User talk:71.252.98.213

Attention:

This, is registered to Verizon, Gaithersburg, Maryland, and may be shared by multiple users. In the case of organizations using proxy servers, this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another and a block shared by many. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to fight vandalism, in which case, please see here.

If you are autoblocked repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your Internet service provider or IT department and ask them to contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on their proxy servers so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block with the template {&#123;anonblock&#124;optional comment&#125;} as the block reason.

Personal attack
Please do not attack people, places, organizations, or communities, as you did in your recent edits. This is considered to be an act of vandalism, and further inappropriate editing will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. –mysid ☎ 15:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This anonymous user's isp is Verizon Internet Services, Inc. in Reston, VA and is located in Gaithersburg, Maryland.--Fahrenheit451 21:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. WilliamKF 06:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Fahrenheit 451 is the one who "started it" in the sense of undoing an accurate statement and then repeatedly doing so. The issue is not controversial -- e.g, the sentence in question is accurate. It's just politically inconvenient for range voting advocates, who dominate the creation and editing of this page with great zeal. I find it exasperating that even this simple sentence of fact -- one that had been on the page before removed by range voting advocates like Fahrenheit 451 -- couldn't be left alone. My apologies if I broke wikipedia protocol, but basically, the range voting advocates have declared war on most other voting methods (see their awful website for the kind of inaccurate and distortive bashing they do) and now they want to bring this into wikipedia. Is there a "referee" who decides this kind of thing, particularly when they start changing other voting methods' descriptions to get their political points in?

I don't know who you are, but there is no "declared war" by those who edit the Range voting article. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not fact. Also, again, please stop your personal attacks. You are attacking a range voting website, stating it has an "awful website" and that range voting advocates engage in "inaccurate and distortive bashing". I also ask you to be civil with other editors here.--Fahrenheit451 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Range Voting
Hello anonymous user 71.252.98.213, thanks for your interest in Wikipedia. I would like to suggest a couple things here. First, I recommend that you create a user account so we can discuss this issue there instead of on an anonymous user page which could be shared with others if you don't have a static IP address. This is optional, but I recommend it, as it gives your presence an air of more permanence in addition to making communication more targeted. Certainly we want Wikipedia to be accurate and strive to represent a Neutral Point of View. At the same time, we also need to avoid Original Research. Therefore, if it appears to you that the article, as written, is skewed, the best approach I can offer is to find sources to back up your belief and cite them in the article when you make changes to make it more balanced. In doing this, calmer heads will prevail if you avoid making any statements which represent opinion (i.e. not backed up by independent citeable sources.) For example, by making a statement that labels another set of websites as biased, or a user as having an agenda, this does not serve your purpose of making the article more accurate and tends to get all involved to lock horns. I'll also look to see if I can find a source to cite to support the change you put forth. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. WilliamKF 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)