back some of the vital information the googlefact user person removed. As I understand it, yet another victim has been attempting to discuss this with mods for days and have been getting nowhere. The person who started this (googlefact) I believe is a registered user named RodgerBales, and it seems he has been able to convince someone in authority that he has done nothing wrong, which is completely untrue. It certainly appears that is how things work here, so I'm sure you can understand our frustration. I have posted where suggested but I have a feeling nothing will come of it, and I've been told others have tried before me. Most disappointing. A link to my site providing help and discussion for the original webquests had been featured in that article for a couple of years without a problem, and the acts of the googlefact user have removed that source from Wikipedia now and deprived Wikipedia users of any source of help for the old webquests, as Rodger only provides help for the new unrelated Google webquests. How anyone can see this as anything other than the greed of RodgerBales is beyond me.

[edit] Your posts

Concerning your posts on my talk page. If you expect to be taken seriously, it is highly recommendable that you mind your civility when addressing other users. Posting in capital letters ("online shouting") will not get you anywhere.
Now, concerning the article: I have not reverted the content. My standing in the matter is neutral. I locked following the last revert because of a revert war being carried out by IP addresses (which we cannot guarantee that aren't the same person), including yourself, to reinsert content that kept being removed by registered users. If you would like to be able to include the content, make your case in the article's talk page, get consensus, and most importantly: reach a compromise to stop re-reverting the article while the discussions are ongoing. If you can do that, the article will be unlocked and you will be able to insert the material you'd like. If you read my post in the article's talk page, you should know that, as I stated, protection is not endorsement of the current version. Redux 20:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)