User talk:Wednesday Next

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello, Wednesday Next, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages 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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 3RR

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Matilda talk 21:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As per your note on my talk page - I have checked the edit history of the article

  1. 05:49, 21 May 2008 Wfgh66 (11,774 bytes) (rvd over-zealous requests for citations produced by one editor in particular.)
  2. 05:36, 21 May 2008 Wednesday Next (11,888 bytes) (add citation requests)
  3. 21 May 2008 Gwen Gale (11,770 bytes) (rs ref tag)
  4. 05:32, 21 May 2008 Wfgh66 (11,756 bytes)
  5. 05:27, 21 May 2008 Wednesday Next (11,770 bytes) (please stop edit warring over valid issues, use talk page)
  6. 05:26, 21 May 2008 Wfgh66 (11,827 bytes) (Only one editor is complaining about the use of a cover of a book that spawned the story of a mythical treasure of a priest the heart of the passage in the article)
  7. 05:25, 21 May 2008 Wfgh66 (11,756 bytes) (Then read the books and fill in the details yourself)
  8. 05:23, 21 May 2008 Wednesday Next(11,770 bytes) (not about references, about FOOTNOTING... repeated removal of maint tags is viewed as vandalism)
  9. 05:22, 21 May 2008 Wfgh66 (11,756 bytes) (Ample references are provided at bottom of page)
  10. 03:59, 21 May 2008 Wednesday Next (11,770 bytes) (→20th century rumors: book cover still not fair use here)
  11. 03:58, 21 May 2008 Wednesday Next (11,842 bytes) (removing valid maint tags is vandalism)
  12. 08:50, 20 May 2008 Wfgh66 11,827 bytes)

I will format - but just letting you know --Matilda talk 21:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My 4th edit is not a revert. The tag was replaced by Gwen Gale in the previous edit. I addressed the issue in a different way which did not consist of a revert. That is, I placed the tag in the edit you have numbererd 11. I restored it twice in the edits numbered 8 and 5. I made a different edit, not a revert, in the edit numbered 2. Thank you. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I can confirm that. Wednesday Next's fourth edit was not a revert. This user was edit warring, which was not helpful, but strictly speaking did not break 3rr so far as I can tell. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict * 2

Numbers 2, 5, 8, 10 and 11 are all your edits - all within 24 hours - please explain how you did not breach 3 rr? Note the rule states An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. --Matilda talk 21:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you looked at the edits? They are not the same. In particular, edit 2 does not revert to any previous version of the article. Also, for the purposes of 3RR, edits 10 and 11 count as a single edit as there were no intervening edits. I made two edits simply so I could give an edit summary for each. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict - Read the policy An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. - I would be prepared to read two of the edits as a single edit but that isn't what the policy says and that history shows 5 reversions. Note also Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Your behaviour is disruptive --Matilda talk 21:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit 2 is not a revert. And it is common to allow editors to make changes in steps. You must be a new admin. A series of uninterrupted edits is counted as a single edit for 3RR. Please check with another admin more familiar with the application of 3RR. And please actually LOOK at edit 2 it is not a revert of any kind. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Wednesday Next, you were edit warring, enough so that an admin has reasonably interpreted your edits as having strayed from the 3rr rule. I think a warning would have been enough, but 3rr does allow a block here. There is a chance though, that if you promise to stop edit warring on articles, Matilda might unblock you. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The policy explicitly states: "Consecutive reverts by the same user with no intervening edits by another user will be counted as one revert."
It also states that reverting vandalism is excluded. I attempted to stop short of violating 3RR even though I beleive that removing valid maint tags is normally considered vandalism and I did my best to stop the edit war by reporting the actual 3RR violation on the part of Wfgh66. It was never my intent to go beyond what policy permits, and it is my opinion that I was reverting vandalism by a known edit warrior with the boundaries of policy. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(Another edit conflict) Edit 10 removed material - this is a reversion in part and can be counted separately from edit 11. Edit 2 added numerous fact tags - in effect the same effect as re-adding the refimprove tag and in fact a quite gratuitous edit given the refimprove tag was already there. I find you were indeed edit warring - and moreover you apparently just don't understand. Continuing the block is in my view appropriate. you have a request for it to be reviewed. I will of course stand by a review. As for casting aspersions on how long I have been an admin - 4 March 2006--Matilda talk 21:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that Gwen Gale had returned the tag until later due to an edit conflict. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You weren't reverting WP:Vandalism. 3rr allows a block for edit warring with fewer than 4 reverts. Can you agree to stop edit warring? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It was never my intent to continue after making the report. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Another admin has unblocked you, which I support. I know you were trying to help, but please take this as a lesson about edit warring, which is always unhelpful. Nothing about this was ever close to vandalism, or an emergency. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that appears to have been a vandal pretending to be an admin. Haven't ever seen that before. I am laughing. :-) Wednesday Next (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A vandal pretending to be an admin? Who? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
User:I'm in charge who posted the notice that I was unblocked was not an admin and did not unblock me. They have now been blocked themselves. Really, I can't image that someone with the username "I'm in charge" would ever get admin status. Wednesday Next (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

More edit conflicts - Struck though counting edits 10 and 11 separately - acknowledging "Consecutive reverts by the same user with no intervening edits by another user will be counted as one revert." - there is plenty to be going on with though and edit warring is quite apparent. I will no longer respond here and wait for another admin to review.--Matilda talk 21:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Think what you want, it's your right. But from my point of view, I placed a tag and removed an image that was not being used in accordance with fair use. Wfgh66 immediately undid my edits. I reverted once. He did it again. I reverted a second time and then explained my edits on the talk page and waited for a response. He reverted again. I tried to find a different way of accomplishing my intent, which I believe is what is recommended in such cases. I didn't realize that the tag had been replaced by another user. Wfgh66 reverted again, I reported it and went on to edit other articles. Looks at my contributions rather than the history of the one article and you will get a clearer picture..... Wednesday Next (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "a more experienced admin" will be convinced--Matilda talk 21:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see (about the unblock notice). Wednesday Next, I don't think you understand yet that what you describe above is edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I understand that, but I thought that I had behaved correctly within the limits of the rules, stopped when it appeared to be escalating, made a report, stopped editing the article and went and did something else. I believe I acted correctly and attempted to follow the rules as I understand them. I have no intention of deliberately breaking or evading the rules. Either I misunderstood them or the 3RR is being applied above and beyond how it normally is. I got blocked once some time ago before I knew the rules. I thought I now understood them and was acting correctly but I guess not... Wednesday Next (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Matilda is right. Please do not edit war, it's basically useless. My advice is if you refuse, at least make sure your 3 reverts are once per 24 hour period. I am not on Wfgh66's side, I am just giving my opinion. Also, it would be in my best interest that you do not disrespect the Administrators. Ellomate (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this, and was about to unblock but got edit-conflicted. My take; Edit 11 was re-adding a ref tag. Edit 10 was removing a non-free image that failed policy (WP:NFCC). Edit 8 re-added the ref tag. (Revert 1). Edit 5 re-added the ref tag (Revert 2) but also removed the violating image. Edit 2 added fact tags and is irrelevant to the others. One could argue that a slight edit-war was occurring on the ref tag, but even then Wednesday Next only made 2 actual reverts as far as I can see, and was also editing in line with policy at the same time by removing the image. Black Kite 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
So be it, Black Kite. You are free to unblock this user seeing you are "a more experienced admin". Feel free to unblock the user, I have nothing against it. Ellomate (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am going to contact the blocking admin first. Black Kite 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, as the blocking admin hasn't edited for a while and may have gone offline,

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I believe you were trying to do the right thing here. In future, please do not continue to revert and try dispute resolution first. Happy editing,

Request handled by: Black Kite 22:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Autoblock

Fixed. I also deleted those revisions in case you didn't want your IP revealed. Black Kite 22:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll try to "do the right thing" at least one edit earlier next time. :-) Wednesday Next (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can't see the problem?

Hi - you replied to me at User talk:Black Kite#User:Wfgh66 in relation to the following thread:

Already (IMO) edit warring on Pierre Plantard. I'll stop editing [that article] myself for today... Wednesday Next (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I note that Wednesday Next couldn't help himself - it actually takes two to edit war and the article history at Pierre Plantard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) shows that they both took up almost immediately where the block left them. Neither editor learned from the experience, both appear by their actions largely unrepentant. For example it would have been appropriate if Wednesday Next had found another article to edit and left the "good fight" to Loremaster who was active in the article at the time. It would have been appropriate if Wfgh66 didn't take up where he left off also and tried to edit without reverting other people or adding in contentious material. Matilda talk 00:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Matilda, we both stopped and started to discuss, so I don't see what your problem with us is... Wednesday Next (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I supply the major sources for the Priory of Sion and Pierre Plantard articles. Wfgh66 (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the history (sorry but time stamps are in Australian eastern standard time) and try to contemplate it from my view. You were blocked for edit warring. Others also though you were edit warring.

  1. 10:23, 21 May 2008 Wfgh66 (14,886 bytes) (providing citation) # 09:52, 21 May 2008 Loremaster (14,779 bytes)
  2. 09:43, 21 May 2008 Loremaster (14,717 bytes)
  3. 09:42, 21 May 2008 Wednesday Next (14,632 bytes) (need to remove source itself along with other opinions from it)
  4. 09:41, 21 May 2008 Loremaster (14,982 bytes) (removing entire sentence)
  5. 09:28, 21 May 2008 Wfgh66 (15,251 bytes) (this is per Anderson's articles in The Rennes Observer)
  6. 09:24, 21 May 2008 Wednesday Next (15,222 bytes) (remove bogus citation, someone has to have called him "fringe" for us to call him the same)
  7. 09:23, 21 May 2008 Wednesday Next (15,419 bytes) (I don't disagree, but wikipedia editors cannot express their personal opinions in articles, assertions like this require a thrird-party citation)
  8. 09:22, 21 May 2008 Wfgh66 (15,413 bytes) (Anderson is a believer in the PoS that makes him Fringe - read his articles in Rennes Observer or even his letters to me)
  9. 09:19, 21 May 2008 Loremaster (15,406 bytes)
  10. 09:16, 21 May 2008 Wfgh66 (15,414 bytes)
  11. 09:11, 21 May 2008 Wednesday Next (15,222 bytes) (need a citation for Anderson being referred to as "fringe" by a reliable source... if he is, then the whole statement about his opinion should be removed)
  12. 09:08, 21 May 2008 Wfgh66 (15,216 bytes)
  13. 07:08, 21 May 2008 Loremaster (15,215 bytes)
  14. 07:03, 21 May 2008 Loremaster (15,212 bytes) (→Early life)
  15. 07:03, 21 May 2008 Wednesday Next (15,212 bytes) (clarify 'his')
  16. 07:03, 21 May 2008 Loremaster (15,205 bytes) (→Early life)
  17. 07:02, 21 May 2008 Wednesday Next (15,227 bytes) (make more accurate)
  18. 06:58, 21 May 2008 Loremaster (15,221 bytes) (remving who tag: there is no need to name names when we cite sources)
  19. 06:55, 21 May 2008 Wednesday Next (15,228 bytes) (→Family: make more accurate)
  20. 06:54, 21 May 2008 Wfgh66 (15,241 bytes) (restored passage removed by over-zealous editor who is unable to differentiate between hearsay and documented sources)
  21. 06:51, 21 May 2008 Wednesday Next (15,208 bytes) (→Early life: rm argumentation)
  22. 06:49, 21 May 2008 Wednesday Next (15,250 bytes) (these independent researchers should be named here, not just footnoted)
  23. 21:38, 19 May 2008 Wfgh66 (15,243 bytes) (added citation to Early life)

The blocking produced a hiatus in the edits of both of you - I blocked Wednesday Next at 7.03 and he was unblocked at 8.20. Wfgh66 was blocked at 7.02 and unblocked at 8.42. But after the short break you are both again editing the same page and then yes OK you go to the talk page BUT not immediately and in my view not very constructively (see below where I try to explain what I mean concerning another article on which you were both working) - Wednesday Next challenged Wfgh66 09:11, 21 May and reverted to that challenge 09:23, 21 May. I won't even go into Wfgh66's edits except to say they were indeed provocative and it should have gone to the talk page earlier. Hence my comment to the unblocking admin both took up almost immediately where the block left them. Neither editor learned from the experience, both appear by their actions largely unrepentant.

Read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Think carefully whether you need to tangle with each other (this applies to both of you) when there are other editors active on the page. At this page there was Loremaster. In the other incident there was Gwen Gale. Talk on the talk pages.

Instead of using edit summaries like please stop edit warring over valid issues, use talk page followed with a templated warning note try more of a conversation. While this note on the talk page concerning Referencing and footnotes does indeed appear reasonable, it isn't quite so clear cut when I look above and I also can quite clearly see is you have failed to engage on the talk page with the several notes left by Wfgh66 on sources (albeit a while ago) - for example at Talk:Bérenger_Saunière#Sauniere_and_Marie_Denarnaud . I think also you could have clarified your concerns a little more as to what the issue was - why for you a list of references at the end of the article is not considered adequate on Wikipedia. In fact I think you are not strictly correct in your stance. See Wikipedia:REF#General references versus inline citations : Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, which are mandated by the featured article criteria and (to a lesser extent) the good article criteria. Inline citations are references within the text that provide source information for specific statements. They are appropriate for supporting statements of fact and are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations. So a list of references is adequate unless you are challenging specific information. In which case you use the {{fact}} or {{cn}} - but sparingly - not as in this edit which I viewed as clearly provocative.

What for example why tag the following paragraphs:

  1. The presbytery was one of several building projects Saunière launched around the village. He renovated the interior and exterior of the local church, built a grand estate (the Villa Bethania) for himself, a promenade along the end of the village, and a tower on a local hill - a personal library called the 'Tour Magdala' which resembles the Tower of David in Jerusalem, called the 'Migdal David'. or
  2. Saunière had a heart attack on January 17, 1917, and died on January 22nd. or
  3. In 1896, according to a Report held in Carcassonne Bishopric, an investigation was started by the bishopric into how he had been able to fund the various building projects, as his salary did not meet the expenses. Saunière, who at age 50 had a glass eye, and was known to often play the lottery (loterie de la maison des artistes), refused to co-operate with the enquiry. The bishopric relocated him to a different parish, but Saunière refused and resigned on February 1, 1909. He was tried for trafficking in masses in 1910. He lived the rest of his life penniless, selling religious medals and rosaries to wounded soldiers who were stationed in Capagne les Bains. There were also accusations that he was taking in German spies.

What led you to request citations in those 3 instances when for example one of the references - not a book but a web page from a reliable source (CBS News) contained (I find the printable version easier to read) the following:

  1. After lavishly redecorating the interior of the church, Sauniere built a grand estate for himself, with a promenade that stretched along the edge of the village. At one end he constructed a tower, where he entertained guests and housed his extensive library. That is the paragraph concerning building projects seems to be supported by this ref - you can perhasp assume that more detail is available in some of the other refs cited or you could discuss on the talk page before challenging the material?
  2. Similarly Saunière died in 1917 so what fact were you trying to get at. Did you not like the heart attack or the detail of the dates and if you didn't like the detail why not? Why not discuss on the talk page - why were you challenging?
  3. The reference states In 1910 he was summoned to appear before the bishop's court in the local, medieval-walled city of Carcasonne. In Carcasonne, Sauniere was tried and found guilty of trafficking in masses. Priests are allowed to accept money for saying up to three masses a day. But what Saunière had done was to solicit and receive money for thousands of masses, which he couldn't possibly have said. In fact, he didn't even try. So the source of the wealth of the priest of Rennes le Chateau was not some ancient, mysterious treasure — but good old-fashioned fraud.

Footnote 2 also links to an online source It also covers material in the three paragraphs I have used as examples of excessive tagging

  1. Alongside the tiny church, Sauniere, who died in 1917 at the age of 65, built a luxurious villa and a lavishly appointed tower from which he corresponded with banks in Paris, received French financial newspapers and surveyed the Valley of God below while sipping rum with his housekeeper and the priest from neighboring Rennes-les-Bains.
  2. Sauniere, who died in 1917
  3. L'Huilier says the impoverished priest became inexplicably wealthy.

Could you please either of you demonstrate good faith? Work to improve Wikipedia instead of bickering? Instead of plastering fact tags - why not try and find some sources? I am well aware that WP:V states The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. I would like to see Wfgh66 try harder about his citing - page numbers - using in line cites, .... I would like to see Wednesday next not sitting picking on the side lines but say more specifically why he disagrees, one issue at a time, and maybe try to add material with sources.

Sorry to be so lengthy but I am asking you to see things from the point of view of others. I am sure you do both want to produce better articles. To do that collaboration is required and I think different ways of working together - not the same editing patterns. I do note very recent edit patterns for both seem much calmer. Regards - in good faith --Matilda talk 01:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Dan Brown edit

Why did you change my edit of "Dan Brown"? You did not need the incomplete reference about his religious views that you keep adding. Your reference does not even give direction to where you can find it. The reference at the end of the paragraph is to Dan Brown's actual website, and if you have ever gone to that link you would see that the paragraph from Bookreporter came from Dan Brown's website (already cited at the end of the paragraph). After my edit, it was all one sentence, so the one citation would cover all of the information, instead of adding your incomplete citation. Also, if you had actually read the paragraph which you were supposedly referring to from Bookreporter, you would see that Dan Brown did not call himself a Christ follower, which is the traditional view of a Christian. I made a reference to the Wikipedia article "Christian" to show that the traditional view of a Christian is a Christ follower. If you disagree with that, go edit the "Christian" article. Yes, Dan Brown refers to himself as a Christian, but unless you have seen his full explaination, you would be greatly misled into thining he is something that he is not. Don't believe me, read the article. His version of Christian is not what is associated with a Christian. I added the link to "Christian" to back up my statement and show that the general definiton of Christian is a follower of Christ. I saw where you made the statement that if he said he is a Christian, than he is. I could say I am a Harvard graduate, but does that make me a Harvard graduate? My edit showed that Dan Brown does consider himself a Christian, but I added that he was not a Christ follower. Simply saying Dan Brown is a Christian not giving enough information. If you don't believe me, check the link to his official website that proves my point. You do not own this article, so stop acting like it. Everything is not going to be written like the way you want it. Go and check the information before you make anymore uneducated edits. - Brinkley32 (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Why couldn't you simply put that he considers himself to be a Chrsitian. He considers himself a Christian, does he not? Also, why do you insist on having the Bookreporter article as a reference? The page from Bookreporter was just bits and pieces taken from Dan Brown's official site, the very next footnote. The next footnote is in the same sentence, so no repeated note is needed. Why cite a page that is just citing another page when you can cite the orginal page yourself? Instead of continuing an edit war, please consider my compromise of simply adding that he considers himself a Christian, and removing the duplicate/secondary/vague note. Brinkley32 (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Bérenger Saunière

See my responses at Talk:Bérenger Saunière#Referencing and footnotes--Matilda talk 00:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus bloodline

Hello Wednesday Next. I've radically improved the Jesus bloodline article. I would appreciate reading any comments you might have on the Talk:Jesus bloodline page. --Loremaster (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)