User talk:Sardath/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sardath. 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 |
TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters
Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Zeitgeist, the Movie, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards — Cs32en 11:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
3RR violation on Zeitgeist, the Movie
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zeitgeist, the Movie. 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. — Xavier, 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sardath, you have already violated the 3RR rule. I give you a chance to undo _now_ your last revert to this article. If you don't, then I'll have to conclude you don't want to give this article a chance to improve and I'll report your behavior to sysops. — Xavier, 15:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I do not respond well to threats. I have done the right thing, discussing the matter patiently and politely both in your discussion page and in the article's discussion page. And you do not even sign properly, you hide your user name.Sardath (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I agree that you engaged in a discussion, but discussing while reverting is only half-discussing. Since you insisted in repeatedly removing a banner that merely reflects a fact, despite my above warning, I have reported your behavior to admins. Now, I let other judge if you "did the right thing". — Xavier, 14:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- As for my signature, you are discrediting yourself by resorting to such ludicrous insinuations. It has been the same for more than 3 years and over numerous Wikimedia projects. I have even been granted adminship without any question on my sig. Three years ago, I had good reasons to sign that way. But you can fill an official complaint if you believe I'm trying to deceive people in "hiding my name", but try your best to be convincing. — Xavier, 14:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- The banner is not a fact, it is a banner. It is your opinion about the article and it is not part of the article. And I have argued extensively in the article's discussion page and also in your discussion page why this banner is a bad idea. Now why is it that while your user name is Xhienne you make it appear as Xavier, that's for you to explain. It certainly does not help if users do not sign properly. I did not insinuate anything, "ludicrously" as you say or not, I simply stated the fact that you do not sign properly. You don't. But this is not my main concern. The point is that the Criticism section of Zeitgeist, the Movie currently includes quotes from almost every reference to the film in credible media, and you, by adding the template in question, you invite editors to try to paraphrase them. My argument is that this will prove impossible for such a controversial topic, and that it is better to have the exact quotes in the article for everyone to see. As I said, I have argued about it extensively in the article's discussion page, and in your page too, pointing out, among other things, that the Wikipedia rules for quotes do allow for this for exactly the same rationale as mine.Sardath (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- As for my signature, you are discrediting yourself by resorting to such ludicrous insinuations. It has been the same for more than 3 years and over numerous Wikimedia projects. I have even been granted adminship without any question on my sig. Three years ago, I had good reasons to sign that way. But you can fill an official complaint if you believe I'm trying to deceive people in "hiding my name", but try your best to be convincing. — Xavier, 14:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I agree that you engaged in a discussion, but discussing while reverting is only half-discussing. Since you insisted in repeatedly removing a banner that merely reflects a fact, despite my above warning, I have reported your behavior to admins. Now, I let other judge if you "did the right thing". — Xavier, 14:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I do not respond well to threats. I have done the right thing, discussing the matter patiently and politely both in your discussion page and in the article's discussion page. And you do not even sign properly, you hide your user name.Sardath (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 16:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Sardath (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 an editing war, all I did was try to prevent one by removing (admittedly repeatedly) a template put in the Criticism section of Zeitgeist, the Movie by user Xhienne (signing as Xavier). I went out of my way arguing both in Xhienne/Xavier's discussion page and also in the article's discussion page that this template, inviting editors to paraphrase and/or summarize this section's quotes from articles in credible media about this controversial film, was in fact an invitation to biased editing. This film generates strong pro and con feelings and any summary or paraphrase of what the media have to say about it is bound to be disputed. So it is better to have exact quotes. The fact that this Section has remained relatively stable for four months points to the strength of my argument. In any case my intervention was not to prevent anyone from editing the article, it was only meant to prevent the insertion of a template inviting edits. I assume that editors know when to edit something and do not need an incitement to do so. I have elaborated on the matter in the article's discussion page, where one can see both my and Xhienne/Xavier's arguments. Moreover, the fact that this template was placed in the Criticism section of the article generates the suspicion that Xhienne/Xavier is motivated by a point-of-view agenda to downplay the negative comments about the movie in the media.Sardath (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You edit-warred, you were warned, you continued, you got blocked. That's exactly how 3RR works. Once the block expires, you are welcome to try to gain consensus for your ideas on the relevant article talk-pages, but this block isn't resolvable here by getting admin consensus for your edits. Earlier comment is correct: edit-warring while discussing is still edit-warring. DMacks (talk) 04:24, 4 May 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.
.
User notice: temporary 3RR block
Regarding reversions[1] made on May 6 2009 to Zeitgeist, the Movie
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Sardath (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do not see the reason for this, I did not do more than three reverts. My first revert is referenced in Xhienne's comment "Reestablished quotefarm - both banners go together - you have already been blocked for repeatedly removing it, don't try your chance again." and the other two are clearly marked as such by me by the comment "pending discussion, neutral position is to keep only the dicussion banner." I did not violate the 3RR. Sardath (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
From the text of WP:3RR, and I quote, "The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule.". You have given us to reason to believe you intend to stop the behavior that led to this block, so there is no reason to unblock. Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:23, 7 May 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.
- Jayron32 I really hate to take your time about this, but I think you are being unfair in this particular appealing judgment. M. Connoley blocked me explicitly for "violating 3RR." I appealed that I did not, you accept that I did not violate the 3RR and yet you leave the block standing because of "disruptive editing," an issue that did not feature in the rationale for the block. Apart from the fact that an appealing judge should only consider the original violation, quite honestly I do not consider myself a disruptive editor (even though you may think so) and I assure you that I have better things to do that obsess with this article. Still, if you cared to see the article's discussion page, you'd see that my intervention was well intended and well explained. Sardath (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, I left the explanation that you violated text contained in WP:3RR. That policy clearly states exactly what I quoted. Please read WP:3RR for information on that policy. Also, arguing minor details of the text in the template used to block you is not likely to result in getting your block overturned. The issue is that, based on your editing pattern at the article in question, you appear to be willing to repeatedly return to your preferred version of the article over and over, without ceasing, until those that prefer a different version are worn down and simply acede to your version without discussion. This behavior is disruptive, per WP:TE and WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR. You were blocked for that behavior, and you give no indication you intend to stop that behavior. If you had indicated that, you may have been unblocked. Arguing a minor point like whether or not you hit 3 reverts or 4 within 24 hours does not give any indication that the behavior you were engaging in will stop, which is why the unblock request was denied. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)