User talk:72.0.180.2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:17, 23 March 2008

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Harry Barrow (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ya did a bang-up job

(that means "good"!) on your edit at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#viral videos --Justmeherenow (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we could all get along

If everyone would work together on that page, I think we could cut out a lot of the citations. One sentence that points to four sources? That's overkill nearly every time. The problem is, some folks are just looking for a reason to cause a problem, so to try to clean things up now might be like trying to wash a cat in a bathtub. And, those same folks are standing by ready to use the {{fact}} tag as a weapon. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My dad always jokes you just need the type of shower with the glass door. Turn it on and toss the kitty in. That's what I have at my home but no feline to go with. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason.

no reason given for reversion of uncontroversial text

WP:PROVEIT. WLU (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan is a red herring List_of_satanic_ritual_abuse_allegations#Jordan.2C_Minnesota. Allegations of SRA, no proven SRA, with allegations being described as due to police mishandling during investigation. McMartin preschool trial is also dubious. Ditto for the West Memphis 3. If you're really committed to adding the information, per WP:PROVEIT, dig the references out of the main pages and use them to source your statements. Avoid synthesizing any of the sources into original research. WLU (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dukakis Image Upload Debate is now here! (AGF baby)

upon further reflection the continuance of this debate is more important than whose user page it is on... so instead of an rv war on a talk page, it shall be on my page, like the granite of our forefathers. It begins with this thread which Hux then deleted, and so I started the second one. (and then he deleted that one too, so here we are)

Copying the dukakis tank image to other pages

charming but I'm still one step ahead of you 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I uploaded that image myself and added it to the Michael Dukakis article and only that article. What are you talking about? -- Hux (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then check this, linked from the '88 campaign page lol [Image:Michael_Dukakis_in_tank.jpg]

And? Do you see my name anywhere in the history of that page, or on any page on which that image is being used? Just what exactly is your point here? -- Hux (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no worries, it speaks for itself, I am just noting things like a little postmark machine. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What speaks for itself? You presumably have an opinion about my action here, so please nix the snide comments and just spit it out. -- Hux (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw both versions of that too... nothing to spit out btw, we're both adults here. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both version of what? Okay, one last chance: I would like to understand what you are trying to say to me. All I see are snide implications that my behavior is somehow at fault, combined with a refusal to actually elaborate. Please speak your mind instead of hedging around whatever point it is you're trying to make. If you simply want to continue on this merry-go-round then I'm just going to delete this as a complete waste of time. -- Hux (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

both versions of your talk comment, the nicer one and the later meaner one.

again, not hard to figure out why you're uploading said image, at said late-nite hour, I'm just trying to save us both a bit of time in the long run, by making note if it immediately. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever actually read this policy page? You should give it a try. FYI, you're making baseless assumptions here and they are not appreciated. But anyway, it seems you're more content to hide behind those assumptions than to have an honest, adult conversation, so I'm done with this. -- Hux (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

again I am just trying to save us both time by ensuring that the image gets used properly in a physical and rhetorical sense, with the least amount of talk page rhetoric from both of us. Believe it or not I only flame out of neccessity. as you can see I am giving you an out, so how about taking it? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit of yours suggests you have considerably lower motives than "giving me an out" and your continued refusal to be honest about what you're actually saying speaks volumes. I'm deleting this waste of space and leaving this comment as a record of it. Draw whatever conclusions you like. -- Hux (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dukakis Round 2

- I have that all saved btw. (lol btw)

- - we can do this on MY page if you want, but we need to do this. If you want it spelled out, I find your upload of the Dukakis image as preparation for mention at BO 2008, in support of inclusion of another image. Maybe you edit the Dukakis page a lot, but not recently that I saw.

- - Regardless- usually people who care about an issue will have a strong opinion on it, like maybe a passionate reason for inclusion lol. But in that huge long thread you just deleted, you never even mention the issue more than once, you just kept going after MY reasons for finding your suspicious edit, "suspicious". My claim is that your image edit (your upload and re-stating of copyright) was so abnormal in light of this thread that the Burden of Proof is on you to justify it, actually. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

and always remember "I uploaded that image myself and added it to the Michael Dukakis article and only that article." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- -

Finally! Don't you think that perhaps instead of all this silliness, you could've saved a whole lot of time simply by asking me why I uploaded the Michael Dukakis image? I would've told you then exactly what I'll tell you now: I uploaded that image because, while I was looking for photos analogous to the Obama one, I noticed that the Michael Dukakis article didn't have the famous PR disaster image of him in a tank, even though there's a whole section devoted to talking about it. I was never planning to cite the appearance of that image on that article in my list of analogous photos for the obvious reason that doing so would've been blatantly dishonest, given that I'm the one that uploaded it. I later discovered, thanks to your earlier comments here, that there already is a copy of that photo on a different Dukakis-related article, so in fact I wasted my time and could've simply cited that one (which I've now done, btw).

-

Where you err is in making the ASSUMPTION that I was covertly uploading the image just so that I could cite it in the Obama discussion as if to say, "Ha! See, here's another one!" Now, I don't know why you decided to have such a bottom-of-the-barrel opinion about someone you've had virtually no communication with, but that's not really my problem. When it interferes with my editing and results in insinuations of dishonesty on my talk page, however, it becomes my problem. You only have to look at my contributions to see that I have never acted dishonestly on Wikipedia. Perhaps if you'd bothered to do that first you might have stopped to think that maybe, just maybe my uploading the Dukakis image was completely tangential and had nothing to do with shoring up my position on the Obama article whatsoever. At this point, if you're incapable of seeing how that can be the case then I don't really see the point in continuing this discussion. If not, however, I look forward to a civil response that acknowledges you made a mistake, and that is an assumption of good faith that I have no problem extending to you. -- Hux (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

when pigs fly sir- you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and you know it. I offered you one "out" already don't expect two. And don't keep quoting AGF at me, we both know you lost your chance at that when you uploaded another smear pic after all that has happened in the past few days. Believe me, its not like your "innocent' explanation goes real far against occam's razor, so i am not losing a lot of sleep over it. regardless of what your true motives were- the fact that your first edit ever to the Michael Dukakis page was to upload the last modern campaign "smear" pic prior to the 2008 campaign, after RFC-tagging the same subject on another page- requires more in terms of explanation that you seem willing to provide (as does your willingness to delete the record from your talk page). And considering you tagged this page for an RFC, don't expect for me to be the only one telling you this for much longer. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

I don't know what else to say to you. I know what I did and I know that my motives for doing so were nothing like those you have chosen to apply to me. I took the time to explain to you in detail exactly why I did what I did and you're calling me a liar. It's clear that nothing I can say to you will make any difference to your preconceived opinion, so I fail to see the point in continuing this discussion.

-

Feel free to have the last word if it makes you happy. I'll probably delete this at some point because I don't care to have my character insulted on my own talk page by someone who won't even grant me the common courtesy of the benefit of the doubt. I dare say you'll make yet another assumption and interpret this as some kind of admission of guilt, but frankly I don't care. I've led this horse to water and I'm done trying to make it drink. -- Hux (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

not insulting your character, just keeping a record of events, which is why its important that it STAY on your talk page. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so do you have any ideas?

I thought about maybe invading Iran, strip-mining Alaska and Antarctica, and introducing a Constitutional Amendment that requires all Americans over the age of 12 to carry hand guns.</sarcasm> ... On a more serious note, I really don't know what the best thing is. As a person who is unable to vote in the election (I'm not a US citizen) I thought it would put me in a good position to try to maintain the high quality of the Barack Obama article.

To my dismay, I have witnessed what I can only describe as a coordinated effort to use Wikipedia policies and guidelines to twist the facts and information presented in the article to portray Obama in a less favorable light. In fact, it appears to be a stunning unification of a group of Hilary Clinton liberals with a group of John McCain conservatives. It almost makes me think this whole thing is being masterminded by Rush Limbaugh. Normal, well-intentioned editors do not resort to the distasteful tactics of reporting user violations (such as 3RR violations) unless absolutely necessary, but this breed/faction/coalition/sect of editors will use every trick they can.

Today's problem occurred because there were lots of minor POV edits embedded amongst lots of legitimate edits in a short period of time. It was such an unholy mess, I decided to revert back through several diffs and then set about trying to restore those edits that made sense. Unfortunately, it sparked an impromptu revert war - something that a solitary editor cannot be a part of without getting 3RRed. I went too far, and decided that a voluntary 24hr "hands-off" was better than getting a ban because it meant I could continue to discuss the issues on the talk page, and continue my work on hundreds of other articles I on my Watchlist.

So I really don't know what the best approach is. The fanatical "Obama-haters" outnumber the fanatical pro-Obama crowd (who are just as much of a problem sometimes), and both of those groups outnumber the pro-NPOV crowd (normal Wikipedians who just want it to be a good article). In such circumstances, all one can really do is throw one's hands in the air and howl in frustration. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally if you 72.0.180.2 want to help out more why not make an account, that way you can be more involved. Look my political views are more in line with obamas even though im a hillary supporter. I just think he`d be a crap president, i still like him and his ideals, im not really against obama. That said this pastor business is scary and i cant help but feel hes hiding the truth. We must stay focused, edit warring will not get us anywhere, sometimes giving into a middle of the ground agreement is best to maintain the articles stability. Realist2 (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cut and pasting the same text on two other users pages is ugly style realist.

Lol i wanted to keep it animated so im making sure every1 hears what every1 has to say. If its any consilation , i wrote on your page first. Realist2 (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you should edit the page if you have an opinion. I have to wait 4 days because my account is brand new. But any text is better than andy's text so if you disagree with what is there, try out something new... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i noticed you made an account. Be aware, stop using your ip adress! If you use an ip adress and a user account its called [sock pupperty] here on wiki. Your computer will be blocked instantly. Dont use the ip adress again. YoursRealist2 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually NO, you are wrong, especially when the IP address is months older than the account. and I linked the all connections. Its only against policy if you don't disclose it. So go write the article and stop spamming talk pages please 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can get accused of bad things and trust me its not nice to be accused of that, thats why i stood up for the above user when he was accused. For some reason your not trusted here on wiki if you have 2 accounts, im only trying to help you, ppl throw the sock puppery accusation so easily these days its best to distance yourself as much as possible. Im trying to help you , not be a trouble maker for you.Realist2 (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

then why are you misquoting policy at me? believe me this is not the first I have heard of sockpuppets...72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most people who actually use an ip address and an account are accused, i guess you here these accusations so much you begin to believe its policy. None the less it does raise eye brows. Realist2 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if Barack Obama did not have a huge vandal problem then I could edit under my IP and not have to create a new account... my edits always stand for themselves even if I am an IP 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could never stay as an ip adress, so many articles are semi protected and sometimes in votes on consensus issues they disallow ip votes!!!! It happened on a merger debate. Still you will like the flexibilty of a full account trust me... or should i say meow. Realist2 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not

Please read Wikipedia:Criticism. Criticism sections are encouraged by Wikipedia. Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would you propose renaming it? Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the BLP issues, but if many editors feel that way, it will be gone before 4 days in such a high-profile article. I changed the title to "Criticism during presidential campaign", but I don't know if that makes you feel any better.

As you say, it is suggested that criticism be dispersed throughout a person article. However, there needs to be a separate section about the Wright controversy because of the amount of information we need to include (the current size is adequate, though). Still, it shouldn't be a primary headline, so a logical fix is to surround it with a section on related criticisms. I would suggest bringing this up on the article's talk page before your 4 days is up, if you have not done so already. Someone may change it before 4 days. However, restructuring a featured article is something that should be discussed anyway.

As for my argument: if there is a good reason to have a separate criticism section, as in this case, we are free to do that. As per all Wikipedia essays: "It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." Okiefromokla ^questions? 03:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should probably be merged too, but I'll wait to see what people say. I just brought it up on the talk page so I'm sure there will be people who disagree with the additions. Regardless, the sourced information should be put somewhere. We'll just have to wait and see where the consensus is to put it. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Test

((72.0180.2)) 03:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

2 [[72.0.180.2]] (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 [72.0.180.2] (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 4 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for coming to my defense. I don't know how many times I've reverted you. I do remember one time specifically. I reverted with the summary "Out of place" (or somesuch). You reverted it back and I let it stand because I realized that my edit had been hasty and I regretted making it. I had never taken the time to explain that but thought I would now. (Honestly, I was hoping you had forgotten.) →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted change to Obama campaign article

I've reverted your addition to the Obama campaign article that Rev Wright was a Marine/Navy corpsman prior to being a pastor.[1] Wright's occupation prior to being a pastor is not really applicable to the controversy and if anyone is interested in learning more about Wright, they are more than welcome to click on the link and go to his article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrights history as a pastor is entirely applicable to the article, because that is where he has had his influence on Obama, but his bio prior to that is not notable unless you can find a source that makes it applicable. Simply saying that he was a Marine and then a Navy Corpsman and sourcing it to his bio on the church's website is simply not applicable because, oddly enough, for the exact reason that you say is why it should be included, it adds a bias to the article. It shouldn't be that hard to find a reliable source that counters the Wright is anti-American with his military experience. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. B (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

this a new BLP issue that is open on the BLP noticeboard Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign, 2008 has not received a reply. Reporting editor does not use talk, Talk:Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign, 2008#Reverted_BLP_vio_in_heritage_section does not respond to my BLP issue, or "words to avoid" issue. BLP violating content should not be allowed to stay on page- until agreement reached on talk. This is all policy, as is allowing more than 3rr if it is a BLP issue. Mostly I just care about the other user continuing to post BLP violating text. Please remove the questionable text until consensus can be found. reporting user claims this is the result of an old discussion, when in fact this is a new issue around BLP and "words to avoid"

Decline reason:

no need for 2. See my response below

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

NOTE: the reporting user (or anyone else) has not re-added the offending text in about 12 hours, though he has found time to block me, so that perhaps gives an indication of the text in question's true acceptability.

Decline reason:

Regardless of what has happened since you have been blocked, you were blocked for edit warring. You clearly were doing so, and I have seen no assurances that you intend to stop doing so.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:00, 22 March 2008 (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.

seriously I WANT A NEW ADMIN!!!! Are you taking this personally or something? Obviously I DONT NEED to edit war if the consensus versionAND version I support, is the current version, which you seem to willfully misinterpret right there- again please don't make this an issue, and give me a neutral argument please. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also another note: that 3rr request conflated two separate sets of edits, one of which achieved consensus AT THAT TIME, and is on the page to this minute, the over 3rr being due to different placement on the page, etc.

the other set, the one involving the reporting user user:andyvphil, has only hit 3 edits at this point. from me at least. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just shouting BLP doesn't make it so. There is no BLP necessity whatsoever for making any of these edits - [2], [3], [4], [5]. Also, these edits - [6], [7], [8] - though BLP was claimed, that is an incorrect claim as the source article says "Martin raised all kinds of strange allegations about Obama but focused on him attempting to hide his Muslim past". Neither version is a BLP violation as both accurately reflect what the source says. If there is an editorial reason to prefer one version of the wording or the other, that's fine, but it's not a BLP exception. Pick any four of the above and there is a 3RR violation. The 3RR rule applies to ANY reverts in excess of three on the same article - regardless of whether you are edit warring with the same person, two different people, the same issue, or four different issues. If Andyvphil is editing in an unconstructive manner (don't know - didn't look beyond to see if he violated 3RR on the article), there are other venues for resolving that issue. --B (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well I said one entire set of edits, the larger one, ended up being a formatting and placement issue, not an edit war per se. And again it has consensus, so I don't know why really its being used against me. You can believe me or not about that, you're the admin. Even though the page in question has massive edit churn and people go over 3rr all the time, sometimes on housekeeping issues. People only get blocked when someone else reports them (as you well know) so I hope you might understand that this edit in question has been stable (in non BLP-vio form) for long periods of weeks, except when the reporting user edits it back. So I am defending the consensus version IN A SENSE, even though a weekly revert or so mean the other user claims there is no consensus. Please keep that in mind when you consider the prior three-o request, which has been roundly disregarded by everyone until the point where the reporting user needed more justification for his case.

in short you argue it is not a BLP issue because the source (a non RS source true) says those words. It is true the source uses them but I do not feel that meets the test of an entire paragraph of WP:words to avoid specifically

"It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear biased or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't. A more neutral wording is preferable and can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label, or neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term"

I feel that though wp:avoid is only a guide, that paragraph applies pretty directly and if we are talking about an important BLP issue, like a public figures religion, we should adhere extra closely to standards like the above. I am having a hard time understanding how that is not a valid BLP argument, so please help me out...

anyways I can tell you're not very interested in this so I am sorry. again whatever about the block, but please watch the actual page in question, because like I said I keep posting on the subject on the talk page and no one responds. Currently its using the non-vio version (for nearly 24hrs now) but I would appreciate your help if it goes back, because even if you think it is not a BLP issue, I think most reasonable editors recognize the current version is preferable. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I guess I have a serious question here- why am i blocked for edit warring when the page is currently using the text I support, and has been for 24hrs, and the other editor hasn't even used the alternative again? And that I was AGF and rvt-ing a BLP vio (I don't agree with the previous claim that "it is not a BLP exemption" I want another admin to agree with that

Decline reason:

Edit warring is not about being "right". Edit warring is an inappropriate method of getting your version of an article. Even if your version is "right", you still don't get to edit war to enforce it... — Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:07, 22 March 2008 (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.

This is an unfortunately block. Looking forward to having you back, 72. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I have laid out a SPECIFIC argument why 3rr does not apply- and no admin will respond to my points. will someone please explain: why this is not a BLP exception, or why I am not warned considering I used AGF interpreting BLP, and considering my edits were supporting the BLP requirement that content be removed immediately UNTIL consensus on talk. Again, I was removing a possible BLP violation not adding one back in. Your own procedures say 'immediate delete" in that situation, and I created a new talk heading when I did it. I want an actual explanation of why this is so bad that I do not even get a warning (on my first offense ever) or a normal 24 hr block, but a "THIRTY ONE" hour block like I did something extra wrong. Please guys I just want someone who give a legitimate answer to my questions, and when it feels like some editors are misinterpreting BLP policy to me.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= I have laid out a SPECIFIC argument why 3rr does not apply- and no admin will respond to my points. will someone please explain: why this is not a BLP exception, or why I am not warned considering I used AGF interpreting BLP, and considering my edits were supporting the BLP requirement that content be removed immediately UNTIL consensus on talk. Again, I was removing a possible BLP violation not adding one back in. Your own procedures say 'immediate delete" in that situation, and I created a new talk heading when I did it. I want an actual explanation of why this is so bad that I do not even get a warning (on my first offense ever) or a normal 24 hr block, but a "THIRTY ONE" hour block like I did something extra wrong. Please guys I just want someone who give a legitimate answer to my questions, and when it feels like some editors are misinterpreting BLP policy to me.  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= I have laid out a SPECIFIC argument why 3rr does not apply- and no admin will respond to my points. will someone please explain: why this is not a BLP exception, or why I am not warned considering I used AGF interpreting BLP, and considering my edits were supporting the BLP requirement that content be removed immediately UNTIL consensus on talk. Again, I was removing a possible BLP violation not adding one back in. Your own procedures say 'immediate delete" in that situation, and I created a new talk heading when I did it. I want an actual explanation of why this is so bad that I do not even get a warning (on my first offense ever) or a normal 24 hr block, but a "THIRTY ONE" hour block like I did something extra wrong. Please guys I just want someone who give a legitimate answer to my questions, and when it feels like some editors are misinterpreting BLP policy to me.  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= I have laid out a SPECIFIC argument why 3rr does not apply- and no admin will respond to my points. will someone please explain: why this is not a BLP exception, or why I am not warned considering I used AGF interpreting BLP, and considering my edits were supporting the BLP requirement that content be removed immediately UNTIL consensus on talk. Again, I was removing a possible BLP violation not adding one back in. Your own procedures say 'immediate delete" in that situation, and I created a new talk heading when I did it. I want an actual explanation of why this is so bad that I do not even get a warning (on my first offense ever) or a normal 24 hr block, but a "THIRTY ONE" hour block like I did something extra wrong. Please guys I just want someone who give a legitimate answer to my questions, and when it feels like some editors are misinterpreting BLP policy to me.  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

admin Jayron32 is purposefully misconstruing my statements and not responding to my points. Again I don't request an UNBLOCK I just want a neutral admin to comment on the action of the first two, who have followed WP policy but ignore the spirit of the thing (by side-stepping my points)

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= admin Jayron32 is purposefully misconstruing my statements and not responding to my points. Again I don't request an UNBLOCK I just want a neutral admin to comment on the action of the first two, who have followed WP policy but ignore the spirit of the thing (by side-stepping my points) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= admin Jayron32 is purposefully misconstruing my statements and not responding to my points. Again I don't request an UNBLOCK I just want a neutral admin to comment on the action of the first two, who have followed WP policy but ignore the spirit of the thing (by side-stepping my points) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= admin Jayron32 is purposefully misconstruing my statements and not responding to my points. Again I don't request an UNBLOCK I just want a neutral admin to comment on the action of the first two, who have followed WP policy but ignore the spirit of the thing (by side-stepping my points) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

thank you admin: B for restoring things, I am just trying to get an explanation. Even from you would be fine. I just want to really understand why the this doesn't meet BLP and "words to avoid" criteria. and why my AGF was kinda ignored (although yes that is a secondary issue). again sorry to be such a pain, but I feel I am getting explanations that don't answer my questions. and so I am being bold-and if you promise to read this I promise not to use the unblock template anymore. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which word is it necessary to avoid? I took another look at your edits. You made this edit or variations on it three times. There is no BLP mandate to add new content. In this edit, the statement "In 2004 columnist Andy Martin issued a press release falsely alleging that Obama was secretly a Muslim" is supported by the source and the wording makes it clear that it is a false claim, ie, not something that would potentially be libel against Obama. I suppose if the sentence were false (ie, Andy Martin never made any such claim), it would be libel against Martin, but the claim seems well-sourced and true, unless I am missing something. --B (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

god I know this is complex, thank you for even taking this much time on the issue. basically the first edit you ref. is a closed issue, it was with (Paisan30), it was resolved immediately to both our satisfaction, and you are right it did not rise to the level of a 3rr exception, but talk was ongoing as the edit were ongoing, and again it was resolved then. We are only talking about it because the (reporting user) felt the need to add more diff's to his 3rr report.

the second edits are the real issue here. That is where I claim a 3rr exemption. The "word that should be avoided" is Muslim, as you can see.

see if you can follow lol- the source which calls Obama a "secret muslim" is a non-RS source that cannot be cited on WP because it is a blog. It is only there because a later "the nation" article referenced back to the earlier press release (hosted on a blog). "the nation" article never uses the word muslim in that sense, but andyvphil consistently rvt's back to that version (only supported by an non-RS), after a period of weeks sometimes.

This violates WP:words to avoid which has a paragraph "it's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear biased or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't. A more neutral wording is preferable and can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label, or neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term"

the bias coming in because Obama is not a muslim, has not been ever, and faces much slander on this issue, which is why BLP requirement to edit "conservatively, with regards to privacy" also applies in my mind.72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the article did not claim that Obama is a Muslim. If it did, removing that would be appropriate. The article said that some other person falsely claimed that Obama is a Muslim. I don't see how that could be slander against Obama. If the article reported the claim without any rebuttal (ie, left out "falsely") then that would be an issue. But it made sure to clarify that the claim was false and Obama is not a Muslim, so I don't see the BLP issue. Your wording is probably better from a readability standpoint ("secret Muslim" sounds almost puerile) but that isn't a BLP problem. --B (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 165: / Line 165: @@
 :::::::This violates [[WP:words to avoid]] which has a paragraph "it's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear biased or may be perceived so by some notable group, '''even if technically they aren't.''' A more neutral wording is preferable and can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label, or neutrally cite an actual credible person or body that has used that term"
 ::::::::the bias coming in because Obama is not a muslim, has not been ever, and faces much slander on this issue, which is why BLP requirement to edit "conservatively, with regards to privacy" also applies in my mind.[[Special:Contributions/72.0.180.2|72.0.180.2]] ([[User talk:72.0.180.2#top|talk]]) 00:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
+:::::::::But the article did not claim that Obama is a Muslim.  If it did, removing that would be appropriate.  The article said that some other person falsely claimed that Obama is a Muslim. I don't see how that could be slander against Obama.  If the article reported the claim without any rebuttal (ie, left out "falsely") then that would be an issue.  But it made sure to clarify that the claim was false and Obama is not a Muslim, so I don't see the BLP issue.  Your wording is probably better from a readability standpoint ("secret Muslim" sounds almost puerile) but that isn't a BLP problem. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 00:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)