User talk:DocGratis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, DocGratis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Aaron Bowen 03:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have any questions you can always go here for help:WP:Village Pump Aaron Bowen 10:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Deep thought

Hi Doc. I really enjoy reading your posts at Talk:Don_Imus. They come across as being from someone who gives deep thought to article writing issues in the context of Wikipedia process. Keep up the good work. -- Jreferee 16:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imus lead

Why did you revert it? We did discuss it on the talk page and I made the changes to coincide with your disagreements. Tell me what you disagree with in the current lead.Wikidudeman (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to my actual points on the Don Imus talk page.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Don Imus. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes and not to leave edit summaries indicating that others are not welcome to edit articles. The duration of the block is 8 hours. If you wish to request review of this decision, you may email me or place {{unblock|reason here}} on this page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:19, 19 April 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 did do multiple revets. And on the first revert I requested Wikidudeman not to "change without first discussing (see comment below lead)" He would post a point, which I would disagree with and then he would immediately undo my undo (actually he kept jsut reposting exact language (see 123840880 & 123950847)). He ignored my calls for a consensus, and ignored the existing consensus. (it was "4 days old" which he said ment it was "That's very old for wikipedia.") All of this occurred in a time span of less than 24 hours. With no attempt on his part to allow for other opinions to way in. He also started removing the comment that was placed under the lead to advise people to discuss changes to the lead before making changes "! Please discuss on the talk page before changing the way the Rutgers controversy is being treated in the lead. It has been deliberately kept brief per a consensus, but discussion is not closed. " (see 123999818). I understand this seems a bit aggressive on my part but Wikidudeman kept pestering for immediate change. (see comments he made in my usertalk (usually while I was trying to type a response into talk:Don Imus (but would get edit conflicts with him.) Lastly, I have made a number of other reverts, but almost all of them have been POV/vandals."

Decline reason: "Sorry, but you clearly broke the three revert rule. Just because another editor was edit warring with you, doesn't mean you're allowed to edit war to. It always takes two to edit war and this is exactly the situation that the three revert rule is for. Gwernol 13:24, 19 April 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.

Does that mean a Block is also placed on Wikideudeman for his repeated Re-entry of the same item? Does it not apply beacuse he is not using the undo action? If it takes two to edit war, then the other person should be block also. DocGratis 13:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
No because he reverted three time then stopped. You reverted four times. Gwernol 13:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
How could I revert his edit's four times if he only changed it three? He changed it four times I reversed his change four times. I also reversed other people's changes to the lead. Because it keeps being POV altered. (both by pro and anit-imus people Which to me is a good indicator of a reasonable consensus NPOV (both sides don't like it) DocGratis 13:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, I DID NOT revert his changes even 4 times. At least once I simply edited out his non-consensus word "allegedly", because he had also added language about Imus being a TV host, which I disagreed with in the discussion page, but did not think my singular dissension was reason to remove it. DocGratis 13:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
That was still a revert - please read what the three revert rule says about this. Wikidudeman only reverted three times, his first edit was adding information. You then revert his edit four times - he stopped after his third revert. Gwernol 14:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
So what is the point of consensus if reverting to consensus count against the person reverting to it? I was merely trying to keep the consensus language and have a discussion in the discussion page. I would suggest that his use of 3RRR here is an abuse of the system. On his last edit he even took out the comment to please see the consensus discussion in the talk page. What does that accomplish? I might have left his 3 re edit stand and waited, except now he removed the indicator of see discussion, which seem a malicious edit. I would argue that a review of my actions shows that I approached the Don Imus Article with an intent of moderation and maintaining consensus (in fact I have received a positive comment to that effect on my talk page. (from someone who has not always agreed with me on the page) DocGratis 14:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Lastly, WP:3RR, specificly makes an exception for "Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)". The established consensus marks the current NPOV. Restoration of such SHOULD NOT be considered against 3RR. From Biographies of living persons "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space." DocGratis 14:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Doc. I thought I would chime in here because I believe that the trouble here may be in that you are new to Wikipedia and somewhat unfamiliar with aspects of Wikipedia. Reversion is a Wikipedia process that is very easy to do, but should be used rarely. Reversion is a decision that should be taken seriously. For example, in this reversion of Wikidudeman's post, the dispute was over whether to call it an "allegedly racist slur" or call it a "racial slur". You both agreed that it was a slur, didn't you? Yet, in reverting Wikidudeman's post that it was an allegedly racist slur, you reverted Wikidudeman's post that it was a "slur". If you disagreed with the modifier "allegedly," then you should have just deleted the word "allegedly". You also could have recognized where both of you agreed (e.g., on the word "slur") and deleted "allegedly racist" to leave behind "slur" so that the modifier of "slur" then could be discussed on the talk page. In that same diff, Wikidudeman also provided a dynamic link to the existing text "CBS." You eliminated the dynamic link to CBS provided by Wikidudeman, writing in your edit summary, "There is an ACTIVE discussion regarding this." It is very unlikely that you disagree with the dynamic linking "CBS" and it is untrue that there was an active discussion regarding whether to dynamically link CBS. I know what you meant by your edit summary, but edit summaries never comes across correctly when you make sweeping changes as part of a dispute. In both situations that I mentioned above, your reversion deleted material that you agreed with in an effort to delete other information provided by Wikidudeman. Not giving due consideration to other people's edits is very offensive. In the 5,000+ edits I've made, I probably only reverted less than five times. I try to give due consideration to the other person's post, keep that which should be kept, and delete the rest. You may want to read through Help:Reverting to give you a better idea as to when to revert and when not to revert. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. -- Jreferee 18:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Jreferee, thanks for your points and I see what you are saying. I did revert that reference out, but Wikidudeman was using CBS statement's lack of any reference or racist or racial as citation that it did not belong there. And a absence of phase in citation is not proof. I have been using revert ALOT. Between the Don Imus page which has been getting fits of vandals, over the last few days, and other pages, I have been scanning. I have found that I enjoy reverting vandalism, and I most likely do need to use the tools of such better. And no I don't think that Wikidudeman's changes were intended to be vandalization. But his lack of willingness to discuss changes before implementing them (in a section that had been arrived at via consensus), and in light of his dismissal of said consensus, I took it attitude to be one fixed POV and bias. Prior evidence had been cited regarding the use of Racial and its meaning over racist and in fact a discussion about inclusion of a qualifier alleged (or something similar) had already occurred. That being said I have no problem with people changing the article. And even the lead, I just kept trying to call for delay and discussion before altering it. However Wikidudeman, would reaply his change before even responding to my posts, and after making his posts would post to my talk demanding that I respond to his discussion. Actually even if I had NOT used Reversion, the 3RR would apply if I continued to change his changes, included at the end, if I had just replaced the comment he removed from below the lead. However, given that this is a living person bio page, I thought I was with the wikistandard to adhere to call for consensus and NPOV before making changes to the lead. DocGratis 18:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
3RR is not about changes, its about aggression towards another user. I could have accomplished the same four changes in 24 hours without violating 3RR. Being Wikipedia civil is an acquired skill, one in which I know you will get since you put good thought into your posts. As for being involved in a dispute AND taking the attitude to be one of fixed POV and bias, you should not wear two hats. If you are in a dispute, get a third person to review the situation. For example, administrators do not "administrate" matters for which they are personally involved. They usually grab another administrator to resolve the matter. Notice how Seraphimblade blocked you, but Gwernol reviewed the block. Your challenge of Seraphimblade's block essentially made Seraphimblade personally involved and neutral admin Gwernol then reviewed the matter. In general, there are many other dispute options as well. If you are at your third revert, you can use suggestions at Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes on what to do next. In general, people get in trouble by focusing on one topic too much, (like Imus). Once you get a lot of content on Wikipedia, you will see that the addition or removal of some POV content is not enough to be worked up about. I now remain far away from disputes. For example, if I make a change, and someone changes it back, I usually then post a note on the article talk page and the user's talk page. If they still won't retract their change, I then usually post more details on the article talk page in hopes that someone else will take up the cause. I then move on. There are a lot of editors who do this as well. -- Jreferee 21:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the added information as to biographic references

DocGratis,

I wasn't aware of the bio format applied to articles such as Don Imus. Thank you for that clarification. Mister Fax 20:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
I'm awarding you this Barnstar for your valiant work on improving Wikipedia! Wikidudeman (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)