User talk:190.46.98.195: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:11, 23 January 2013

December 2012

Please read WP:CIV, particularly the section on "Edit summary dos and don'ts", and act accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history at Kenny Everett shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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 involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Cleo Rocos shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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 involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2012 (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.

Reliable sources

Before you get blocked for a combination of edit warring, disruptive editing, and incivility, please read the policy on using reliable sources, and then you'll understand why this is not an invalid POV claim, and not a valid reason for reversion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can find sources that say that Sergeant Pepper is the Beatle's best album. I can find sources that say that War and Peace is the best book ever written. I can find sources that say that British Airways is the world's favourite airline. Putting those claims directly into an article, in the voice of the encyclopaedia, violates NPOV. If you can't understand that, you really shouldn't be editing. You are edit-warring to force blatantly biased material into the encyclopaedia, and that's a very silly thing to do. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Kenny Everett. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2012 (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.

I find it scarcely believable that people will go to such lengths as block someone to prevent the enforcement of a core policy. It's simple to understand and very obvious that "best known for" is an opinion. I can hardly even comprehend that someone would edit war to enforce this obviously wrong wording, still less that the party enforcing the policy correctly would get blocked. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Cleo Rocos. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Citizen Kane contains multiple references and statements in the lead to it being the best film ever made - be a dear and pop over there to remove them would you? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't think I was making a subtle, difficult point about Citizen Kane but it looks like you missed it anyway. The article does not state that it's the best film ever made. It states that it has been described by many critics as the best film ever made. The former is opinion, the latter is fact. If you seriously can't understand this, it's no wonder you're doing so much damage. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cleo Rocos. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Ok, so I've hit you witha template, but please pay attention to the last paragraph: "Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you." Your behaviour and unique intepretation of policy has already led to you being blocked once. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from being a retard. Your edits at Cleo Rocos have been reverted or removed.

There, I made my own template. What's your fucking problem, seriously? It is really fucking obvious that "best known for" is an opinion and not an objective fact. It should be really fucking easy to understand the bit in WP:NPOV that says "Avoid stating opinions as facts". This is not hard stuff. What is your motivation for insisting that this POV be included in the article? When did you last read the core policies of wikipedia? 190.46.98.195 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Cleo Rocos. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

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.

The phrase "best known for" is quite blatantly in violation of NPOV. It's an opinion. Removal of this phrase is required by policy. Repeatedly inserting blatantly inappropriate material into the encyclopaedia is vandalism. Reverting simple vandalism should not result in a block. It's staggering and disgusting that NPOV violators are not only not being corrected, not only not being educated, but are actually being encouraged now by admins to continue deliberately compromising the quality of the encyclopaedia.

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).

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

Request reason:

reverting simple vandalism

Decline reason:

This does not appear to be an accurate description of your edits. Kuru (talk) 03:24, 10 January 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.

Stevie Nicks

Hello,
Thank you for your contribution to Stevie Nicks last night. A good revision, to which I have continued, in order to produce a better flow of good English. Have a look!
I hope you decide to stay.
Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (190.46.98.195) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) 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 this page.
Cheers! –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 07:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. Much appreciated. I am glad you thought my edit was useful - as you might see from this talk page, there are quite a few people who do not think that following the core policies is useful! 190.46.98.195 (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.
Sincerely –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 18:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post script:
I enjoy, and often buy, your excellent red wine. "Cheers"! –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 18:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo Rocos

Your recent editing history at Cleo Rocos shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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 involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. "Best known for" is clearly backed up by a reliable third party reference, consensus on the talk page does not support your opinion, you are edit warring again. Theroadislong (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2013 (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.

"Best known for" is an opinion, whether it appears in a reference or not. From the very same source, it says she "is taking the tequila world by storm". It says she can hold "everyone’s attention effortlessly, without imposing herself". It says she has had "a brilliant career on stage, screen and radio". It even says that if you drink her tequila you won't get a hangover. Next time someone insists that "best known for" is legitimate article content, I'll add some of those statements as well, seeing as they are clearly backed up by a reliable third party reference. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be pointy, which is also a core policy - and would be reverted. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, see, you're wrong there. WP:POINT is a behavioural guideline, not one of the core content policies. Still, at least your comment does suggest that you might see what point is being made. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the point is that you have refused to learn from your previous editing - which led to you being blocked twice - and are now implying that you will be even more intentionally disruptive than you already are - also that you will disregard "a behavioural guideline" (your quote) - which also implies that you have no intention of behaving here on Wikipedia. Either that, or your intepretation of "behaving" is as unique as your intepretation of NPOV. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: I'm also getting weary of your insistence that nobody but you seems to understand the NPOV policy. It's not that nobody else understands it, just that it - like everything else on both Wikipedia and the world in general - is open to intepretation. I, and many other editors, intepret and accept the NPOV policy differently to you. Instead of relentlessly reverting, getting blocked, waiting out your block and rejoining the fray, you should consider what other editors deem acceptable for NPOV on any given article - and accept the consensus there.

For example, you consider this to be unacceptable, yet I don't. However, you don't find this unacceptable and reinstated the entirely opinionated claim that photos "have been extremely widely reproduced". What's the difference? "Best known for" = bad, "have been extremely widely reproduced" = good? Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about everyone else but you certainly don't understand NPOV. You clearly have a very shaky grasp of what's objective and what's subjective. "Extremely widely reproduced" is an objective fact. There are millions of copies of Ansel Adams prints in the world and his photographs are more widely reproduced than almost any other photographer's. If you think that's an opinion then frankly you're stupid beyond belief. "Best known for" is a subjective statement. Who are you to say what I or anyone else knows anyone best for? You don't know, and nor does the Daily Telegraph. It's an opinion.

And don't try to draw any inferences from me correcting you on what is core policy and what is not. The only inference you need to draw from that is that you don't know the policies well enough. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's subjective, and what's objective is subjective. You believe in one intepretation, I - and others - believe in another.

When you are outnumbered in an opinion, when you get repeatedly blocked for adhering to an opinion, when you resort to personal attacks to uphold your opinion, and finally, when you find it necessary to remove selective comments - ie those critical of you, but not those (that you inserted) critical of others - well, that should give you a clue as to the validity and accuracy of said opinion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can hardly believe that you're so desperate to get this subjective shit into articles that you're even trying to convince yourself that there's no such thing as objective anyway. How old are you, exactly? I feel like I'm talking to a child and trying to explain concepts that are just way beyond them. You seem to think that if a Telegraph journalist says something, it must be unquestionably true. How does the Telegraph journalist know what you or I or anyone else "best knows" anyone for? 190.46.98.195 (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate your language. No personal attacks. Comment on contributions not the contributor. I didn't say there was no such thing as objective - I said that what is objective and what is subjective is open for debate and interpretation. If you don't - or are unwilling - to understand that, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing wikipedia a lot longer than you have and I understand it a lot better than you do. Now how about an answer to my question: How does the Telegraph journalist know what you or I or anyone else "best knows" anyone for? 190.46.98.195 (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First edit 2 December 2012, so far as I can see. Care to enlighten us further? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPs change. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to answer your question, as by considering The Telegraph a reliable source, Wikipedia has answered it for me. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is as clear a demonstration as you could possibly give that you don't understand, and will never understand, how to write an encyclopaedia. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's only your opinion. And speaking of inadequate answers to question - you haven't really answered GHMyrtle's question - please give examples of previous editing to consolidate your claim that you have been editing longer, and that you understand it better than I - because your block history and general attitude here so far doesn't substantiate such a claim. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No no, it's an objective fact, but you have trouble with those. Your belief that everything in the Telegraph is true and objective is touching but wildly wrong. 10:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ansel Adams

I disagree with your view on the phrase "best known for" and have reinstated the language on the Ansel Adams article. My reasoning is contained on the Talk page. TheMindsEye (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo Rocos

Please engage on the talk page before reverting again. The wording is entirely acceptable within WP:NPOV, and the wishes of other editors on this matter make a clear consensus. I stongly advise that agreement is reached on the talk page of the article before you remove the text. - SchroCat (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is quite clearly inane and ridiculous. I have no idea what you're playing at. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 09:15, 23 January 2013 edit Ghmyrtle (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 130,335 edits Undid revision 534220219 by Chaheel Riens (talk)- for the benefit of others. This discussion is not yet dead. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:11, 23 January 2013 edit undo 190.46.98.195 (talk) →‎Cleo Rocos Next edit →
Line 111:		Line 111:

	Please engage on the talk page before reverting again. The wording is entirely acceptable within [[WP:NPOV]], and the wishes of other editors on this matter make a clear consensus. I stongly advise that agreement is reached on the talk page of the article '''before''' you remove the text. - [[User:SchroCat\|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat\|talk]]) 05:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)		Please engage on the talk page before reverting again. The wording is entirely acceptable within [[WP:NPOV]], and the wishes of other editors on this matter make a clear consensus. I stongly advise that agreement is reached on the talk page of the article '''before''' you remove the text. - [[User:SchroCat\|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat\|talk]]) 05:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
			:The wording is quite clearly inane and ridiculous. I have no idea what you're playing at. [[Special:Contributions/190.46.98.195\|190.46.98.195]] ([[User talk:190.46.98.195#top\|talk]]) 12:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)