User talk:70.18.5.219

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Frida Kahlo. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) 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. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You did not understand Help:Reverting, so your interpretation of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule was incorrect. Reverting is only UNDOING ALL CHANGES (actions). Your above claim that (any) "reversion" constitutes reverting is false - not all revisions are reverting (only undoing all changes is). I have never undone all changes meaning that I have never reverted to previous versions, because every time I had improved over previous version instead of just going straight back to it, so I have not violated 3RR.-70.18.5.219 20:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] October 2007

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk: Frida Kahlo. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. FisherQueen (Talk) 11:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk: Frida Kahlo, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. - Philippe | Talk 22:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. - Philippe | Talk 04:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Philippe, so, whom I attacked causing you to block me, please, because I have no idea? At least you should have mentioned just one person, please! -70.18.5.219 06:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Please see WP:CANVAS, and then stop spamming user talk pages. Thanks! Gscshoyru 22:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen WP:CANVAS (thanks for that info), and it seems that my short message to all 10 arbitrators qualifies as Friendly notices, as it was intended. It was deleted by one arbitrator from his talk page, but answered at the referenced page, answered by another at his talk page, and ignored by 8 other arbitrators equal to an answer "I am not interested". My message does not meet - in any respect - any qualification for WP:SPAM nor for Spam as vandalism, which is defined as "Continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism.". Thanks for the input. -70.18.5.219 04:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diego Riviera

I did protect because of the other cases of vandalism. If you'd like me to lower the protection time, I'll do so, but considering also the history of vandalism with this article I believe keeping the article protected is a better choice. If there's any edits you'd like me to make I can make them for you. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 22:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, thanks, it is not a matter of just one specific edit, but not letting hijacking (against WP:OWN) editors to prevent others from editing by manipulating sysops into excessive protection, as I have explained on your talk page at User talk:Bibliomaniac15#Protecting Diego Rivera for 20 days... excessive and abusive???; removing the protection ASAP would be appreciated very much, please. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 19:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
May I ask if you can provide any diffs for your statement of ownership? If you would like to edit the article, I suggest you get an account. If you'd like to request unprotection at WP:RPP, go ahead, but I feel that in this case, protection was justified. Again, I can lower the protection time if you'd like. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 21:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I do would like you to lower the protection, please. It looks fair without requested diffs, so I do not like to use WP:RPP, and I think that you act in good faith, but I do not want to get an account until the issue of sneaky vandalism by registered users is addressed at least somehow. Such vandalism is described with requested diffs at:
Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Modernist was not being malicious or a vandal. I really don't see how WP:OWN is playing into all of this. Granted, maybe the removal of the citations was a bit iffy, but I have not seen any thing that is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." You are misunderstanding the concept of malicious blanking and vandalism. And really, your past conduct on Talk:Frida Kahlo was unacceptable. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never denied PAST mistakes on Talk:Frida Kahlo. They were caused by frustration of not knowing Wikipedia procedures to fend off blanking of my edits - a possible cause of some Wikipedia vandalism at large by inexperienced editors, whose some contributions may be invaluable as the best in the field, and who just do not want to register. But, my past mistakes do not excuse vandalism by others, and - so - are irrelevant to the raised issue. How "the removal of the citations" without valid reason(s) can be just "iffy" and not "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", please? Integrity means soundness, hence more citations (references) means more soundness. So, how fewer citations does not mean less soundness, which means exactly compromise of soundness, which means compromise of integrity, please? Then WP:VANDALISM is half-fake, and there is almost no protection of edits! Thanks for your time and attention. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 03:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to have a third opinion about this issue, since I perceive that we are having differing views about WP:OWNership of the articles and it would be a waste of time to try to argue each other's positions out. I believe you asked User:Newyorkbrad about this issue. See if he has any comments to make. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 05:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, it is pointless, though your position seems to be typical and to the best of your understanding of the policies, but - I think - not very strict partially due to the present definition of vandalism, which - as I argued in Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism#Make it less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort" - seems to be incomplete allowing for vandalism with impunity, or - as you call it - "iffy" edits. My objective is that sneaky vandalism is better recognized and the vandals are blocked, instead of (over)protecting articles for 3 weeks, so User:Newyorkbrad is not needed to be bothered, when I intend improve Diego Rivera's lead, and added references by myself will not be "iffily" blanked with impunity, like the last time. I am outnumbered, and explaining every phrase and sentence to everyone can be very tedious especially to those having high school graduation ahead, but I have learnt my lesson, and I do not intend to repeat my past mistakes from Talk:Frida Kahlo. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 07:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
PS.: Or - maybe - explaining every phrase and sentence to everyone asking is the desired way to go. -70.18.5.219 18:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've lessened the protection to expire on the 20th of November. Personally, I think the vandalism policy is already clear enough in its present version, but I'd like to get back to research and not argue about policy interpretations. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 21:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree 100 %; the vandalism policy - if problematic for some - is way over our heads, but I made a contribution to its discussion in case there is room for improvement. Thanks a lot again. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 03:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auschwitz

It is not clear to me why you would want the protection on this article to be lifted. If you wish to make a constructive edit, you have only to register an account, which costs you nothing, and wait four days, whereupon you are free to do as you wish to the article - subject to the overview of the editors, including me, who watch it. I really cannot understand why you waould want this article to be open to the excessive vandalism to which it was subjected before I was able, with the support of a number of admins, to change wiki policy to allow this sort of article to be permanently protected.

As this has been discussed in detail, and decided by consensus of community, what is your argument for removing protection? Allowing non-registered users or users without accounts, to edit the article will not, I suspect, be accepted as an answer. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)