User talk:George Dance/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, George Dance, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

As an aside, you don't need to put the four tildes ~~~~ in your edit summaries (that's the skinny box at the bottom). Those are only needed on talk pages, like the one you're reading right now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for the welcome and the information. I'll read those 5 articles first, and then see what if any questions I have. George Dance (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:New Provinces.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:New Provinces.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

New Provinces (poetry anthology), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
  • The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
  • Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
  • If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII Undertaker 19–0 14:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleting user: pages

I've written two articles as User:George Dance/... pages, and later published them in Wikipedia. How do I delete the old User: pages? George Dance (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi George, and first of all congratualtions on your impressive Wikipedia debut! There are a number of ways to get rid of unwanted subpages. And, for general questions questions like this, plonk them after {{helpme}} and someone will be along to help in side an hour, instead of in over a month's time.
The easiest way to get rid of a subpage is to simply remove all the content. This change will show up with a tag of "blanked the page" in the edit summary once the change has been submitted, and an administrator will pick up on it and delete the page for you. Probably.
Sure-fire was to get rid of the page is to add any of {{db-g7}}, {{db-author}}, {{db-self}}, {{db-blanked}} to the unwanted sub-page. You can get more information about this at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7.
There are other ways; and there are many other options for getting help generally. But it's a lovely Autumn afternoon here, and I'm aiming to get up 600 km on the bicycle this month. I'll check back in later... --Shirt58 (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Oldspooksespass.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Oldspooksespass.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

copyright question

    • I've removed the section that was mostly quote, which I think is what the bot identified as copyright infringement, and put it up again. We'll see.George Dance (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your EL additions to articles

Hello, George Dance, I saw you added an external link to Stephen Crane which leads to a site called _The Penny Blog_. I assume this is your personal blog? Looking into your recent contributions, I see that you've added similar links to other articles -- including Charles G.D. Roberts, with whom I'm familiar after writing the nature fakers controversy article. Please take care in adding links of this type, however, as WP:EL (which is a Wiki style guideline) advises against adding links to personal blogs and/or websites, unless of course these websites are written by recognized authorities. Because the link you added for Crane only contains several of his "lines" (information that is readily available at authoritative sources already listed), I've removed it. Crane's article is also Featured, which means that it must strive to retain its high quality; links to blogspot are not generally helpful in this regard, especially when they only contain a poem or two already available elsewhere. I don't doubt you meant well, but I thought you should know why I removed the link from Crane's article, and why you may run into similar issues with others. I suggest you peruse WP:EL and consider the links's merits before linking your personal blog in the future. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 00:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I'm glad my comments were appreciated. So many times editors accuse each other of ownership for caring too much about their "pet" articles. Crane is certainly one of mine, as you could probably tell. I briefly researched Roberts while writing about the nature fakers controversy, so I'm glad to see the article has improved since I last edited it a year ago. I see a few instances of inline citations that need to be converted to Wiki formatting (<ref></ref>), and a couple MOS things I've fixed, but other than that things are looking up. If you need help in the future, let me know. I may be American, but I know a thing or two about poetry. :) Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 01:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Isidore Gordon Gottschalk Ascher

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Isidore Gordon Gottschalk Ascher, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Isidor Gordon Gottschalk Ascher. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Poets

Please note that people are not added directly to Category:Poets if they're already in Category:Canadian poets; the latter category is already a subcategory of the former. And the same applies to Category:Governor General's Award winners vs. Category:Governor General's Award winning poets, for the same reason. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Francis Sherman

Great work on the Francis Sherman article! Thanks so much. Tillander 21:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Good job, I left some comments at Talk:Francis Joseph Sherman! Happy editing, Sadads (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Gino Santercole

George, I hope you'll find time and a way to help me save the Gino Santercole page, only 4 days left until deletion. Will Dockery (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Blog links again

Hi George, another reminder: please be careful of adding blog ELs to articles. Blogs don't fly. Thanks Span (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Copied [: If you wish to remove links to poems from articles I've written, please find other links to the same poems and substitute them. George Dance (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)]George Dance (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi George, we haven't met. I was referring to the blog comments on your talk page above. WP:RS and WP:EL are really very clear. They say to avoid "links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites [and]… links intended to promote a website". "You should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines." Articles don't need a requisite number of external links. A link removed does not need to be replaced by a similar website. Articles (and links) grow collaboratively and develop over time. I hope this clarifies my reverts. Best wishes Span (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviously if someone doesn't read my replies to posts like yours or Maria's it leaves a one-sided impression; so I think I'll start replying here, and simply notify you on your page. (1) I've read WP:EL, and it is clear; for example, when it says: "This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." It's a guideline that reflects a consensus, not a document that authorizes you to make the cuts you've been making -- which have been to more than external links, and to external links to more than a blog -- on at least half a dozen of the articles I've written or rewritten. (2) I have my own ideas about ELs, which I won't get into but -- to bottom line it -- the reason for those links is to have good links to those poems. If you want to find links you like better that do the same thing, and substitute those, in any article, then I could see welcoming you as a collaborating editor on that article. I'm sure your intentions are good, but from my perspective what you're doing, marching through my articles just to delete things, looks like simple hacking and slashing, little different from vandalism. And I wish you would stop. Best wishes to you, too. George Dance (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have raised this on the on the External Links Noticeboard as I have no wish to argue. I would recommend, however that you assume good faith of other editors - they are not out to attack you. You talk of considering the assistance of other editors on "my articles". Wikipedia is a deeply collaborative project. There is no personal ownership. We respect the guidelines. Best wishes Span (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Assistance of other other editors"

<Sigh>Once again, "my articles" refers to articles I have written or significantly revised, and which are on my watchlist. If you or anyone else wishes to add something to one of them, you do not have to ask me or anyone else; personally, though, I welcome positive contributions to articles. However, if all you want to do is cut up what others have written, that's another thing entirely. If you go to an article on which there is already a consensus, and begin making bold edits, you can expect to find them reverted; that's what the "guidelines" say to do. That's what you'r disrespecting. George Dance (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And Blog link .. again

You have several threads above, telling you that blogs are not to be used as that. You state, that you have your own ideas, however, they certainly do not go in line with our policies and guidelines:

Hello George Dance. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

As you are clearly involved in the writing of this blog), and:

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

I start with a spam3 .. do not push links based on your own ideas, but engage in discussion. Blogs generally fail our external links guidelines, and we are not a linkfarm. Please read our policies and guidelines in full, applying WP:IAR is one, but if you are questioned about the use of links, then that fails. Thank you, and happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, hello. For the record, you're the third person to complain about external links on my page. When I'm writing or rewriting an article, I will add external links when and where I think they're appropriate; ie, where the article needs a link and there is no Interwiki link. The links I use are to to both encyclopedia entries and poems. For ELs to poems, I use university sites, and sometimes magazines (like Harper's). I also have a blog where I publish poems that are hard to find on the net, and if I have no better cite for the poem I'll link to that (which is what you're complaining about). About 20 people a day read the links to my blog; since those are only about 10% of the links to poems that I've added, I say that hundreds of people like the fact that I've added these ELs. Versus three who've complained.
I am perfectly willing to discuss this. If you wish to collaborate on one of the articles I've created or adopted, great; we can discuss that article's ELs on its talk page. Alternatively, if you want to remove one of my links, please substitute another link to the poem, and I'll let the edit stand. Thanks for writing. George Dance (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, you clearly missed the point. Our external link guideline suggests not to link like that, and I am sorry, it is your task to discuss why those links should be there (especially since you have a direct conflict of interest with at least one of them, not mine. There are now three people that say that this is not the way .. maybe this is not the way. I will continue to remove those links as they are inappropriate, and not replace them, and I strongly suggest that you stop including links like that, and stop including links to sites you are affiliated with without getting consensus before that insertion (it is even better that you yourself don't insert them). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The point is, you do not want to discuss anything here, but just go into articles that you have not contributed to in any way and undo whatever work and whoever's work you want (not just links to one blog, and not just external links, BTW). And you think you do not have to even discuss your changes with any of the editors whose writing you've been changing (not just mine, BTW), because they didn't discuss the articles with you before they wrote them. George Dance (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)



Let me be clear:

This is your last warning; the next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines.

Don't undo edits without having consensus for inclusion, and don't insert links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Beetstra: You've been following me from article to article, undoing edits both I and other editors have made in them, whether they have anything to do with external links or not -- you've been cutting out text, and references as well. You are doing this in articles in which you are not contributing. You have not sought any "consensus" with the article's editors before you undid any of those edits. Your actions are no different from vandalism. I do not need anyone's permission to revert vandalism. George Dance (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, the burden is on you, including the links. I hope you read why I reverted and why I removed. I removed one reference, which is to a notorious unreliable site, we do NOT self-reference.

You have removed more than one reference; whether you consider aaap 'reliable' gives you no special authority to do such things. Nor to remove parts of the text. George Dance (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll have a look .. but I don't think I removed other references, links, yes. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Further I removed only links, until you blatantly undo without giving reason for inclusion.

That may or may not be true. You certainly did more than just remove links to what you're calling "this blog." And you certainly are removing a lot more than just links from my articles now. At this point, I see no reason to simply take your word. George Dance (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if you revert without discussion, I revert as well, especially if they contain more of this linking. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Do read the external links guideline, I have given you time to do so.

Where did you come up with the idea I didn't read the guideline? It gives you any authority to come into articles and start making undoing and reverting on your own. George Dance (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, you certainly ignore it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)--80.57.57.153 (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

We do NOT link like that, even if you don't like the result, and especially not since you are involved with the site.

You've been cutting a lot more than just links to the site you're complaining about me being "involved" in. It looks to me like you're simply using that as an excuse. George Dance (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
We don't link like that, I said so. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)--80.57.57.153 (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Great; as long as we're clear. You decided to start vandalizing articles I'd written because "We don't link like that. I said so." And then you got mad because I wouldn't link the way "you said", so you decided to block me. Everything you've said about 'spam' was just an excuse. Now we're both clear on that. George Dance (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


I strongly suggest that you adapt your edits and follow our policies and guidelines.

Note, you are the ONLY editor using your blogspot, but yes, also for the other sites, we do not link like that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, you've been using the fact I'm "involved" in one site as an excuse. George Dance (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No, we have WP:COI for a reason, read it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason for WP:COI is not so you can go around blocking everyone you have a disagreement with. George Dance (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Pauline Johnson

Thanks for your comments; she seems like an interesting person, so it seemed time to clean up the article. Still working on it. Welcome to Wikipedia. It's good practice to put your comments at the bottom of editors' Talk pages; that's where they expect to see them.Parkwells (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

blocked

I have been blocked by an apparent vandal. I have read that there is an appeal procedure, and writing an objection here (the only place to do so) will activate it. Let's ask for an appeal, right now, and see what happens. George Dance (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

W
W

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting.So Beetstra has decided to ignore the guidelines about blocking, as well:

  • Conflicts of interest - Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.
  • Recording in the block log - Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. George Dance (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Wrong, I do not have a content dispute with you, see the warnings and remarks given. Blocks are used to stop editors from further disruption, and that is what it is doing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
There hasn't been any "disruption." You blocked me because you got angry at me, and began seeking out articles I've written to undo and revert changes I and others have made in them, and then you didn't like the fact that I could similarly revert your changes reversions. George Dance (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

Another editor has begun cutting up articles I've written, and has blocked me so I can't undo his changes

Decline reason:

You've had a lot of people trying to help you understand Wikipedia's external links policy, and a number of warnings to stop violating it. To be unblocked, you will at least need to show you understand the problems and that you will pay attention to what you are being told, and convince people that you will follow the WP:EL policies in future - if you don't understand the policies, there are people who will help you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

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.

George Dance (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A word of advice. Before making another unblock request you should read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, particularly this section. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, James, but I don't see any reason to make another unblock request. Do you? Especially in light of the above threat (make "too many" requests, and we'll block you on this page, too). The only reason I saw for making the first one was because it was specified as a necessary first step on Wikipedia:Appealing a block. George Dance (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The "too many" thing is just part of the standard template, and your responses will be treated on their individual merits - if you make a genuine effort to listen and understand, you really don't need to worry about it too much. As I said in my unblock decline, if you don't understand the policies, there are people who will try to help you. One way you might use that is to discuss the problems here outside of a formal unblock request, to try to work towards unblock, and there are people who will be prepared to help - I have this page watched, and I'll be happy to offer any help I can -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; I'm sure you're sincere about that, but I have no idea what you could do. I didn't expect you to butt heads with another administrator. If you want, you can read this next link and read the type of cuts Beetstra has been making in articles I'm watching. I can see how the very last set of links he cut could be called spamming -- or at least give a pretext for calling me a spammer -- so I'm prepared to let that one go. But I can't see it for most of what he did to the article. George Dance (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


As Beetstra has stated, this is not personal, this is not about threats or vandalising your work. This is about Wikipedia policies. Ignoring them is disruptive. Several editors have tried to explain this. Span (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as Beetstra has actually stated, this is allegedly about "spamming." I don't think he believes there's has been any spammming, but that's his story. George Dance (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:AGF. Span (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
That guideline hasn't stopped you or your friend Beetstra from calling me names (like spammer), though, so why do you think it would forbid me from doing the same thing to him or to you? George Dance (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
You have added links that are not consistent with Wikipedia's guideline on external links: that much is clear and beyond doubt. Whether you were doing it with the intention of promoting the web pages you linked to I don't know. If that was your intention then you were spamming. If Beetstra said that you were spamming then I see no reason to think that he/she didn't sincerely believe that. Certainly much of your link-adding superficially looked like spamming, so it would not be unreasonable for someone to form that impression. Whether or not the impression was correct, I see no evidence that Beetstra was lying, as you have said. Making accusations of bad faith without any evidence is not constructive. My experience over the years on which I have worked at Wikipedia is that editors who take the line "I see you think I have done such-and-such, but actually that was not my intention. I will explain what I meant, and we can try to work towards understanding one another" have a much better chance of finishing up getting something reasonably close to what they want than those who take the line "I see you think I have done such-and-such, but you are lying". It usually actually works better in your own interests to assume good faith, even when it seems that such an assumption is likely to be unjustified. When the assumption is justified then assuming good faith is even more likely to work better for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, I can see one set of links I've posted that someone could call 'spamming' if they wanted to assume bad faith. Beetstra's cuts to my articles have gone way beyond that, which is evidence that the 'spamming' is not his main concern. That doesn't mean he's lying, and of course I never said he was. (I didn't just say that you're lying, either.) Your underlying point is taken: those who always assume good faith on the part of administrators are probably less likely to get their articles chopped up and their accounts blocked. George Dance (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said, and not what I meant. However, if you don't wish to take friendly advice intended to help you at face value then that is up to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
My first warning said 'Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming ....' (my emphasis) - You've been explained why we think that those links are inappropriate (and there were multiple concerns with the links: the way of linking, the fact that in your case it involves a blogspot link, and that you are involved with the blogspot; each of which should be addressed), but you keep insisting (having your own ideas about external linking ...). I am not saying that you are spamming per se, but you were insisting in adding links in a way that is not in line with our policies and guidelines - that is not the way we link. Note, that goes also for the other links, and that is why I, indiscriminately whether you or other editors added them, removed them all (and cleaned up some inappropriate referencing as well). Our policies and guidelines suggest strongly against that type of linking, you were, multiple times, told that the burden is on the person who includes the links to give reasons for inclusion. Nevertheless, you, repeatedly, reverted removals without such a reason or further discussion, you did not even try to convince anyone. Yes, some of those links were added by others, that does not make them right, and I will indeed have a look at how they were included originally (will get to these articles later).
Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Being bold is encouraged, and ignoring the rules if one thinks that Wikipedia benefits also. But if people disagree, then bold edits get reverted and discussed first. Here, three people notified you of concerns, and started discussions (me, the third, also cleaning up). You went forward in calling that vandalism, reverting the removed info back in. I am sorry, that way of editing is disrupting our collaborative processes and way of editing, and I found it necessary to stop that disruption, and that is why I blocked your account.
Regarding 'those who always assume good faith on the part of administrators are probably less likely to get their articles chopped up and their accounts blocked' .. no. 'those who work together and try to collaborate with others, and listen to the suggestion of editors who are long here are less likely to get their articles 'chopped up' and their accounts blocked' .. note, you don't have any articles here, and it was not 'chopped up', my first clean-up edits did not change, in any form, the meaning of the text conveyed. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF

?? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You have been told that the links, as they were in those articles, are not in line with our way of linking as described in our manual of style and in our external links guideline. I know you have your own ideas, but my removal of those links is completely in line with those guidelines. You have a completely wrong image, of me, and of what Wikipedia actually is. Do assume good faith, and if you disagree with the guidelines (and all the editors that now have been here making clear to you that thát is not the way forward), then discuss on the talkpages of those guidelines. Shall I go forward, and actually ask what other editors, regulars on the external links guideline, think of this way of editing. Or will you persist in your thought that this is just my idea? Assume good faith, George Dance - just like what I did with you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading that guideline now. Remember I told you the other day that I thought you'd been violating it? Well, it sounds like you and User:Spanlej either haven't read, or are ignoring, this part as well: "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others." But that's exactly how you use the policy, to accuse your targets of not assuming good faith about you; otherwise you ignore it. George Dance (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Statements of facts

[I'm adding these headers myself so I can find posts, since they are no longer in consecutive order. Due to Ryan Vesey's earlier complaint. I've added it to Dirk's because I want these two statements of the facts together: George Dance (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)]

Sorry, missed this earlier point. George, I was the third editor informing you about your use of external links. I was the third editor informing you that that way is in contradiction with our policies and guidelines. The first two editors did not get a reply much further than 'I do my own way', those two editors assumed good faith, asked a good faith question, but they did not get an answer explaining why. Thát is exactly why I did not start with a good faith warning ({{uw-spam1}} or {{uw-spam2}} .. I start with a {{uw-coi}} (which is a good faith remark!) with the suggestion to discuss your edits on talkpages and to avoid any impropriety with your edits, and a {{uw-spam3}} (indeed passed the good-faith warnings) - telling you firmly that your way of linking conflicts with our external links guideline and that that type of editing is considered spamming on Wikipedia (yes, I know, weasel-wording, to remove that, see the many editors who have contributed in writing all these policies and guidelines here on Wikipedia - do you think that there may be a reason why we have policies and guidelines here?).
So yes, I did not assume good faith anymore, I did that deliberately seen the history of interaction on your talkpage. But you, after the first remark on your talkpage, continued - to me that is a sign that you did not appreciate the good faith warning of the first editor .. similar for the second one, let alone when the third one (who indeed passed good faith) started removing them (in good faith, let discussion decide what to include), you blindly reverted them, calling the removals vandalism. If I would have blocked you without discussion or attempt at warning, that would have been bad faith from my side, but your undiscussed reversions are not a sign of good faith .. you did not consider that maybe the policies and guidelines were right and that the way of linking used in these articles is not in line with them. You even called it vandalism early on. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
This all sounds pretty reasonable. Some of your facts are wrong, though, and they can bias the rest. To begin: I put these links up in March and April. One editor complained, about links on a page on her watchlist; she took the time to explain why she didn't want the links on that page; those links were removed without any conflict. Then she began writing a new page, and wanted the links removed: I did so again, after third editor supported her on the talk page.

Then your friend User:Spanglej, began removing these, and other things (like the religious categories) from articles on my watchlist. Unlike the previous editor, she did not discuss the links or removals. She left me one message on my talk page saying something like, "Remember what you're told." I had to find out what she was doing from my watchlist. So I undid her changes and asked her to stop doing what she was doing that way. She went to EL:Whatever looking for someone to "block" me (her own word), and you volunteered. (continued) George Dance (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, there you go wrong. The first editor indeed mentioned it as "Please take care in adding links of this type, however, as WP:EL (which is a Wiki style guideline) advises against adding links to personal blogs and/or websites, unless of course these websites are written by recognized authorities. Because the link you added for Crane only contains several of his "lines" (information that is readily available at authoritative sources already listed), I've removed it. Crane's article is also Featured, which means that it must strive to retain its high quality; links to blogspot are not generally helpful in this regard, especially when they only contain a poem or two already available elsewhere. I don't doubt you meant well, but I thought you should know why I removed the link from Crane's article, and why you may run into similar issues with others. I suggest you peruse WP:EL and consider the links's merits before linking your personal blog in the future." .. certainly showing that in their opinion, the links generally fail WP:EL and are superfluous. They indeed note it especially for some articles, but the tone is more general
The second editor says "Hi George, another reminder: please be careful of adding blog ELs to articles. Blogs don't fly." .. again pointing you to WP:EL. Also they thought that the links were not according said guideline. That is not 'remember what you've been told' - it is pretty clear that they is talking about external links to blogs. That editor indeed reports you to WP:ELN (or WP:Whatever, as you call it), with a post "Hi, User talk:George Dance is posting his blog across poetry articles in citations and for external links. I have pointed out that ones own blog links are not considered an RSs, they are not encouraged as external links and maybe taken as spam promoting a personal website systematically across various articles. He says he has his own ideas. Please advise. Thanks" .. Note, there is no asking for a block there. I do respond to that, and also I do not suggest in any form a block there (though I mention blocks in a warning - no-one else before that started about that). So .. no, the editor is not asking for a block until much later. That block was asked for, but you did deserve it yourself, by undiscussed reverting the links back in, a way of linking that fails our WP:EL, links where you have a COI with. You've been warned often before blocking was even considered, what, you even proceeded after a final warning.
So no, my facts are not that wrong, and no, Spangelj did not get you blocked, Spangelj asked for a wider input, something that you could have done yourself, or when it was done by someone else, you could have tried to satisfy the concerns. But you continued and pushed your way of linking, demanding that we, at the very least, replaced your links with other links. No - WP:EL suggests against linking in like that, as you've now been told over and over, and the burden is on you to explain why we would have to link like that in this case .. there is no obligation to first discuss bringing an article in line with policy and guideline, there is no obligation to replace the links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Once again I was unable to post something I'd spent at least 1/2 hour writing, due to someone else posting to my talk page first, creating a "cross-edit conflict". That's another fact you don't see: how I've been blocked from posting on even this page for over a week.
Anyway, I've got to continue what i've been writing all morning (and posting in small amounts, to get at least some of it on, without replying to your new message. .
Where were we? Oh, yes. I'd found out from my watchlist that User:Spanglej was cutting my articles (removing more than just 'blog links'). None of the things she was cutting had been challenged for up to two months. That's how WP:CYCLE defines a 'new consensus' for an article. She was the ones making bold (if not disruptive) cuts to these articles, rather than discuss changes on the talk pages; her changes were reverted, just as [[WP:BOLD] says to do. Then, still saying nothing on the talk pages, she went to the External Links Noticeboard to "suggest a block is in order." You keep asking me, "What part about 'bold links get reverted' don't you understand?" What part am I having trouble understanding? The part following that guideline gets one blocked." George Dance (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
BTW, the only cuts of User:Spanglej's and yours I called "vandalism" were the reverts you guys were doing that were putting things like spelling mistakes and errors of fact back into articles, and cutting whole paragraphs of text in one case. As I see it, it corresponds to your calling my reverting your cuts 'spamming.' If I were an administrator, and had the appropriate warning tag, I'd have sent it to you; no diff. George Dance (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
When such an 'edit conflict' occurs, there should appear two edit windows, one with the current text (the one you 'conflicted' with) at the top, and one with your text at the bottom. You can then retrieve your text from the bottom part, and paste it into the top box and press save again.
Yes, that happens, people change things that were unchanged for 2 months. Either the consensus has changed, or it was unnoticed for the same 2 months. If someone else would come, and spam porn sites all over wikipedia, on pages where no-one notices, and it stands for 3 years .. does that make it fine and not spam? Sometimes edits are done which are not in line with our policies and guidelines, which stand for some time because no-one notices or cares at that time, sometimes articles only get tagged for cleanup and they stay for months, years. Wikipedia is not finished, George.
Regarding the "What part about 'bold links get reverted don't you understand?" - that was not a quote of something I said, and you pull it completely out of context. Your bold link removals were reverted, you were notified of that, I asked you to explain, then you do them again. That misses the part of the discussion and getting to consensus. But you seem to find that part unnecessary, superfluous, you go straight on. Sorry, things don't work like that here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As for your new thi

I'll always start by assuming good faith, and even afterward I'll look for signs of it. I've actually seen two things from you: the repair of the Jay Macpherson page, and the restoration of the "quote farm" in the Carman article. So, OK, for now I'll assume good faith: you really think you're simply trying to do the best for Wikipedia here. George Dance (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

missed this and this one:

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OK: so your edits cannot even be discussed on the article's talk pages. Got it. George Dance (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No .. again, that is not what I said to you .. but you seem to have the habit of misinterpreting the comments of others anyway. Have you read what I said here? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I certainly can't argue with your interpretation, as you might construe that as another "personal attack." So I guess we'll have to leave it at that, right? George Dance (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No, that is not a personal attack - I gave you examples of what is a personal attack. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, discussing my removals, or in other words, discussing the re-inclusion of the links is actually what I (and several others) asked you to discuss. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Moreover, quoting "It is my own view that the following should be reflected in wikipedia practices. ..." from your userpage: If you believe that that should be indeed be our Wikipedia practice, and you believe that the wording of the external links guideline should be adapted to that, then I also suggest, that you discuss that on the respective talkpage and get it in. I will be the first to revert my edits and re-insert the links after that change in the external links guideline has been applied. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
?? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
George, the good faith edits that Beetstra has made are fully supported by Wikipedia guidelines and vocally backed the various other the editors that have commented above. You will remember that it was I that initially raised the issues of your linking and I decided to take it to the official external links notice board for central admin guidance. That counsel been clearly given. You'll notice that the very experienced admin Boing! said Zebedee offered to support you (above). This is a community dedicated to creating an encyclopaedia. Its structure is not anarchistic - it's not a space where "anything goes" - and you do not have to be part of it if you do not like the way it is set up to run, although we welcome editors wanting to work in a spirit of mutual respect. Personal attacks are not welcome. Span (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


Having noticed George's comment, related to Span's post, on Boing! said Zebedee's user talk page, I would like to show him that he has been editing Wikipedia for almost four years. That is where his experience is shown. Every administrator is very experienced, otherwise they would not be an administrator. Some may be better than others, you may disagree with some, and they all edit with different styles, but each one of them is experienced. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"I would like to show him..."

"I would like to show him..." Then do so. I'm sure there's a list of Wikipedia editors with years of experience; you could point me to that. George Dance (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
First, adding the section heading seemed to change my meaning. I did not place that there and you made it appear as if I did. This is a category section of all the administrators. Here, you can find an experienced Wikipedian who is willing to mentor you. When I said "I would like to show him," I was referring to the Userbox on Boing! said Zebedee's page that showed that he has been editing Wikipedia for 3 years, 8 months, and 21 days. This, while informal, is another list of user's who are considered experienced and beneficial to Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I add sections to my talk page so that I can navigate in and read it more easily. In response to your complaint, I put your letter back in its original section, and quoted it in the new one. If you'd like some different format instead, let me know and we'll discuss it - I'd certainly think it's better to have your words where I can reply to them. I already have a list of administrators, which is why I didn't ask you for one. Nor did I ask for any of your other suggestions. You weren't completely non-responsive; indirectly you've told me that I can get the information off each user's page and make my own list. Thank you for that. George Dance (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

removing external link sections from articles

Hi. You have been removing external links from articles in an indiscriminate fashion. Here are some examples: [1], [2], [3]. Only one of these was accompanied with an edit summary, so it leads to conjecture that it is a tit-for-tat on the treatment of your own external links, as has been seen on WP:ELN, WT:EL, and your recent block.

I hope that's not the case. Either way, removing all links isn't appropriate. They are carefully used to supplement articles, especially for incomplete articles. You've removed cases that are very clearly allowed. If you are confused about what links are and are not allowed, I'd advise becoming comfortable with that policy before continuing to remove links- if for no other reason than the increased scrutiny your events actions have brought. tedder (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're not just harrassing me, but given your complaints about my even questioning the policy on WP:ELN and WT:EL, I certainly don't think there's any reason to discuss it with you here. You do whatever you want with the links; you will, anyway, no matter what I say (and probably already have). George Dance (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying my best to assume good faith. Let me be a little stronger- further mass-removals of external links in this form are unacceptable. tedder (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Fine. I just told you: you and your "consensus" have carte blanche to do whatever you want with the articles I've written and the external links I've added to them. I won't be adding any or removing them. As far as I can see, that gives you everything you want. What is your problem with it? George Dance (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry you see it that way. It isn't about "getting my way"; there is an established consensus. The reason I came here wasn't to hurt your feelings but to prevent you from continuing to damage Wikipedia as the three examples above indicated. In the interests of civility, one of the 5 major tenets of Wikipedia, I'd encourage you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. tedder (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I see. So you think that popping onto my talk page to accuse me of "damaging Wikipedia" (by deleting content I added to it, in at least one of your examples) is the way to act under WP:CIVIL? Or that writing me with your "speculations" about my hidden motives and my "feelings" is the way to be civil? Assuming good faith, I'm sure you think you've been very helpful and you deserve my thanks for all of that; but I'd ask you to please think about this: If I just popped in on your talk page and began doing the same to you, would you really be thanking me? George Dance (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
George, there is a big difference between what Tedder is doing and incivility. Tedder came to your page to try to explain an error you made so that you can improve as a Wikipedian. Incivility occurs at the point at which you begin to argue and act rude to people. Please, read messages for their general content, people aren't hiding attacks at you as an editor between the lines. Ryan Vesey (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


May I ask you why you removed these external links? How do these external links violate our external links guideline? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I opened a new section, just as I asked you to do, for the new conversation. However, I didn't want to hear later that you hadn't seen my reply, so I'll quote it here as well:

Of course. I don't mind spending time on something like that, as long as it's productive. To make this productive: I went back to the pages, restored all of the links in question (since User:Tedder hadn't bothered to), examined each one, and made a decision as to whether it benefited the article or not. Each link I cut has a reason given. George Dance (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

George Dance (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Incivility occurs when you do it

Well, there you go. "What he's doing isn't incivility, because it's only incivility when you do it."

Added by "JamesBWatson", August 4, 2011:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because you've been asked by several individuals, both nicely and in stronger terms, to discontinue pointy mass removal of external links from an article. You have continued to do so. Note an indefinite block is not an infinite block. Indefinite means you control if and how it ends. In this case, that probably involves showing an understanding of WP:STICK and especially WP:EL policy. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. tedder (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

"You've been asked" No. "by several individuals," No. "both nicely" No. "and in stronger terms, to discontinue pointy mass removal of external links from an article." Question begging. "You have continued to do so." No. (which should not be twisted to a 'confession' that I've ever done such a thing). George Dance (talk) 1:12 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

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. TNXMan 19:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am trying to clean my talk page by archiving the previous discussion. According to WP:Archive, adding the template should automatically move the page, and turn this page into an empty one with a redirect. However, that isn't happening, and I suspect the reason is the indefinite block on my account. So I'm asking that I be unblocked, just to get this page archived. George Dance (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It doesn't. You can blank the page except for the declined unblock request, if you'd like. Kuru (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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.

Use of talk page while blocked

The purpose of allowing a blocked user to edit their own talk page is so that they can request an unblock, and take part in constructive discussion concerning the block. Please don't use this page for other purposes while the block is in force. If you do so you may find that your talk page access is removed. Also, please do not remove the block notice or the declined unblock requests while the block is in force. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as you have my account blocked, James, it's impossible for me to correct errors in Wikipedia (the way I was doing for years) when I find them. All I can do now, when I spot an error, to get it corrected is to post about it on Wikipedia in the hope that another editor will see it and be able to correct it. Obviously it has to be posted to my talk page, because that's the only page on Wikipedia I can post to right now. That's the content that you just erased from my talk page - that you didn't bother correcting - and that you're now threatening me, with removal of my talk page, if I post any more of it. What would you like me to do instead? Would you like me to post about such errors off Wikipedia? Or just keep quiet about them? Or would you rather simply unblock my account so that I can make such corrections myself? (George Dance (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC))
Oh, and by the way, James, please, let`s stick to the truth: Please do not make up any stories about me removing anything from my talk page. For the record, the only people who removed content from this talk page were Ronhjones and you. (George Dance (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC))
George, if you request an unblock, addressing the concerns that are described in the block notices, you may very well see that your account will be unblocked, and that you can make the corrections yourself. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. Sorry if my note seemed like a threat. It was intended to be advice to you as to what was likely to happen, to help you avoiding that outcome.
  2. This edit and this one both look to me remarkably like you removing content from this page. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, James, assuming that you want to help me "avoid that outcome" of you removing my talk page, why are you evading the questions I asked you. You've decided that I'm not allowed to use my talk page to point out errors I find in Wikipedia; what do you want me to about them instead?
(I don't see any reason to debate whether I've ever removed content from my talk page's archives. None of them have to do with the current page, which I took care to mention, and none of them have to do with "remov[ing] the block notice or the declined unblock requests while the block is in force," which you took care to mention. George Dance (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
WHAT?? Both of them removed both the block notice and the declined unblock requests. 80.168.173.172 (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So let's get clear on this: making an edit that removes everything from a page, and 'undoing that edit immediately afterward, are what you and "James Watson" call "removing both the block notice and the declined unblock requests." You guys will say or do anything to win, won't you? OK, fine, have it your way - you win. George Dance (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Followed immediately by a removal again. George, I am sure that you did not know that you should not have removed the block notices and declined unblock requests, or you may not have noticed - we'll just en up wikilawyering who did what when. Lets drop this discussion, shall we, and work towards an unblock. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

The reason for blocking states that "you've been asked by several individuals, both nicely and in stronger terms, to discontinue pointy mass removal of external links from an article. You have continued to do so." The implication is that I've been going around Wikipedia doing "mass removals" of external links from articles, ignoring complaints from the editors working on those articles, and the concern is that if I'm unblocked I will be going around doing the same thing to other people as well. The implication is false (1), and the concern is groundless (2). (1) I have added external links to, and removd them from, articles I was writing and rewriting; that is the only removing of els that I've done and all that *one* individual (not "Several"), the one who blocked me, objected to. I have no problems agreeing with him that "Pointy mass removals" (without consulting with the "individuals" working on those articles, and not doing any of that in the future. (2) Since I will not be writing or rewriting any articles on Wikipedia in the foreseeable future (but instead confining my editing to correction of typos and obvious errors of fact), I most likely will not be adding or removing any external links, period. The "review" of my original unblock request states that, "To be unblocked, you must convince an administrator that the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead." I certainly understand what I've been blocked for: writing and rewriting articles on Wikipedia, and in the process adding links another or others didn't want, and taking out el's another or others wanted). At no time did I think that doing that was "caus[ing] damage or disrupt[ing] Wikipedia" -- in fact, my intent was to make "Useful contributions", and I thought that the articles I contributed, and which people were reading (and AFAIK still are reading) were "useful contributions" -- but in any case I won't be contributing any more articles for the foreseeable future, so there should be no concerns for anyone who thinks otherwise.George Dance (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I really try to assume good faith when reviewing unblock requests, but this explanation is not compelling at all. What it looks like to me, and to everyone else, is that when you were told to stop adding certain types of external links you went on a "revenge" spree of removing any links you decided shouldn't be there. That sort of petty, childish behavior is not welcome here, and if you can't own up to it I'm afraid you will have to remain blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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.

"What it looks like to me, and to everyone else, is that[....] That sort of petty, childish behavior is not welcome here, and if you can't own up to it I'm afraid you will have to remain blocked." Leaving aside the name-calling (since like most of the insults here that's most likely meant to get me to reply in kind, and so 'justify' shutting down this page, too), I'd have to say that this is the clearest statement of the clique mentality yet. "I agree with everyone here, and everyone here agrees with me (that you were doing X), and if you you don't agree with us (that you were doing X), we'll keep you from working on Wikipedia." Turns out this latest round "unblock" wasn't a total waste of time, after all. George Dance (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

George, you were first blocked after 3 editors mentioned to you concerns about link additions. One of them, me, left a warning, but you continued because you did at that time not care about the concerns expressed to you. It is not about right or wrong, there, maybe your link additions were fine, the point there is, people expressed concerns, and if someone expresses concerns, you first talk about it, you don't go on pushing. This is a collaborative project, but until now you have not managed to convince others about the additions, not even after a block.

After said block, you continue by removing the majority (or was it all?) of links from an article. That looks very much like: "I am not allowed to add my links, so others are not allowed to have their links there either". George, again, your links may very well be wanted, but we want you to discuss them when people have concerns. Just as the other links, editors may very well have discussed them, or they were not added by one editor, but by many, and especially not by editors who were connected to the site that was added (if you can show that the editors who were adding them are connected to the sites, we can talk about that then, maybe that editor needs to be talked to then). That removal of links, after you were reprimanded for link additions, looked very WP:POINTy. The way forward was to discuss the links that you wanted to include, and to show that you actually have consensus inserting those links.

To go forward, I want you to reconsider your statement "I certainly understand what I've been blocked for: writing and rewriting articles on Wikipedia, and in the process adding links another or others didn't want, and taking out el's another or others wanted" - because that is not why you were blocked the first time, and also not why you were blocked the second time. Please try to understand why you were blocked, and base your unblock request on that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Dirk, I was first blocked because two "editors" (stop trying to lump maria in with your group; she had different concerns) "went on a spree of removing any links [they] decided shouldn't be there" in articles I had contributed to and you two hadn't - and I undid some of those deletions. (Admittedly, you blocked me only for 30 hours, so that you could finish your 'spree' without interruption.) But it was the same as this new block, based: Edit the way we tell you to, or we won't let you edit at all. (And please don't try to spin that into an AGF violation: I'm sure your entire group thinks that getting your way is the best thing for Wikipedia.)
Then, as soon as one administrator wins his "discussion" over links I've added, another one picks a new fight over links I've been removing. You can't remember the details of the "mass removals" that he actually blocked me for? Well, here it is: a removal of a link that is already in the article's "References" section more than twenty times. Do you want me to tell you what blocking me for removing that link "looks very much like"? No, I don't think either of us wants to go there again.
Instead, I'll reconsider my statement. Was I blocked because I made any edits that aren't allowed here? No: every policy that an administrator has quoted to me (even things you swore were carved in stone, like putting external links in the body of an article), has allowed exceptions. So, what was it? I was blocked because I got into a content dispute with "Spanglej" - and Spanglej had friends who were administrators, while I didn't. I was bitten.
So, let's go forward. I don't contribute to Wikipedia. That wasn't my decision; but it's one I have to accept. I made my final offer to contribute yesterday - I won't write anything, but just confine my contributions to correcting typos and such - and that was rejected. Maybe Wikipedia itself didn't make that decision, but it did enable those who made it. And given their terms for my being allowed to contribute - "You can do the work, but only if you do it the way we tell you" - then it's probably for the best. George Dance (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
George, I told you why I had concerns about your links, and that was mentioned twice before I mentioned it (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:George_Dance&diff=425927310&oldid=425704610 by Yllosubmarine] and by Spangej, and then by me). Yet, you choose not to stop, wait and discuss, you go on, re-include them without discussion. That is why I blocked you. And no, I don't need to block you to remove all your links, that would be even an abuse of the blocking, I blocked you to stop you from inserting external links without discussing. And that is exactly what I asked you in the warning I gave you before the block: discuss.
And if you think that that link that you gave to that removal is what got you block, then let me add to that: diff, diff, diff, diff. And when you were addressed about these unexplained removals (which were reverted, as you there did not explain why you removed them, which is the same problem as your insertions, you fail to discuss why you want them inserted (except for a - I have my own ideas about external links, I don't care what the community actually thinks about it)), you continued with doing them one by one. And that is why you were blocked there. Those are not edits which show collaboration, and that is just what this project is about.
And don't go towards being bitten .. you were first also talked to, after the first block, when you started to remove the external links on several articles, that would already have been a reason to block you again - yet I chose to revert, and try again to discuss with you (see WP:BRD).
George, maybe we want you to contribute, but with respect for the policies and guidelines here. I know you are knowledgeable in the subjects you are writing about, and I believe you can be a good contributor there. But these blocks have nothing to do with who have friends where, it has nothing to do with a dislike. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
"George, maybe we want you to contribute, but ..." After the past two months, I don't see any room for any maybes.George Dance (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
And when I leave out the maybe? --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
If you leave out the 'maybe,' I'd be touched - really - but I'd think you were speaking for yourself, not the "community." I got my final answer on this from the "community" just four days ago. George Dance (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
No, George, I am trying to work with you towards an unblock. It is all in that sentence of me (leaving out the maybe): "George, we want you to contribute, but with respect for the policies and guidelines here." - If I would unblock you now, how would you continue editing, and what would you do when, in the future, someone asks you a question about an edit (e.g. an edit where the other editor disagreed with, and maybe even reverted)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
"If I would unblock you now, how would you continue editing?" I dealt with that in my unblock request: "I will not be writing or rewriting any articles on Wikipedia in the foreseeable future (but instead confining my editing to correction of typos and obvious errors of fact)" (like the ones I was writing about, but that an administrator removed from this page). Since that was unacceptable, let me add that I won't be looking for errors. I'll continue to read wikipedia (since that's what comes up in searches most often), and if I find an error like that I'll correct it.
"would you do when, in the future, someone asks you a question about an edit (e.g. an edit where the other editor disagreed with, and maybe even reverted)?" Tell him: "It's your article, not mine; I just work here. Do what you want with it." (I should also assume he has the power to block my account, and apologize to him for being "disruptive". I'll try to remember that, though I can't make any promises.) George Dance (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I was afraid of that - you clearly do not have any idea what in your editing we deemed disruptive. I am sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hint: WP:BOLD, WP:BRD. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't be sorry. As I've said, it's now a firm decision. I don't contribute to Wikipedia; blocking or unblocking isn't going to change that. I hope that you understand exactly why that is; and why, although that was Wikipedia's decision (not mine), I'm fully behind it after two months.
Meanwhile, I'm still writing articles here and here; since they're CC-licensed, anyone who is interested in the topics I write on is free to use some or all of them on their own wiki. As long as you and your friends do not follow me to those other venues and start the same thing there, I think we can even part on somewhat friendly terms.George Dance (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I am sorry.
There is no need to follow you there, George. You seem to think that this is something personal against you. But also in that you are totally wrong. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you and your pals have a vested interest in ignoring whatever I say and making up other words to put in my mouth. In fact, I`m sure that virtually everyone who comes onto Wikipedia to write gets the same sort of treatment I got. George Dance (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No pals here, and no, not everyone gets that treatment. Again, this is nothing personal against you, George. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Dirk: (1) you are speaking for a group; you aren't saying 'we', 'us', and 'our' by accident. You may want to tell me that's "Wikipedia" as a whole, but I've seen only ten people involved in reverting, deleting, and blocking my writing (which is the group I think you're referring to, and which I was referring to). (2) And of course "everyone" was an exaggeration; the actual figures are more like: "'occasional' contributors, those with just one edit per month, had their changes reverted or deleted 25 percent of the time, and the number has risen for the more frequent contributors as well, with those making less than ten changes per month having their edits reverted 15 percent of the time.'" [Softpedia, Aug. 5, 2009]. Though that was two years ago; I suspect current percentages are higher. I'd also like to see what the percentages are based on targets' years of participation; I suspect that, for new arrivals (account active less than a year), they are over 50%. (3) Why do you keep denying something I haven't alleged? George Dance (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the policies and guidelines were written by a group. Only ten .. hmm.
Nice, those Softpedia statistics. 25 percent of the time 'occasional' contributors are reverted. That number does not mean a thing, at all. Neither for 'those making less than ten changes per month'.
You said "As long as you and your friends do not follow me to those other venues and start the same thing there" .. so you expected to be followed. And "It seems to me that you and your pals have a vested interest in ignoring whatever I say" .. Well, I think that I actually trying to answer to what you say.
But do I conclude correctly, you think that you are reverted because you are new here? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"I think that I actually trying to answer to what you say." Oh, you do, do you? Then could you please explain what you mean by this: "Yes, the policies and guidelines were written by a group." Here you're comment was "trying to answer" what I said about the about the group of less than 10 *accounts* (I've actually counted only 6 *accounts*, but I gave you a few since I didn't see any point getting into a debate about your numbers) "involved in reverting, deleting, and blocking my writing." Did you really misunderstand to that extent? Or are you making a claim that all of Wikipedia's "policies and guidelines were written by" the same group of 6-10 accounts? I don't see any point in getting into anything else until I know what you're trying to say and/or do here.George Dance (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Let`s see if this is posible

George Dance (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:George_Dance/Archive_1&oldid=1143020446"