User talk:5198blk

Welcome[edit]

Hello, 5198blk, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! clpo13_(talk) 17:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Removing talk page comments at Oswald RfC[edit]

I asked you to remove one of your !votes. You also removed Canada Jack's !vote. For now I will assume good faith that you didn't intend this. But you've exhausted a lot of the good faith given to most editors in the previous discussion. Please be very careful not to alter anyone's talk page comments in any way. Sundayclose (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also tried to explain this to no avail. I've moved here because discussing general Wikipedia issues on Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald is inappropriate. This edit and this one (those are links, go ahead and click on them) show you blanking/deleting other people's comments, which I assume is accidental. However it is a fact that you did it. Please try to understand how the revision system works and what those edit "diffs" mean. It's fairly self-explanatory if you look at those links. DIY Editor (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see you didn't understand what the "-" portions matter if the material is visible currently; someone had to restore the content after your edits. DIY Editor (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your talk page posts[edit]

Hello,

When you make a comment on a talk page, please sign your posts by typing four tildes at the end of your post. A tilde is the character that looks like this: "~". This is standard practice here on Wikipedia. Failure to do so reveals your IP address and suggests to other editors that you are trying to conceal which account is commenting. This is not a good thing. Please read Wikipedia:Signatures for further information, and please try to get into the habit of signing your talk page posts properly. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you plan to add your signature at the Oswald talk page where you edited while signed out. I've asked you several times to do so. Mistakenly editing while signed out is not a policy violation, but refusing to add your signature when this is pointed out could be considered deceptive editing, which in fact is a policy violation. Please add your signature to all of your comments instead of ignoring this request. Sundayclose (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were asking me to make sure I signed future posts. I will sign all of the unsigned comments today. Thanks! 5198blk (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I signed 3 unsigned comments in the newer RfC section. The original discussion from Sept. and Oct. still has unsigned comments, but it is closed. Since the closed discussion says "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion," I'm hesitant to sign them unless you know it's OK. Thanks. 5198blk (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Dawn Bard. I noticed that you made a change to an article, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am disputing Bugliosi as a reliable source; that was the reason for my edit. My position is that those who think Bugliosi is a reliable source should provide support, not vice versa. 5198blk (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to let you know that I undid your most recent revision to John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, where you say "No motive for Oswald's alleged shooting of JFK is presented anywhere in this article." The article's talk page is the best place to discuss this, not in the body of the article itself. thanks, Almostfm (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. The sentence was meant to be an edit to the article, not a topic for discussion. Motive has always been a missing piece in the case against LHO, and its absence in the article should be called to the reader's attention. What is the best way to proceed? 5198blk (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that I have started an "editing war," especially regarding my insertion that "No motive for Oswald's alleged shooting of JFK is presented anywhere in this article." This insertion was deleted by Almostfm, after which I attempted to discuss the matter on "Talk," but have received no response. Thus, your statement that "undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert" should be directed at Almostfm, not me. Has Almostfm been informed that he/she has started an "editing war?" If not, why not? 5198blk (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reference to the discussion on the subject talk page, but I've been under the weather for the past couple of days and may have missed it. I'm honestly not engaging in an edit war-on this page, I explained that I deleted it because it's a subject that should be discussed on the _article's_ talk page, rather than simply stuck into the article.Almostfm (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked three days after the warning not to edit war, presumably for continuing the same pattern of editing with this edit. I think the block was for overall disruptive editing, rather than only the series of edits you made which came close to violating (or did violate) the 3 revert rule. For what it's worth, I think editing wikipedia with a single cause/crusade usually turns out poorly. —DIY Editor (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. "Presumably" is the key word. The actions seem quite arbitrary to me. Why don't the administrators take any action against whoever changed my language from "I'm just a patsy" to I'm just a potato?" THAT is disruptive editing if you ask me. And it was probably just a bait to get me to restore my prior wording and get me blocked. I didn't revert my line about LHO's lack of motive. As TALK shows, I attempted to discuss it with Almostfm (who deleted my edit, technically starting the "war"), but next thing I know I'm getting warned I'm edit warring. My historian friends have told me not to bother with Wikipedia; I'm beginning to see why. This is, after all, the JFK conspiracy page, but it's still tightly controlled by a cabal with a particular POV. 5198blk (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for resuming edit-warring for which you'd been warned with this edit [1]. You were not baited and there is no sinister plot - you may not edit-war. Now that you know that you can't wait a couple of days and add the same thing again you'll be better able to participate. Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand you're going to stick to your unspecific, vague reasons for the block. But you still haven't addressed the peripheral issues. What action was taken against the editor who changed "patsy" to "potato?" How do you know that wasn't a bait? Did you ask him what he was doing? I'm not concerned with waiting a few days; I'm concerned that this is a biased, controlled forum. 2601:14D:4100:2864:34DD:C2E:736F:9789 (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're evading your block by using an IP. The reason for the block was very specific - I provided the diff of your fourth removal of the Bugliosi material. I didn't see the "potato" business and it had no bearing on my assessment of your conduct - it was three days earlier, and the same editor did this [2] little bit of puerile vandalism too on the 31st - both were appropriately reverted by other editors long before your re-insertion yesterday, not to mention similar vandal activity in mid-December [3] by another IP - routine vandalism by kids. You must gain consensus for your actions. Acroterion (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you use an IP to post again I'll extend the block on this account - there's no reason you can't log in to comment here. You may not edit any part of Wikipedia with another IP or another account while this block stands. Acroterion (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not evading anything. I'm communicating on TALK. The block pertains to editing the WP page, not communicating on TALK. Thanks for FINALLY providing specificity as to the reasons for the block. I strongly doubt "kids" are interested in vandalizing a Wiki page about history from 50 years ago. If you have support for that belief, please share. After all, you're an administrator, right? You should take more serious action against such disrespectful vandalism. 5198blk (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5198blk: I noticed before when we interacted in the Lee Harvey Oswald article that you seemed intent on seeing Wikipedia read a certain way, and not so interested in following the rules here for what should be included in articles and how. You are right to a degree that Wikipedia culturally enforces certain points of view and one of them is against things considered "fringe", which conspiracy theories are. I can understand why someone with your point of view may feel frustrated by what is considered common sense on Wikipedia and by the prevailing opinions on the application of policies and guidelines. However, Wikipedia is not a place where one can just exert one's will by forceful edits; it's about compromise, consensus and cooperation. You have to work through the talk pages hopefully without using them as WP:FORUMs. The amount of extraneous forum-like discussion on Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald was really out of hand. —DIY Editor (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for logging in. The potato vandalism has nothing to do with you, it was happening before you edited and happened on articles you have never touched, as I noted above. "Poop" is another popular kid-vandalism thing, but the edit filters block that most of the time so kids fall back on something else beginning with P. The edits are coming from some kid in New Jersey - their school is blocked as is what looks like their home IP, which has a history of vandalism back to June and was previously blocked. Please stop looking for shadowy conspiracies aimed at you: you need to give your attention to learning how to productively interact within Wikipedia's editing rules and ethos, rather than trying to have your way through repetition. I gave the rationale for the block in the block summary: "slow edit-warring at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories on multiple fronts" [4], with the Bugliosi removals and the repeated "patsy" with YouTube as a source. Additionally, edits like this [5] are flatly inappropriate, and the removal of your intrusive commentary was appropriate and necessary per Wikipedia policy, and the comment almost got you blocked at that time for disruptive editing, biut I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Acroterion (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get to the heart of the matter. Why is it inappropriate to introduce LHO's statement that he was just a patsy, supported by a YouTube of him making the statement? This isn't the LHO page, nor is it the JFK assassination page; it's the JFK assassination conspiracy theory page. LHO's protest that he was a patsy is entirely appropriate, as is the YouTube clip. When my editing block ends (2018?), this is where we're going. 5198blk (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does "patsy" necessarily have to do with "conspiracy"? Patsy could've just meant that someone else had done it, that he wasn't guilty. Or who knows what - it's a colloquial term from the era. You really need a secondary source that says something about it. You are drawing a conclusion that he meant a conspiracy. Perhaps just introducing the quote would be ok (without analyzing it), I don't know, I'm not particularly familiar with the topic of the articles. —DIY Editor (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The heart of the matter, as far as I am concerned as an administrator, is that you keep inserting and removing material without obtaining consensus from other editors. I am and will remain uninvolved with respect to Bugliosi and the patsy statement: I have no opinion and take no part in the content. I am here to deal with the behavioral issue. The burden is on the editor proposig the change to justify their edits and to obtain consensus. Please obtain consensus for your proposed additions and removals before making changes to the article, and do not ever make editorial comments to other editors within the article: that's what the talkpage is for. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a 48 hour block, you know. As for "When my editing block ends (2018?), this is where we're going," I'm going to assume you'll seek to persuade other editors that your proposals are appropriate by following Wikipedia policy and providing sources that support your changes in a preponderance of published notable scholarship, because a return to reversions on the article itself will be grounds for another, longer block. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Acroterion (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

5198blk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17245 was submitted on Jan 02, 2017 05:35:25. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage quotes[edit]

Please try to resist the temptation to post extensive quotes from testimony on talk pages The wall of text is very impressive but tends to smother conversation. Talk pages are for talk, not for the presentation of extensive source material, even if it is public domain. I've put it in a hat note so that those who really want to read it all can do so, and less committed talkpage participants don't have to scroll so much. Acroterion (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]