User talk:Wondering55/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unexplained removal of sources

As in this edit to 25th Legislative District (New Jersey), you have removed existing sources and replaced with different ones, some of which contain less complete information than the sources already provided. You also provided no explanation in the edit summary to explain your edits. Please use the edit summary in the future. Any explanation of your changes on this talk page or on my talk page would be helpful in understanding the logic behind your edits. Alansohn (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Interstate 195 (New Jersey), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Tinton5 (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Changing references for Leanna Brown in Chatham Borough Article

I have tried to change cited references for Leanna Brown since they had better, more recent, and more complete information than current cited Record article. My changes have been undone even after I indicated the reasons for these changes. I then provided a full explanation for these changes in the talk section. I have not received any response as to why these changes cannot be made in order to improve available information about Leanna Brown.

Please advise if you agree with my proposed changes. I would like to replace the cited Record article with 2 references that have better, more recent, and more complete information.

If you do not agree with the proposed changes, please explain why.Wondering55 (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

In looking through your edits, there seems to be a rather strong focus on deleting references sourced from The Record. In some cases, the sources are different, in some cases they're more recent, but in far too many cases the replacement sources are less complete and less reliable than the original material. Wherever possible, I have tried to retain all of the relevant sources to the best of my ability and as reasonable, including the sources you have added, and I will review some of the other removals to see if the material can be reinserted into the article. Can you explain why you have been systematically removing sources from The Record and edit warring with those who have tried to reinsert those sources? Alansohn (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Alansohn, All of the replacement referenced sources are more complete, more up-to-date, and more accurate and they are also reliable.

Since you seem to disagree with this statement, please provide specific details that contradicts this statement in regards to the Chatham Borough article.

You seemed to be focused on an unsubstantiated charge of edit warring rather than looking at the bigger picture to see if my cited replacement references improve the Chatham Borough and other articles. One other minor benefit of my cited references is that they are accessible to anyone. The Record cited reference in the Chatham Borough article is accessible on a regular basis if you have a paid subscription to that source. When somebody replaces something with better, more up-to-date, more accurate, more complete information, their efforts should be welcomed and not reprimanded since it is not edit warring. Wondering55 (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Alansohn, Thanks for your response to my original comments that I saw on my Talk page.

I apologize since I am a Wikipedia novice and am trying to work with anyone who has any concerns about my editing efforts. I hope that we can work together to improve Wikipedia articles and cited references.

Rather than continuing to go back and forth with responses, I would hope that you would accept that my changes are made in good faith. I believe I have responded with sufficient details and reasons that show my changes are made in good faith and they should be accepted in accordance with Wikipedia's policy about allowed changes. Thanks for your consideration. I look forward to your response about accepting my changes.Wondering55 (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've gone through every one of your edits to date and every single edit to an article removed a source from The Record (Bergen County), specifically ones written by John Cichowski. Whether it was a highway-related article or one about a high school, or a legislative district or a politician, every edit removed a source by Cichowski in The Record and replaced it. Some of the sources are better or more recent, but many of the sources are from user-updated content or material from websites and publications with questionable reliability. If you feel that the sources from The Record are out-of-date or that the articles would benefit from other sources, I suggest adding to the existing references as in many cases the articles are worse off with the sources you've removed. It does seem rather strange to me that this removing sources by John Cichowski in The Record is what you'd be doing on a systematic basis, and I'm wondering why. You seem rather knowledgeable about Wikipedia for a brand new editor. Have you edited before using another ID or IP address, as it might help to gain a broader picture of your edit history. Any explanation would help understand what's going on here, which I think you might realize appears rather odd.

Alansohn, You continue to make unsubstantiated charges about me and my cited references without any supporting details, as I have requested. So far, you have not provided any supporting details to question the specifics of any information that I cited.

I would hope that we can work together without having to ask for a dispute resolution with you.

I am a brand new editor and have NEVER edited under another ID or IP address. I believe I have adequately addressed all of your concerns.

Most of my cited references are from previous sources that have been accepted without question in Wikipedia articles that were written before I even started using Wikipedia, from official sources, or other news articles, which had more accurate information, which I cross checked with other sources.

Let me remind you that Wikipedia's policy for long time users in responding to new editors is 1. Be polite, and welcoming to new users 2. Assume good faith 3. Avoid personal attacks

I'm not sure whether you are adhering to these policies in your responses to me.

I also find it rather odd you are spending so much time on doing a comprehensive investigation of all my posts to try and denigrate my efforts. You are the only person on Wikipedia that has carried on this repeated negative campaign against me in response to my posts.

I have explained myself to one other person, who had questions, since I am a relative novice and did not know that changing cited references with better, more accurate references and correcting minor details would require me to provide so much supporting details.

The Record is not a completely reliable source since it only reports what it may find out, which may or may not necessarily be the latest or most accurate information. I suggest you check out the Eye on the Record blog on the Internet that points out many mistakes and lack of reliability in The Record reporting.

The cited reference sources, which I provided in the Chatham borough article, have more up-to-date and more complete information than the original Record article. In fact, you have kept them in as cited references so you must believe they are satisfactory.

In my experience, the proper thing to do when preparing reports and finding a more complete reference that also has updated details that supersedes the details of the old cited reference is to remove the old reference and replace it with the new reference. Keeping in the old cited reference confuses people with information that has been superseded and wastes peoples time in trying to verify that old information, which is superseded by the new references.

In addition, if I had a choice of putting in a reference, which would require someone to pay money to read, vs. a reference that is free; publicly available; and superscedes the other reference, I would include the publicly available reference and NOT the other reference.

The proper thing to do with the Chatham Borough article is to keep my 2 new cited references, which are publicly accessible which you have done, and remove the old outdated reference, which is normally only available through a paid subscription.

I have provided sufficient reasons and details for this change. Let us agree to make the change and move on to better opportunities. Wondering55 (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Alansohn (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

By definition, newspaper's gather material from their sources, and like all newspapers, The Record makes mistakes. I subscribe to The Record and read it every day and I agree that there are errors, but I also see mistakes all too often in The New York Times and The Star-Ledger. I had never heard of Eye on the Record, and when I took a look, lo and behold, there was an extensive criticism in the current post of Road Warrior John Cichowski, noting how he "shamelessly plugs [a] limo service by name" in a recent piece and goes to describe him as "the supremely lazy Cichowski" before moving on to an extensive quotation from an email sent to the paper by a "concerned reader" criticizing Cichowski's reporting. I have no connection to The Record, other than as a subscriber, and I have no bias for or against it. Please understand how strange it seems that you appear to have some sort of issue with The Record in general and Road Warrior John Cichowski in particular, as evidenced by the fact that you have made no update to an article that did not involve removing a source that had appeared in The Record and that had been written by John Cichowski, whether in his role as the paper's Road Warrior or in general reporting. I agree that some of your edits are productive, but this lack of neutrality regarding the paper and its reporter is a matter of concern. Your contributions are more than welcome, but excessive negative focus on one newspaper and one report appears both unjustified and inappropriate. Alansohn (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Alansohn, As Ronald Reagan used to say, "There you go again."

You continue to go and question my intentions and my neutrality without any substantiation.

You continue to go and ignore my requests for specific details that contradict anything that I have stated.

You continue to go and ignore good editing practice, which is not to keep adding everything that is put into an article when streamlining it with better and more accurate info is the correct practice.

If multiple articles from a source have multiple mistakes or outdated info, removing them and replacing them with better sources is NOT a lack of neutrality, but an adherence to common sense and ethics and reputable investigation.

I also subscribe to The Record so that is the source that I start with when checking information. I then compare it to other official sources and news reports to see if the information is accurate or inaccurate. That does not demonstrate any lack of neutrality.

I do not have time or interest to investigate every single item in a Wikipedia article and all of the multiple sources.

In my Wikipedia reviews and edits of articles, I have also checked out other Record articles, which correctly referenced the cited information, so I have not removed them.

In the future, I would not remove articles without a substantiated reason that I would put in the Edit Summary.

You seemed to be oddly focused on preventing me from making needed changes based on unsubstantiated reasons.

I am concerned that you will pass along your biased concerns about me to others.

Unless you rescind your unsubstantiated published concerns about me, I will ask for a dispute resolution with you. This is not what I expected when I started making changes in Wikipedia in good faith.

Why would you continue to cite Record articles in Wikipedia that have mistakes or outdated info when there are better, more accurate references? That is a question that I will raise if this matter goes to dispute resolution with you.

Let us agree to make the change to remove the cited Record article, which will be superseded by the 2 articles that you have already agreed to, and move on to better opportunities.

I would appreciate if you would also agree that based on my responses, I have made all of my changes based on good faith, common sense, and proper investigations, and have not demonstrated any bias or lack of neutrality. Thanks for your considerationWondering55 (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's use the article for Chatham Borough, New Jersey as an example, where the issue is a source for Leanna Brown. All that's necessary is to show that she lives / lived in Chatham Borough. The source that had been in the article -- "MORRIS VOTERS REELECT 3 GOP LEGISLATORS", written by John Cichowski in The Record (Bergen County) -- states that "Brown of Chatham Borough led Democrat Drew Britcher of Parsippany-Troy Hills, 27,381 to 7,563 to win her third term.", which would seem to address the issue, over and done with. The first source you added -- "Trailblazer Leanna Brown Honored by Chatham GOP", by Cara Townsend in TheAlternativePress.com -- states that "Longtime Chatham resident Leanna Brown had many firsts in politics. She was the first woman to serve on the Borough Council, the first woman to win a seat in the New Jersey Assembly, and the first woman elected to the State Senate." which covers the point but no better than the source from The Record. The other source -- “Our Campaigns – Senate 26th Legislative District – History” at OurCampaigns.com -- is quoted as saying that "Republican Leanna Brown of Chatham Borough defeated Democrat Drew Britcher by 34,063 to 9,514 votes to win her third Senate term." The problems are that OurCampaigns.com is user updated and doesn't include the sentence shown here anywhere on that page or on the entire website. Nor does the OurCampaigns page for Leanna Brown pin her down to Chatham Borough, as it provides an address in the Chatham ZIP code. I'm unsure what was wrong with the source for Leanna Brown in Chatham Borough, New Jersey from The Record and maybe if you could explain why it should be removed there we might be able to achieve some sort of understanding. I would also appreciate any explanation of why every reference sourced by an article written by John Cichowski should be removed? Alansohn (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Alansohn, Let's answer you point-by-point on the required relevant citation source(s) for Leanna Brown in the Chatham Borough article.

It is not correct that "All that's necessary is to show that she lives / lived in Chatham Borough." in the cited reference. If that were the case, you could simply put in a Whitepages.com, Zabasearch.com, or other irrelevant reference for many of the cited people.

It is primarily necessary to show HOW any listed person was/is actually a "NOTABLE" person AND also lives or lived in Chatham Borough.

In reviewing the cited Record article, the issue was NOT "over and done with" since every cited reference that I originally accessed in this article had an extensive profile over a notable portion of that person's lifetime, except for The Record cited reference for Leanna Brown that mentioned she won a third term as NJ state senator in 1991. I found the AlternativePress.com article that had an extensive lifetime profile of Leanna Brown of Chatham Borough that also included her 3 terms as senator, plus extensive info about significant accomplishments in her life before & after.

I disagree with your contention about any supposed equality between the 2 cited articles since the presented facts in The AlternativePress article clearly covers BOTH points (1. What are their notable accomplishments? 2. Do they live in Chatham Borough?) much better than the source from The Record.

Based on comparing the clearly more extensive lifetime information about Leanna Brown in the AlternativePress.com article, which is fully publicly accessible, vs. the much more limited information in the cited Record article, which only has a shortened version of the article, it was clear that the AlternativePress.com article was better as a cited reference for Leanna Brown. So I replaced The Record article with the Alternativepress.com article and with Our Campaign website with a brief explanation for why I used these sources, which have more complete and more up-to-date info than The Record article.

There is nothing wrong with “Our Campaigns – Senate 26th Legislative District – History” at OurCampaigns.com, as noted below.

1. You had a problem that the site was quoted as saying that "Republican Leanna Brown of Chatham Borough defeated Democrat Drew Britcher by 34,063 to 9,514 votes to win her third Senate term." and indicated the problems are that OurCampaigns.com is user updated and doesn't include the sentence shown here anywhere on that page or on the entire website.

The intent of my personally inserted quote for the cited reference was to summarize the actual posted facts on the Our Campaigns site, which showed 1) Leanna Brown was a Republican. 2) She defeated Democrat Drew Britcher by 34,063 to 9,514 votes. 3)It was her 3rd term as State senator. 4) She lived in Chatham Borough based on her listed Chatham street address.

The OurCampaigns page for Leanna Brown CLEARLY pinned her down to Chatham Borough, as it provides her street address, which is clearly in Chatham Borough.

Any problems with the Our Campaigns citation can be over how I presented the Our Campaigns site information in the cited reference rather than the actual relevant facts on that site, which updated what was presented in the cited Record article. I would be more than happy for you to change the way the Our Campaigns site citation is presented.

As I have explained, the reasons should be clear by now that the AlternativePress.com cited reference should replace The Record cited reference because it provided an extensively more complete profile of her notable accomplishments similar to the way other cited references, which I originally checked, did for some of the other notable people that I checked, while also indicating more details on how she lived in Chatham Borough.

I also believe the Our Campaigns site provides additional and more complete information, which is publicly accessible, than the shortened version of the Record article about each of the 3 senate elections that Leanna Brown won and exactly where she lived in Chatham Borough. This cited reference should supersede The Record article. If you want to edit how the cited reference is presented, please feel free to do so.

I want to avoid the practice of simply adding more and more info to an article without consideration to deleting outdated, incomplete info that is superseded & became superfluous.

Any other cited articles by John Cichowski that I removed in other Wikipedia articles were replaced for the very same basic valid reasons. Replacement citations had better, more complete, more accurate, more relevant, or more up-to-date info that superseded the cited article by John Cichowski.

Let us agree to make the change to remove the cited outdated Record article, which will be superseded by the 2 articles that you have already agreed to, and move on to better opportunities.

I hope that you will respect my intentions, my integrity, and my contributions. So far, everyone else has.

I would appreciate if you would also agree that based on my responses, I have made all of my changes based on good faith, common sense, and proper investigations, and have not demonstrated any bias or lack of neutrality. Thanks for your consideration.Wondering55 (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wondering55. You have new messages at Imzadi1979's talk page.
Message added 00:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Imzadi 1979 → 00:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please convince the community that your issue with John Cichowski is legitimate, as I don't see any validity to your claims. Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edits

Hello. It's come to my attention that you have been systematically removing citations to a certain newspaper. This violates our neutral point of view policy, and is clearly against the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. As that is all that you have edited so far, it is clear that you are only here to further an agenda. That makes you a single-purpose account and is grounds for indefinite blocking.

I don't know whether certain aspects of the paper are reliable or not (and frankly, I could care less), but a wholesale removal of all citations to that source because you hate it is not acceptable, and if it continues, you will be blocked indefinitely. --Rschen7754 08:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

@3RRNB

That board has a specific format and no matter how you file it, you won't be able to provide the 4 diffs needed to make the case because they don't exist; I advise you to go to WP:ANI and give your response there. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

@ANI

Do you even read what other people have to say? There really is no using posting another block of text that reads like some courtroom defense cooked up by 10 lawyers... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wondering55. You have new messages at Seb az86556's talk page.
Message added 02:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am going to encourage you to read WP:BRD very closely: you added some text to an article, it was reverted, you may never reinsert it without first gaining new consensus to do so on the article talkpage. You are not permitted to re-insert it and then start a discussion. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

BWilkins I would like to tell you that Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ has previously threatened me, without any justification, that action would be taken against me and that I would not be allowed to participate in Wikipedia.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ has also previously made denigrating comments about issues that I have raised.

This widespread harassment and unethical behavior by Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ is unacceptable.

Unfortunately, Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ has now engaged in unethical, wide spread deletions of ALL revisions that I have made recently to over 15 articles.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ has NOT provided a single explanation for any Undoing of my revisions to any of these article.

I have opened up Talk pages for 3 of these articles, Route 55 (New Jersey), Reversible Lane, and International High School (New Jersey.

I have notified Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ that they need to provide explanations on why they have undone my changes for the 3 articles noted above in the Talk pages that I have opened up.

Instead of responding to me on the Talk pages that I opened up for these 3 articles, Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ has arranged to Undo all of my changes on the 3 pages and has NOT responded to any issues that I raised on the 3 talk pages on the 3 cited articles.

I will bring this unacceptable behavior by Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ up for dispute resolution and stopping this harassment and unacceptable behavior.

I have checked your Wikipedia sources and there is nothing on there that explains or justified this wholesale attack against me by Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ or that contradicts any reasons for allowing the changes that I made.

You may not have realized what was going on when you assisted Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ so I am giving you the benefit of doubt that you would not tolerate this behavior by Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ.

If you have any suggestion on how to resolve this matter with Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ in an amicable constructive manner, please let me know.

I do not want to waste your time or my time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ seems intent on wasting my time.

It should be Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ that needs to take the time to explain to everyone this strange behavior, which I find to be unacceptable, unethical and harassing to me. So far, Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ has been unwilling to do that and has wasted my time in addressing these unacceptable actions.Wondering55 (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I see where Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ finally responded to me with a comment on the Route 55 (New Jersey) site. Unfortunately, it is an incomplete response for reverting all of my changes in over 15 articles. I have asked Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 haneʼ to provide further explanations for what I consider unacceptable behavior. I will wait to hear back for a response.

In the meantime, if you can provide any guidance on my trying to work with Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 and Alansohn about all of the changes that I have made in over 15 articles and which have been Undone, since both of them have made publicly denigrating comments about me and have threatened to have me removed from Wikipedia, even though I have acted with transparency and integrity.Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 has also contacted another Wikipedia user today and made misleading deceptive claims about my actions that I had to spend time and address. I am a novice user, who just started to make contributions to Wikipedia. Thanks for any advice.Wondering55 (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please only use article talk pages if an editor asks you not to post on their talk

User:Seb_az86556 has asked you not to post on their talk page, but less than two hours later you posted this. I realise it's less convenient, but please respect the editor's request for you not to post there; you can perfectly well use article talk pages instead. In this case I see that you have posted both on the article talk page and on the editor's talk page; the latter is then certainly superfluous. You can certainly assume that anything posted on the talk page of an article you are both working on will be seen by the other editor. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have not seen any notice by User:Seb_az86556 for this request, but I will certainly honor it.

It is kind of strange that I saw your request about User:Seb_az86556's supposed request, but I never saw the original request from User:Seb_az86556, even when I checked my Talk page.

I hope that you also realize that I was busy with making revisions and opening Talk pages on various articles and that I did not check my Talk page for a while today. User:Seb_az86556 could easily have made a request on the 3 article Talk pages on the articles that I set up for a response by User:Seb_az86556.

My guess is that User:Seb_az86556 is being deliberately deceptive and is trying to create a misleading false perception of me with as many Wikipedia users about my actions on Wikipedia so that User:Seb_az86556 can try to have me removed from Wikipedia.

User:Seb_az86556 has already engaged another Wikipedia user today in trying to create a misleading false impression without directly contacting me about the issues that they also raised with me.

User:Seb_az86556 has also previously threatened me with removal from Wikipedia without justification and has made denigrating comments about me. Wondering55 (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Seb's request was in the edit summary for this edit. I understand that it wasn't highly visible but now that you're aware of it, thank you for agreeing not to post further on Seb's talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The link that you provided referenced a series of communications that I had with Seb on a completely different topic. Seb's communication in that link did NOT indicate anything about not posting communications on his Talk page. It simply indicated that Seb wanted that previous topic to be closed.

The communications in the link you provided were prior to my opening up a new series of communication based on opening up 3 Talk pages for 3 different articles. I still have not seen Seb's request to stop communications on his Talk page about issues that I initiated on the Talk page for the the cited articles.

As I previously stated, I have not seen any notice by User:Seb_az86556 for this request, but I will certainly honor it since you brought it to my attention. Let us consider this issue closed for now since I am now complying with Seb's wishes.Wondering55 (talk)

The diff I posted above from Seb has the following edit summary, which you will see if you follow the link: "Reverted 4 edits by Wondering55 (talk): Not welcome here; future posts=vandalism. use article talkpages." Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I have seen your link. I cannot make it any clearer that until you provided this link, I did NOT see or receive any notice by Seb for this request. Seb's remarks clearly indicate a lack of civility and understanding of my efforts. I cannot find this request anywhere on Seb's page or on my page. To try and equate my efforts to be helpful and try to engage Seb in a discussion with Seb's unsubstantiated charge of vandalism does nothing for Seb's credibility. To tell a user they are Not Welcome without any provocation is a motto that Seb should be reprimanded for.

I will await Seb's responses to requests that I made on various article Talk pages.Wondering55 (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear friend...

Wondering55, I've been here a while, and there isn't much I haven't seen, so please understand when I say that I've seen this before. I think you have a different idea about what Wikipedia is than the community itself does. That is fine, it takes time to get a feel for the place, and no matter how much you read around here, it still takes time to tell the difference between the theory about how Wikipedia works, and the practical realities of how it works. First and foremost, we are a community and we try to act in unison as much as practical. This means when we disagree on an edit, we discuss it. We don't just slam our version back into an article after it has been reverted. Editing by force just gets you blocked around here. The community aspect is just as important as the facts when you are building an encyclopedia. I know that sounds odd, but it is true. We depend on each other, we need each other since no one person can do all the work. The greater community is more important that me, than Kim, than Bwilkins, you, or any single person. This means that we tread lightly when there is a dispute, even if the other person isn't treading so lightly.

There is a lot of jargon we use that might sound more harsh than it really is. It is due to the sheer volume of policy around here, so some of us old timers will sometimes speak a bit of shorthand, which can come across more brash than it is intended. While we try to not do that, you also have to get used to a little of it, and thicken up your skin if you want to work within a community like this. And being one of the new kids on the block, I strongly recommend treading a little lighter until you get up to speed on policy and just how we do things. This means you might not work as fast as you like for a few weeks, but speed isn't the goal, accuracy, verification and cooperation is. I'm working overtime, so I don't have the time to do so myself, but you might ask around for a mentor. Someone you can ask questions to, just for a few weeks. I've had mentors, and there are a few people whom I still consider mentors, and I'm an old guy that has been here for many years and an admin here. Mentors are a good thing, not a bad thing.

Anyway, I don't want to see you end up blocked, and I'm afraid if you move forward without getting a better idea of what we are and how we do things, that might be the end result. Not everyone adjusts to the methods here quickly, and it certainly isn't related to intelligence, it is just all in what people are used to, and Wikipedia is a very different kind of community. Allow yourself the time to adjust and just tread lightly for a bit while you do, and hopefully everything will work out. A good place to ask for a mentor, or just ask questions about anything is the WP:Teahouse, a simple and low key place filled with people who enjoy helping others and answering questions. I strongly recommend regular visits and asking for a mentor there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights, which I will certainly take to heart.

However, from my perspective, it appears that Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 and Alansohn are simply gaming the system in their favor.

They are clearly blocking my efforts and definitely NOT making any attempt to work with me.

As I went back today to look at only 3 articles, Route 55 (New Jersey), Reversible Lane, and International High School in New Jersey, I began to see that most of my changes, which added value to these articles, had absolutely nothing to do with the previously cited Record article that I had originally deleted and which became an open topic of a sour discussion with Alansohn. Instead of going back to all of these articles and making a surgical correction to reinstate the cited Record article, they both conspired and took action to remove ALL of my changes in over 15 articles. I have opened up Talk pages today on the 3 cited pages and will wait for better responses from each of them.

This is is unacceptable behavior, even if I have a mentor. Any further insights would be welcomed. Wondering55 (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• There is no right answer here. They reverted you, wrong or right, the best thing is to start a dialog and not be defensive. Easier said than done, I appreciate this fact. You have a short history of questionable edits, which is going to give other editors a hair trigger when it comes to your edits. That is something you have to work past, and dialog is the vehicle to move past it. I didn't say it was fair, but nothing in life is, so we are best to play the hand we are dealt instead of trying to change the way others react. All I can recommend is to start a dialog, give them a reason to think their initial impression of you was erroneous by what you do now. Things like this have a way of blowing over if you allow them to. I'm not wanting to go in and nitpick each edit and determine who is wrong or right here, I'm just trying to offer you a way to move forward, with the understanding that we are all human. You've made mistakes, and if they have, well, then you have that in common. But sincere dialog that is focused on the merits rather than the emotions is the solution. There is no justice as Wikipedia is a good read, and a guiding principle for me, personally. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed your request for a Third Opinion because, there, too, you're caught in something of a Catch-22. All dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia require substantial talk page discussion before requesting DR. While I see you've attempted to get that started, both at the various articles listed in your DR request (with no response from Alansohn) and on Alansohn's talk page, all the discussion that has so far occurred has been about process, not about the substance of the edits you wish to make and just doesn't satisfy the DR requirements. My recommendation: Follow Dennis' advice and ask for help at the Teahouse. Let the good folks there help you evaluate the edits you wish to make. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Modifying postings on talk pages

It's generally a bad idea to modify your own postings on a talk page in substantive ways. Typo corrections and formatting issues are fine, but renumbering the points in a discussion is not good, especially when someone has replied to your posting in reference to the original numbers. If you have further comments to make on my talk page, keep them concise and add them after the replies your initial posting has garnered already, thank you. Imzadi 1979 → 04:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I previously explained this issue on User talk:Imzadi1979 in "Removal of Revisions to Pulaski Skyway". As you are aware, this issue was resolved on your Talk page.

Please do NOT open "new" topics on my page that were addressed on your Talk page.

I have made substantial contributions to correcting, improving, and updating the Wikipedia page for Pulaski Skyway based on substantiated facts. You should acknowledge my contributions.

I am concerned you are not demonstrating proper etiquette since:

- Your "concise" responses many times are longer than my follow-up requests that you claim are not "concise". I try to be concise. I am most interested in substance & validation of issues.

- You repeatedly do not provide answers to each of my valid follow-up requests. You repeatedly respond to some or ignore all of them.

- Your opinions contradict the facts and Wikipedia practice for verification. One may be entitled to their own opinion, they are NOT entitled to their own facts, incl. your opinion that:

Differences in number of spans for the correct 118 vs. the outdated 108 may have been a typo rather than a conflict in sources. It is simply not borne out by the facts and history of changes on the Pulaski Skyway. You chose to ignore those facts and those changes.

- You made wholesale reversions to one of my revisions, which contained seven changes, that created extra work for both you and me. You finally decided to allow some changes and ignored my requests about two others.

- You chose to go rogue by not participating in a Wikipedia NRHP team discussion about use of citations that I developed and then decided to change my citation that was added by an NRHP team member, who added it based on those discussions, to Pulaski Skyway. Whether the change is justified or not, you need to honor the Wikipedia practice of working with the NRHP Talk page team and not doing things on your own.

- You seem to be more interested in reversing my changes based on opinions and simply ignoring facts, which you may not be aware of at the time you Undo, that justify those changes.

I would appreciate if you did not make wholesale reversions if I make multiple changes without addressing the issues of substance with me. You can still make changes to formatting, typos, grammatical mistakes, Wikipedia article protocol, etc.

I was hoping that we can work together since you have a lot of Wikipedia experience that I am learning from as we interact. I hope that we can rekindle the spirit of cooperation when you first welcomed me. I want to maintain quality and accuracy of Wikipedia articles that I edit.67.84.207.66 (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Misposted messages

If you are wondering why Dough4872 has not responded to your messages, it is because you posted them on Talk:Dough4872 not User talk:Dough4872. I have copied them across. JohnCD (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you John. I will try to pay your act of kindness forward.Wondering55 (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rschen7754 08:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Wondering55. I've had a look through your contributions and talk page discussions, and I see two problems. The first is your replies tend to be rather long-winded and rambling, which makes it difficult for people to easily understand your issues. I think this is what is frustrating people. It helps in discussions if you get straight to the point and explain what the problem is with the content, ideally with diffs if you know how to use them.

Second, can I also recommend the option of mentoring, and possibly looking at a different topic to edit. You can either add {{subst:dated adoptme}} to the top of this talk page, or you can have a look at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters and pick someone to give you a hand. I think we'll need to do something soon, because as things currently stand, there's a proposal to block you from Wikipedia, so it's worth trying to circumvent this if at all possible. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: File:Pulaski Skyway northbound plaque.jpg

This image is hosted at the commons:File:Pulaski Skyway northbound plaque.jpg and was originally uploaded by User:SPUI, the reason my username is also listed is because I made a minor edit to the original. Unfortunately SPUI is no longer an active contributor to Wikipedia and I have no knowledge of the plaque or its location. You may want to try posting your query to Talk:Pulaski Skyway. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Chatham Borough changes

A few questions and issues regarding your recent edit to the article for Chatham Borough, New Jersey. 1) Dates are used throughout Wikipedia and I can't recall ever seeing non-breaking spaces used between month and day, nor is there any reference to such a requirement in WP:MOSDATES. Can you point to any policy that would require use of non-breaking spaces for all dates in Wikipedia? 2) Where did you obtain a May 7, 2013, date for the file http://www.nj.gov/dca/mayors/mayors2013.pdf and an April 3, 2013, date for http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/docs/gazetteer/2010_place_list_34.txt? 3) Area data in http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/docs/gazetteer/2010_place_list_34.txt is provided in both metric and Imperial units. Not only is no conversion necessary, but the conversion templates introduce needless rounding errors, such as the data for Chatham Borough listed in the source as 6,146,962 and 133,590 square meters for land and water area respectively. What had been listed as 6.147 square kilometers of land and 0.134 of water, by rounding the data provided to the nearest thousandth of a square kilometer directly from the source data, have been incorrectly listed as 6.146 and 0.135, while a similar error is introduced into the calculation of the water percentage. As the data comes directly from the source in both units, no conversion is either needed or justified in this case. Alansohn (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have seen non-breaking spaces used intermittently for dates in many different articles, including Featured Articles. I went back in and removed them from Chatham article.

I revised the English and metric units so that they are manually reported based on the citation source and % of water area is calculated based on metric units and not English units, which gives a slightly different result. I added corresponding internal notes for reference by future editors to avoid any future misunderstanding, including NOT to use Convert template for these reported units. Previous editors would not have been aware of this, particularly when the original cited link went to a dead end link, which I updated.

Citation dates are from the reported web site information for those 2 cited web documents.

Thanks for letting me know.Wondering55 (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Port of Salem

Port of Salem is coming to DYK in a couple of days.Wonder if you'd have a look. Thanks Djflem (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I will review and make some updates. If I have questions or suggestions, I'll include it in the Talk section of the article as I go along. It will be slow going as I go section by section and back and forth through the article. If you need any further feedback as I go along, you can also include in the Talk section of the article.Wondering55 (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2013 (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. Coretheapple (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Fort Lee lane closure scandal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I know this is tough, but maybe it will help you understand something useful. I look forward to see you back editing, hopefully with a better approach. I would recommend in good faith, that you study WP:BRD. It works really well if you apply it and will save a lot of aggravation. Enjoy your wiki-vacation. Cwobeel (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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).

Wondering55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block should be lifted since I was simply responding to unwarranted edit warring and harassment by Coretheapple, who instigated this administrator block. I was simply responding to Coretheapple, who was making unsubstantiated reverts of my editing based on clearly inaccurate History edit comments, which contradicted the facts that I presented to Coretheapple in Talk discussions, for the Fort Lee lane closure scandal and Coretheapple's inaccurate Talk discussion comments, which contradicted the facts that I presented, in which I tried to address the reasons for Coretheapple reverts. Rather than comply with my repeated requests for Coretheapple to identify in the Talk discussions each of the items from my edits that were being objected to, Coretheapple simply decided to continually revert a series of twelve of my original edits that I made from 03:39, 4 April 2014 to 20:03, 4 April 2014‎.

Rather than accept a good faith proposal in the Talk by Cwobeel and me to finally address on Monday, April 7, a point by point discussions of their concerns with my editing, Coretheapple decided to take the unwarranted action to instigate this unnecessary block of my editing. I would also like to state that Cwobeel is also partially responsible for this edit warring problem since Cwobeel also ignored the very same Talk discussion items that I highlight below with bullet points based on my presentation of facts that contradicted Cwobeel's claims of removing necessary content from the Fort Lee article.

To make these matters even worse, when Cwobeel, who was also involved in Talk discussions about these twelve edits, reverted Coretheapple at (14:11, 5 April 2014) to put all of my edits back, Coretheapple simply reverted Cwobeel's reversion (at 14:16, 5 April 2014‎ with Coretheapple's inaccurate History comment, "No valid reason to remove this content", which clearly contradicted the facts that I had presented in Talk discussions) rather than continue the discussions with Cwobeel and me on the Talk discussions page.

Clearly, there also needs to be some consideration by administrators of the specific circumstances involved in this situation. Otherwise, any editor can simply engage in repeated vandalism or harassment of someone else by repeatedly reverting their edits based on no substantiated reasons, including simply made-up reasons that do not reflect the facts. When the affected person reverts those repeated unwarranted reversions based on inaccurate statements, which are clearly addressed by the affected person in Talk discussions and ignored by the editor who originally reverted, and is then wrongly cited as the one engaging in edit warring, there clearly is a problem that Wikipedia administrators need to resolve.

I believe a primary reason why Coretheapple brought these unnecessary and clearly unwarranted charges against me is because I warned Coretheapple and Cwobeel that, based on their inappropriate actions and ignoring my requests to engage in discussions in Talk instead of continually reverting my edits based on their unsubstantiated comments I was considering to initiate claims against them for edit warring and personal harassment against me.

I was being harassed by Coretheapple and Cwobeel on the Fort Lee lane closure scandal article by putting a clearly unnecessary burden on me to explain in detail all twelve of my edits (most of which simply involved minor copy edits that rearranged sentences or simplified wording that did not change content) that were reverted. Coretheapple and Cwobeel were reverting my edits based on inaccurate accusations, which are contradicted by the facts that I presented, of my removing items from the article. That was simply not true as I explained in the Talk sections, as noted below.

I went to the Talk sections to try and have a reasonable discussion to point out claims of my removing content are inaccurate based on the facts and past Talk agreements with other editors. Rather than present concerns to specific items, Coretheapple continued to ignore my explanations and continued to revert my edits based on repeated inaccurate claims that I was removing needed content.

• When I presented overwhelming facts based on reliable sources that contradict what was being stated, Coretheapple ignored it and inaccurately describes them as my opinion.

• When I presented agreements that have been reached based on past Talk discussions with others, which contradict what Coretheapple is stating, it is ignored.

• When I indicated that most of my revisions that were reverted are simple copy edits that involved rearranging sentences and simplifying wording without changing the actual meaning and content, and not deletion of content as inaccurately claimed, Coretheapple ignored it.

• When I pointed out that one of my edits involved removing an item that was superseded by other described events that followed in the article that fully addressed the removed item, and that many previous editors had made similar types of deletions, without any objections or reverted edits, since the items they deleted were superseded more accurately by other described events that followed, Coretheapple ignored it.

• When I pointed out that some of my edits involved deleting items that were duplicated elsewhere in the article and that many previous editors had made similar types of deletions, without any objections or reverted edits, since the items they deleted were duplicates of other items, Coretheapple ignored it.

• When I pointed out one of my edits involved relocating an item to the David Samson article, based on my Talk discussion with JackGavin, who gave me permission to remove the item that he added to this article and relocate it to the Samson article since the Fort Lee article section has a Main Article wikilinked redirect to the Samson article, Coretheapple ignored it.

• When I pointed out that one of my edits was to move details from Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Other allegations concerning David Samson to David Samson (New Jersey) based on a previous Talk consensus noted below with other editors in which Coretheapple participated, Coretheapple ignored it. To make matters worse, I pointed out the exact same information that Coretheapple wanted to put back in the Samson section was already detailed in the Timeline section and that it should not be duplicated in the Samson section. Coretheapple ignored it.

As previously noted above, the Samson article will be used for details about investigations into multiple investigations and questions of conduct/conflicts of interest/ethics violations of Samson. The Samson article already includes details based on the citation that JackGavin referenced. Those types of details should not be duplicated in this article, which currently has a smaller section titled, "Other allegations concerning David Samson", with a Main Article wikilink redirect to the Samson article.

It would be preferable that the current section should continue to only have a very broad summary about these separate ethics and conflict of interest issues since this article is now focusing specifically on the Fort Lee lane closure events and is already getting too long. We realize that the the Fort Lee lane closure scandal will generate many tangential topics as the investigations progress. This article currently uses Wikipedia:Splitting with Main Article wikilink redirects for this tangential issue and the "Claims made by Jersey City Mayor Fulop" in order to avoid too much information in the current article.

I consider this unacceptable harassment and edit warring by Coretheapple and Cwobeel. What can be done to prevent it and address it and reinstate my editing rights.

To make matters even worse, both Cwobeel, who inaccurately accused me of a "long tirade", based on my simple presentation of an overwhelming amount of facts that contradicted Cwobeel's claims, and Coretheapple, who condoned this inappropriate language based on my response to that personally condescending remark, made further inaccurate comments about my explanations on the Talk discussions and are taking further unwarranted actions to revert my editing after blocking my editing capabilities. Clearly, neither of them have been acting in good faith, while I have made every effort to act in good faith by repeatedly explaining my reasons and the facts, which contradicted their claims.

Check out Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Troublesome language and a desirable addition and Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Deletions where Coretheapple and Cwobeel refuse to accept any facts that contradict inaccurate claims of me removing content. Wondering55 (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No admin is going to wade through this pile of verbiage, but luckily for us, it's unnecessary; you're blocked for edit warring, specifically for 3RR violations, and a quick look at the article's revision history makes the cause of the block entirely evident. Please read WP:GAB if you wish to request unblock again. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:19, 6 April 2014 (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.

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).

Wondering55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is no longer necessary since I understand the basis of 3RR that arose due to problems with resolving disputed issues through Talk and will not do it again, and will continue to make productive contributions and use dispute resolution instead, when needed. As Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Troublesome language and a desirable addition and Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Deletions make very clear, I also made considerable good faith efforts to explain the basis of my edits to Coretheapple and Cwobeel in response to their inaccurate claims of me removing content. I went to the Talk sections to try and have a reasonable discussion to point out claims of my removing content are inaccurate based on the facts and past Talk agreements with other editors. Unfortunately, they would not change their opinions or provide specific objections for each and every one of my twelve original edits that I made from 03:39, 4 April 2014 to 20:03, 4 April 2014 that they reverted. * I presented overwhelming facts based on reliable sources that contradicted what was being claimed. * I presented agreements that have been reached based on past Talk discussions with others, which contradicted what was being claimed . * I indicated that most of my revisions that were reverted are simple copy edits that involved rearranging sentences and simplifying wording without changing the actual meaning and content, and not deletion of content as inaccurately claimed. * I pointed out that one of my edits involved removing an item that was superseded by other described events that followed in the article that fully addressed the removed item, and that many previous editors had made similar types of deletions, without any objections or reverted edits, since the items they deleted were superseded more accurately by other described events that followed. * I pointed out that some of my edits involved deleting items that were duplicated elsewhere in the article and that many previous editors had made similar types of deletions, without any objections or reverted edits, since the items they deleted were duplicates of other items. * I pointed out one of my edits involved relocating an item to the David Samson article, based on my Talk discussion with JackGavin, who gave me permission to remove the item that he added to this article and relocate it to the Samson article since the Fort Lee article section has a Main Article wikilinked redirect to the Samson article. * I pointed out that one of my edits was to move details from Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Other allegations concerning David Samson to David Samson (New Jersey) based on a previous Talk consensus with other editors in which Coretheapple participated. I even pointed out the exact same information that Coretheapple wanted to put back in the Samson section was already detailed in the Timeline section and that it should not be duplicated in the Samson section. Rather than comply with my repeated requests to identify in the Talk discussions each of the items from my edits that were being objected to, they simply decided to continually revert a series of twelve of my original edits that I made from 03:39, 4 April 2014 to 20:03, 4 April 2014‎. This problem was compounded, when Cwobeel, who was also involved in Talk discussions about these twelve edits, reverted Coretheapple at (14:11, 5 April 2014) to put all of my edits back. Coretheapple simply reverted Cwobeel's reversion (at 14:16, 5 April 2014‎ with Coretheapple's inaccurate History comment, "No valid reason to remove this content", which clearly contradicted the facts and past agreement that I had presented in Talk discussions) rather than continue the discussions with Cwobeel and me on the Talk discussions page. Instead of accepting my good faith response to Cwobeel's proposal to finally address on Monday, April 7, a point by point discussions of their concerns with my editing, they chose to block me through Wikipedia administrator action. I hope that this explanation is sufficient to remove my block based on my understanding of 3RR so that I would not do it again and that the Talk discussions show that I did make good faith efforts to try and address any concerns. Wondering55 (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Repeating the same wall-o-text that was declined last time will not work. You have an incorrect understanding of 3RR as displayed above. As such, stating you won't do it again "based on my understanding of 3RR" is not acceptable. You also spent the majority of this and the previous unblock disparaging others, contrary to WP:NOTTHEM. As it's clearly your intent to blame others, I will be removing your access for the duration of the block DP 15:38, 6 April 2014 (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.

I added the following item on DP talk page that more accurately reflects what occurred.

In my request of 14:51, 6 April 2014 to be unblocked due to violation of 3RR, which has already been removed due to expiration of the blocking time, I indicated at the beginning and at end of my request that:

• I understand the Wikipedia guideline 3RR that led me to being blocked

• I violated the 3RR guideline

• I would not violate the 3RR guideline again

• I would use the Wikipedia dispute resolution, if needed, rather than violate the 3RR rule

This met the basis for unblocking someone based on Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks.

I also used majority of my request to highlight a better understanding of how I tried to work in good faith based on my Talk discussions with others and indicated what their responses were.

Rather than assume my good faith as per Wikipedia:Assume good faith, you then indicated that I clearly did not understand the 3RR guideline and wanted to blame others. Nowhere in my updated request did I blame anyone, except for myself, or present anything that indicated that I did not understand 3RR. Your claim is a violation of accusing others of bad faith.

You indicated I spent the majority of my time disparaging others, which was simply not correct, as outlined above. I simply provided the circumstances that led to my violation of 3RR based on somewhat extensive and complex issues for 12 of my edits that I succinctly summarized.

You indicated that my updated request would not work because I repeated the same text from my first time. That was not accurate since my second request was half the length of my original, along with new and revised content.

My updated request, which I presented in clear concise bullet form and very short paragraph statements for easy reading and analysis, similar to what I am presenting to you now, was somehow modified so entire content was in one long wall of text, and you inaccurately stated:

“Repeating the same wall-o-text [DP, if you know how my bullet form of statements in my appeal request became a wall of text in one massive paragraph, please let me know] that was declined last time will not work.”

I am assuming that you were trying to be a good faith administrator, which can be difficult with the overwhelming number of time consuming appeal requests that need to be considered.

You did not seem to accept my good faith statements that I understood the 3RR policy, would not violate them again, and would use alternate Wikipedia approved means to resolve these matters. You did not seem to accept my explanations as to what occurred as simple good faith explanations of what I tried to do in good faith while indicating how others were involved.

It is always helpful to understand both sides. Otherwise, it is difficult to reach a fair decision. If someone is looking for reasons to deny someone, they will find it no matter what is stated.

Hopefully, you will find lessons learned here for your next administrator review. Wondering55 (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Never...

...make such bad faith accusations ever again. Period. DP 22:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1