User talk:Mr. Magoo and McBarker/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
October 2015
Your recent editing history at Political correctness shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- I did a single undo per person (there were two). Not in a row, by the way. After that and after finding out they aren't budging, I started removing bits from my own stance to get to a concensus progressively through edits. The descriptors of my edits also greatly pointed out that I were dropping my points to appease. At this point I didn't think this was being an edit war, but rather an editing process between two disagreers - realpolitik concensus. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Note that your behavior with the IP will be included with your behavior using this account if a block is requested. Doug Weller (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. NeilN talk to me 19:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Magoo and McBarker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I made two reverts? The latter of which done when the other person didn't even bother explaining his revert on the talk page? Another editor just below in the edit history did two reverts as well and he wasn't blocked?
Decline reason:
WP:3RR is not an entitlement to revert thrice, twice, or even once a day. Max Semenik (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2015 (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.
RFC
Just a quick note - adding an RFC tag to an existing debate like this is not a great way to start an RFC - if you look at WP:RFC you'll note that it says that RFCs should be neutrally worded and phrased in the form of a simple question. I suggest removing the RFC tag and adding a new one that asks a more simple and direct question (ie, to what extent should Dinesh D'Souza be described as a popularizer of the term "political correctness" in the lede? or something like that). Asking people to read the whole long debate we've already had is just going to make it confusing for them and limit the number of people who participate. This link might be helpful as well. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the tip. I don't know if I did it properly. I'll try not to bother you because of your consideration. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Political correctness. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Reply
Mr. Magoo and McBarker, discussion about anything affecting the article should be on talk. I always delete sections when 'dealt with', and will do so with the most recent section.Pincrete (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:ANI discussion regarding you
Thus:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Aquillion (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Reply - canvassing
I'm replying here, rather than on article talk.
'Canvassing' also says contact should be neutrally phrased and that contact shouldn't be selective (ie to rally support), but according to neutral criteria. Admins tend to AGF, especially with 'newbies', but they weren't born yesterday and are pretty sharp about judging intention. Fyddlestix and I were current editors, who had interacted there recently, it was normal to inform us, or to leave a message on talk that would have had the same effect. There is at least one other who should have been informed about the ANI + any recently involved admins.
Strictly between you, me, (and the whole wide world), ANI's (even about really serious matters - I mean much more serious than PC - real wars with real dead), frequently come to nothing, (while other ones about some piddling video-game involve half of WP). It's roulette as to whether the ANI actually attracts the attention of a couple of admins.
I wasn't accusing, just informing, ANI's are roulette, sure, but turning one into the Russian variety ain't a great idea. There are all sorts of legitimate avenues for ensuring neutrality, though everything on WP moves slowly, (though carefully) of course. Pincrete (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- The page describing canvassing says nothing about any "recent editors," only those who have edited in a major way. Likewise valereee had recently majorly interacted there but wasn't contacted, because she/he was more likely to defend me. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- But valereee hasn't interacted with you (or any of us) or substantially on talk, your capacity to 'know' who other editors are going to support is baffling, but if you want to contact him NEUTRALLY, to inform him of a discussion, you are free to do so. Don't you yet understand, seeing everything in terms of 'my gang' and someone else's 'gang', is counter-productive (and boring for the rest of us).
- If you feel there was inappropriate notification on the ANI (which I don't believe anyone else is likely to concur with, they are must more likely IMHO, to see it as evidence of a 'battleground' mentality), raise it at the ANI. Pincrete (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- The funny thing is that she/he has, more than Fyd. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you feel there was inappropriate notification on the ANI (which I don't believe anyone else is likely to concur with, they are must more likely IMHO, to see it as evidence of a 'battleground' mentality), raise it at the ANI. Pincrete (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Political correctness history updated with my final version
Please note that after aiming at consensus and trimming down my original contribution as per the reasonable criticism, [I have reinserted the history section] with my original finds, providing arguments therefore on the Talk Page in the appropriate section. After listening to many sides of the debate and being civil to all heated arguments, I believe this is the non-OR version that should stay as valuable to this encyclopedic concept. Zezen (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Signpost exit poll
Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?
If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.
All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian
The questionnaire
Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.
quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes
|
|---|
|
|
Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).
how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes
|
|---|
Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry! :-) |
We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. GamerPro64 14:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
A page you started (List of television programs: N) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating List of television programs: N, Mr. Magoo and McBarker!
Wikipedia editor Anarchyte just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Why does the article for "N" have the ones for "O"?
To reply, leave a comment on Anarchyte's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
RfC
If you continue to change that sentence or remove sources while the RfC is ongoing, someone is likely to request admin action. Please wait until the RfC has been closed by an uninvolved editor. SarahSV (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- What? That's what you just did to my sources? Unbelievable. In addition these sources have nothing to do with the RfC matter which is about the text, not the sources. I'm considering requesting admin action as well. Not from ANI but AN. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
CITEVAR
Please read and understand WP:CITEVAR. I have reverted your edits accordingly. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- The page doesn't use a consistent system. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the page consistently does not use citation templates, as you very well know. In the rare case where they have been added, they have been added contrary to CITEVAR. @SlimVirgin: second opinion requested. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- It has multiple cite templates and outside templates it has multiple different varying styles. If it had a consistent system it would be putting the references in one specific way. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, it does not. Prior to your edit, only three citation templates were used out of 232 notes and refs. The proper thing to do is to remove those three erroneous instances. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Again, they are all thrown there in varying styles. None of them have any consistency past the point that they are thrown inside the refs tags wildly. In addition, you haven't removed those three instances in this time. Why? Shouldn't you do it now? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't agree in the slightest, and as the talk archives show, citation templates have not been used since 2011. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- I did visit the talk archives and there someone had requested for cite templates to be consistently used in 2006. The only other mention of cite templates was indeed from 2011 where SlimVirgin complained that people were filling in useless parameters to them, not necessary about the format. So at some point it changed radically? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- The latest version from 2006 indeed has all of the citations in the template format. How could an article about veganism change so radically? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Magoo, it is clear to me now that you don't understand much of what is written and less of what you read. If you have started your proposal for using citation templates on the talk page as I suggested, then great, otherwise you are deliberately wasting my valuable time with trivial objections. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- You have written that I am apparently trying to flood the talk page full of sections even though I have only made one. I'm not creating any sections there for this purpose because of that. I ask you, what is the 2011 talk archive event you talked of? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Magoo, it is clear to me now that you don't understand much of what is written and less of what you read. If you have started your proposal for using citation templates on the talk page as I suggested, then great, otherwise you are deliberately wasting my valuable time with trivial objections. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't agree in the slightest, and as the talk archives show, citation templates have not been used since 2011. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Again, they are all thrown there in varying styles. None of them have any consistency past the point that they are thrown inside the refs tags wildly. In addition, you haven't removed those three instances in this time. Why? Shouldn't you do it now? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, it does not. Prior to your edit, only three citation templates were used out of 232 notes and refs. The proper thing to do is to remove those three erroneous instances. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- In addition, I can simply add templates to the rest if it bothers you that much. I do it on the regular anyways. I believe the use of cite templates is encouraged over the lax throwing of everything inside the ref tags. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're either trolling or incompetent. The article on Veganism does not use cite templates per CITEVAR. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Again, cite templates are encouraged. I don't know what kind of a crazy world you live in which if some old article has more archaic refs than cite templates then all the cite templates must be removed. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are extremely confused. Per CITEVAR, this article does not use citation templates, nor are they encouraged or suggested. They cause lots of problems, particularly with unregulated parameter use and modification, and many editors prefer not to use them. If you wish to use them, start a new discussion on the talk page and establish a consensus for your proposal. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Again, cite templates are encouraged. I don't know what kind of a crazy world you live in which if some old article has more archaic refs than cite templates then all the cite templates must be removed. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're either trolling or incompetent. The article on Veganism does not use cite templates per CITEVAR. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- It has multiple cite templates and outside templates it has multiple different varying styles. If it had a consistent system it would be putting the references in one specific way. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the page consistently does not use citation templates, as you very well know. In the rare case where they have been added, they have been added contrary to CITEVAR. @SlimVirgin: second opinion requested. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. SarahSV (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- See my recommendation over at SlimVirgin's talk page. This is an idea for you to accept a voluntary topic ban to resolve the AN3 complaint. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- The 3RR complaint has been closed without a block per this result (permalink). I'm accepting your assurance that you won't edit the veganism article again. If this is a misunderstanding please let me know. Should you return to editing the article again, the matter can be reopened. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll gratefully accept this deal, thank you. And in addition the likelihood of me ever editing the article in particular is slim because even something as minor as adding cite templates to citations was resisted heavily. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Did you mean you will abstain from the talk page as well as the article? And regarding citation templates, you may have accidentally stepped on a hot button. This is not your fault. After the commotion dies down, ask somebody about the history of citation templates. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think any bad behavior has been pointed out of me on Talk:Veganism? I now went back and looked at the edit warring noticeboard and there was one message where it was written that "the same thing is happening at talk:veganism right now", but I don't think there's been anything like that on the talk? I made a number of posts but if you look, I received a very large amount of replies there as well so there's nothing odd about replying to every single one. If you do that then of course you'll post there a lot. In addition there have been a very large amount of posts now without any input from me. I'd appreciate if you looked and thought about my behavior there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- In any case if possible, I'd still like to give my opinion there but I'll post less and more concisely in the future. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Here are two of the statements that were made in the AN3 complaint about your behavior on talk pages:
- He is posting extreme claims about veganism on talk; accusing academic sources of being radical vegans/veganarchists, including several who seem not to be vegans at all;, and
- During the AN/I discussion about your editing at Political correctness, Fyddlestix wrote that you had made 981 edits to talk between 30 September and 14 November 2015, and were "bludgeoning" the discussion:..
- If there are any further complaints about your behavior at Talk:Veganism I think it will be only fair to reopen the 3RR case. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Look at this section. The point of the sources being fringe vegans is very substantial. Many, many editors agree with me. Just because someone with more bureucratical rights disagrees doesn't make the point moot. And all three of the main sources used state that they are ethical vegans so there's no question about their veganism. In addition all three state to be abolitionists. And the number of edits are due to minor dyslexia. I have to go back and edit my posts quite a bit since I make so many spelling mistakes. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Disruption is disruption. If you return to aggressive editing at Talk:Veganism you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- What disruption? If there are no disagreers there is no discussion. The talk page would be an empty, barren wasteland. There is nothing to disrupt. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oh I understand where you get disruption from. You're monitoring the sysop's talk. On there they accuse everybody else to be disruptors (but not themselves of course, no never). Some source criticism, please. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- In fact my time at the other talk was spent much more politely. The person I mostly argued with there I sort of enjoyed my time with because we just argued and argued and neither considered the arguing itself to be unwanted. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know how the other person feels about me but I've got warm feelings for him. He's not as bad as these other cats. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Disruption is disruption. If you return to aggressive editing at Talk:Veganism you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Look at this section. The point of the sources being fringe vegans is very substantial. Many, many editors agree with me. Just because someone with more bureucratical rights disagrees doesn't make the point moot. And all three of the main sources used state that they are ethical vegans so there's no question about their veganism. In addition all three state to be abolitionists. And the number of edits are due to minor dyslexia. I have to go back and edit my posts quite a bit since I make so many spelling mistakes. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Here are two of the statements that were made in the AN3 complaint about your behavior on talk pages:
- Thanks for your reply. Did you mean you will abstain from the talk page as well as the article? And regarding citation templates, you may have accidentally stepped on a hot button. This is not your fault. After the commotion dies down, ask somebody about the history of citation templates. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll gratefully accept this deal, thank you. And in addition the likelihood of me ever editing the article in particular is slim because even something as minor as adding cite templates to citations was resisted heavily. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- The 3RR complaint has been closed without a block per this result (permalink). I'm accepting your assurance that you won't edit the veganism article again. If this is a misunderstanding please let me know. Should you return to editing the article again, the matter can be reopened. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |