User talk:Knucklehead Dojo

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Wade Rathke. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.The article you are editing is a Biography of a Living Person, and as such requires high quality sourcing and particular care when adding contentious material. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

According to this aren’t we both be guilty and weren’t you the first to make more than three reversions to the page within a 24-hour period? Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I never exceed 3 reverts in a 24-hour period, and I haven't yet checked whether or not you have. I placed the warning on your page because I noticed the edit warring on a WP:BLP.  You are invited to discuss your proposed edits on the article talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You did, the logs dont lie, you made 4 reverts in just under 24 hours. But who's counting :). Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I double-checked. Your math is off; I have not reverted more than 3 times in any given period.  Thank you, by the way, for utilizing the article talk page.  Hopefully we can clear up any editing issues. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Rathke
Hi, please stop all this reverting. Have a read of this WP:BRD, the only way this will be resolved is through discussion - please stop re-adding the disputed content untill you have agreed on what to include. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * All I am asking for is another set of eyes to look over the content, thats all. I don’t think its fair that one person can monopolize a subject and reject all content additions without explanation. Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All that stuff is actually about his brother and as I see it you are wanting to give it extra weight in the WP:BLP of the subject. All I am reading in the cites is that he stepped down - nnot because he was forced to, its a matter of WP:WEIGHT and BLP tells us to write conservatively, we are not wanting to censor or to attack the subject. - talk to the other user on the article talkpage and try to find a meeting place somewhere in the middle. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * His covering up of his brother’s activities is the entire reason he was forces to resign and some board members were upset by his decision to keep Dale’s activities secret from them. There is a quote attributed to Rathke that is not his words, but rather are the words of the reporter. I don’t want to load an article up with garbage either, but some of this seems obvious. I appreciate you looking at it though. Knucklehead Dojo (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Off2riorob brings up the most significant issue here: most of this stuff is about Wade's brother, or about ACORN, not about Wade. You might be allowed a little more leniency in exploring the facts and allegations in the ACORN article, but as for the Rathke BLP, we need to leave the speculation, allegations, conjecture and unproven accusations out of it.  WP:BLP admonishes us to "get it right", and to use only high quality sourced content, while leaving the tabloid stuff out.
 * If you'd like to discuss sourced content comparing Rathke's "stepping down" versus "forced to resign", or "upset by the board's decision not to tell" versus "Rathke's decision not to tell" or "embezzled almost $1 million" versus "embezzled $5 million", I'd be happy to go over the sources with you. However, until the issues around the contentous edits are resolved, continually re-inserting those edits is just going to cause problems. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)