User talk:Lp444

April 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Yintan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Earth Day, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Yintan 15:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Yintan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with °this edit to Earth Day, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Yintan 15:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Yintan with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Yintan 15:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia's email, constructive or not, I have provided a neutral, fact based edit, therefore the edit should not have been deleted; "Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia (as explained at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction>), and so anyone may edit its articles. Its policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias, as is discussed extensively at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV>."

Per Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple I have followed every rule with my edit:

Neutral point of view: Write from a neutral point of view. Make a fair representation of the world as reliable sources describe it. All articles should be balanced to convey an impression of the various points of view on a subject. Some views may get more attention than others, depending on the attention they receive in reliable sources. Wikipedia has no "opinion" of its own; it just accurately summarizes reliable sources.
Verifiability: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. These are sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, like newspapers, academic journals, and books. Even if something is true our standards require it be published in a reliable source before it can be included. Editors should cite reliable sources for any material that is controversial or challenged, otherwise it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source is on whoever wants to include material.
No original research: Articles may not contain previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, or theories, nor any new analysis or synthesis of them if it advances a position. In other words, you can't make a point that hasn't already been directly made somewhere else in a reliable source. You can summarize, but it has to be based in the sources.
Be bold in updating pages! Go ahead, it's a wiki! No mistake can break Wikipedia, because any edit can be undone. Encourage others, including those who disagree with you, to likewise be bold! If you find yourself disagreeing with someone's boldness or they with yours, discuss it on the talk page.

I respectfully request that you re-instate my post or have an open ended conversation on what you deem is an acceptable alternative.

Lp444 (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete my posts[edit]

You are vandalizing MY posts.

Lp444 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Earth Day with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Yintan 15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you directly to Wikipedia[edit]

You cannot choose to remove based on an OPINION.

Lp444 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last and only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Earth Day. Yintan 15:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE MY POSTS AGAIN[edit]

THANKS

Lp444 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can you block me when the Abuse is by your admin?[edit]

And now I cannot even submit an abuse report!

Lp444 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yintan reported by User:Lp444 (Result: )[edit]

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments: Is Wikipedia not for correct information? Then why are your admins removing relevant and accurate data???

Lp444 (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lp444 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The abuser is user:Yintan who is blocking the flow of accurate and correct data by way of opinion stating my edit was not "constructive" which is false. Lp444 (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A look at your edits shows the block is completely appropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

When Attempting Dispute Resolution, I am blocked[edit]

Here's a summary of what you've told us. Quickly check that it's all correct before you submit your request, and we will file the dispute for you and give you a link to the discussion. Location of dispute Earth Day Dispute overview user:Yintan is removing posts without case, based strictly on opinion and not facts, then reports/blocks users without justification. The rate at which this user is deleting other posts without just cause is enough explanation to show abuse on the side of the admin. Edit added then Yintan removed: ==Founding of Earth Day== Earth day was founded by or in part by Ira Einhorn, also known as the Unicorn Killer. The day April 22 was chosen as it celebrated the "ruthless Russian communist leader"^[1] Vladmir Lenin's birthday. Ira Einhorn was a sympathizer for the Viet Cong and wanted them to defeat America. He was also an environmentalist and hosted the 1970 Earth Day rally. After the brutal murder of his ex-girlfriend, Helen "Holly" Maddux, they tried to erase any connection of Ira Einhorn in respect to his role in the foundation of Earth Day. (As of this posting, someone has tried to delete this FIVE times by user Yintan, thus showing the effort to cover up the connection with the true founder.) Users involved Lp444, Resolving the dispute Other steps if any, you have tried to resolve this dispute Responding to their messages. How you think we can help resolve the dispute? Add my information to the page Earth Day

Lp444 (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for Comment/Yintan[edit]

To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 16:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC).

Yintan (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

User:Yintan is abusive.

Lp444 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome[edit]

User:Yintan is abusive is administering the Earth Day page. Without cause, only opinion, deletes posts.

Lp444 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Lp444 (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments: Is Wikipedia not for correct information? Then why are your admins removing relevant and accurate data???
Lp444 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Lp444 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, editing from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism.

Lp444 (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Attempts at resolution erased and not responded to by user:Yintan

Lp444 (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts by certifier C1[edit]

Lp444 (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts by certifier C2[edit]

Lp444 (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other attempts[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lp444

Lp444 (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}

Lp444 (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

Users who endorse this summary:[edit]

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section

Views[edit]

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by ExampleUsername[edit]

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername[edit]

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments: Is Wikipedia not for correct information? Then why are your admins removing relevant and accurate data???

To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 16:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC).

Yintan (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Lp444 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome[edit]

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

Description[edit]

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. Editors writing this section should not normally add additional views below.}

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Attempts by certifier C1[edit]

Attempts by certifier C2[edit]

Other attempts[edit]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}

Response[edit]

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

Users who endorse this summary:[edit]

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section

Views[edit]

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by ExampleUsername[edit]

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername[edit]

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

User has actively posted since my request was posted and refuses respond, except to have me blocked as a one sided action.

Remove Block per Wikipedia's Rules[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Lp444 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The abuser is user:Yintan who is blocking the flow of accurate and correct data by way of opinion stating my edit was not "constructive" which is false. I provided true and accurate information, which was sourced. "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, editing from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." Had I realized I could have disputed using another method, I would have. Which is what am I am attempting to do now. Being new and learning the rules should be an opportunity to teach, not abusively revert my edit, then block me because user:Yintan doesn't agree by way of opinion, not fact! Adding the correct founder of Earth Day is constructive AND more importantly relevant information. Lp444 (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per below Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources to back them up, Lp444. An op-ed doesn't qualify as an extraordinary source (The Washington Times itself outright puts it into the "Commentary" section) and in fact is useless as a source unless the author is well-established in its field. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources do you need? I can provide hundreds, including photographs. It is well established. Lp444 (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Lp444 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Also per the email I just received received: "Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia (as explained at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction>), and so anyone may edit its articles. Its policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias, as is discussed extensively at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV>." I have followed all rules concerning my edit and present facts. Lp444 (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per my comment below. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by blocking admin[edit]

I invite any other reviewing admin to go look at this account's edit history prior to the block. I think it's obvious this user has temperamental problems: clear failure to assume good faith, willingness to indulge in personal attacks and a general tendency toward incivility. "Had I realized I could have disputed using another method, I would have" ... often famous last words, true. But note that his attempts to bring it up Yintan were hardly collegial in tone.

To address the user's email to me here, because I'm not sure I trust this guy with my email address and other unique digital identifiers:

The information you were trying to add so desperately to this article is already in Ira Einhorn, where it should be. Note that there the text is clearer about this being Einhorn's claim, which is disputed by others involved in organizing the first Earth Day. Therefore I don't think detailed smearing of Einhorn is relevant to Earth Day.

To that end, please review WP:COATRACK. I think you'll understand more about why the edits were removed. It's the way you handled that removal which triggered the block. It's why we can't let you have nice things. Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the way I handled it could be perceived as wrong, but you must also conceed that the way user:Yintan handled it was equally as wrong. You can also understand that the way the user:Yintan responded, with what seems like over-zealousness in speed of deleting edits, not just mine, and sending a message with a completely generic response giving a generic reason without regard to giving an actual explanation, could have avoided any misunderstandings. At first, I thought my browser had deleted the edits until I saw the message at the top! (And I am not a GUY, I am a girl, just FYI.) After reading all of the terms as posted by Wikipedia and agreeing to compliance, I respectfully ask for you to remove the block. Lp444 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry—IME most editors who are that combative are men :-). Well, if we do unblock I'd like for other admins to agree. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that and I agree with that. I can say that my response was triggered in part by a lack of understanding on top of what is described above. I do understand and respect the request for valid & credible sources before posting and that I need to pay attention to the messages that I had not seen. I also understand that there is a dispute resolution option, which I also did not realize existed until reading through the website. Lp444 (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. It's been a couple of days. I'm just going to take it upon myself, assume good faith and let you out. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I promise I will behave! Lp444 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Robert Knight (April 20, 2012). "Earth Day co-founder written out of history after composting his girlfriend". The Washington Times. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[1] Robert Knight (April 20, 2012). "Earth Day co-founder written out of history after composting his girlfriend". The Washington Times. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[1]