User talk:Mormography

Wikipedia is the Mormon War In Heaven instantiated and the truth has won.

As great as Wikipedia is, it is not without its weaknesses. A simple majority of votes is all that is required to include and exclude items. While intellectually weak, this is of minor consequence, for as when I first discovered wikipedia, I immediately found the real info on the talk pages and archive histories. So, while a well organized cabal can successfully censor and promote an agenda, their damage is limited. This could be corrected of course by organizing a counter cabal. This would of course require finding a group of people with a near irrational devotion to a given subject area. Unfortunately for reason, most people have something better to do than be lobbied to waste their time in favor of reason on Wikipedia. Ergo political/religious cabals can out last reason, carefully waiting for editors to pass away so that their edits can be reverted. Thus we see how religion outlasts reason given the centuries. Nonetheless, the Internet in general is appearing to overcome even Wikipedia's limitations.

The above begs the question: Are some Wikipedia editors institutionally funded or are they making Wikipedia editing a full-time job (proven by their edit histories) purely on political/religious fanaticism? Probably both. Mormography (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much more explicit I could have been when warning you about exactly this when I added page protection. And yet, without a clear consensus you went straight back to it claiming per discussion page despite the fact that there was no consensus arrived at there and discussion actually stopped dead a week ago. I've had a look at your block log and it's clear you either don't understand or don't care about the edit warring policy. I see also that you have talked your way out of previous blocks by promising that you understand and will behave. You'd better have some very compelling arguments to make if you want this block lifted early. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I don't understand, but you appear to believe that I do not care given your statement "you have talked your way out of previous blocks". Being I wish to understand, I do not care about the block, but rather wish to understand. Please enlighten me. My reasoning on the talk page was very sound. Admin AndyTheGrump says only cited secondary sources matter now. I offered 2, but you say none are valid being that a clear consensus has not been reached. If it is true that a clear consensus has not been reached, then it never will, because as you confess, discussion stopped dead. If it never will and admin AndyTheGrump's advice is to be ignored, should not the article be returned to its original state, instead of the one you just happened to protect? Furthermore, a single revert would have indicated to me that consensus was not reached I would have returned to the talk page. You did not even allow me this opportunity, so I am not really interested in continuing with wikipedia if this is the behavior to be had by the admin community. At this point I am really only interested in understanding so that I may inform others regarding wikipedia's standards. At this point my information to others is that neither primary nor secondary sources appear to matter, only mob rule.Mormography (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A couple things:

AndyTheGrump is not an admin and as fas as I know never has been
If you fail at reaching consensus on a talk page you don't just go back to adding content that was already reverted multiple times, you pursue dispute resolution and keep at it until the matter is resolved
I explicitly waned you multiple times that this is exactly what would happen so you really have no one to blame but yourself
You really need to understand that edit warring is just wrong. It never helps, it always makes things worse.
So, I don't know or care who is actually right or wrong in the underlying dispute, and neither does the edit warring policy. It's irrelevant. My only interest here is stopping the edit warring, and since page protection prevents everyone from editing the article blocking edit warriors is a actually a preferred option. You were given the chance to do this right way and you decided to do it the wrong way. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]