User talk:75.73.50.195

Welcome

Hello, 75.73.50.195, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Sinisterminister (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Andrew Cuomo

Your recent edit to the page Andrew Cuomo appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, and discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.

Although you are right that his swearing in ceremony was yesterday evening, 12/31/10, he did not officially take office until 12:01 AM Saturday. Please refrain from making this erroneous edit again. Sinisterminister (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of this fact, the subject matter that is more important, especially for the introductory paragraph, is the date he took office. The fact that he had a small ceremony a half hour before midnight is entirely inconsequential to what is officially, legally recognized. If you would still like to offer this fact for consideration in this page, I would suggest you place it further down in the body of the article, and provide much more context for the condition of his swearing in, including the broader ceremonial activities that took place — overshadowing this event — on the following day. In order to be an effective editor on Wikipedia, it is important to understand which information is appropriate where, so I have pasted a welcoming template with more information to help orient you. This welcome also includes information on how to properly sign your name on talk pages. Please also reference the Talk page guidelines when responding to me or commenting on any other talk pages. Sinisterminister (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Andrew Cuomo, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cuomo took office on January 1st. Primary point of importance. End of discussion. I have warned you several times, and will not continue to put up with your unprofessional, inconsiderate behavior, and will call in an editor to help arbitrate. Sinisterminister (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provided a legitimate argument as to why you think December 31 is an important date for consideration in the introductory paragraph. Right now your argument can be summed up simply as "disagree". Sinisterminister (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Paterson's term expired at midnight. New York didn't have 2 Governors in office, not even for a few minutes. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Once more and you will be blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 03:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but once more what? Please don't threaten me. I think the record reflects that I am simply asking for a suitable source for when the Governor of New York took office. I would like to ask that we find a neutral editor arbitrate our dispute because you are no longer being courteous or objective. 75.73.50.195 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Let me point out our policy on edit warring, which states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the 3RR rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours.". You've already crossed the 3RR boundary on Andrew Cuomo and further reverts may result in blocks. Dreadstar ☥ 22:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've already addressed this [1][2], no need for you to poke your nose into it. I don't know in what world you think your actions would be appropriate, so claiming to be a 'rookie' is not a good defense - and with the knowledge of WP:V evidenced in this edit, I don't buy that you're a rookie at all. I’d suggest you revise your last edit and just leave the apology, delete the rest. Dreadstar ☥ 16:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please let my comments stand. Please do not suggest I revise comments and then revise them yourself. 75.73.50.195 (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't repeat what you did at the Governor of New York article. We've already explained to you, that assumption of office is what counts, not the EXACT time of the administration of the oath of office. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry. I won't. I stand corrected. Thanks for the civility. 75.73.50.195 (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 16:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for continuing to edit war after being warned. [3] Dreadstar ☥ 03:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not violate the 3-EP rule. I simply asked for a source. Can you please tell me how this is edit warring?

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This was not edit warring. I did not violate the 3-EP rule. I was simply asking for a source because the previous citation was simply removed and replaced with nothing. That Andrew Cuomo became the governor of New York on Jan 1 is perhaps "common knowledge" but it should have a source to it. Honestly, the New York Constitution says nothing about this and from what I've read, none of the news accounts actually say where they got their information that the governor assumes office at 12:00 AM. In my opinion the New York Times article is original research and predicting the future, and I do not believe that a fiat by Dreadstar constitutes legitimate user discussion of this contention. In fact, after his single comment saying the source does not violate CRYSTAL, he closed the discussion himself five minutes later. I think there is grounds for legitimate disagreement here, and if I see a source that tells me otherwise that cites something verifiable (e.g. a statute, because I'm telling you its not in the Constitution) then I will be satisfied. But the fact needs a source. I pointed that out. And got blocked for it.

Decline reason:

You lost me at "This was not edit warring." WP:3RR is not an entitlement, it is merely one specific bright-line application of the edit warring policy. The rest of your request is not relevant to whether you edit-warred or not and was not considered. In the future pursue dispute resolution or request page protection instead of edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

OK so the 3-EP rule is not an entitlement. I get that now. I'm still learning. But please explain to me how I was edit warring. I made an edit (asking for a source) on a different but related issue. There was a source before. Someone deleted the citation so there was no source now. I was simply asking for a valid source. Shouldn't be that hard to find a source if you really think it's obvious and factual that the governor was inagurated on Jan 1. Also, please don't threaten to call comcast. I am certainly not being abusive here. Just strenuously objecting, and I think helping to make wikipedia better sourced.

Decline reason:

You repeatedly made the same or substantially the same edit several times, in the face of others undoing that edit. That is what "edit warring" means. The fact that you believe you were justified in doing so does not mean that you were not doing so. Nothing else in your unblock request is relevant to the reason for the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

---

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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I don't believe I was blocked for 3-EP. If so, both of us should have been blocked because it was just me and another editor warring. I believe I was blocked for asking for a cited source to be put into the opening paragraph of the Andrew Cuomo article. I only did this once, and was blocked for it. I think this was a punitive block for my previous actions three days ago. Please note wikipedia's blocking guidelines: "Note - deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now - particularly if the actions have not been repeated, or the conduct issues surrounding the actions have since been resolved." I think if you actually go through the revision history and the discussion you'll see that I have a point. P75.73.50.195 (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

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 don't believe I was blocked for 3-EP. If so, both of us should have been blocked because it was just me and another editor warring. I believe I was blocked for asking for a cited source to be put into the opening paragraph of the Andrew Cuomo article. I only did this once, and was blocked for it. I think this was a punitive block for my previous actions three days ago. Please note wikipedia's blocking guidelines: "Note - deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now - particularly if the actions have not been repeated, or the conduct issues surrounding the actions have since been resolved." I think if you actually go through the revision history and the discussion you'll see that I have a point. P[[Special:Contributions/75.73.50.195|75.73.50.195]] ([[User talk:75.73.50.195#top|talk]]) 17:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |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 don't believe I was blocked for 3-EP. If so, both of us should have been blocked because it was just me and another editor warring. I believe I was blocked for asking for a cited source to be put into the opening paragraph of the Andrew Cuomo article. I only did this once, and was blocked for it. I think this was a punitive block for my previous actions three days ago. Please note wikipedia's blocking guidelines: "Note - deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now - particularly if the actions have not been repeated, or the conduct issues surrounding the actions have since been resolved." I think if you actually go through the revision history and the discussion you'll see that I have a point. P[[Special:Contributions/75.73.50.195|75.73.50.195]] ([[User talk:75.73.50.195#top|talk]]) 17:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |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 don't believe I was blocked for 3-EP. If so, both of us should have been blocked because it was just me and another editor warring. I believe I was blocked for asking for a cited source to be put into the opening paragraph of the Andrew Cuomo article. I only did this once, and was blocked for it. I think this was a punitive block for my previous actions three days ago. Please note wikipedia's blocking guidelines: "Note - deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now - particularly if the actions have not been repeated, or the conduct issues surrounding the actions have since been resolved." I think if you actually go through the revision history and the discussion you'll see that I have a point. P[[Special:Contributions/75.73.50.195|75.73.50.195]] ([[User talk:75.73.50.195#top|talk]]) 17:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I would also add that the real world is not Wikipedia. Our content policies cannot and do not apply to material published in reliable sources. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but surely we can find a source that wasn't written the day before the event in question happened.