User talk:Cfeet77

May 2008 (3RR rule)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.  Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  19:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide better grounds for the warning you make. I have responded to your claim on your talk page in more detail. In my understanding I am performing a speedy article cleanup according to WP:BLP ("remove poorly sourced contentious material") which does not fall under 3RR category. Cfeet77 (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is decided by a blocking administrator. If someone reports you to WP:3RR noticeboard, then an administrator will review the case and decide if you are enforcing BLP rules, or this is simply a "content dispute". In the latter case he will block you. Since the text you have deleted is sourced to reliable sources (such as Washington Post), this is clearly a "content dispute", and you will be blocked.Biophys (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The text I was deleting reproduced opinion of Rybkin and Belkovsky, and the attribution of the source of this opinion (i.e. "According to Rybkin and Belkovsky...") was missing from the article main body. If you insert this attribution, it immediately makes in falling under the "undue weight" category, since this is a minor view added to the article introduction. I most warmly welcome your input on the suggested violation of the "undue weight" rule. Cfeet77 (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as I said, an 3RR violation would be judged by an administrator. If you want to try, that is entirely up to you.Biophys (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is your opinion that the material is poorly sourced. Other editors disagree which make it a content dispute. From WP:BLP "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone" -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  20:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How about reverting edits that remove blogs and personal sites as a source of the claim? Would you consider removing a reference to a blog falling under the "content dispute" category? Cfeet77 (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but you removed more than links to blogs. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  13:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. I also removed:
 * source that bases its allegations merely on quoting Rybkin and Belkovsky and represented in the article intro ("undue weight")
 * source that puts the term "friend of Putin" into quotes, thus questioning the term (with regard to Timchenko) ("poorly sourced claim")
 * source that quotes Belkovsky to support unrelated claim of financial welfare ("irrelevant source", "undue weight")
 * source which is not reputable
 * reference to Nemtsov's personal website
 * source that quotes INDEM exclusively to support its claim and represented in the article intro ("undue weight")
 * Voice of America which is a US government propaganda department
 * the list above is exhaustive with regard to disputed source removals
 * Please specify which of the above removals required your reverts or possible administrative intervention in the form of blocking for violation of 3RR. I will appreciate if you pinpoint precise item in the list rather than talk of WP policies and content dispute resolution procedures in general. Cfeet77 (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You are claiming these references are not reliable - others may disagree. This is why it's best to contact an admin or the BLP noticeboard before violating 3RR. Exemptions for 3RR do not cover removal of sources that you personally feel are unreliable. Instead, bring them up on the talk page and see if you can gain consensus on their removal. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I expected, instead of answering my question you decided to go for general procedural discussion. Naturally any editor will make a revert based on his own educated judgment. What you are saying here is your own interpretation of the WP policy we are discussing. According to your interpretation, an editor shall always seek advice on the BLP noticeboard rather than in case of doubt. This is an interpretation. I think the policy is quite clear in this respect. Moreover, while I am presenting you a clear argument on the matter you are presenting some generics instead. Cfeet77 (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I am using my judgment that your edits fell within 3RR.  If you had continued to revert then I (or someone else) would have reported you for violating 3RR.  Before that can happen, you need to be notified of the 3RR policy.  If you had been reported, then an admin would use their judgment if whether you should be blocked or not. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  19:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion on your talk page. The matter was about 2 reverts executed by the time you issued your warning, not 3. Did WP introduced some 2RR rule or am I missing something? Cfeet77 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You removed the same material earlier in the week. Plus, you felt that your reversions did not fall under 3RR.  I was trying to get you to stop and gain consensus for your changes by using the talk page. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are using the 3RR in this particular case as a threat to make WP policies defunct. Please read the exceptions for the 3RR. One of them states: "reverts to remove clearly libelous material, or unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)". I am still convinced that my edits fall under these exceptions as they removed the defamatory material. When I presented you factual material supporting my claim, you have been unable to respond to the presented facts (see the list above). Please read WP:LIBEL as well. Cfeet77 (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And your argument that I removed the same material earlier this week does not hold water. To be precise, this was done last week, and I have not been editing anything for two days. You can check this from the contributions page. And then, what about my edits done one year ago, can you find something there too? Cfeet77 (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To sum up, the 3RR applies to a 24-hour period. Since I was nowhere near breaking this limit, your only remaining option is to demonstrate that my behaviour was clearly disruptive, because the 3RR states the following: "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." I am looking forward that you provide concrete diffs supporting the claim to justify putting the warning template to my talk page. Cfeet77 (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're free to disregard the warning if you think it's unwarranted or remove it if you wish, eh? If you think my behaviour warrants admin attention here's WP:ANI. Otherwise, I think we're done here. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  20:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I think this warning is unwarranted, but I would prefer to keep this whole discussion here, because I don't think it disrupts my reputation as an editor in any way. And yes, I think your behaviour deserves admin attention, but your honest admission of this fact makes me think that it was not your intent to be disruptive, so I have no intent to react. I think this particular case is therefore finalized from my side, too. Cfeet77 (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that I don't think my behaviour warrants admin attention. I was simply pointing you towards the proper place if you do. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  12:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. I understand that you don't think your behaviour warrants admin attention. However I still think it does. If you want to get back to the issue, we can reiterate the whole round of discussions, even if I see little reason for doing so. Cfeet77 (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Violation of wikipedia RUles regarding Valdimir Putin
You will not decide what belongs in the lead and what not. If you want to add good news such as rise in salary from 50 to 500 dollars than you also have to add the crimes and negatives. I will report you to the adminsitrator and have you banned for breaking the rules. Either delete everything from the lead or let both positive and neagtive remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samstayton (talk • contribs) 22:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what belongs in the lead. Why did you add the GDP report and salary, though its shameful that the salaries rose only to 500 dollars when rascal billionaires bought clubs and yatches with looted wealth.

Anyhow, I have provided all the references and summarized the edit so that it fits well in the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samstayton (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This material is removed per WP undue weight policy. The wording 'I will report you to the adminsitrator and have you banned for breaking the rules' can be understood as a personal attack. If you continue with this tone, I will keep it as an option to report your behaviour accordingly. Otherwise, feel free to report my behaviour as you see fit. Cfeet77 (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)