User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

notice to 3RR admin[edit]

my violation of 3RR is very technical. i introduced a relevant, two-word cross-referance to an article after midnight. it was immediately reverted without discussion. i left an explaination in the talk page and restored the edit.

when i returned to the article this afternoon, it had been reverted again, and again without discussion in the talk page. i sought mediation, contacting some members of the advocate board. in the meantime, i corrected the abusive reversion. i made notes in the talk page, the edit summary, and notified csloat on his talk page.

though he remained silent to me in each of these forums, he had responded in two unconventional ways: 1) he went to the noticeboards to call for my banning, characterizing my inclusion of a cross-reference to a relevant article as "vandalism" and introducing the lie that i was forsaking discussion in the talk page. and 2) he went through my contrib log and reverted my edits in other articles, which occurred to me to come close to "stalking." i have given him an npa2 warning and will submit the matter to the relevant noticeboard if this peculiarly vindictive behavior continues.

by the time i had discovered this, csloat had reverted again and i corrected the reversion, putting myself in technical violation of 3RR.

but as you can see the genesis of this is csloat's regime of wordless, unreasonable reversions. csloat's behavior is the primary abuse which should be addressed.

correspondence from csloat talk page copied in case of deletion[edit]

i've begun the arbitration process to the best of my ability. it's dissapointing to see that you are unable to work in good faith on this matter. to whatever degree you are associated with the previous two auto-reverters notwithstanding, the precident set by your behavior merits 3RR. 23:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

this business of following my contrib log from article to artcle to revert my contribs out of spite constitutes WP:NPA violation. i wish there was a reasonable explaination for your aggression or why its fixated on me, but whatever it is, your abusive behavior is not helpfull. 00:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are almost indistinguishable from vandalism; that's why they were reverted. csloat 00:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
repeatedly asserting this does not make it so. this - your willingness to attack and mischaraterize - is why mediation is nessesary 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You are the one violating the rules. If you have an argument as to what the hell piss christ has to do with the abuse of prisoners at Gitmo, you should have told someone what it is. csloat 01:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
again, assertion does not make truth. you can refuse to aknowlege my argument, but by refusing to aknowlege that i made an argument, you've stepped outside of any reasonable congress which might occur. my argument is still there, for others to r4eview ad judge for themselves. this is why mediation is the nessesary next step to resolve this.
and my argument's merits notwithstanding, your "stalking" behavior constitutes WP:NPA and there's no excuse for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Just leave me alone, alright? I'm not "stalking" you. Your edits were borderline vandalism and I reverted them. I saw an unexplained edit by you on another article so I reverted that too; you explained yourself there so I left it alone after you reverted me. However, you are flat wrong about the Quran article and you have refused to defend your changes. Your 3RR violation was reported and you will most likely be blocked for it; either way, your "piss christ" edit to the quran article will continue to be deleted by myself and others unless you can explain it in a manner that is backed up by reliable sources and makes encyclopedic sense. Now stop insulting me. csloat 02:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

from csloat[edit]

You were vandalizing the page as far as I could tell. Your addition was not relevant and you still have not even tried to justify your edits. Your violation of the 3RR was still a violation, no matter how "technical." You have accused me of lying and various other things. I have never personally attacked you nor stalked you. You cannot use the npa3 tag before a first and second warning, and you must specify an actual personal attack to do so. Also, if you have such statements to make to me, use my talk page. Don't ever edit my user page again, under any circumstances. csloat 05:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

here, csloat 1) reverted my user talk page, 2) blanked a portion of my user talk page (restored above), and 3) removed a legitimate WP:NPA notice from his page.
in the text he replaced he makes a nuber of non-factual assertions. 1) he reasserts the false charicterization of my edit as "vandalism". 2) he reasserts the falsehood that i have not explained the edit. 3) this is the demonstrable and repeated lie he reduces to an "accusation". 4) he claims that he did not access my contrib log and run through my contributions reverting them, which he demonstrably did. this is what i said was "something close to 'stalking'" and it was what i cited on his user talk page prior to placing the WP:NPA template there.
and finally, csloat is bitter that someone would aknowlege any violation on his part and so he has lashed out abusively and vandalized this user talk page. this vandalism isn't an interpretaition of a legitimate edit as vandalism, as is the case for which csloat has pettitioned to get me banned from the site. this was an actual act of vandalism, complete with blanking sections he didn't want up.
All I did was add this note. Check the history. I removed garbage from my page and will continue to do so - it is my page. I never stalked you; I asked you to leave me alone. Thanks and happy new year. csloat 06:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
i understand. you must be very embarassed by your behavior. it can be upsetting when people tell you that you're wrong and you might want to delete things or lash out vindictively, but you can also learn and grow from the experience.
i wish you that strength in the new year. cheers.

Piss Christ[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (aeropagitica) 20:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

i did not "vandalize" the page. your abusive threats are unwelcome.

Thank you for experimenting with the page Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005 on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Matthew 08:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Go to the IRC channel #wikipedia-simple. If you do not have a IRC client go to here[1] and when you login tell me that it is you. I would much rather talk in real life. I'll be there waiting. Sir James Paul 06:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Piss Christ[edit]

(It would be very helpful if you would sign your edits, even if you do not log in, or don't have an account... just type four tildes.)

I agree there is a connection between the two controversial desecrations, but there are significant dissimilarities.

Remember, too, that consensus is a fundamental core policy of Wikipedia, a policy which Jimbo Wales has insisted is, and will be, an unshakeable inherent part of Wikipedia.

The very idea that that the controversy exists, and that there is not an agreement on whether to link Piss Christ to 2005 Qur'an desecration shows clearly that there is not a consensus, and I believe it unlikely that a consensus could be reached such that an edit including Piss Christ as a cross reference would be a stable edit.

Edit wars of this type are generally unending: Neither including nor excluding the link is likely to be approved widely enough to become a clear consensus.

However, I think the issue could be satisfactorily resolved by connecting the two articles via an indisputably relevant cross ref, such as Desecration. That article could use some expansion anyway... so how would you feel about writing a few paragraphs there about notable desecrations and reactions to them? I am certain nobody would object to linking to the article Desecration from both Piss Christ and Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005, and anyone should approve of an expansion to the article.

The deal is that the 2005 Qur'an desecration is an act related to the torture and deliberate humiliation of a prisoner, and Piss Christ is a work of art by an artist, intending to make an artistic statement, to provoke a reaction in the context of what is and what is not art, what is allowable as art, the meaning of the concept of sacred... an attempt in other words to explore the concept of sanctity and the concept of what is permissable as artistic expression.

To engender more communication and understanding in other words.

This is a marked contrast to the intentional mis-use of a sacred symbol as a means to harm another human (assuming that it was not as has been claimed simply an accident in which case there is still marked dissimilarity: accidental vs intentional desecration) in the Qu'ran incident. One may say that art is intended to advance human culture and knowledge, but that torture and intentional humiliation have the opposite intent and/or effect.

In short, the two are dissimilar enough that I am sure that you can understand that some, or many, may object to a direct cross-reference.

Yet the two do share a distinct connection, in that there were very strong worldwide reactions to both.

Those who do not think the two are directly related might not, on the other hand, object to linking to both articles from a more generic article, and/or to placing both articles, as well as the Desecration article into a category such as Category:Desecration. Bear in mind though, that a category is very likely to be deleted if it does not have at least one parent category (ie, the category itself is a member of another category) and several articles as members of that category.

I know that once one has entered into an argument, in which they were certain they were right, that it is often hard to see the other side, but that is precisely what an advocate does, or attempts to do. If you ask me for help, the first thing I do is to try to understand both sides, and to express those sides to those who may not have seen the other side.

If you like, I would be happy to express your side to those who disagree with you, but it seems that they, and you, both already have a pretty clear understanding of the issues. It seems to me that it is simply the case that there is a disagreement over the inclusion or exclusion of the link, and that no consensus is likely regardless of how long the discussion continues.

I feel it would be fruitless, and a waste of community resources (your time and their time could be better spent working together) to attempt to reach a consensus for inclusion of a direct cross-reference between the 2 articles in question.

I hope that I have been of some help to you with this, and I welcome further discusssion, or questions. Feel free to contact me any time for any reason. Thanks for your efforts and contributions as well. User:Pedant 10:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)