User talk:NBeale

Richard Dawkins

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Reasonable explanation for reverting your edits to Richard Dawkins

The detail you added on Betrand Russell, Huxley and Haekel is unsourced and this, along with the other detail you have added are riddled with POV and weasel words and are generally unencyclopedic in style all of which are against wiki policy and/or guidelines and I do not consider them an improvement. This article is very well sourced and well written so such additions are, more than likely, going to be reverted, if not by me, then by someone else.--KaptKos 19:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a. Nothing in the first para is sourced. And I cannot see what is controversial about the assertions I make. If anything I am too kind to Dawkins in comparing him to Haeckel who was a first-rate scientist.

b. if there is PoV or Weasel Words then please amend them.

c. And why delete the references to Bob May and Dennis Noble (both truly world-class scientists)?

NBeale 19:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four separate editors have reverted you. You've gone way beyond the 3RR. World class scientists can be mentioned in their own articles in a neutral way. *Sparkhead 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to all your points is POV, weasel words and style and editors are under no obligation to ammend contributions from other editors who add such detail. You're obviously passionate about your angle on Dawkins so why not try to engage other editors on the articles talk page in order to get the changes to the article you desire in a way that is acceptable to all. Just a suggestion as the approach you have so far taken has led you to a block. Regards --KaptKos 07:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KaptKos - thanks that's a v constructive suggestion. What I objected to was the fact that you and your colleagues simply reverted by changes without discussion or suggestion of improvement (until your contribution at 19:02 by which time you and your colleagues had done this 8 times!) NBeale 08:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Reverts by other editors were accompanied with edit summaries which in most cases surfice (except me, I'm bad;) but by the time of my rv I assumed the suituation was clear so I didn't bother but I really should have used one anyway). Justifications on talk pages are common when editors are going to make controvertial changes, which yours were, editors in gereral will not justify reverting on talk pages, so in my experiance what happenend was inevitable. The 3RR rule applies to the individual not the article. BTW they're not my colleagues, they're my, and your, fellow editors, I'm not part of any cabal or clique although I have been accused of this in the past, and I'm not aware of any existing in Wikipedia. One of the most important policies in Wikipedia, IMO, is Wikipedia:Assume good faith and I always do, its stops you going nuts when things don't go your way and stops you seeing phantoms where none exist. There are over a million registered editors, its inevitable that on occassion everyone will make edits that cause seperate editors to react in similar fashion, this may seem coordinated but really its just a bunch of individuals doing what they think is right, it was just unfortunate for you it happened early in your wiki experiance. Happy pedying --KaptKos 09:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on October 26 2006 to Richard Dawkins

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your mail... quality of edits is not the question, please read WP:3RR carefully (and hopefully WP:1RR too). Now, if you're new and didn't really appreciate this, and are prepared to prmoise to be good in future, you can be unblocked (though I'm just off to bed so maybe someone else will...) William M. Connolley 22:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

I am not going to get involved in determining the quality of your edits or their relevence to the article in question, but there does seem to be an issue with WP:BITE in which User:Sparkhead seems to not have recognized that you are a newer contributor who isn't aware of our policies here about the number of reverts. Feel free to post the {{unblock}} tag here and an administrator will review the situation and maybe unblock you...this is not something I am almost never willing to do since I do not agree with overturning another administrators decisions.--MONGO 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, it appears you didn't review the content in question. It seems if it were some unknown editor that submitted the 3RR report your involvement would have consisted of this. He cited policy regarding reverts[2], reverted after that discussion multiple times, including once with an edit summary "Restoring facts...that Dawkins's acolytes seem to want to hide. I wonder why?",[3] which doesn't foster the idea of working within the community. Finally, he reverted after the 3RR template was placed and the report made, at which point he clearly had full knowledge of the policy.[4]. If you think the 3RR template is too harsh as it stands, perhaps you could fix it and create one you feel is more suitable for newer editors. *Sparkhead 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by NBeale to look into the edits on that page, but wasn't looged in when the edit war was going on. I only see that he has few edits under this username, and within 11 minutes of you issuing the 3RR warning to him, you have a report filed at 3RR, (which is about the time it takes to compile the diffs). I also see, (without determining the quality of the edits since I am unfamiliar with the subject matter), that you reverted edits that he had added that were referenced [5]. I haven't unvlocked him and you better start assuming good faith soon.--MONGO 13:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As should you. Read above and associated talk pages. References weren't the issue. If the fact that he reverted after being explicity told of 3RR doesn't convince you a 3RR block was the proper course of action, I'm not certain what will. Try to disassociate me from the action and remember to focus on content. Thanks. *Sparkhead 13:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sparkhead. If you had signed your warning or explained why you objected to the changes or even added "sorry I haven't got time to explain why I don't like your changes but I suggest you post them on the talk article first" it would have carried more weight. I honestly thought it was designed to scare me off :-) NBeale 20:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't intended as such, and my lack of signature was an oversight. It's the first template for 3RR in Template:TestTemplates. If you feel the wording is harsh, you can propose a new wording for possibly a "General Note" version of the warning. In fact if you want to work on that I'll support it or help with the wording and attempt to get it into that template grid. *Sparkhead 20:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point is not whether the block was a good one, it was that after warning him of 3RR, the next edit you did was to report him...that's a bite whether you think it is or not. He didn't "cite policy" as you claim...he merely stated it was against policy...citing it would have meant he would have done something like WP:NPOV or similiar. Do you have proof that NBeale is a sock or something along those lines? If not, then you need to slow down and stop assuming that newbies are going to get the point of 3RR right away...next time, think about that.--MONGO 04:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bite, it's an appeal for an uninvolved administrator to review the situation. *Sparkhead 12:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Hi! I sense that you are frustrated that your changes are being reversed. But simply re-instating them won't help because you are likely to get hit by the 3RR. The best way is to put your suggested changes into the talk section of the article and then wait for feedback. When a consensus emerges the article will be stronger." NBeale 21:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mongo - I agree with you about WP:BITE. And IMHO relevant facts that are referenced to world-class authorities should certainly not be deleted without discussion. But they will still be true tomorrow. And I am very keen on constructive dialogue - I repeatedly appealed to the rev-ers to give some reason. Well we live and learn. NBeale 12:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of "General Notice" 3RR Template

(copying your text down here)
How about "Hi! I sense that you are frustrated that your changes are being reversed. But simply re-instating them won't help because you are likely to get hit by the 3RR. The best way is to put your suggested changes into the talk section of the article and then wait for feedback. When a consensus emerges the article will be stronger." NBeale 21:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was thinking more along the lines of a message with links, something like what's there but lighter wording:

Please note that repeatedly undoing other people's edits (as you are doing in <article>,) can be considered disruptive. The Wikipedia blocking policy states you could be blocked from editing for doing so. The three-revert rule states nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. This also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert. Please revert only when necessary. Thank you.

The part in parentheses would be a only show if a parameter were included with the template. That last sentence may need work, and the "revert only when necessary" is an essay, not even a policy or guideline, but seems useful. *Sparkhead 22:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's use your links but lighter wording. What about: "Hi! I sense that you are frustrated that your changes are being reversed. But simply re-instating them (as you are doing in <article>,) can lead you to be blocked from editing (see the three-revert rule). The best way is to put your suggested changes into the discussion section of the article and then wait for feedback. When a consensus emerges the article will be stronger." NBeale 00:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't like it. The "sense you are frustrated" line is simply no good. How about: Please do not repeatedly revert other people's edits, it could be considered a violation of three-revert rule. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. *Sparkhead 12:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That still feels like a Bite! We need to (a) be friendly and (b) offer a constructive suggestion on what the poor editor should be doing. How about: Hi! Simply re-instating your changes when they have been reversed (as you are doing in <article>,) can lead you to be blocked from editing (see the three-revert rule). The best way is to put your suggested changes into the discussion section of the article and then wait for feedback. When a consensus emerges the article will be stronger. NBeale 13:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review the "General Notice" templates at Template:TestTemplates, which is what I'm attempting to use as a guideline. I'll post a thread in the talk page over there with our last two revisions and get some other input as to whether it's even necessary and if so what form it could take. *Sparkhead 13:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put a thread in the 3RR talk page here: Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#.22General_Notice.22_3RR_Template. *Sparkhead 13:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

217.158.22.35

Is 217.158.22.35 your IP? *Sparkhead 23:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:3RR, see User_talk:217.158.22.35 and please undo your last revert. Thanks. *Sparkhead 23:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. On Sunday I was getting error messages about "session data" saying that I had to log out and log in. This must have posted when I was logged out. Was puzzled that you suggested I was at 3RR but on close inspection you could count the removal of Kelvin Medal from the Notable Prizes box as a revert (a bit pedantic! the intention was simply to clear up a confusion and it is non-controversial that THIS Kelvin Medal is not a "notable prize" (Not even the Dawkins website considers it so) though the IoP's one would certainly be. I think you have kindly got someone else to undo for me, since I was offline. NBeale 09:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That person undid it on their own without input from me. *Sparkhead 13:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tx. BTW are you comfortable with what seems to be a consensus between me and Lawrence on Balanced listing of notable academic critics and supporters (see Dawkins talk page)? NBeale 16:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But as stated on the talk page, take care. You might want to discuss any large additions on the talk page or create it in your user space for review before inclusion. *Sparkhead 16:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dawkins

I'll be more specific on the talk page of the Dawkins article. ;) mensch • t 23:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rclb

On October 31, User:Rclb created at account at 19:44. 14 minutes later he made two edits in the space of a minute: One a small blurb on his user page saying who he was, and a revert to the Richard Dawkins article back to your version, which could have been a 3RR violation if you had done it. He didn't need an account to do the revert if he were an IP user, but that would have exposed his IP.

This user had the time to go find the Dawkins article, review it, knew enough to review the history for the missing section which wasn't apparent in the then current version, and revert the article with an edit summary.

In the space of less than a minute.

Can you explain this? *Sparkhead 02:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Yes, the deletion of relevant material that is fair and balanced doesn't seem really in the spirit of things. --User:Rclb[reply]

So a brand new user took the time to create a user page and knew enough about wiki to act as he did in the timeframe noted? See Meatpuppet. I also see WildOscar and Laura H S came in and did the same thing, one contribution each, both a revert of Dawkins within minutes of account creation. Note, from WP:SSP: "Meatpuppet groups can be treated as sockpuppets if the breach of policy is evidenced and visible". You may also want to review WP:CHECK. Thanks. *Sparkhead 12:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to self revert on the Dawkins article, even though I have reverted the article four times now. What's happening now, the constant reverts by highly suspicious users, could be considered vandalism. The edits have no consensus whatsoever and have become suspicious at best. mensch • t 12:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Socks

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/NBeale. I've also commented in your 3RR report regarding mensch. You've violated 3RR yourself. *Sparkhead

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[6] made on November 1 2006 to Richard Dawkins

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours.

Using my skill and judegment I assess that there is a fair chance that the anons are your socks; and even by yourself you are close enough. Please back off a bit and let things calm down.

William M. Connolley 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]