User talk:200.83.136.145

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without an account, your IP address (200.83.136.145) is used to identify you instead.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. 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. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 23:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 200.83.136.145. You have new messages at Ezhiki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2015 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:200.83.136.145 reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: ). Thank you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at The Mary Tyler Moore Show

Hello. You've broken the WP:3RR rule at this article and I don't see that your reverts fall under WP:3RRNO #5. That clause excepts only unquestionable violations of our non-free content policy. Our policy says

Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, blockquote, or a similar method.

At first sight, this allows use of the quoted material that you are reverting, so there is no 'unquestionable' violation. If you will agree to cease reverting until such time you've gotten agreement with your concern at one of our copyright boards, I'm willing to close the report with no action. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unquestionable to me because it's text being used in lieu of original free writing. It's not being used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. I have no intention of reverting further anyway. Discussion is underway in several venues. 200.83.136.145 (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. But due the concerns about this previous history of yours that's been expressed at the 3RR board I'm not going to follow up. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The War Against Quality

Ah, so it continues. It's really about time that all the core policies of the encyclopaedia were rewritten to reflect prevailing standards, instead of leaving it so that poor fools like me get relentlessly attacked and harassed for trying to change prevailing standards to match the core policies. Wikipedia: the somewhat free encyclopaedia that people can copy non-free text into if they really want to. 200.83.136.145 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just came from the edit warring noticeboard. I sympathize with your position and would have been happy to help rewrite (although admittedly I've just had no break at work for 3 days straight, so I wouldn't have been there immediately when you pinged/came to my talk page). And I'm really glad you returned to editing. However, you agreed to a no-revert condition on your last unblock (and for that matter on the initial unblock that I helped broker, you agreed to ping or arrive at Drmies' or my talk page rather than edit war.) Here's the syntax for an unblock request: {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}} Sadly, Yngvadottir (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd honestly forgotten about the ORR agreement, though I shouldn't have reverted as much as I did anyway. I also find it a waste of everyone's time to request assistance every time an uncontroversial edit of mine gets reverted by someone who doesn't understand basic policies, though I've been very grateful for all your assistance when I've asked for it and when I haven't. Not going to bother requesting an unblock because that only ever results in further attacks and harassment. I see my long term harassers are once again active in getting their friends to block me and updating their attack page. Such is life. 200.83.136.145 (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do request an unblock (or sit out the week if you prefer). I had wondered if you'd forgotten ... unfortunately we are now at an impasse unless you get unblocked or serve the time. I know it is time-consuming, but your policy argument was not understood; this case could have been defused (although again, not by me without waiting for my off-wiki life to release me). Yngvadottir (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no point in requesting an unblock. It will not do anything except cause more attacks and harassment. Do you seriously think otherwise? Bear in mind that the blocker is the same one who idiotically reverted some 60 of my edits in contravention of policy, when blocking me with a false claim. I never saw any apology or contrition for his destructive behaviour. I never saw any widespread feeling that lying and destroying are not good ways for administrators to behave. In fact, I got attacked and harassed for pointing out his shocking behaviour.

I see also that Bbb23 has misrepresented me. Anyone who actually looked at my edit could see that I rephrased one "quote" while removing the other, but he's claiming that I removed them both. This is the kind of low-level dishonesty that is rife among the people who attack me. He's also claiming that my logic would mean the removal of most quotes, which makes it clear that he didn't understand my logic at all.

And finally this morning, I see that someone with a grievous inability to perceive POV has reverted three of my edits, restoring appallingly unencyclopaedic text back into articles. Perhaps you might like to have a look at these:

[1] I removed a subjective claim which absurdly suggests that someone could be best known both for a multiple Oscar winning film, and a minor television commercial.
[2] the user undoes my work with the edit summary "1981 multiple Academy Award-winning film is kinda a succes [sic]. Clearly they didn't understand the reason for the edit.
[3] I removed, as I said, swathes of sycophantic bullshit, clearly written by the actor's agent or some other close associate, and including spam links and phrases such as "Noah has continued his rise to fame". I also moved his birth details from the end of the biography section, which obviously doesn't make sense, to the beginning, which obviously does.
[4] the user restored every last bit of the sycophancy, the spam links, the incorrect capitalisation, and the illogical ordering, with the summary "Was born is good to have". Clearly they had no idea about the content of the edit and just reverted for the fun of it.
[5] I removed subjective claims such as Ceaucescu's face "perhaps reflecting realisation", and his reaction being "imprinted on the country's collective memory", as well as unencyclopaedic tone.
[6] the user restores it all with the summary "fail to se [sic] the NPOV, blocked user"

People like this guy are a serious problem for Wikipedia and cause immense damage and frustration. When you try to do something as basic and uncontroversial as remove a judgement about what someone's facial expression could be interpreted as meaning, and someone is not able to understand that it's an improvement and restores the article to a deficient state... well I just can't tell you how much contempt I have for actions like that. 200.83.136.145 (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now hold on a minute, Hafspajen's a wiki-friend and does a lot to improve the encyclopaedia. I believe we have an unfortunate case of collision between your pithy edit summaries and expert recasting of large blocks of text and his second-language skills and probably not noticing you didn't do away with the birth announcement - after all, didn't you just tell me Bbb23 misread what you did with those quotes? Also, we all make mistakes sometimes. However, I do note he's made the mistake of assuming your edits are probably bad because you've subsequently been blocked. My apologies for that, that's a mistake that must hurt. I note he reinstated part of your edit in one case and another editor did so in another case. Wikipedia is not yet totally broken. I've finished the job with considerable additional tweaking in one case ... and with my usual verbose edit summaries. Let's see if that helps.

Yup, Bbb23 didn't fully understand your point about copyvio (and now says it's legally complex, which yeah, it is, and me attempting to explain the legal point I think you were making is one of the sadly comical results of you getting blocked). But please take away that it's harder to understand than you evidently thought it would be.

Gotta walk a dog. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always for looking into those edits. If you say this guy's a good contributor, I'll have to take your word for it. On the basis of this one interaction I formed a very poor impression. I find it disgusting, as you know, when people just revert for the sake of it, and I can't see how you could call those three anything else. People make mistakes, sure. One of those, I could call unfortunate. Two looks like carelessness. But three has a very strong whiff of malice about it. And I find it ludicrous that the general culture is so poisonously anti-IP that to make utterly uncontroversial edits I have to constantly appeal to other people to redo them when they get reverted. And then of course there's the dishonesty that people engage in to try to justify their reverting. And then the fact that it was more important to people to get me blocked than to understand my actually very simple point. My arguments were ignored and the article still contains non-free material. And his post hoc attempt to justify using non-free material was unconvincing: "probably won't get us sued" is not a standard to aim for. This is supposed to be a free encyclopaedia, and our own rules about non-free content say that it must not be used where a free alternative exists. It's not about avoiding law suits. It's about building a genuinely free encyclopaedia. But I think that far more people use Wikipedia as a kind of social network where they can behave like school prefects, than as a means of building an encyclopaedia. I think it began to go that way quite a few years ago and nothing was ever done to stop it.

Anyway, enough of my general disgust and outrage. I have some more specific disgust and outrage that you might like to opine on if you have time.

I believe that "has consistently argued from the position of a global warming skeptic" is more verbose than "argued", and the latter means the same, but some people seem to disagree. my original edit, claim that it's not verbose, claim that the meaning is different.
two clearly explained edits reverted without any explanation, by an IP ironically enough.
unexplained revert of a clearly explained edit
totally confused revert of a clear and obvious edit. Illogical reason, just a classic case of someone reverting an IP edit because they think that's a good thing to do.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.