User talk:Baxter42

Star Trek
This edit, am I to assume it is you? If so there is the agreed concept of consensus by silence, as ridiculous as it may sound to you. There have been over a thousand editors edit the Star Trek page, of those you are the only one who wants the remove that sentence (although you have now been reverted by two different editors), as these other editors edited the page and left the sentence in then I can assume they have no problem with it, by not removing it there was a consensus by silence. When you took the sentence out I put it back in, meaning that I think it fits in the article. Your most recent edit was also reverted by another editor, now there is an active consensus (3:1) to keep that sentence. If you wish to remove it you would need to demonstrate on the talk page that a consensus exists to remove it. Also FYI don't post edit summaries in CAPS LOCK, AS IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE SHOUTING, and shouting doesn't belong in a sensible discussion. Also remember to log in, and sign with ~ on talk pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Lynne Stewart. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Half Shadow  03:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

great! well, i've lost faith in wikipedia before, and it was restored. maybe this will be like that. we'll see. Baxter42 (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to warn both sides equally, since it takes two to edit-war and I've done that. Take it to the talk page, please. Discuss it there. Half  Shadow  03:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * okay, that talk page is a mess, but i'll try anyway, meanwhile i'll continue to fight for what i take to be the prevailing point off the talk page on the main article, since i have little other power. Baxter42 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Baxter42 (talk) please sign this defamatory comment that i vandalized whomever you are please:


 * Baxter, I'm sorry to see that you have now reverted four times within a 24 hour period. I've communicated to you with regard to your reversions, assuming good faith on your part.  Your continued reversions suggest, unfortunately, bad faith on your part.  Please note that, as I've indicated before, you should not be deleting RS-supported material that is relevant and what the person is notable for in large part from the lede, as you have been doing.  Such deletions, under wp:vandalism, can constitute vandalism under wp's guidelines. Specifically, removing  significant parts of a page's content without a  valid reason, or with a frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content in an edit summary, is specifically considered vandalism under wikipedia's guideline.

I have warned you previously, as has Half, and am sorry to see that you continued and violated our rules against edit warring. As to your questions, obviously the fact that the person was convicted of a felony is extraordinarily relevant to their bio -- that is not the sort of thing you should be deleting from a lede, as you have done four times today. As far as your requiring comparison to other bios, I refer you -- yet again -- to wp:otherstuffexists.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * and i give up. i tried to go to the talk page, but that ended up with some boilerplate on my talk page about how the kings can do no wrong. well super: have fun with your little kingdom! (by the way in rational conversation, we respond to relevant points. but eh, you've got no need for that now!) Baxter42 (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry; I saw an edit-war happening and took steps to stop it. I myself have no interest in the subject, I simply saw it while scanning. Half  Shadow  04:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * no need to apologize. but perhaps you might take an interest? you seem pretty darn reasonable. Baxter42 (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'd need knowledge on the subject first, and that sort of thing just doesn't interest me. Half  Shadow  04:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * neutral point of view. that's what i'm after. i don't know beans about stewart either, and i don't care really either. all i care about is people waging infowars on my wikipedia. Baxter42 (talk)
 * Well, there's always the possibility that any action I took may be wrong. This place has rules on top of rules. The safest thing to do would be to get an admin's advice; that almost never hurts. Just plugging away like you were will only get you in trouble, even if you're right. Half  Shadow  04:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * well, okay. there's also the possibility that the (multiple) actions i took were wrong. how do you talk to an admin about edits? Baxter42 (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you could always try here. I'm not sure if it falls under the strict definition of an 'incident', but it's essentially the admin 'hangout'. Be sure to make your topic neutral; don't go in there all "I'm right and he's wrong", simply ask which is the correct wording and be prepared to accept that you may be wrong. Half  Shadow  04:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * okay thanks. yeah i'm 50% sure i'm wrong most of the time, well except in this case ... Baxter42 (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In your last edit, you deleted mention of her being a convicted felon and gave as your reason that it was "inflammatory, non-encylopedic content." The fact that she is a felon is simply tghe truth, supported by RSs -- it is neither inflammatory or non-encylopedic.  You also clearly violated the three revert rule, making your fourth revert today.  I would ask that you revert yourself, so as not to be in violation of the three revert rule.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * as a summary of a person it is. "Joe bloggs is a convicted felon" seems to be a little much as a description of a person. at least get rid of the adjective "convicted". then you are left with: "joe bloggs is a felon". which, i couldn't think of a person such that that would be a good summary, introductory biographical statement. Baxter42 (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support your combining the first and second sentences, which I imagine would address your concern in large part.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A similar approach was taken in Bill Campbell (mayor), Alan Eagleson, Willie Horton, Wayne R. Bryant, Ward Weaver III, David Gilbert, James Ujaama, Efrain Gonzalez, William Jefferson, Rene Reinmann, and Sharpe James.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * yes, why don't we just leave it like it is, but remove the paragraph break between the first and second paragraphs, that seems fine. i'll look at it tomorrow because i'm going to bed right now Baxter42 (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No -- I'm suggesting combining the sentences as they stood before your deletion. That would be consistent with all the examples I gave you above, as well as the notion that what they are most notable for should be reflected at the beginning.  Click through to see how all the first sentences of the above convicted felons read.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)