User talk:U-Mos/Archives/2009/July

This is an archive of past discussions with User:U-Mos. 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.

Doctor Who Companions

I understand your concerns regarding the the inclusion of The Brigadeer in this article, but he is listed as the 3rd Doctors companion, so you would need to open a discussion in the talk page before making anymore changes. We canot have him listed as a companion in one section, but not in another, we need consistency. magnius (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Companion (Doctor Who). 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. magnius (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your argument hinges on another wiki page, which itself could be wrong. A change like this needs to be discussed with other editors so that we may decide where the mistake lies, and change relevent pages. I you change one section on a page, but leave another, it leads to confusion and inconsistency. The consensus could be reached that he is a companion and that the other page is incorrect in saying that he isn't. I'm nt being difficult for the sakek o it, I am simply looking for widespread agreement, not your own personal POV. So rather than continuing an edit war, which just lead to us both being blocked, we need to open a discussion on the relevent talk pages. magnius (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Companion (Doctor Who). Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. magnius (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Incident discussion initiated

Hello. An incident complaint has been initiated at the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents wherein you have been named as being an involved participant. This is your notification of the aforementioned complaint. - Arcayne (^cast a spell) 20:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

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 at Companion (Doctor Who). 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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Aitias // discussion 21:47, 20 July 2009 (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).

U-Mos/Archives/2009 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Claims against me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Personal attacks by U-Mos have been hugely exaggerated and biased. I have reviewed the situation personally and find I made 5 reverts ([1][2][3][4][5]) yesterday (possibly 6 if my first edit is to be counted as a "revert" although it was not performed in that way), not the 8 claimed by Arcayne. I also misunderstood the 3RR rules, believing they applied only to the same area of an article not the page as a whole, so I felt myself only guilty of exceeding 3RR by one revert at the time. I have apologised for that, and for the single profanity I used in an edit summary (although this has again been exaggerated as "wildly swearing" and "dropping f-bombs", and although I understand this is unnaceptable in an edit summary so was the previous summary directed towards me ([6]), to which I reacted in a way I shouldn't have). I understand that I have broken the rules, and if seeing out the block is deemed necessary then so be it, but I am not a threat to the environment of Wikipedia at this time. My fault is simply allowing myself to be goaded and baited by another less than constructive editor. U-Mos (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You yourself have admitted to doing 5 reverts on a single page. Simple analysis of these reverts show that they are edit warring ("I'm right" isn't a legitimate excuse), which is precisely the reason for the 3 revert rule, and took place over a span of 3 hours. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 21 July 2009 (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.

In case any of the involved users are tempted to read this and use it against me in the future (I wouldn't put it past them), I'd like the clarify that I do not have any problems with the block given and understand its reasoning. I utilised an unblock request for no other reason other than wishing to have the situation assessed using the facts, rather than the exaggerated claims in the aforelinked section. U-Mos (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For my own edification, U-Mos, could you explain how you were guilty of reverting only five or six times, and not the eight I had reported? Also, I am unsure how I exaggerated the separate complaint in regards to your language. If you could specify how you feel I exaggerated these issues, I'd appreciate it. - Arcayne (^cast a spell) 13:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You and Phil both stated that I been repeatedly swearing, which as I only used the word in question once (and, admittedly, requoted it at a later stage) this was not really sufficient to justify Phil's rather uncalled for claims of my being a "complete nutter" and your own hugely impartial claims in this incident report. As for the number of reverts, what can I say other than the five I have linked to above were reverts, and the extra three you listed were not (your "first revert" was the first edit I made [7] and the other, which you counted as both your fourth and fifth reverts here, was an edit I made to the same page that was not a revert and had nothing to do with the three characters in question [8]). Simple as that. U-Mos (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I cannot control what Phil said and, for the record, I think he was out of line to say that. We are supposed to focus on the edits, and not the editor, until that editor's behavior becomes problematic enough that it needs addressing - in the appropriate forum (WQA, ANI, etc). I've been guilty of this before, as have you and practically everyone here in the wiki; the key is to learn from it and try to limit how often such happens. Again, I am not condoning what Phil did, any more than I did your behavior. You said you've figured out where your behavior went wonky, and that's great. I am a little worried that you've latched onto Tan's characterization that you were "goaded" into your behavior; it implies that you aren't in control of your actions. Anyone who cannot control their actions shouldn't be editing until they can. That's my personal call on the subject, though; your mileage may vary.

As for the number of reverts, the way I had counted them was the initial revert (noted by your #9) was a revert in that it removed the Brigadier as a Companion - a topic that had gone back and forth in earlier edits. You did not have to be involved in the earlier back and forth for the edit removing the character to be considered a revert; that said, an argument could be made for the converse. As for the link numbered #10, that was a separate revert based on another conflict - indeed separate from the issue of the Brigadier, but no less a revert. Reverts (for the purpose of determining 3RR) do not reflect whether the revert was in regards to a specific issue; it simply counts as a revert.

Both of the issues were in dispute, and adding in contentious material contributes to a destabilizing of the article, which is why we have 3RR and protective blocking in the first place. I know you know this, and I am not covering this ground to serve as a lecture to you. I am stating such to explain why I considered them reverts. You were using the discussion page, but your editing the material back in while discussion was ongoing was not helping the situation. - Arcayne (^cast a spell) 14:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Link #10: I see and have seen no evidence of contention on that issue, and certainly did not check its history before making the edit; it was quite simply a case of seeing something I felt was wrong and hitting the edit button to change it. Plus it was made before the talk page section was started. U-Mos (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Hi there. Today I made some serious corrections to the above article by deleting large amounts of unsubstantiated OR that had been tagged for a while. Another editor immediately mass-reverted my corrections. You agreed with her, and suggested I should seek consensus for my corrections if I wanted them to stand. Please could you clarify why you thought reinstating large amounts of unsubstantiated OR was in Wikipedia's best interests, or why you think such corrections require a consensus in advance? Thanks Wdford (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It just burns me that Zara blatantly breaks the 3RR rule to consistently reinstate unsubstantiated OR, but her version gets to stand and I am automatically in the wrong. This looks wrong to me. Wdford (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)