User talk:207.219.255.27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Margaret Sanger. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. [1] [2] [3] [4] / edg ☺ ★ 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Margaret Sanger. 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. Alison ❤ 00:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You appear to be having trouble with the unblock template. I've reverted your edits to my block message. Do you need some help posting an unblock request? - Alison ❤ 00:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I am new at this. I guess my contention with the block was

that there was not a consensus on the talk page regarding the issue at hand and that the external link in question deserved to be on to preserve a NPOV. If not overturned I accept the punishment and will continue the "edit war" on the talk page.

Ok. No problem :) As I'm the blocking admin here, are you promising to dialog on the talk page and not edit-war any further on this? - Alison ❤ 01:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to unblock at this time, given the comments below. You'll have to ask someone else. Just put a message below with just {{unblock|your reasons here}} in it and another administrator will review things - Alison ❤ 01:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eugenics links

For what it's worth, the article has a decent link to a site explaining how Sanger, among others, did in fact support eugenics

  • Online excerpts from The War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race

You repeatedly removed this link, replacing it with your preferred link.

... which contains a number of out-of-context quotes that have been discussed at length on Talk:Margaret Sanger. Your contribution to this conversation was an ad hominem borderline attack on another editor[5]. / edg ☺ ★ 01:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Owch! On second thoughts, I'm not going to review this unblock. That was completely uncalled-for - Alison ❤ 01:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The comment was completly called for. Just because the colloquial reference was slightly sexual in nature does not infer any hate. I could have easily said "Are you locked in an irrevocable devotion to her", would that have made a difference? If so, then I have no desire to be unlocked any sooner than the 31 hours so imposed on me. For then the absurdity of the punishment matches the absurdity of the "crime".

Ok and also I wasnt removing the one link and replacing it. I was just adding the other link. If i was removing the one it was a mistake.

P.S. Loosen up when it comes to sexual colloquialisms, what is this church?

Hi, I wonder if you wouldn't mind giving us a name, so we don't have to call you 207.219.255.27? I don't have much issue with the sexual innuendo, but I don't think it's in good faith to question the motives of other editors just because we might disagree with you. FWIW, no, I'm no relation to Margaret Sanger. MFNickster 02:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
207.219.255.27: Consider Wikipedia:Civility on that. Even tho this isn't church, it doesn't help matters to ridicule people, especially during a serious discussion. And the wording you propose "Are you locked in an irrevocable devotion to her" would still be an ad hominem attack, and not useful in that discussion. Evidence is needed, not distracting accusations. / edg ☺ ★ 02:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
207.219.255.27: When you say there is "not a consensus on the talk page", you might be missing some of the history here. There has been plenty of discussion on Talk:Margaret Sanger of the "extermination" quote, where it has been brought up repeatedly, and generally it can be shown that the quote is taken out of context, and probably has a different intent. People who advocate for a genocidal interpretation of the "Negro problem" quote haven't made a case for such an intent, either in this situation or via other evidence — that they still occasionally demand it be included in the article does not mean it merits inclusion without such evidence, per WP:NPOV. / edg ☺ ★ 02:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
What you made there was a serious personal attack against another editor and, given that you remain recalcitrant on this, I'm extending your block by 24 hours. Please read WP:NPA to understand what's wrong with this behaviour. BTW, I'm just some random admin who happened to get called in due to your behaviour. I've nothing invested in this. When your block is lifted, please consider what others are saying here and try working with them rather than against them. This is a collaborative effort - Alison ❤ 04:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, 207.219.255.27, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other 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. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  / edg ☺ ★ 02:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November 2007

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page David Rockefeller worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. [6] [7] / edg ☺ ☭ 02:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Please desist in commucating with me in any form other than on a discussion page. Any further communication with me outside of said discussion page will be taken as harrasment and will be reported as such. Also, please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox.

Sincerly, 207.219.255.27.