User talk:Diligens

User talk Diligens

William Frawley

I saw something you wrote, it is as follows-"the spirit of Wikipedia is not to post negative things in biographies, especially tearing down characters of a wholesome show. This isn't the National Inquirer or the Oprah show." You cannot be serious? especially tearing down characters of a wholesome show. That is NOT a rule of Wikipedia! That is something you made up. especially tearing down characters of a wholesome show,is a OPINION ,not a fact.--99.177.248.92 (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Singing Nun

I think your behavior in the various discussions on the talk page has reached the point where it is no longer constructive. To be frank, you are editing with an agenda and your personal beliefs are making it impossible for you to edit the article or participate in the talk page discussions in an NPOV manner. Some of your comments directed at fellow editors have seemed to lack AGF and in a few instances appear insulting. I am advising you to find another topic or article you can work on. Just to be clear, this is advice from an experienced editor not a directive from an admin. My participation in the talk page discussion has clearly reached the point where I am WP:INVOLVED. That said, if you choose to continue editing there, and your behavior continues to be disruptive, I may have to request intervention by another administrator. I appreciate your contributions to the project, but I really think it would be in everyone's best interest for you to step back from this article. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. But, I see that where you solidly applied WP rules initially, you are now capitulating on the very same because people are not accepting what you said. I think you are also confusing, like so many people do, rules for discussion with rules for the actual article. The talk page doesn't have rules in regard to reasonings and personal belief as long as it supports WP rules for what will finally go in the article. NPOV means NEITHER for NOR against. Terms have meaning, and "partner" by denotation means either spouse or collaborator in business. To drop that word there without reference to business automatically implies a spouse. I am not redefining anything; that is the what results, and that result is against NPOV. This is absolutely to the very heart of the issue and cannot be more constructive to the purpose. People who claim we cannot "assume" heterosexuality are pushing for assuming she is lesbian. That is not NPOV, that is a double-standard. Diligens (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Diligens[reply]

March 2019

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on The Singing Nun. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Knock it off. You are dangerously close to being blocked. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the attack I made, because I don't understand what you are referring to. --Diligens (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You are proven to be one of the biggest liars and violators of WP policy" [1] And while we are on the subject... any more edit warring and I will drop the hammer. I am very very close to taking you to ANI and requesting a topic ban. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If someone lies blatantly on a talk page about me, you mean I cannot call that out? --Diligens (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can take them to ANI. That's how we deal with disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem, I want to let you know that when you received the complaint of a personal attack, you handled it contrary to WP guidelines. WP characterizes a "personal attack" as "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" and it emphasizes "evidence". It allows accusations that have evidence, and you should have calmly asked for that evidence or directed me to the place where I could print it. With bias you assumed it was true against me without asking for "evidence". I think you need to step out of this completely as being too "involved". Please read carefully WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PA which show that you did not handle this correctly. --Diligens (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If two are reverting, how did YOU determine who is warring? --Diligens (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You both are. I dropped a warning on their talk page right after I posted the one here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to say you cannot discern who rightfully gave the last revert? --Diligens (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that you both are edit warring. Who did the last revert is rarely the issue. Though in this case, you were the last to revert. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only acceptable reasons for violating 3RR are when reverting naked vandalism, serious BLP vios, and obvious copyright vios. Beyond that, it's edit warring. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you, according to WP, if a person the subject of a biography is quotes literally denying she is something, doesn't it require an equivalent testimony from the same person to say it changed.--Diligens (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signing Nun testified she is NOT gay in 1968. Doesn't that hold until someone gets a testimony from her that she changed her mind? --Diligens (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a content dispute which I am not adjudicating. I am acting here as an admin to stop disruptive editing. Go to the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you a matter of principle, not of that page. If a person of a biography is quoted as testifying about him/herself, doesn't it require an equivalent testimony form the same person to state it has changed? --Diligens (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your questions on my talk page. Please read and heed the advice given. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

The discussion may be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanction alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Abecedare (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

It appears that you have violated both WP:1RR and Enhanced BRD at article Fox News.

Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).

You will see these warnings on the Talk page of that article. I don't believe you were warned before making these violations. (The warning is above.) But, I would strongly suggest that you self-revert your last revert. Besides, I believe you are incorrect and do not understand the transaction that spun off Fox News. O3000 (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, you did receive the warning prior to your second revert. You really need to self-rvt this. O3000 (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Singing Nun

Diligens, you are invited to contribute at Talk:The Singing Nun#Request for comments. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2019 (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:Diligens reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: ). Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 09:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for continued reverting at The Singing Nun. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Number 5 7 11:19, 24 June 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

On the "Singing Nun" article - this article was at rest for months, and a slick abuse was perpetrated against me. - First, someone added something with an edit, and I reverted it because it was WP:UNDUE. According to Wikipedia guidelines, whenever an addition is NEWLY made and objected to, the policy is that a revert automatically goes to TALK. If that new editor ignores their obligation to talk and reverts it back, THAT user is in violation and starting a war, not I. However, if someone else new pops in and reverts it, my revert of this 2nd person is considered a FIRST revert of a NEW change and that new person must go to TALK. In this instance 3 people seemed to coordinate their reverts to make it look my 3 reverts were disruptive. Please look at the history and names. It is all there. The person who caused my block needs to be clearly notified of his error.

Decline reason:

Sorry, I cannot unblock you at this time. Blaming others is never going to get you unblocked. Next time discuss instead of reverting. And if three editors disagree with you, you should really stop and discuss and achieve consensus instead of continuing to revert. If you are so right as you say, it should be easy to gain support for your edits. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2019 (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.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]