User talk:Manyanswer

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Manyanswer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. 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 your talk page. Again, welcome! Brunoy Anastasiya Seryozhenko (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brokeback[edit]

My reply is on my user page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Super Bowl XLII, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Super Bowl XLII was changed by Manyanswer (u) (t) deleting 41852 characters on 2008-02-28T05:09:55+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I added one possessive apostrophe to this page during this edit. That is all. Obviously there was some bug or data transfer error by Wikipedia. This was reported as a false positive. I successfully completed the proper edit later. Manyanswer (talk) 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to List of Hot 100 (U.S.) chart achievements and trivia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - eo (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a constructive edit that added content which you deleted in its entirety due to your preference for brevity. If some of the info is incorrect, please edit it. That's why it's called a wiki. One should not claim ownership of a page and simply delete edits. The record is there on the page for anyone to check and decide if this is vandalism. Manyanswer (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the talk page. I've copied the article to User:Ericorbit/subpage2. Let's work on it there and come up with something better than how it is now, then move it back over. Edit warring is stupid and a waste of both of our time. Apologies for coming off too strong. Sound good? - eo (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, thanks for the cooperative spirit! Manyanswer (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy.... is this starting to look ok to you? I've made a few more changes lately and was thinking of moving it back over. Is there anything else you'd like to see added/subtracted? - eo (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved and renamed. W00t! - eo (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yellowmonkey[edit]

You have mentioned on his page that he was doing nonconstructive edits, can you clearlfiy what were those edits.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

No I think I said don't delete constructive edits with no reason given. I.e. if someone adds content, don't undo it. Certainly if it's vandalism, give that reason. But if someone is creating valid content the "good faith" policy applies. Manyanswer (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Henry Louis Gates[edit]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

I reverted you once per talk page consensus. You were reverted multiple times by other editors. You were warned by others against vandalism and edit warring. You erased them in shame but can't hide the history. You put equivalent revenge warnings like these three on their talk pages as well. You didn't even sign this. Manyanswer (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mugshot photo of Henry Louis Gates[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, some of your recent edits have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Baseless, and noted that your reversion was anulled by another user within the hour with the same comment I had to the previous person "PER TALK PAGE" [1]. Best wishes, my good edit warrior. Manyanswer (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

All are invited to visit the erased history of Mr. V's user talk to see why he cares to libel me in the above three comments. Manyanswer (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "assume good faith" is giving you heartache? You are free to erase these warnings from your talk page, but please read and follow WP:AGF in the future. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this part:

Accusing others of bad faith: Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle.

Manyanswer (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another incriminating diff [2] since he erases anything on his page he doesn't like. Manyanswer (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility warning[edit]

Accusing good-faith editors of vandalism, as you did here [3], when there is simply a content dispute is a violation of WP:NPA. Don't do it again William M. Connolley (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same "warning", but I'm not convinced. I see nothing here that says anything about accusations of vandalism. According to WP:Vandalism, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is, hence my assertion that his continued revertion against the clearly stated consensus is tantamount to vandalism. According to WP:Vandalism, it is. It's not hard to see who has been the disruptive editor here. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - thanks for stepping in earlier while I was busy.

Clarification: your warning was for apparently seconding Wm's vandalism warning. You have now said that you did not intend to second the entirety of Wm's warning, only the portion relating to edit warring. As such, my warning becomes irrelevant. I advise you in future to be more careful about your phrasing William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. I intended to second the comment "Please stop your disruptive edits". Manyanswer (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops[edit]

Thanks for pointing out how what I said was confusing. I'll go and make an emendation to this part of my comment in the ani/3r (...to something like "was not warned about the special zero tolerance of edit warring under Obama article probation").

It appears I was arguing out of ignorance in my pleas for leniency with regard to Viriditas. I'd only really noticed from the ani/3R report that Viriditas had kept so very careful not to exceed his 3R limits -- but I no doubt ignored whatever links had been provided to these prior warnings he'd received. Hey, could someone place a note in the report at its very beginning that would outline

when Viriditas got these warnings and
how he'd acknowledged their being received/in effect

-- to supplement the report as it exists now, giving the diffs of where he's been warring more recently? Although, if this information had been already clearly provided and I'd, per usual, skimmed over it, ignore this advice just given, sorry! ↜Just M E here , now 02:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with sub-3RR edit warring[edit]

Some suggestions for dealing with edit war attacks that don’t meet the 3RR level:

Be careful to use WP:EW in your links when you warn. Using WP:3RR points the user directly to the 3RR section of the policy and they may mistakenly think you are citing them for that.
Recognize that if the user can create the impression of a content dispute, they will not be blocked. Excessive verbiage on the Administrators Noticeboard page creates that impression. Every user should limit themselves to one comment in support, and disregard the inevitable dissembling from the reported user. Perhaps give some suggestions to the reporting editor and let them make one focused rebuttal.
Recognize that if the user can create the impression of BLP violation (despite clear consensus against his/her view), the admin won’t have time to review fully and will err on the side of caution. Focus reports on simpler examples if possible, such as edit warring a less contentious section heading. Don’t overload the case.
Further recognize that if the user is blocked, it is temporary at best and not some ultimate victory. Don’t get too frustrated and make it a crusade. Good editors run amok from time to time and WP probably needs them overall for the constructive side of their work.
If the user is clearly on the wrong side of consensus, and continues to make his/her edits, you just might have to end up in a situation where the consensus editors are reverting the edits on a regular basis. It's annoying but hardly should drive you crazy, in fact accept it as the new reality and move on. Allow a better case to form and perhaps discuss with others before making a new report. The case needs to be focused, strong, and dispassionate.
How much time you choose to spend on the talk page with a rogue editor after consensus is clear is up to you; ignoring is an option. However, be aware that some level of discussion may be necessary or else they will claim silence=consent. It is within their rights to try to convince others that they are right. The edit warring of their edit is the bad action, not the discussion. Kill them with kindness to keep the conversation civil and make your future case stronger.

Hope this is helpful! Manyanswer (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! (PS Why don't you comment here: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Should Henry Louis Gates arrest incident be on article probation? ?) ↜Just M E here , now 20:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that completely repetitive arguments needn't be left "alive" on a talkpage if the consensus of editors choose the option of scrolling them up. (Note: I did this with regard to a dispute I had with Viriditas here: Talk:Barbara_Boxer#New_sub-article -- but, of course, it can be done as well even before a thread even gets going, if others on the page think it not constructive.) ↜Just M E here , now 20:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciate your advice, that would have been certainly helpful on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and on Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest incident. Its pretty tricky if someone sticks with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and keeps up the edit warring, yet gaming the system so he doesn't hit the 3RR threshold. On the notice board, as User:Viriditas keep on filibustering discussion, that ultimately achieved his goal as he frustrated other editors into responding to him, confusing the administrator into thinking that it was a content dispute.

One thing for sure is as long he is outnumbered and as long as his changes lack consensus, we can all take turns to out-revert him, so he can't make as much of an impact. While I would hope to convince an rogue editor otherwise, this tool is at out disposal if absolutely necessary. This all might be a moot point, as User:Viriditas suddenly stopped editing Henry Louis Gates arrest incident. GoldDragon (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are some excellent points, Manyanswer. Particularly, I think "Don't overload the case" could even get its own bullet point, and I might even set "Kill them with kindness..." in boldface. You have wisely identified the double-edged sword of silence. It can be one of the most effective ways of dealing with IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments, but it must be unanimous - just one editor taking the bait still validates the argument and keeps the discussion thread alive - and then you have the problem of how to clearly state that consensus has not changed. I wonder if things would have turned out any differently yesterday if everyone had just stopped responding on the talk page and the noticeboard. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that silence is the way to go, in essence ignoring User:Viriditas until he does come up with reasonable arguments or just agrees to move onto another aspect of the article. Just one other editor responding to Viriditas' stonewalling will get the snowball rolling down the hill. And at times when Viriditas is at his irritating best, all of us often feel that if neither at least one of us gets the last word in, then Viriditas' post will stand up. By silence, however, we can avoid a brinkmanship contest in the first place. GoldDragon (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at the current dispute at the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy? I feel that Viriditas is stirring out trouble again by taking offense to anything, but I'm not willing to accept the changes that "water down" one side of the story. GoldDragon (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior issues[edit]

Ironically i just posted this comment to Jayron's page. I'll check out your talkpage section above, thanks. ↜Just M E here , now 19:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]