User talk:216.201.33.27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] September 2007

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Masculinity. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. de:Spongo 21:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Masculinity, you will be blocked from editing. --Hasek is the best 02:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, please consider creating an account so you can avoid further irelevant warnings.

Dear De Spongo, I will not be banned because I did not violate any rules. I included my reasons (all of which are valid) on the talk page, you however are continueing to viiolate wiki rules by including a section that is entirely un-sourced, and what's more not including any talk on the wiki talk page.

If you keep this up I will have the administration ban you for rule breaking, and harassment. You have been warned. 216.201.33.27 02:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Wiki Violations

However, since the heading you removed is a pretty large topic, it must be kept until a final desicion is made on its talk pages. And if you want to find sources for it, so you don't have to end up removing it, search up some good links and I'll tell you how to cite a fact. Thanks. --Hasek is the best 03:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a minute, the heading is for a topic that so far has not been proven even exists. It doesn't have to be included, and what's more as nobody but me has even contributed to the talk pages to discuss the section, I find you remarks outragious.

At any rate, I didn't write that section, nor do I care about researching it, but if somebody wants to have it in there, then they should research it and find sources for it. At any rate the entire section does not meet wiki standards of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability, and therefore should be deleted until it does. To include it is continued and deliberate breach of wiki standards. And as it is not sourced, and makes statements about men that are un-porven, that also constitutes POV, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

At present this article has two major violations, so quite reverting this section, until you source it. 216.201.33.27 03:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

Hi. :) I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Third opinion is not the proper place for listing your current dispute at Talk:Masculinity#Deleted_Section. Disputes are to be listed at Third Opinion only "[i]f, after discussion, only two editors are involved." A look at the history of the page indicates multiple editors. There are other options within the dispute resolution process that you might appeal to, such as requests for comment. However, after looking at the situation, I think that perhaps your issue may not be a typical dispute matter. I don't see any history in that article's edits to suggest the editors who have reverted you are active participants on that page. It may be that your removal of the section flagged editors on recent changes patrol. It is useful to explain your actions in the edit summary so that other editors know why you are removing a section. Also, statements like the one you added beginning "This section is preserved on the history page, however at present it is completely un-sourced, and violates wikipedia policies...." are never included visibly in article space. If you explain your actions in the edit summary with a brief sentence, Dlike "unsourced section violates NPOV, see talk", you may find editors less likely to blankly revert you, although it is possible that the removal will still generate some disagreement that may require consensus. Good luck. --Moonriddengirl 12:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I hope that your most recent efforts will help open a conversation with other editors if necessary. I suspect the edit summary you used will be helpful. I still believe that some of your problems may have been with editors unaware of the reasons for your actions. You mention Hasek is the best, for example. Looking at his edit history, I see that he has edited Masculinity only once since at least August 15th, in 1,500 edits. I suspect he was on recent changes patrol and did not understand the reason for your test removal. Similarly, the editor who restored that version, DeadEyeArrow, has only contributed that one edit to the page since at least the beginning of August. With most true edit disputes, you will see repeated reversions by the same editors. Filling in the edit summary doesn't guarantee that people won't question or revert your actions, but it can be very helpful. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] More disputes...

OK, so the article section isn't sourced... That is what the{{fact}} tag is there for. It is bad etiquette to repeatedly delete the sectio0n whilst it is still under discussion, as a rule, it remains there, so that it can be edited and improved, until there is a general consensus that the section should go. If you want to quote pieces of wikipedia rulings, then please think about it. It is normal to not just delete large sections of text without first debating. MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 21:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)