User talk:74.64.60.148

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your reversions at Iraq Body Count project

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Iraq Body Count project. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

You have deleted the same sourced info on the study of the number of Guatemala deaths 3 times in less than 24 hours. --Timeshifter 06:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to your 4th reversion in less than 24 hours a 3RR violation report has been made at WP:AN/3RR. --Timeshifter 09:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your reversions at Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

You have deleted the same sourced info 3 times in less than 24 hours. In the section titled "UNDP ILCS study compared to Lancet study." --Timeshifter 08:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to your 4th reversion in less than 24 hours a 3RR violation report has been made at WP:AN/3RR. --Timeshifter 10:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't remove warnings from your talk page, but you'll probably do it again anyway. BishopTutu 07:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I won't if that's the rule Bishop, but these are just deceitful "warnings" from a POV-pushing editor who's upset that i deleted a tiny fraction of his POV pushing.74.64.60.148 08:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, if that's true, I'll look into it. In the meantime, you should probably go get some help with that issue from an admin. or discuss it in the corresponding articles' talk pages. BishopTutu 08:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I have discussed it in the talk pages at length. He's "telling on me" to muddy the waters, apparently in the hope that some admin who hasn't read, and doesn't have time, to read or understand all this stuff will just believe him and ban me. And I certainly don't have the time or energy to track down his voluminous edits on this topic, and now track down and explain my case to all the people he decides to run to and "tell on me". Take a look at the sheer volume of edits he's done on the two pages he complains about *my* (miniscule in comparison) revisions. Most of the text on the pages by now is his. Whole sections are all him. And all his edits are geared to pushing a particular POV. The problem is that you'd have to read all this and know something about the topic to be able to decipher any of this. I think he assumes that most admins won't be able to do this and the illusion of violating some specific rule on my part will be sufficient to get me out of the way of his controlling and 'shifting' these pages' content toward his particular POV, a task at which he's been extremely busy.74.64.60.148 09:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was right. His lobbying worked. It's a shame that there are POV pushing frauds like Timeshifter editing these pages so heavily.74.64.60.148 11:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, if what you say is true, I'll try to help you out. But, in the future, try not to revert so much; although you probably may have had good reason to revert (POV-ed info), you still violated the 3RR, though I'm not siding with anyone. BishopTutu 16:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
User:74.64.60.148 has been deleting sourced material now for months under several different IP addresses. I finally got fed up and decided to figure out 3RR incident reporting. The bottom line in this specific case is that he is deleting the same relevant sourced material, and putting out a fog of misinformation to cover it up. The diffs show the deletions clearly. I have been thanked several times by several editors of various Iraq War casualty pages for my efforts. Only this anonymous editor seems to have had a problem with my edits. At times he has been relentless. And why can't he get a user name? I have deleted none of his sourced material. At one point I thought we had come to an agreement. Or it looked that way. We both had been adding material to both pages for awhile. Other editors seemed to be happy with both of our efforts. But then the last couple days he went back to deletion mode. In order to favor a POV. I don't favor any POVs. I like both IBC and Lancet. They both do great work. I am only interested in painting a broad picture with all significant viewpoints on casualty stats in Iraq. It is a complicated subject, and deserving of care, not POV-favoring, slashing, deletion, and misinformation, all while claiming others are POV-pushing. --Timeshifter 18:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeshifter's dishonesty

Timeshifter, your story above is text-book projection, first rate water-muddying, I grant you, but deceit nonetheless. But this follows the pattern of your edits. Your POV is clear throughout. It's pretty simple: you believe this recent Lancet study is the Truth, and, therefore you have to believe that virtually all other sources are way off. IraqBodyCount is a wild underestimate, ILCS is not "legitimate" etc. Basically every edit you've made on all these pages is carefully orchestrated and loaded to lead everyone toward these beliefs. Now you're pissed that I've ever so slightly gotten in the way of your prolific POV-pushing by deleting a miniscule fraction of it, and now you're playing the victim.

Let's put that act aside and look at what I've actually deleted. I've reverted basically three things here:

1. Lancet page - claims about a supposed "ILCS baseline 2002 mortality rate". Fabrications do not belong on wiki pages. I deleted that fabrication. The only "sourced material" I deleted was stuff about Lancet baseline rates that were cited accurately enough, but only had any relevance to this section because they were being related to the fabrication I was removing. Once the fabricated "ILCS baseline rate" is removed, the surrounding "sourced material" from Lancet that I deleted no longer has any relevance to the section. It is entirely out of context and so properly removed along with the fabrication. The "sourced material" that was there makes no sense being there unless the fabrication is there, so I removed it along with the fabrication.

2. IBC page - I deleted an inaccurate and out of context claim authored by Timeshifter. I added a statement which says IBC showed an example of something, and provided a citation for this. Timeshifter then adds that Lancet authors dispute this claim from IBC, and he puts a footnote onto this, but the footnote leads to quotes by Lancet authors that address something else entirely. Thus, this claim of Timeshifter's is properly removed as it is falsely described as one thing when it is something else, and the citation leads to something that is different than how it's described.

So the first two are just simple falsehoods and fabrications. Apparently it's "against the rules" and "POV-favoring" to delete POV-pushing falsehoods and fabrications.

3. IBC page - Guatemala study. I've questioned the relevance of this to IBC, and the accuracy of the description, and discussed this on the talk page. This one is at least more debatable than the others, as it is just tangential cherry-picking for a POV, rather than just fabrications and falsehoods for a POV.

Deleting these three things has been my great crime, causing poor Timeshifter so much pain and anguish, yeah right. As I've already said, I can't keep up with Timeshifter's proselytizing for the Lancet study on all these various pages. He's very commited to the cause, as proselytizers tend to be.

Most of what you are saying is not true, and addressed fully on the talk pages of the articles. We discussed every point for days. It is all there. --Timeshifter 08:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
All of what I say is true, and yes it's on the talk pages. You're a liar and a fraud whose only interest is spreading POV-pushing disinformation. You're doing a good job though, and I can not keep up with such a dedicated and determined fraud. Bravo.74.64.60.148 16:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments at Talk:Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq

The above section is full of personal attacks. You made similar personal attacks at Talk:Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please remove all your above personal attacks and those in the section titled "The ILCS baseline rate" in the article talk page, or I may report them to the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. I suggest you also read the following wikipedia guidelines:

   * Wikipedia:Assume good faith
   * Wikipedia:Civility
   * Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
   * Wikipedia:No personal attacks
   * Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard

From the "No personal attacks" guideline is this: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." --Timeshifter 18:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter wants to run and tell mommy on me again. You accused me of lying above. That was deceitful on your part. I merely accused you in return. The difference is mine is true, which is why you want to have it suppressed (as most other truths on the pages you're mangling with voluminous POV pushing edits). Every word I wrote above is true, but since that doesn't matter, and what matters is treating liars with 'civility', I'll change the wording above so that it accuses you of lying in the more round-about way you accused me of lying directly before.74.64.60.148 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, you accuse me above of "POV-favoring, slashing, deletion, and misinformation". I fail to see how your threats to go tell mommy are anything but hypocritical diversions.74.64.60.148 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, one should be civil in front of mommy. :) I don't believe I called you a liar. The slashing deletions were shown with diff links at the 3RR incident board. That is why you got a 24 hour block. POV-favoring or pushing is a fairly common accusation on wikipedia. As long as it is backed up with proof it is not considered a personal attack. Just throwing it around without proof is considered uncivil and a personal attack. Misformation is just a variation of the phrase POV-favoring. As long as it is backed up then it is OK. I backed up everything numerous times on the article talk pages. --Timeshifter 21:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You spreading 'misinformation' again. The basis for my comments about your POV-pushing and deceptive claims is found in the talk pages. And the reason for my 24-hour ban was that a craven POV-pushing wiki editor disinformed an admin about what was going on, just as that same wiki editor is tyring to disinform readers of the above two pages.74.64.60.148 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block


[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on January 7, 2007 to Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 10:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Regarding edits made during January 8, 2007 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. If this is an IP address, and it is shared by multiple users, ignore this warning if you did not make any unconstructive edits. delldot | talk 22:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're mistake delldot. This edit didn't remove content. It moved some content to a new section of its own and added more content.74.64.60.148 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)