This is an archive of past discussions with User:Groupthink. 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.
With regards to your revisions of my edits, I would like to make two points. First, according the Wikipedia's Manual of Style, the first format used in an article, in this case "AD", is the preferable choice and the one to be followed. Second, as you pointed out minor changes, i.e. formatting fixes or spelling corrections, are to be marked as minor edits--just as I did.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. --neon whitetalk23:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
That's funny, I put the same warning on your talk page, given that you're removing adequately sourced material and your synthesis arguments don't hold water. Groupthink (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Your edits are clear synthesised the source in no way back up the claims you are adding, if your continue to disprupt this article by adding personal POV and original resaerch, it will likely go to ANI. Also misuse of templates on my talk page and incivility will be dealt with in the same way. --neon whitetalk21:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Consider this a final warning about misuse of templates. It's getting annoying. Discuss the issue civil, templates are not a weapon. Also note that material that violates WP:BLP is an exception to the 3RR. --neon whitetalk14:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I have not abused any policy. You have continually used templates in a retaliatory manner which is considered both incivil and a misuse. --neon whitetalk14:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm reporting you to AIN for not heeding my warning about not posting to my talk page again, for personal attacks and for harassment. Groupthink (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
(<--)There were two complaints about it remaining there. Therefore I undid the action per further talk. When it comes close to expiry I will revisit the talk page and see what's been worked out. Please direct all discussion to the talk page; I am not really involved beyond watching the discussion. Thanks, PeterSymonds(talk)13:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Guardians of the Cedars
You have have undone my edits to the section "Groups in Lebanon" in the article Christian terrorism. I removed GOC from there because it is a secular group although the majority of people in GOC are christians. GOC might be considered as terrorist group but its ideology is Lebanese nationalism, not Christian fundamentalism or anything like that. If you look the article about GOC you should see. Thank you. --80.222.72.120 (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello... apologies, but I inadvertently posted to your "Archie 2" a few moments ago. The subject had nothing to do with you or your edits; instead, a search on the topic brought up that page (among others) and I accidentally hit "+" on the wrong page. I've since removed the text completely. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy20:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Integrated banner for WikiProject Computer science
I have made a proposal for a integrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks -- TinuCherian - 10:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Integrated banner for WikiProject Software
Greetings,I have made a proposal for a integrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks -- TinuCherian - 11:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Merger of WikiProject Malware and WikiProject Software
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is J.A.I.L. 4 Judges. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.A.I.L. 4 Judges. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Shane Day
Hi there, GroupTthink. I found Shane Day, and decided to expand it. However, it is still at a tiny stub. Do you happen to have any info on his life, or his career before being signed as a quarterback ccoach? (quarterback coaches usually were quarterbacks)
Yes, it is undue weight. The fact is his statements have garnered minor coverage but there is no serious outrage over them and Mike Stark is a liberal blogger so it is certainly neutral to note that. John Asfukzenski (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
March 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Trent Franks. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
If this block is in fact based on the example cited, then please note that the "ultra-conservative" language in question was introduced in this edit by 128.54.21.194(talk·contribs·WHOIS) and not myself. If I had noticed that my edit had accidentally reintroduced such language, I would have removed it immediately. It should also be noted that the term "paleoconservative" in the article was also an accidental reintroduction and existed in the article at least as far back as November 2009.
I do see four reverts from you (not to excuse anyone else for edit warring, either); still, I'll notify the blocking admin of your request in a moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
If you did not intend to add the BLP-violating phrases, the block can be lifted. Please be careful with the 3RR limit in the future.
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
March 2010
Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Trent Franks, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 3RR. Thank you. John Asfukzenski (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Where did this come from? Other administrators have determined that not only have reports of my supposed "edit warring" been off-base, but that User:John Asfukzenski is continuing a pattern of blanking content that is sourced but that he doesn't like. Why am I being blocked and he isn't, especially since he has been repeatedly reverting changes made by multiple users? See here for more details.
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
It seems Toddst1 has gone offline. For the reasons below, your unblock request is accepted.
Looks like a very bad block, but I'm not reversing it yet. I'll give Toddst1 the chance to provide an explanation for the (completely unnecessary) block, the excessive length of it, the sock accusation (and block) and the lack of a block for John Asfukzenski, who seems to have edit-warred more. Ironically, my sock detector is beeping and it is not because of you. John Asfukzenski is almost certainly an abusive sock of The Red Peacock, who is a sock of someone. I might have an idea of that as well. The puppetmaster seems to have abused the IP sock 63.215.29.202 during your content dispute at Trent Franks. These add to the list of reasons to unblock you. Prolog (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Please do discuss instead of reverting. I have unblocked you now as getting a comment from Toddst1 might take quite a while, and there is an RFC already. However, I must have missed something at first. Toddst1 seems to be correct when linking your account to an IP. Per AGF and your following edits, I assume you edited logged out accidentally and did not have an ill intent. Given the situation, you could have either made a dummy edit noting the edit was by you or request oversight if you don't want your IP information known (which you still can). Toddst1's actions regarding this were understandable. Prolog (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, it ain't, and you have my blessing to run whatever checks you need to in order to establish that it's not. Additionally, please feel free to check that I'm not any of the other four or so IP's that have edited that article in the past year. Groupthink (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Circumstances of your original block
Hello Groupthink. You commented here in the discussion at WP:ANI#Groupthink. You state that the original block "was lifted due to administrator error." Silly me! I thought I lifted the block because of your assurance that you had not intended to insert a BLP violation into the lead of the article. I accepted that this was an oversight on your part. If your opinion as to what happened has changed, I would like to hear more. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for any misunderstanding. I meant precisely what you said above: The the block was predicated on the hypothesis that I intentionally inserted BLP-policy-violating language into the lede, which I presumed you had verified was not the case (note that the first edit I made after your block was lifted was this one). That's all I meant by "error". I'm not disputing that I deserved a 3RR-warning, and I will gladly add that clarification to the ANI-notice as soon as I can. Groupthink (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Not quite. You *did* violate 3RR, and you did add a BLP violation to the article. I chose to lift the block based on your assurance that the BLP violation was not intentional. What part of my action do you consider to be an error? Would you prefer that I had left the 3RR block in place, which would be the normal thing to do? EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Look, I don't mean to mince words, but I disagree that I added a BLP-policy violation to the article. The verbiage in question pre-dated my editing of the article – in one case by over a year. Groupthink (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Everything I'm aware of has been covered in your report, but if I do discover anything new, I'll be glad to add it to the investigation notes. Thanks to you as well, Groupthink (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Groupthink. 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.
