User talk:71.203.223.65

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, For some reason you have reverted my Ripperologist entry. Your explanation seems to me to be POV to which I disagree. Rather than just undoing your redirect I invite you to explain to me your reasoning more clearly. I obviously feel that a definition of the term is appropriate, and I cannot see how any of my information is incorrect. Jack1956 20:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitions are explicitly not grounds for Wikipedia articles. Please read the policies on this, where you will see that. Furthermore, We don't create new articles for every little thing when that information is better handled in the main article, which in this case is absolutely true. We also do not create articles with plural names or nonstandard terms. As far as you not seeing how information is incorrect, Paul Begg is not the editor of Ripperologist anymore, and it's arguably no longer even a magazine anymore but an email. 71.203.223.65 15:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your deletion of my article. If you disagree with it then nominate it for deletion. Jack1956 19:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your revert. If you disagree with it then try to come up with an explanation for how the article can ever fit Wikipedia policies. The page itself does not need to be nominated for deletion, only redirected, as the redirect itself is valid and should not be removed. 71.203.223.65 15:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have written enough articles for Wiki to know how thinga are done. Your don't like my article, but that's just your opinion. If you don't like the article then follow procedure and nominate it for deletion. I am not prepared to get into a revert war with you. I have tried to assume good faith, but if you revert it again I will give you a warning and report you. Jack1956 15:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not if you think that's how things are done. Go ahead and report me, as I am editing in good faith and in the way all editors are supposed to edit. 71.203.223.65 15:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, explain to me what's wrong with the Ripperology article exactly. I'm not too proud to be put right if I'm wrong. Jack1956 15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ripper edits

I am going to start this off with a suggestion: the next time you write me a response as uncivil as you did, I will ban you from my Talk page and then send you crying off in a corner through the sheer force of my witty repartée. Now, look at what I just wrote - were you inclined to want to work with me or did it just make you less inclined to do so? I would suggest that your post wasn't bery polite, and pretty much wanted to make me revert you on principle as one of those dicks who think that they can walk into a room and push everyone else around with their great big brains.
I am taking the time to write back in the off-chance that you aren't like that. I reverted your changes not out of blindness for a number of reasons. To begin with you adopted the point of view that there were possible more than one klller, and yet there was nothing in the article that reliably substantiated that claim. As well, "the five canonical victims" is a patently absurd title. Furthermore, you removed citations, references in popular culture, and the nonsensical tidbit at the end that states in all caps: "JACK THE RIPPER KILLED PEOPLE.". Talk about blind reverts indeed.
It cried out for a revert, and I performed it. I am sure that, when not riled up, you can be a reasonable person, anonymous user 71.etc. Please prve that you are by working with your fellow editors to create an article which reflects all possible facets of the subject without violating the basic rules and spirit of WP. You must work with others and, when conflict arises (as it always does, esp. with controversial subjects as the Whitechapel Murders), discuss your edits to find the best avenue to pursue, working with your fellow editors. If you work in that way and do so politely, you will find me to be an effective working partner. Don't do that, and you won't really get anywhere, at least in your dealings with me. The choice is yours. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I am a bit concerned that you are unaware how Wikipedia works, anonymous user. I will point out that your most recent revert, which parroted your previous attempt to reinstate the same edit, can easily be construed as disruptive.
You mentioned both consensus and editor-ownership in your eidt summary. Seeing that your edits have been substantially altered by more than two editors, I think its a fairly foregone conclusion that the consensus for your edit is shaky at best. The way to resolve that is to use the article discussion page to discuss how your edit is in fact superior to the group work being conducted there currently. If you are not willing to make this effort, then your edits will probably not return - I will pretty much see to that, as I think that your edits were deeply flawed, and that otehr editors have improved on the edits since.
Also, your noted that I am perhaps acting with an OWN-ish attitude regardingyour edits. The fact that you seem to be reverting multiple editors' edits to reinstate your own edit (undoubtedly of your own construction) does in fact demonstrate that very same behavior that you accuse us of having.
All that aside, here is the meat of the matter: you need to discsuss your edits, and convince us that those edits are both notable and worth adopting. That is what constitutes consensus. You may very well have had consensus before, but it is a shifting thing over time. The consensus you may have had months or years ago is no longer valid, as other editors have formed a sort of consensus by moving beyond your edits in the meantime. You may use the Discussion page to argue for your edits. You may not use edit summaries to attack other editors, as that is a violation of Wikipedia's no personal attacks and rules about uncivility.
If you feel that I am somehow raining on your parade, spanking your inner child or whatever, please feel free to contact an admin to guide you through on the path to acting within the rules to achive your ends. I have been eminently polite with you, despite your failure to do the same, but I won't hesitate for a moment to report you for 3RR, which addresses not just 3 reverts in a sinle day, but three continuous edits that are disruptive to the editorial process. that is not a threat; it is intended to allow you to see how your actions are being perceived by at least one editor - an editor who sincerely hopes you learn to work with your fellow editors, and avoid edit-warring. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcom enforcement complaint filed

I am not sure if you received the notice and removed it, or if the person filing the complaint forgot to notify you, but I wanted to make sure that you were aware that such a complaint has in fact been filed, noting violations of both Wikipedia policies and your previous ArbCom restrictions. As per policy, you (through your various IPs) are supposed to be notified. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy_2 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.