User talk:Goramon

Welcome!

Hello, Goramon, 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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Anglo-Celtic Australian

Hi, you are continuing to insert your edits into Anglo-Celtic Australian. It is against policy to add original research into articles (see WP:OR). We're also started discussing on the Talk page - please continue to discuss on Talk page before making these edits again. Please assume good faith - we all want a better article. Also, perhaps the point you are making is valid, but it does not appear that it is being understood - spending a little more time on the Talk page to explain might help to resolve the issue. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research in my edit, it is all referenced, unlike the synthesis you have insisted on unsuccessfully defending.Goramon (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anglo-Celtic Australian. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --HighKing (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Anglo-Celtic Australian, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been asked to discuss before changing the article against concensus. Continuing to tendentiously edit the article in this fashion is highly disruptive. --HighKing (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing Report

See here --HighKing (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have identified and corrected the Original Research (i.e. using ABS data in a different way than was intended) you have included in the article. If you can identify which OR I have included (or any OR you want removed from the article (there is some in there but it isn't mine)) I'll happily remove it.Goramon (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reported your disruptive behaviour - namely of continuing to insert edits that were being discussed/disputed into the article without waiting for comment or consensus. You can see that your POV's have been reflected in the article after discussion, but without the disputed OR (*all* australians = anglo-celtics), and you can see that the poor/confusing representation of data (Total Population stats) have also been removed. We're not orgres here, but we prefer discussion and agreement over content. Peace. --HighKing (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Caucasian race. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stormfront (website). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Verbal chat 09:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal, you've already violated the rule you are now pretending to enforce and you are POV pushing.Goramon (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please give 4 diffs of reverts in a 24 hour time period. I have not broken 3RR. Please restore the sourced material. Verbal chat 10:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on user talk pages doesn't contribute to a collegial environment, shows a lack of good faith, and is against policy; see WP:UP. Consider this a further warning. Verbal chat 11:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal hasn't violated 3RR. And by coincidence, I told someone else today what our talk page guidelines say, which is "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users." Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller 3RR violations don't necessarily have to be within a 24 hour period, that's WP:Wikilawyering. Apart from that Verbal is flagrantly violating a number of important policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:BURDEN, WP:ASF not to mention now WP:NOTTRUTH].Goramon (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding your unsupported accusations very WP:UNCIVIL, as is your general editing behaviour. I suggest if you want to continue to make 3RR accusations, you get it confirmed by posting a request to WP:AN3. However, I'm sure they will not consider my behaviour here improper. You should also have a look at WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Verbal chat 13:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks? That's unsupported. Every accusation I made about your editing is true it's violating NPOV and burden of proof. Anyway, i'm not interested. You're pretty clearly violating WP:ASF, and that really is the end of the story. If you want to use that source, then quote and attribute it accurately in the article and don't push your POV. This isn't complicated.Goramon (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Stormfront (website). It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 23:15, 17 August 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was simply removing an improperly attributed statement, that might not be supported by it's source as per WP:BURDEN. Edit warring doesn't damage the project when it enforces other policies so I WP:IAR. Admins tend to only enforce 3rr because they find it easy to understand, while usually ignoring enforcement of more important rules like WP:NPOV and WP:BURDEN. Perhaps because these violations are more difficult to understand? The result is that wikipedia has only parking inspectors but no police, and the project suffers immensely.Goramon (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Insulting those who would come here to unblock you is not the best way to proceed. Step hen 08:54, 18 August 2009 (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.

Why not? no logical argument has any impact on wikipedia in my experience.Goramon (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]