User talk:128.226.160.124

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: "In the process of reading.."

Decline reason: "your edits were considered vandalism you were rewritng policy without consensus, that is considered vandalism. As 3RR does not appy to vandalism I see no problem-- Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:48, 31 October 2006 (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.

Attention:

This IP address, 128.226.160.124, is registered to State University of New York at Binghamton and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution. If the institution uses proxy servers, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason a message intended for one person may be received by another. Similarly an innocent user may be blocked for another user's vandalism. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism; if so, please read our advice on this situation.

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block with the template {{schoolblock|optional comment}} as the block reason.

Note: In the event of persistent vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled for up to 1 year at a time. Abuse reports may also be forwarded to your school administration for investigation.

School staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

To Betacommand: Can you provide the link to where adding to "policy without consensus... is considered vandalism"? —128.226.160.124 19:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can, Wikipedia:Vandalism states:

Official policy vandalism: Deleting or altering part of a Wikipedia official policy with which the vandal disagrees, without any attempt to seek consensus or recognize an existing consensus. Improving or clarifying policy wording in line with the clear existing consensus is not vandalism.

Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

1 3RR block discussion
2 "Hello" Talks on WP:IAR
3 Welcome 128.226.160.124!
4 3RR on WP:IAR

[edit] 3RR block discussion

—David Levy 19:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited the bottom three, and did not use revert button or whatnot, since I knew to follow the WP:3RR128.226.160.124 19:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Quoth that very page:

"Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. 'Complex partial reverts' refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention." —David Levy 19:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

David should also be blocked:

So why aren't you blocked?

—128.226.160.124 19:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it's the three-revert rule, not the two-revert rule. You've read it, of course, so you must have known that.

Incidentally, editing this page every two minutes makes it very difficult for others to reply. I thought that you were going to start using the "Show preview" button. —David Levy 19:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was just making sure because Heligoland stated that it was two and then I get ban (his words). You can see it on his user talk page, and I think I also transfer that part to my user page, but I'm not certain.

Heligoland was mistaken. Of course, as you've professed familiarity with WP:3RR, you surely knew that. —David Levy 20:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

128.226.160.124 - Since I don't know your name, I'll just have to use your IP address. I left this message on this very page shortly after the third edit in which you had reverted an admin. Hi again, I notice you've made some further edits to WP:IAR which has been reverted again. I'm concerned that your going to be banned under the WP:3RR policy which asks that editors don't change a page more than twice. You've now reverted edits made by 3 different admins, in addition to myself. I feel I've been patient and pleasent throughout this whole process, but I will not have my abilties and knowledge of Wikipedia questioned in this manner. I was concerned you would be blocked when you reverted the article for a fifth time (by four different users) and I, thinking you may be unaware of the Three Revert Rule, didn't want to see you blocked for an oversight.

David. I'm sorry this keeps dragging on. I've tried to be as patient as possible with the anon IP, but my comments are being taken out of context and I really don't want you or anybody else reading this debacle to think I'm in anyway unsure of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Best Wishes. Heligoland 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Hello" Talks on WP:IAR

[edit] On User_talk:Heligoland

Hi, you accidently reverted the improvements I was making at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules page by using VP2. Please reply on this talk page.

There was nothing accidental about my revert to WP:IAR. I realise your probably a new editor, but to be fair, you've made 14 edits to this one page, your only activity on Wikipedia, your not logged in, your not using edit summaries to help me see what exactly your doing to the page, and to top it all, the content you've added has no references, which makes me suspicious your vandalising Wikipedia. It was for these reasons that I believe your edits were vandalism and hence why I reverted to the last good version by a well known admin. Heligoland 14:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That is understandable, although we do not need to be logged in to contribute, and there are in fact references. I will add edit summaries to help users. My apologizes. Just give me a moment to fix it up fully.

Not a problem, I believe your not vandalising Wikipedia, please do accept my apologies for thinking that you were. Heligoland 14:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreicate it. I am continuing to make minor improvements but some else has reverted it, User:David_Levy. I have messaged him but I despise having to wait for him to reply before I can again work on WP:IAR. It is quite a waste of time. I was hoping you would send him a quick message just to help him understand I am only making small additionals. Thank you.

I've left a message over on David's talk page. Best Wishes Heligoland 15:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

David has not yet reply. Will you revert the article back? Again, I appreicate it. I wish to continue working.

We seem to keep crossing in the post, so to speak. The decision is now out of my hands due to the fact David is an admin and I'm not. Heligoland 15:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"We seem to keep crossing in the post" I do not understand. Anyhow, I replied on David's page, and he still hasn't responded. If you care to, but is not necessary, you may reply to my post.

Hi again. It would be nice if I know what to call you. I'm Nick, by the way. Just a couple of notes to add to this before I disappear for a little bite to eat. I'm not an administrator but I don't feel comfortable reverting an edit made by an administrator. David has been approved by the Wikipedia community, we believe David to have the knowledge and attitude to maintain Wikipedia and for him to make such decisions is, in my opinion, more legitimate than any edits made by myself, someone who has been approved by nobody. I know that I could, if I so choose, revert any of the edits made by any of the administrators today to the article, but I would not feel comfortable with this and I will now retire from this discussion totally. I would say, in a parting note, that although you aren't changing policy, the wording on pages can be ambigious and I, as a Scottish editor may interpret something differently to an English, American, Canadian or Australian editor, due to variances in the English language. That's why it's important, in my opinion, that edits to important rules and guidelines are agreed in advance by the community here, where opinion can be solicited from the wider community and where any ambiguity can be spotted in advance and worked out.

I don't feel I am being too cautious, WP:IAR is an important rule and I feel that any edits to the page need to be double checked before the page goes live. Anyway, must dash. Best Wishes Heligoland 16:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. I also thank you for acknowledging that I am not changing policy, but there will always be those that disagree. "The wording on pages [is] ambigious" and that is more reason for me to improve it, and if others disgree with certain words I retrieve directly from Jimbo and official policies themselves, they can always talk with me. I am very open, and am glad to see that others have contribute without the difficulty that I am having to deal with.

I am still waiting for David to make a reply (which is talking forever), and I could be working on WP:IAR as we speak. Well, Have fun eating!128.226.160.124 17:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I notice you've made some further edits to WP:IAR which has been reverted again. I'm concerned that your going to be banned under the WP:3RR policy which asks that editors don't change a page more than twice. You've now reverted edits made by 3 different admins, in addition to myself, and I am worried they may decide to ban you. As I and others have said, please, please, please register an account and create your ideal version of the page under your own user space before allowing others to decide and vote on whether to adopt your page, suggest changes or make the further changes. Best Wishes Heligoland 18:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the WP:3RR rule and I follow it, and will report those that do not. The recent edits are not reverted edits, they are simply edits. I do not wish for an account. I hope that is clear. If there are any--any--issues with the improvements, anyone, inculding myself are free to post them on Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules where I have started a topic (at bottom) for those that do have issues. Thank you.

128.226.160.124 18:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On User_talk:David_Levy

Hi, you recently reverted my improvements on WP:IAR. These are not major changes; they are simply explanations and clarifications. Please talk to me if you have any issues with the minor useful additions I am making, and I will accommodate it into the article. Also, please allow me more time before reverting; it is very distributive in my contributions. Reply back on this talk page and I will respond promptly. Thank you.

Hi, it's me again. If you were to create an account, you could have a Sandbox where you could work on some drafts of the article and present this on the Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules. By working in your own sandbox, nobody would disturb you during your edits and you can make interesting and perhaps innovative changes which could possibly be disruptive if carried out on the actual article. Heligoland 14:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are being far too cautious. If you allow me the time to work, you will find that I have done nothing disruptive. Please revert the article back. Please also read Talk.

The decision is now out of my hands. It's up to David, what with him being an admin and all. My only concern is that users visiting WP:IAR might arrive to find an article which is in the middle of your facelift process. As I've said, I'm most satisfied that your not vandalising and what I'm about to say clearly isn't your intention, but without discussing your changes on the talk page, you run the risk of posting material which is not accurate and which could mislead anybody reading it. As something like WP:IAR is an important rule and guideline for Wikipedia, any changes need to be agreed upon and any future versions of the page need to be proof read before going live. Best Wishes Heligoland 15:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"your facelift process."

Please read the "Always leave something undone" at http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_to_consider in responds to your comment. Please also read the talk guidelines, the part where they speak about being courteous to Wiki users.

"Without discussing your changes on the talk page, you run the risk of posting material which is not accurate and which could mislead anybody reading it."

This is a risk of the entire Wikipedia project, but I'm sure you, being an admin and all, could understand that.

"any changes need to be agreed upon"

Of course, though the additions I am making are not changing the policy, and are therefore not violating anything.

"and any future versions of the page need to be proof read before going live"

This is a false statement. Users have improve and made changes without having every single edit discussed. Check the history to see for yourself, please.

Again, you are being far too cautious, and I hope I hear from you quickly. Thank you again.

Your changes to the page (which is not an "article") are far from minor. Several of your ideas (adding the word "discourage," placing the entire policy in a "nutshell" box, significantly expanding the page's length) have been rejected by the community. You also have failed to follow our style guide. (In particular, some of your headings were incorrectly formatted.)

As I advised (and the page itself advises), please propose these revisions on the talk page before proceeding.

As Heligoland noted, it generally isn't a good idea to experiment on active pages (by saving changes and seeing what requires "fixing"). Please use the "Show preview" button (and attempt to arrive at a working version) before pressing the "Save page" button. Heligoland also was correct in stating that a sandbox would be useful in this situation. You could experiment to your heart's content and present the results to the community when you're ready. If you'd like, I'd be happy to create a sandbox for you.

Heligoland was incorrect in implying that administrators (including me) possess the authority to overrule the editorial decisions made by other editors. My reversion of the page (performed without the special "rollback" function afforded to sysops) carried no more weight than Heligoland's. It was not an administrative act, but it did reflect my knowledge of the community and its procedures.

Your latest message on my talk page (posted as I was typing the above) seems to be based upon the mistaken impression that Heligoland's most recent reply was written by me. You also incorrectly claimed that you "are not changing the policy." In fact, you added a word ("discourage") that alters the policy's meaning in a manner rejected by the community.

I disagree with your implication that you've been treated discourteously. Heligoland has politely attempted to assist you (as I'm doing now).

On an semi-related note, please sign your posts on talk pages. Please also be more patient before declaring that a "mistake" has been made and falsely implying that a dispute has been mutually resolved. It took a while for me to type this reply. Thank you. —David Levy 15:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read: Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset

It states, "Ignore all rules - if the rules discourage you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them."

Therefore, it is not a "claim," it is a reality.

Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset a not a policy, and the context in which the word is used there differs from the one implied by the phrase "prevent and discourage."

Then I will put prevent or discourage, or and/or. If you still have a major problem with that, then I will remove the term discourage. Hope this makes you happy...

"...have been rejected by the community."

User:xaosflux was helping; he/she did not reject it nor have any other besides yourself.

I wasn't referring to Xaosflux's edits. I was referring to the past discussions from Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules, which you evidently haven't read. Such changes have been proposed before and rejected by the community.

HaHaHa, funny. I was actually in the midst of reviewing it until I needed to spend all this time talking instead of working and helping. Furthermore, you evidently haven't read my improvements, as you will see that I have even linked to Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules! Wow!

If there are anything I edit that has been "rejected by the community," then point out the specifics, and I will remove it, or you may do so yourself after pointing it out directly. Otherwise, stop complaining--"rejected by the community," "implied by the phrase "prevent and discourage." "trying to AGF"--just please either fix it up (after stating your reasons) and stop being possibility unproductive while hindering mines.

"(In particular, some of your headings were incorrectly formatted.)"

We all make mistakes.

Please read Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

& Do Not Bite.

Also, please give me the specifics that you are talking about.

I'm not ascribing bad faith (hence my manual reversions), nor am I blaming you for your unfamiliarity with our style guide. I'm simply informing you of your error. (Excepting proper nouns, we don't use capitalization for words beyond the first.)

Then simply fix up any incompetences I may possess. No one is perfect. And look! Now I learned since you pointed out the specifics.

You also have failed to follow our style guide."

Failed is a harsh word. Please read WP:Civility & WP: Etiquette.

I'm honestly trying to help you, and I've taken a great deal of time out of my busy schedule to type these lengthy messages. No offense is intended.

I also have... "to type these lengthy messages."

"As I advised (and the page itself advises), please propose these revisions on the talk page before proceeding."

The page does not advise that.

Quoth the standard policy tag that you inserted: "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Given the fact that your changes have been reverted by more than one editor, there certainly should be doubt.

Don't be silly. That states, "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia.[1] The concept expressed below is fundamental to the encyclopedia's operation. It has a long tradition[2] and deep, subtle meaning. Please consider this before editing the page." That one editor is obliviously your friend who contacted. If you feel there is doubt, I will completely talk with you. If state your problems and issues on the talk page, with your reasons, and then we can have discourse.

I am not "experimenting;" this is how I work and if you have an issue with that, then it is your own fault, and I am sad that you cannot understand and respect how other people, who are not you, contribute to Wikipedia. As I had stated, I will use the "Show preview" button next time, but that doesn't mean you had to revert it again.

Performing edits that require repeated "fixing" is experimentation. And again, you're making changes that have been discussed previously and rejected by the community.

And again, if that were true, link to the "discussed previously and rejected" improvements I have made.

Have not stated a "mistake." It was "appears to have been a mistake," as he can properly see from the history page.

Your edit summary ("rv, Have talked with those that reverted, and appears to have been a mistake.") implied that you and I had participated in a discussion in which I indicated that my reversion was erroneous. At that point, I was in the process of typing a reply that clearly expressed a contrary statement. You had talked to me, not with me. —David Levy 17:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is your interpretation, inaccurate from my view, then I will try harder to talk with you and try to please you...

[edit] On User_talk:Xaosflux

You remove the entire section of supporters and opponents from WP:IAR. Your reason: "this would become an unmaintainable list." I agree and appreciate your contribution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.226.160.124 (talk • contribs) .

[1] I am hoping you can find a better way to link to important terms such as the extremely vague ignore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.226.160.124 (talk • contribs) .

Replied on your talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, dictionary.reference.com aka dictionary.com is a non-free website, we have a sister project, wiktionary that provides freely licensed definitions, such as wikt:ignore that would be more approriate links. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind notice. Would you please tell me where is the dispute resolution page so I may ask for one. This is regarding the reverting on David's part.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.226.160.124 (talk • contribs) .

Our disputre resolution process is detailed here. Before starting dispute resolution, you may want to register for an account, it's free and only take about 1 min. The first step in dispute resolution is generally disucssing the changes on the Talk Page of the page you are conerned about. In the case of Policy pages, you can also see The Village Pump Policy Page. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This policy has been through many revisions, and there are many views on what should be displayed on it. One such group is working on a proposed update at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Brainstorming. I really dont want to get in the middle of this dispute, my edits were primarly stylistic, as policy pages need to be easy to read for all editors. If it were me I'd start on the talk page if I wanted to make a signifigant change to a policy page, AND link to it from the policy pump; stability of policies is helpful. If you want to dispute that someone reverted you, well it is a wiki and anyone can pretty much revert anyone else, if it becomes excessive you can read up on the e revert rule for where to report it. Remeber, that we are consensus driven, gathering others who share your view of how a page should display is very helpful in initiating changes. For a semi-formal place to disucss pretty much anything, you can also try the WikiEN-l mailing list. Hope this helps. For further info on resolving disputes you can see WP:DR. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 17:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift reply. I am not interested in an account, nor am I new to Wikipedia, but thank you for the offer. I am only interested, right now, on working on WP:IAR. "The first step in dispute resolution is generally disucssing the changes on the Talk Page of the page you are conerned about." This is not what I wish to dispute the reverting on David'a part. I am only allow 3 reversion and respect the policy so I rather dispute this then to revert again. Where do you suggest I go, or who do you suggest I talk to. This David person takes forever to reply and keeps reverting only because he wants it his way. 128.226.160.124 16:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules

People who have issues with improvements can state them below and I will happily answer them If you have any helpful suggestion on what to change, please post them here. 128.226.160.124 18:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, anonymous IP user, here's an issue with your self-declared improvements - What exactly does the "summary of Jimbo's essay" (not actually an essay but a brief 4 paragraph musing which the "summary" repeats like 75% of... but whatever) add to this policy page. Even if I imagine I were an WP:IAR supporter, I don't see what it adds, as the full text this 75% summary is already linked from this page (plus Jimbo's opinions are already highlighted). What the "summary" does add is the POV editorial comment and intepretation. The Jimbo "essay" does not mention IAR at all, and it can be straightforwardly intepreted as an argument for rules to protect against mob vs mob opinion/the weight of numbers (and what's with the bolding of "10 years" that doesn't appear in the original). The "essay" comes from a page about the IAR debate and does not obviously show Jimbo's support for IAR. You could give it the title "Rules trump mob rule on Wikipedia" and it would make more sense Bwithh 19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, the whole thing's been reverted by another editor. Moving along... Bwithh 19:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I was bemused by the idea in the IP's edit that those who would end controversy by casting an article in a truly neutral point of view might "gain the upper hand" over tendentious partisans being introduced as, "the dangers of leverage". I'm pretty certain Jimbo was identifying a possible good ideal there, rather than warning of a danger. His statement could be paraphrased "Wikipedia is different from silly usenet groups where arguments never end, because here we can step outside the argument, and satisfy all parties." That's a "danger of leverage"? Huh? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome 128.226.160.124!

Hello, 128.226.160.124, I'm xaosflux and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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, and use edit summaries whenever you change a page. If you have any questions, need help or assistance, check out Wikipedia:Ask a question or contact me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Enjoy Wikipedia!!

— xaosflux ^Talk 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! for your welcome! 128.226.160.124 16:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on WP:IAR

You have been temporarily blocked from editing because of your disruptive edits. You are invited to contribute in a constructive manner as soon as the block expires. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 19:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I posted my reply above. What is your reply?128.226.160.124 19:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address.

[WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]