User talk:Dara Allarah

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Book of the Law, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please note that self-published sources, especially those you have written yourself, are not acceptable references.--Smcg8374 (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Dara Allarah: The 'Original Research' Article is about to be printed by an independent third party shortly. I shall resubmit the content at that time.

November 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Aiwass was changed by Dara Allarah (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.878986 on 2012-11-06T15:08:14+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR[edit]

You are in violation of WP:3RR. Please stop the edit-warring at Aleister Crowley. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice[edit]

You have been reported for violating 3RR. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted - but Stealthepiscopalian was deleting good faith content that has cited course reference material, and he refused to take the matter to talk. How should I proceed in the future if this happens again?

As it stands, 3RR is a bright-line rule. You can discuss this disagreement at the talkpage. If you cannot decide there you can open a WP:RFC and if that fails you can go to WP:DRN. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice.

You are welcome. As a further comment, if you can go to the 3RR noticeboard and make an argument that you will not continue the edit-warring you may be able to avoid a block even at this stage. Good luck. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again - I've done that. I just want to note that by reverting to Stealthepiscopalian's edit then the cited reference has also been removed from the content... Dara Allarah (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

A Barnstar for you![edit]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your great work cleaning unsourced, primary sourced, and poorly sourced material from Aleister Crowley. Yworo (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :-) Dara Allarah (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Aleister Crowley shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Aleister Crowley. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:04, 17 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was not edit warring. I reverted in a case of another editor with a conflict of interest and yet another anonymous user that gave no reason for his section blanking. I also asked for Master Editor II Yworo to arbitrate as she suggested the section in the first place to prevent the page becoming one that has to be constantly NPOV'ed. I request the section receive semi-protection status from administration. Dara Allarah (talk) 4:32 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

I'm declining this. Whilst there's no bright line 3RR trangression that I can see, the slow edit war and refusal to abide by the increasingly clear consensus on the article talkpage, plus the tone of the above unblock request, all suggest to me a battleground mentality. Dara, please use the period in which you are blocked to take a step back from the situation and ask yourself whether a single suggestion from Yworo (whom I'm sure would be the first to agree that Bufonium stars don't grant any special authority, shiny though they are) outweighs the opinion of the five or six editors who have made their case against including the biographers section. When the block expires, please reach a consensus on the talkpage before adding material to the article. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:44, 18 December 2012 (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.

Crowley[edit]

Sorry to see you got blocked. Better to say that you understand that you broke the rule and won't do it again. The rule is completely technical - 4 reverts in 24 hours and you're blocked. Only exception is obvious vandalism, NPOV is simply a content dispute and not an exception. Anyway, I can't jump in right now, but will try to take a look later today. Yworo (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might also explain that your "master editor" userbox does not confer any special privilege, authority, or powers, but is just the equivalent of an edit counter. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yworo does not need to explain that to me - I understand WP that much, but I think her Master Editor II status should be respected from the POV of her experience in contributing to WP and ensuring that we have great independent pages here. Dara Allarah (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only recall 2 edits in 24 hours that were not me simply changing the section header or correcting my own editing mistakes. And they were for the reason I set above for review. I feel like I'm asking if I give the right change to the person in the local shop - but did I really break the rule? If so - then of course, mea culpa. Dara Allarah (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like you are right, I see only two reverts, well separated in time. There are some other edits, but they are sequential, and uninterrupted sequential edits count as a single edit for the purposes of 3RR. I see that you made a mistake and reverted yourself, but self-reverts don't count as contributing to edit warring. This appears to have been a bad call on the part of the admin. Yworo (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no claim to a 3RR block in the notice in the block log or on this page. There clearly is a slow-moving edit war, though, which is what the block is labeling as. I can see at least five reverts since 12/01 protecting a section that s/he added to the article, at least one revert occurring after two explicit warnings to stop reverting. A good mitigation tactic here would have been to resolve the discussion on the article's talk page before continuing to force the issue in the article itself. I'm not really seeing anything else; can you elaborate a little more on why this was an exception to the policy? Kuru (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kuru. I have tried my best to avert an edit war and accommodate the points made by other editors. They made a point about partial biographers and I changed the heading to accommodate their views. Rodney Orpheus had a conflict of interest in editing but I listened to his points and made changes to the section (saying he *was* a grand treasurer rather then *is*) when I put the section back, and asked him twice to consider his conflict of interest when he was section blanking (but didn't report him as I felt that would have been an inflammatory move). I removed Tobias Churton from the list under the advisement of other editors, and I have done my best to properly cite each entry. I am not a member of any Thelemic organisation and simply wish to ensure the independence of the page that is largely written and edited by an informal group of church members that have assigned themselves the task of keeping the page in line with the church agenda, rather than an independent cross section of the population that would ensure that any consensus reached was fair and impartial as it usually is on WP pages, which is why I hoped you would place a semi-protected status on the page. A fraternity/cult can act like a single body - and there may be many people responding but to all intents and purposes in the matter of independence I tend to treat them as one person. However - if I'm not allowed to uphold wiki standards of independence then I'll take a bow and cease editing the Thelemic pages and it will revert to being edited chiefly by the church again to promote their order and prophet in line with their sworn oaths of the promulgation of Thelema which takes a certain slant over time. It was my view that the independence of WP articles comes before any other outside alliance and it is a principle I particularly admire about WP, and that was the inspiration for the section in the first place. Any suggestions from yourself about keeping the material on the page independent and not an advertisement would be welcome. Dara Allarah (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]