User talk:68.237.216.187

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on First Council of Nicaea. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. . Phrases such as "some maintain that" are called weasel words, and it is a phrase to be avoided on Wikipedia. There are three sources in the paragraph that show an earlier use of The Trinity so the disclaimer "some maintain that" is unneccessary. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


I'm not sure why you felt the need to write me that stuff, Dianna, as it's just the OPPOSITE. The other person in question is who is acting against WP policy reverted a MODIFICATION that I did. Which was not really warranted. So I simply undid it. ONE TIME.
where is the 'edit warring' by me, simply because I undid something once? How is Martynas not "edit warring" by reverting a good-faith and more neutral-sounding edit? (as you are doing now too) Explain that, please.
I see that you reverted it back to his blatant POV, which I'm puzzled as to why.
Why are you being a MEAT PUPPET for him, in violation of WP policy?
HE REVERTED A GOOD-FAITH EDIT, AND A GOOD MODIFICATION, SO HE COULD PUT BACK HIS BLATANT PRO-TRINITY STUFF ON A WP ARTICLE...WHERE IT DOES NOT BELONG.
I simply put in a modification, TO MAKE THE TONE LESS POV AND MORE NEUTRAL.
so what do you do? You revert what I did AGAIN, with the nonsense that "some maintain" is "weasel word" when it's NOT.


also, you assume things. You said I should communicate with the other editor.
I did just that. I already wrote to the other editor about this. A while ago now. What makes you think I didn't? But it's funny how you don't give him the same advice to write to me directly, before he summarily reverts and undoes what I put in.
double standards?


again though, there was NO 'weasel' anything. I notice, Dianna, that you have a habit of seeing things that are not there....and getting uptight about more-neutral wording or things like this, where it's only making the thing MORE OBJECTIVE..


you call neutral wording "weasel"??


when has "some maintain" ever been considered by WP POLICY itself "weasel"? Huh??


what's against WP Policy is stating things that are in DISPUTE as incontrovertible fact. This idea that "the trinity doctrine was formulated before Nicaea" is SO in dispute, by many scholars, it's like not funny...
To say dogmatically on a WP article that "the trinity doctrine was formulated before Nicaea" is a MATTER OF OPINION. And is not accepted as historical or actual solid fact by all historians or scholars.
so why the big problem with "some maintain".


The "sources" thing in the rest of the paragraph that you mention has nothing to do with a blatantly biased POV statement right in the very first sentence! That should not really be there, if it's gonna be more neutral.


you say that "some maintain" is a weasel word, according to Wikipedia?  ?? huh?


where do you get that from? It's simply a FACT. Some believe that the trinity doctrine came before Nicaea, BUT NOT ALL DO.


Not all scholars believe that. So why would you be ok with leaving that point out? What's with you? YOU are engaging in an edit war by revering good-faith modifications, which were NOT vandalism, NOT "weasel"ish (weird how you would see it that way) and NOT inaccurate.


SOME believe this "before Nicaea" idea, BUT NOT ALL. So what's the problem in making the tone more neutral and objective, and less dogmatic?? The only ones "edit warring" are you and Martynas. I simply made a good-faith modification for more neutrality, that you mis-characterize as "weasel" (!!??!), and that you and the other editor are disrespectfully reverting, against WP policy. Only real vandalism should be reverted. "Some maintain" is NOT a 'weasel word' and never has been. But is simply a neutral statement of fact. Take it to the talk page. Thank you 68.237.216.187 (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at First Council of Nicaea. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 23:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


the reason I feel this block was unfair and unwarranted is because I really did NOT violate "3RR" by going beyond 3RR, but kept it only at 3 reverts, which is what the policy states. Dianna wrongly put "4" edits and wrongly called ALL FOUR OF THEM "reverts", when that simply isn't true. The first edit was simply a NORMAL ORDINARY RUN-OF-THE-MILL MODIFICATION AND EDIT....and NOT an "R", in that sense. So the block by you is based on a hasty reading of things, and on Dianna's wrong and unreasonable intrepration of things, as she has a habit of doing.

Number two: I tried communicating directly with her, even before my 3rd "Revert", by writing on her talk page. She had written on my talk page some dogmatic thing about "edit warring" simply because of my ONE "undo".... Which she wrongly considered my "second" even though, as I said, my first edit was simply a GENERAL EDIT AND ORDINARY EDIT, not an "undo" or "revert" or a radical change even.

Not only did she not engage, or address ANY of my points, or communicate anything out in that sense. She wrongly says that a more neutral sounding "some maintain" is "weasel" though that phrase has never specifically been called "weasel" ish by WP policy, and despite the fact that "some maintain" is a phrase found in MYRIADS of WP articles with no problem. It's just a neutral objective wording.

she addressed NONE of those things with me on her talk page, but instead reverts again, reports me to the notice board, MIS-REPRESENTS things, and insults me by saying that me trying to fine-tune my wording on her talk and my talk was "rants".

How was SHE not "edit warring" at least in some sense by undoing good-faith modification for more neutral tone (per WP policy) and uptightly calling "some maintain" a "weasel word" without really explaining how, or engaging me?

I kept it at the limit of 3 reverts, as, like I said, the first "edit" was NOT a "revert" AT ALL, that she cited, but was simply a general edit, a simple modifying edit for improved wording, for neutrality, etc. That arguably cannot and SHOULD NOT be considered a "revert", since not only did I not "undo" anything, I didn't even radically alter anything either.


I mean, analyze it, does that mean that ANY EDIT will be considered a "revert" if it can be FORCE-FITTED to look that way? Such as in disputes like this, and if an editor has "clout" maybe in some circles on WP, the person with maybe less clout will not be given the benefit of the doubt at all, but the Admin will be quick and hasty about it?


Again, I KEPT AT THE LIMIT OF "3RR"...

the first edit was just an ordinary edit, and was NOT a revert AT ALL....


The thing says that there was "disruption"? Well how was SHE not "disrupting" things by reverting TWICE a good-faith edit, that she wrongly weirdly calls "weasel" word? "Some maintain"?? That is "weasel"? By Dianna's uptight definition? More-nuetral sounding tone is "weasel" to her?

I did NOT violate "3RR".

the first edit was simply a general ordinary edit. NOT a revert at all, in ANY sense. But people (with bias) will LOOK at things the way they want to, if they maybe don't like the editor in question, or do like the other editor in question, or if they prefer a certain wording (though it may arguably NOT be as neutral as it could or should be.)

why was I blocked, when I did not really violate 3RR, and I tried talk the matter out with Dianna, where she ignored, did not address or respond, and just REMOVED the whole thing I wrote on her talk page, with no answer to any of my points? 23:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I saw your message on my talk page ([1]). Since it has been reverted ([2]), I might as well answer here.
I'll start by correcting a couple of misconceptions. First, you seem to think that it was I who added the section "Misconceptions" to the article. It isn't so - that was another user ([3]). Actually, I even criticised one part of it on the talk page ([4])...
Another misconception seems to be related to reverts. The "customary process" is WP:BRD - "Bold, Revert, Discuss". In other words: your were bold (you added "some maintain that"), I felt that it was not as accurate, as it should have been (I am going to explain my reasoning later), thus I reverted. Then, if I failed to persuade you (and it certainly looks like I did fail), the discussion should have started. Thus the revert certainly does not imply that your edit was done in bad faith - I see no reason to doubt that you did edit in good faith.
Now, about "weasel words"... They are discussed in Wikipedia:Weasel words. In short, the problem is that "some maintain that" does not say who are those "some". Is it "almost everyone", "almost no one", something in between?
In conclusion, I hope that you will explain your position on the article talk page (after the block expires, of course). Also, would you consider registering? That would also give you a place to "declare" your relevant religious, philosophical or political views. Maybe it will be easier to discuss when we will understand POV of each other..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


just to be brief, I do apologize. I saw last night that according to WP policy (even if I may not personally totally agree, in that it could be an uptight view by WP, but it still needs to be followed) "some maintain" is considered "weasel"ish... IF NO REFERENCES are given. Which there weren't. So technically what you (and Diannaa) said is true. Sorry about the trouble. The only reason I'm writing you here is because you wrote me on my talk page.... But anyway, it's fine. I was merely making the point that there is another WP policy of NEUTRALITY in wording, and not to have the tone of endorsing a particular view THAT NOT ALL SCHOLARS OR HISTORIANS agree with. Not everyone agrees that the trinity doctrine was formulated even at Nicaea, let alone before Nicaea. Some think that, but not all. Anyway, thanks for your attention to this. It's no sweat. And again..... my apologies. 68.237.216.187 (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sweetpoet?[edit]

Would you happen to be the same person editing under the user name Sweetpoet and IPs 68.237.215.48 & 68.237.240.68? Your edit patterns, tone and writing style (use of the word uptight and of caps, for instance) seem similar. So did your unexplained removal of a deleteable image caption from Luther G. Presley (below an image Sweetpoet uploaded and now being discussed fro deletion) with this edit. If not, please disregard. Cheers! Novaseminary (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)