User talk:2010 SO16

2010 SO16, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi 2010 SO16! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you added a link to an image on your computer in a recent edit, possibly in an attempt to display that image on the page. For technical and policy reasons it is not possible to use images from external sources on Wikipedia. If the image meets Wikipedia's image use policy, consider uploading it to Wikipedia yourself or request an upload. See the image tutorial to learn about wiki syntax used for images. Thank you.--Auric 19:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too, but it wasn't me who added it. 2010 SO16 (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. It's getting crazy on that page and I'm not used to reacting so fast.--Auric 20:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using the talk page extensively. But people such as this editor have not. You can see in the edit summary ("utterly irrelevant and UNDUE until there is evidence that the shooter was mentally ill, which there isn't") that editor is not even familiar with the statements that the shooter's own brother made about his autism as early as Friday afternoon. I will try a noticeboard. 2010 SO16 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 SO16 - Please heed this warning. By my account you are up to at least 8 reverts of the same or similar content (see below), which is strict violation of policy. I don't want to see you blocked from editing, so please sort it out on the talk page and let someone else re-introduce the content after consensus is obtained to do so. - Mr X 16:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

06:05, 16 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Domestic */ Congressional Mental Health Caucus etc.")
06:22, 16 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Domestic */ replace deleted text with minor typo corrections. I can see nothing in WP:SOAP which would prohibit any aspect of these sentences. Please discuss at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Soapboxing_or_pertinent_background.3F")
07:06, 16 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Domestic */ replace: (1) I've been replacing this extensively on the talk page, (2) the last three sentences were removed along with other material and an edit summary implying no discussion has taken place, so I think that's in error... (3) see talk")
08:42, 16 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Reactions */ restore: all of this has been justified on talk, where the people deleting have not been discussing. The statements in support of the lead sentence are from earlier articles, yes, but so is the entire "Background" section; this is too")
14:23, 16 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Reactions */ replace mental health caucus reaction per talk: allegations of WP:SYN violations did not state what synthetic conclusion being reached, and there is none. These are just reactions and background facts from reliable sources")
14:42, 16 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Reactions */ peer reviewed statements instead of the Time magazine article")
14:56, 16 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Reactions */ supporting statement from U.S. National Sheriffs’ Association and the Treatment Advocacy Center survey")
15:18, 16 December 2012 (edit summary: "replace per talk: there is no WP:SYNTH violation because there is no unsupported conclusion being implied. Please discuss this deletion. This particular sentence has not been contentious previously.")
15:36, 16 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Reactions */ replace per talk: if you claim this is a wp:synth violation, you need to at least state which unsupported conclusion you believe is being implied. These are statements of fact supported by very reliable sources explaining reaction;")

Same "or similar" content? Most of those were replacing different content from alternative sources supporting the same reaction from the Congresswoman. If you truly "don't want to see [me] blocked from editing" then perhaps you should not construe insertion of "similar" content as a policy violation, no? 2010 SO16 (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2010 SO16. The WP:3RR rules says that editors must not undo the work of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time. Other editors removed the material you inserted nine times; you essentially put it back in one incarnation or another eight times, hence you are at 8RR in less than 24 hours. You can see what happens at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring when these sorts of situations escalate beyond warnings into administrator action. Nobody wants to see you get blocked! If you're new to Wikipedia, please give those rules a careful read. Kind regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the policy requires notification before blocking. Yet amazingly the people notifying me of the policy do not want to see me blocked. How magnanimous of you to let me know about something which you are required to tell me about before you are allowed to use it against me. It is such a relief to know that you don't want to see me blocked with it. Ha! 2010 SO16 (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 SO16 - I'm on your side! I think the mental health issue usually gets swept under the rug, and the focus shifts to gun control, which then also gets swept under the rug. However, we need to be very cautious about connecting the dots. I suggest drafting a rewrite of the content on the talk page, with strict adherence to avoiding synthesis. Then let other editors comment and revise that draft until we have something acceptable. Also, over the next few days and weeks there will likely be other revelations that connect the mental health issue with the shooting, in a way that doesn't require us making that connection. I hope that makes sense. We really are all on the same team here. - Mr X 16:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does your litany of reverts above look exactly like the format used to ask for blocks on the noticeboard AzureCitizen so magnanimously informed me of? 2010 SO16 (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that my words leave you doubting my motive. You could have been reported at any time after you crossed the 4 revert line, and in fact, you still could. I believe that you are sincerely trying to help and would ask you give others the same consideration by assuming good faith. - Mr X 17:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to WP:3RR, you might want to give WP:Assume Good Faith a read as well, 2010 SO16. You were already warned by user Todd1st at the top of this thread; if Mr. X or myself wanted to file an edit warring report, there was no need for us to post any comments here. The string of edits displayed above are auto generated by a tool and are not an indication that Mr. X had prepared a noticeboard report. Our goal here is to help you avoid trouble, not get you deeper into it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced. I have tried to assume good faith but have been unsuccessful. 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll rephrase, since apparently the point is not registering. User Todd1st had already issued a 3RR warning template near the top of this conversation thread. Since it's entirely unnecessary for Mr. X or myself to have posted any comments here if our intention was to report you on the edit warring noticeboard, why do you conclude that the true purpose of our comments here was to report you on the edit warring noticeboard? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to answer this question because it feels like I am being set up for an accusation of violating WP:AGF. 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, there is no "violating AGF" noticeboard, hence you needn't plead the fifth, LOL. :) AGF is not a policy but a behavioral guideline, intended to help editors enter into situations on right foot. Editors who discount it often find themselves embroiled in an endless series of arguments because they routinely interpret the worst of meanings and intentions in the comments of others. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find your "LOL" and this entire conversation very uncomfortable, to put it mildly. I thank you for your efforts, but I ask that you please refrain from further attempts to contact me unless it is about an issue being discussed on an article talk page. 2010 SO16 (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

If you weren't such a massive edit-warrior, you'd probably get away with it for much longer - Alison ^❤ 02:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cells Alive System

The article Cells Alive System has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable product per WP:PRODUCT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kkmurray (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]