User talk:71.23.178.214

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

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Tea Party Nation, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Do not violate the external links policy which can be seen at WP:ELNO. Do not add external links which are search aggregates. All external links should be unchanging pages about the topic, not pages with shifting content depending on what is found. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Owners[edit]

You appear to be correct. MilesMoney (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Elena Kagan[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 71.23.178.214. You have new messages at Bbb23's talk page.
Message added 15:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Not sure why it bothers you to have exactly two other ELs in Kagan's page. judgepedia and WP are not related. Nor is particularly useful to cute 3 ELs to 1. --DHeyward (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My talk page[edit]

Please stay off my talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't "selectively edit" the thread. I refused to let you add to it. I've semi-protected the page, which I shouldn't have to do for one disruptive IP, but I don't feel like taking you to WP:ANI for something so stupid. However, if you resume after the semi-protection expires, I will.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, well. This is how an "Admin" behaves: He posts an incorrect assumption in our discussion at his Talk page, I respond, He deletes my response. Clearly, cutting off my reply implies his was the correct interpretation and no other Admins were involved. (See Talk:Elena Kagan for more details on this nasty little Admin vendetta, and his odd claims about what he has and hasn't done, what he was and wasn't concerned about, and his repeated claims to "not understand" and "you're not making sense", same as he did here. VERY odd, but I've seen other Admins make such claims in conversations with others. Perhaps their standard way to attempt to derail conversations?) Still, he has the right to edit his own Talk page. So, I post "(Note: Bbb23 deleted my reply to this.) 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)" and his friend deletes it. I revert, Bbb23 deletes it. I finally delete the entire conversation with an edit note requesting all or none of the conversation remain posted, but not an edited version. He restores his edited version, and threatens an ANI. Wow. So incredibly determined to protect his fellow Admins (Arthur Rubin, Binksternet and Plastikspork). So, here's the conversation in full:
Judgepedia
The template, with all its parameters and all its uses, was DELETED - see discussion - based on a similar deletion aka stare decisis. Those links can be found at Judgepedia, but the "consensus" at Wikipedia was that NONE of them belong here. There was no discussion about individual parameters on the template's Talk page. That's how things are done now, apparently. If you have a problem with that, you can ask the Admin why he dud what he did, then request a review, and so forth and so on. Shouldn't take you more than a year or so to get through it all. Good luck. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense. Your earlier edit summary mentions {{JudgeLinks}}, which was deleted per the discussion you link to. But you weren't removing that template. You removed two external links, both of which simply pointed to websites. Now, you're talking here about Judgepedia, which has not been deleted, and you're not removing it anyway. I can't logically connect anything you say.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry you're having problems. The templates were used to provide broader web resources. They were deleted because the consensus was to NOT provide ANY such links in EL. Readers who want such information are therefore now being directed off-site. Judgepedia is the offsite resource for SCOTUS judges, and includes all those sorts of links in their EL. Another example of an offsite resource used in this way, which you may be more familiar with, is DMOZ: see Point 3 in WP:EL which explains the reasoning. In this particular case of SCOTUS judges, DMOZ provides much less than Judgepedia. Such offsite resources are intended to be replacements, and (other than official sites) not have overlaps in listings as that defeats the purpose. Those two links I deleted are in the Judgepedia article's EL, and therefore shouldn't be repeated in the Wikipedia article's EL. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I understand now where you're coming from, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the two external links you removed must be removed just because the Judgepedia article, which is very long, supposedly has them in it (I didn't verify it). You've been reverted again by yet another editor. The Kagan article EL section is very short. I don't see any need to remove those two ELs based on your rationale. I suggest you take it to the article talk page if you wish to push the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
"the Judgepedia article, which is very long, supposedly has them in it (I didn't verify it)." HAHAHA. I clearly said it was in the EL. You stated the articke is "very long", so you obviously went there. You had time to post a reply, and check to see if my change was reverted, but scrolling down to that EL section would take too long? Really? That's your excuse? HAHAHA. Look. Everyone knows you Admins will do and say absolutely anything to support other Admins, no matter what. Congratulations on publicly proving my point. Now you can go tell those sick puppies they owe you one. What a racket. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I can see this conversation has stopped being constructive, but, just so you know, the only administrator involved in the Kagan article dispute is me. The other two editors reverting you aren't admins, so it's not clear whom I'm supporting.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Is that your CYA attempt to avoid answering my question about how you managed to go to an article but not see it? I was obviously referring to the Admins involved in deleting all those links from all those templates - but you go ahead and pretend you're too dense to understand anything. As I said, you're publicly proving my point. Keep it up.. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Information icon Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
The official links for an organization, in that organization's own article, are ALWAYS appropriate. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No they are not always appropriate. Please familiarize yourself with WP:ELOFFICIAL and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. --Ronz (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I bolded the relevant parts of the Guidelines on your Talk page, along with a full explanation of why these links follow the Guidelines. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Further reading section - Ronz discussion[edit]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

It appears you are trying to use "Further reading" sections to spam Ballotpedia and generally trying to work around general consensus on external links. I believe there's clear consensus at WP:RSN. Shall we take it to WP:ELN and see if it belongs at all? --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I most certainly am not. It appears you refuse to read the Guidelines. I will follow proper channels. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you continuing to add Ballotpedia links or not? --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Meters discussion[edit]

Accusing me of partisan editing here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Daugaard&diff=595590455&oldid=595540570 on Dennis Daugaard is a pretty clear case of violating WP:AGF. Since I have no significant history of editing political articles (for any party of any country) it's also obvious that you made no attempt to determine if there was any possibility that that was true before making the accusatiuon. I simply removed a link that seemed to me to violate WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. If you disagree then lets discuss it on the Talk page. Meters (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet discussion[edit]

Please see the discussion I started at Template_talk:CongLinks#CongLinks is not 'Further reading'. Your actions will have to be reverted. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Jackie Speier. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

MY REPLY TO BINKSTERNET ON HIS TALK PAGE, WARNING 1: Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Jackie Speier. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

MY REPLY TO BINKSTERNET ON HIS TALK PAGE, WARNING 2: Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Dianne Feinstein. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

I reverted your edit to the version of Bbb23's, not mine. You then reverted AGAIN to your own version. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Further reading sections[edit]

You don't appear to understand how to use "Further reading" sections, nor the consensus concerning them. Please stop adding them.

If it would help, we could start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Further reading. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is IP 71.23.178.214. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

NB 1: As one can see, Ronz then arranged for a block, by admin Arthur Rubin, to prevent any discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.23.178.214#Further_reading_sections Rubin was, and is, blocked from all Tea Party-related articles because of his ongoing bias. Unfortunately, that left the above "workaround" available to him. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there something that needs to be discussed? --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

NB 2: Ronz immediately deleted a version of the NB above from his Talk page in in this section - as one does when desperately trying to conceal one's role. As I expected, which is why I double-posted it here, jftr. The later phony "consensus", rammed through by Thargor Orlando (despite any actual consensus) took place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Change to further reading guideline. Draw your own conclusions on the goal and motivation. Reminder: Template:NGOLinks, Template:JudgeLinks, Template:GovLinks, Template:CongLinks. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Your battleground approach is not going to help you at Wikipedia. If you blame everyone else for your troubles then you are bound to run into more friction here. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

NB 3: Yet another threat following continued harassment at [1] and [2], despite the clear Wikipedia Guideline, supported by years of consensus, at EL:MAYBE. Can Arthur Rubin and the rest of the gang be far behind? 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

ELMAYBE suggest linking DMOZ as a stop-gap measure during discussion, not as an intentionally permanent link. There is no discussion underway about external links at those articles. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

NB 4: Not true. I highlighted the relevant phrase of WP:ELMAYBE to demonstrate the gang's usual cherry-picking technique re Guidelines.

Links to be considered

Shortcut: WP:ELMAYBE.

3. A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. Many options are available; the Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the DMOZ at DMOZ template.

I see Muboshgu has again joined in at [3] and [4]. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So there are two choices for using DMOZ: one is if it is the only external link. The other is if there is some dispute about external links, and DMOZ is placed temporarily. What you have done is add DMOZ to the other existing links—a third method. WP:ELMAYBE does not talk about that third method; in fact, it says "Long lists of links are not acceptable," a guideline which you have continually pushed against. The adding of DMOZ is yet another form of you trying to bring long lists of links to Wikipedia pages. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

NB 5: Binksternet is now trying to entrap me into what is called a 3RR at [5] and [6], as he could then request his old friend Arthur Rubin block me. Again. That explains the tag-teaming using his old friend Muboshgu for the second revert - funny how his 'friends' are always there when needed to play these games. His edit notes so far: 1. (DMOZ page has no encyclopedic content, only a list of other links) 2. (Revert... ELMAYBE allows DMOZ if it is the only external link, or as a temporary link if there is discussion underway about the links.) I see he's sticking to his bald-faced lie about what Guideline says. "The only external link" indeed - what sort of fools does he take everyone for? Again, the goal and motivation here is clear. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

My goal is to follow Wikipedia guidelines. What's your goal? Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there something that needs to be discussed?[edit]

My deletion of your comment to my talk page was followed by the question to you, as I don't see it as anything appropriate for a talk page without more explanation. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I never deleted the question you posted, but only added NB 2 below it. If your post above is your idea of "more explanation", fine. As this is a wiki, everyone can see the sequence of events, and those involved. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
"I never deleted" No one said you did, nor implied anything of the sort.
So, is there something that needs to be discussed or otherwise explains the comment to my talk page? --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Ronz. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


Please gain consensus[edit]

Please gain consensus rather than edit-warring, or this will lead to yet another block. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Take it to WP:ELN, or just drop the matter please. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and brought it up with the admin that blocked you last time here --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So you think this is going to be resolved by treating it as a personal conflict? Ever look at WP:BATTLE or WP:FOC? --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your revert could be considered a response to the above. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I won't block you again, because you are spamming (per WP:CANVASS) clearly incorrect comments about Binksternet and me to multiple forums. I would advise taking it to WP:ANI. (Furthermore, your claim that I am editor arubin at DMOZ amounts to WP:OUTING, whether or not correct.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - ANI[edit]

Your editing is being discussed here. Please consider joining the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And it was quickly dismissed. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it was ignored. If you continue, we'll do it all again, and eventually you'll be blocked.[7]
1st ANI 2nd ANI. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it was dismissed based on this. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Memorial Day[edit]

I honor what Thomas Jefferson said, and am sad that others do not, especially when I think of those who died to protect our democratic system.

"The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes."
"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
"An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight."
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."
"The information of the people at large can alone make them the safe as they are the sole depositary of our political and religious freedom."
"The diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
"Though [the people] may acquiesce, they cannot approve what they do not understand." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Apportionment Bill, 1792. ME 3:211
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." .
"No nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1821. ME 19:408
"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has an Admin, Arthur Rubin, who believes the opposite and is strongly supported by Binksternet and Ronz to create a "consensus". Together with Admin Plastikspork, they have "cleansed" thousands of articles: all U,S. and state Governors, Senators and Representatives, past, current, and candidates, Supreme Court Judges, and organizations which engage in political work. See the deletion discussions for NGOLinks, JudgeLinks, GovLinks and CongLinks. See the current Talk page for CongLinks. Arthur Rubin was and is topic-banned from editing all Tea Party movement articles. So, he's taken a different tack. See their months of nonstop bullying, ridicule, baiting and goading of myself and other editors, all in their mission to cleanse these articles of all useful information for the people they're charged with representing. Such things as complete voting records, all statements on the floors of Congress, all published writings, all campaign finance information. Such things they claim to be "not relevant:

Delete (preferred), alternative is refocus and substitute, and mark the template substitute-only if kept. Some of the links are relevant for many congresspersons and candidates, and approach WP:ELYES unless already used as a reference. Among the documented tags:
congbio, congress: approaches "Official" and likely to have information which can and should be used
ballot: marginal; it is a quasi-wiki; not always relevant
fec: reliable, but not always relevant
govtrack, opencong, opensecrets, legistorm, followthemoney, ontheissues: generally reliable, usually not relevant
c-span, rose: Quasi-search results
imdb, nndb (sorry, that one's not documented), worldcat: Usually not relevant
bloomberg, guardian, nyt, wsj, washpro: much like a search result.
My second choice (after an outright delete) would be to substitute only the congbio, congress, and fec links, and then delete and repurpose the template to a substitute-only use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

(Note that at the time, the FEC link was to this sort of material, only useful in conjunction with the sources deleted. It was later changed to the current link, no thanks to any of them.) Sad. And very, very wrong.

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales

But because of the actions of these very few people, we are not.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - misattributed to Edmund Burke, but true nonetheless

71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


And now an additional "cleanser" is jumping in,

MrX 13:20, 29 May 2014 (16 minutes after revert) Michael Grimm (politician)

claiming a phony one-article "consensus" trumps the basic purpose of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, the Congress project consensus, over a decade of precedent, and WP:External links, Links to be considered

A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. Many options are available; the Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the 71.23.178.214 at DMOZ template.

The day before, MrX opined on FEC 990 forms for US registered charities: charity 990 forms. Hmm. See Template NGOLinks deletion discussion. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


Posted on Ronz's Talk page:

Ronz, I have asked you and your "friends" numerous times, on numerous Talk pages, to explain why you insist things such as voting records, statements on the floor of Congress, campaign contribution, etc., etc., etc., are "not relevant" in articles about U.S. politicians. NOT ONCE have any of you provided a real response. All you do is smirk and bat the ball back over the net, demanding I convince YOU that such things are relevant. You think that's cute? It's not. This has gone on long enough. Time for you to explain yourselves and act like adults. If not, accept the consequences. You are NOT going to destroy Wikipedia as an educational resource for our readers. And if any of you are found to have been doing this "cleansing" for money...this isn't going to stop with Wikipedia. Is that clear? 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not clear. WP:ELBURDEN, WP:BATTLE, WP:FOC, and WP:EW are clear. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No change then - still no real response, just toddler-like screaming of "No!" (Note: Ronz is so embarrassed he continues to delete my posts from his Talk page. Sad. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but we don't appear to have any common ground as long as you continue to attack anyone that disagrees with you rather than cooperating with other editors and following our policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on WT:External Links. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Please stop insinuating that I and other editors are editing in collusion, conspiring to destroy Wikipedia, and editing in bad faith as you did

  1. here
  2. here
  3. here
  4. here
  5. here and
  6. here

Please consider this a good faith warning that if you continue to make similar disruptive talk page comments you may be blocked from further editing. Please comment on content, not contributors. Thank you. - MrX 17:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

REPLY

  • My good-faith answer is here. So far, crickets. Correlation is not causation, and birds of a feather do not necessarily make a flock. I simply listed Wikipedians who have been parroting the same talking points. Any collusion, true or not, is irrelevant to the damage your actions are causing. ASG is not a suicide pact. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As for your "content not contributors", i remind you of [8]. Instead of discussing the actual content of the DMOZ category, you said "I have to agree that the EL to a DMOZ category page is not at all useful or encyclopedic for the reasons already stated, and because this is no longer 1995." 71.23.178.214 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. [9] Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Let.27s_plan_a_bigger_discussion --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)