User talk:Insearchfortruth

October 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to William S. Burroughs, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Also, your deletion of the criticism section omitted text that cited its source. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to William S. Burroughs.[edit]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding your edits to William S. Burroughs.[edit]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding your edits to William S. Burroughs.[edit]

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to William S. Burroughs. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your warnings

Jeff, Republican: there was no vandalism in the editing I made, I just added missing information. why do you insist in misquoting the introduction to Queer? Your "quotation" reads like this "I am forced to the appalling conclusion that I would have never become a writer but for Joan's death... I live with the constant threat of possession, for control. So the death of Joan brought me in contact with the invador [sic], the Ugly Spirit, and maneuvered me into a life long struggle, in which I have had no choice except to write my way out"

Whereas the original text reads:

"I live with the constant threat of possesion, and the constant need to escape from possesion, from control" You can read the original text in the following address http://realitystudio.org/texts/queer/introduction/ insearchforthruth (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Belated Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Insearchfortruth, 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! Gazi moff 07:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Please don't revert articles back to your preferred versions without any regard to all the edits made in the meantime. Here you have reintroduced deleted images, typos and excessive external links, and you removed references. Here you made a similar edit. I have reverted both edits. Please use the corresponding talk pages to voice your concerns, do not blindly revert with misleading edit summaries. --Conti|✉ 18:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No invertion[edit]

Hi Conti. I don't know what you mean by my "preferred versions". The changes I've made are all documented. I have neither reintroduced deleted images nor removed references, it was someone else, you can check his IP and compare it to mine. In any case. I have not introduced a single external link. I am willing to discuss anything you want.insearchforthruth (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my point, actually, so let me try to explain what I mean. This is the version you are reverting to. It's a prior version of the article, last edited by you at 14:37, 22 October 2008. That is about a week ago. As you can see in the history of the article, it has been edited by various editors in the meantime. Some fixed typos, some removed deleted images, I removed excessive external links and so on. Then, about a day ago, you made this edit, reverting back to the version from 22 October 2008 at 14:37, reverting all the edits that have been made in the meantime. That's not okay. If you want to reinsert some material that has been deleted, do it manually, don't revert back to an earlier version of the article. My advice would be to go to Talk:William S. Burroughs and start a discussion on what you want to add to the article, instead of simply reverting to an earlier reversion. That is considered edit warring, and not allowed here. --Conti|✉ 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got your point, I'll do it manually then.insearchforthruth (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Hi Conti. You are right,I uploaded the image you mention and I hadn't noticed it, I thought it had been someone else, my changes have been vandalized lately, but don't worry, I have removed it, no problem at all.Nevertheless, I do still think the changes I'm adding are necessary and well documented.insearchforthruth (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made an update of this comment, someone erased the word been in "my comments have been vandalized lately", and not only that, they erased the original comment so as to make me pass as someone who admits vandalizing.insearchforthruth (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you posted it that way (link). I, for one, was able to infer what you meant. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding your edits to William S. Burroughs.[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on William S. Burroughs. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You have now reinserted the same irrelevant information 3 times in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 3RR. Please stop.---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Republican, I am not reverting anything, I am not denying anything of what has been previously written, I am just adding a new perspective to Burroughs homosexuality, a thoroughly researched perspective by the way. This is not edit war, I am just using my right to be part wikipedia.insearchforthruth (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning[edit]

Your additions and reverts on William S. Burroughs violate WP:3RR consider this your warning that you may be blocked from editing. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Opium. I have made only one accidental revert. The words I've changed from other editors in the Naked Luch entry have neither wholy nor partially reverted previous editions. Like I've just said, I accidentally reverted to a previous article but from then on, all changes I've made have been manual and they all have been made just for the sake of a more neutral point view, especially in the "Plot" summary" section where there are still many loose ends in so far as the book has no plot at all. Still, the entry could give a few glimpses to the sequence of routines that form the book and which by no means can be rendered as a plot. In the Naked Lunch film and William Burroughs entries I've just added a throghly researched quotation and historical information which Republican has constantly erased, just as he finally contributed to the style of my initial editings. Anyway, I guess I don't have to tell you that you can check the History of the article for a detailed account of the editing I have made.Thanks for the warning.insearchforthruth (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manual or not you keep replacing the same info over and over despite the fact that there is no consensus and other editors on the talk page have raised objections. The page is a biography ie birth, education, career, etc your edit ire homosexuality is off point and not relevant there. Perhaps you should start a page on homosexuality in the McCarthy era? CheersOpiumjones 23 (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] note that there are eight chnges/reverts in 48 hours listed Opiumjones 23 (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Opium, it is not off point to add information about the historical context from which Burroughs fled and if so, you think we must erase all the historical information about Burroughs early trips to Europe that gave him insights ino the homosexual Austro Hungarian era, or the referenes to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and so many other historical references in the entry? I know I have made changes in 48 hours, and they are not braking any rules because they are just changes, not reverts. It seems to me Republican is the only one who has been reverting in the last days, he did indeed reverted to an older version after my initial editing, he did insist in misquoting the introduction to Queer, etc.insearchforthruth (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated the three-revert rule on William S. Burroughs. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Your edits (e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) are, indeed, reverts. Please familiarize yourself with WP:3RR and consider this your final warning. You are technically already in violation. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gyro: According to the WP:3RR, a revert is "any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." The changes I have made and which you link above, are not reverts, I am expanding the entry, giving precise and throughly researched information which in no sense reverts other editings. Revert is to erase what someone else adds in order to return to a previous version of the article.insearchforthruth (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to explain, an editor removing your inappropriate additions constitutes an edit. Therefore your continuous re addition constitutes a revert. I think that you are stretching this to breaking point. You have been dealt with very patiently and in accordance with WP:AGF but if you fail to grasp this you will no doubt be blocked by an admin. Please treat this as friendly advice and not an admonishment. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-adding also constitutes a revert. Again, it has been explained to you and you have been warned. I will also leave a message for Republican. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropiate editing and dditions ? I agree that some style should be corrected, as Republican has done it in my previous editings, but as to the information I am adding and which some of you have been removing in spite of being supported on reliable sources, that IS reverting. I have also asked an administrator to check the history of the editings. I hope you won't be blocked, but it seems to me you will.insearchforthruth (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I have not edited the main page on that article in some considerable time so your statement "some of you have been removing in spite of being supported on reliable sources, that IS reverting" is meaningless. Oh well you have been advised , warned and reasoned with . Best of luck. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Opium, I said, some of you, which doesn't mean Opium 23.Yet if it suits you, wear it. Good luck for you too.insearchforthruth (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gyrofrog (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not engage in any war editing, no more than the editors who have warned me did it.

Decline reason:

The material you added was challenged by and reverted by multiple other users. You were warned about edit warring and the three-revert rule by multiple users. —Travis ^talk 17:47, 30 October 2008 (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.

Right, I agree I was warned by multiple users and in that sense it is fair I've been blocked. However, if the other users reverted my changes, as Travis has just said,they are also incurring in violation of the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule], for even if they did it according to the lapse of time required to make changes, they are reverting my edits on the basis of the latter's "irrelevance", despite the fact that all of them are supported by quotations taken from thoroughly researched books.insearchforthruth (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Words of Advice. Try to engage with those editors on the talk page when you are unblocked and don't just keep reverting/adding, try to reach a consensus. Also you reported me on 3RR when I have not edited the page. Look at history page to fuind out who is editing before making incorrect accusations. Ipersonally think that some of your edits were vandalism such as your removal of the criticism section. Use the talk page before making more contentious edits and things will be much smoother. Cheers

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion Opium, I'll try to start a discussion. On the other hand,I did not report you, I just quoted one of your arguments given for the other two users to remove my editings. "your edit ire homosexuality is off point and not relevant there"...see above.insearchforthruth (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where you reported me [10]. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only see the heading, but the content says something completely different insearchforthruth (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"

Opiumjones 23 reported by Insearchfortruth (Result: 24 hours )"

Opiumjones 23 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's the heading, and this

"User Gyrofrog and User: RepublicanJacobite and User:Conti have been deleting information I have added and which is based on a reliable source. I have received warnings which I have politely thanked, accepted and discussed but they insisit o deleting the information I'm adding, calling it "irrelevant" because it is of a historical nature. Opiumjones 23 argues that the entry must be entirely based o biographical info, whereas some other historical references the users mentioned above have added are still kept16:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)insearchforthruth (talk)"

is the content insearchforthruth (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]