User talk:Mfwitten

Your revert of USB
Please check your grammar: "In general, there are four basic kinds or sizes related to the USB connectors and types of established connection" is not correct. It's either "types of connections" (what it was before your edit and what I reverted to) or (clumsy) "types of an established connection". The rest of your corrections are pretty much the same, mixing up singular and plural: Must I go on? Zac67 (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "There are two types of pipe" must be plural "pipes"
 * "limited by the current number and type of attached USB devices" must be plural "types" because there may be several types and not just one
 * "Types of USB connector" – same thing


 * You're wrong. Would you say the following?
 * There is one type of pipes.
 * The type of the objects is "pipe"; there are two &#91;sub&#93;types of pipe. In other words, you are merely supporting a widespread heuristic error. Mfwitten (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Please check http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/5539/types-of-things-vs-types-of-thing – I won't even bother you with search engine voting (which can be wrong at times) but "types of connector" isn't serious, is it? Have you just a single RS for your claim? Zac67 (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

"Superior possessive form"
Use -s's instead of -s' only when you would naturally pronounce an extra s if you said the word out loud. Use only the apostrophe (without the s) when you would not pronounce an extra s or when making the possessive of a plural noun already ending in s (e.g., Beatles' or Stones' ). Source: Oxford dictionaries. Furthermore, this sort of thing is not a "minor edit" because it is open to disagreement. - Embram (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Is "Touchstone Pictures" a plural noun? I would say it is not; then again, there are plenty of &#91;non-American&#93; English speakers who would even say that, e.g., "Walmart" or "IBM" is a plural noun&hellip; Mfwitten (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * When you say the phrase Touchstone Pictures' new film out loud, do you pronounce an additional s at the end (i.e., do you say Pictures-es)? If not, then you shouldn't add an s after the apostrophe. - Embram (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I do, for the same reason that I pronounce an additional "s" in "Mr. Williams's new film". However, logically consistent though it may be, I'd never put myself in that position for aesthetic reasons—it sounds terrible; I'd rather say, for example, "new film by Touchstone Pictures".


 * If you say "Touchstone Pictures' new film", then it sounds like "Touchstone Picture's new film", from which a listener might erroneously infer that the name of the company is "Touchstone Picture" rather than "Touchstone Pictures". You are losing information, and thus language is failing. Mfwitten (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Then rather than break the rule by adding the extra s, I'd just just write it the other way round (e.g., "new film by Touchstone Pictures") which I agree is the better choice. - Embram (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins
I noticed that you help to improve this article over the years via X!'s editcount tool. I have worked on the citations over the past few months and I am nearing the end of what else I can see to do to improve it. Please consider nominating this article for Featured Article status or at least for another peer review. Thanks.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

February 2018
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Graham Hancock. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. '' There has been a lot of discussion about the wording of the introduction, and there is consensus that the current version is neutral and factual. Please have a look at the talk page, and discuss there if you want to try to change the consensus in favour of another wording. bonadea'' contributions talk 22:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I did nothing of the sort. Your mind is warped. Mfwitten (talk)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Graham Hancock, you may be blocked from editing. ''

Use the talk page to discuss your edits, as they are not uncontroversial. Please don't edit war - I'm sure you have seen enough cases where that ends badly, in your years here. Thank you. bonadea'' contributions talk 22:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I did nothing of the sort. Your mind is warped. Mfwitten (talk)

Your recent editing history at Graham Hancock 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. bonadea contributions talk 22:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I did nothing of the sort. Your mind is warped. Mfwitten (talk)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 22:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Particularly egregious because (a) plenty of warnings wre given to you, (b) you accuse others of edit warring while doing it yourself, and (c) your edit is clearly against consensus on talk page, as has been explained to you several times. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Unblock me
You don't appear to understand what "edit warring" is. Please see WP:Edit warring. You most certainly were edit warring. If you dislike the way an article is worded, and you are reverted, you have to gain consensus for your edit on the article talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your implication is that Wikipedia welcomes pejorative content, so long as there is a cabal organized well enough to keep it in place. Fine, if I am blocked for edit warring, then so should the others: Block them as well for as long, and we'll have agreement; otherwise, unblock me.
 * No, you're the only one who broke WP:3RR. --Neil N  talk to me 22:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And why didn't the others breach the rule? Because they are a well-organized cabal, each member of which takes his turn reverting edits. My point stands. Mfwitten (talk)
 * Um... I'm waiting for an answer... Mfwitten (talk)
 * Multiple editors disagreed with your edits. Multiple editors reverted you. This is nothing out of the ordinary as we have editors coming in like bulls in china shops every day, ignoring what everyone else is saying. You should've used the talk page long before you breached WP:3RR. --Neil N  talk to me 23:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Since you "answered" your own question the same time you asked it, I assumed it was rhetorical. The others weren't blocked because none of them came close to making the number of reverts you made.  We keep leaving you links to WP:3RR and WP:Edit warring, but I feel like you're not reading them. In addition, although it doesn't excuse edit warring, a mitigating factor is that they were restoring wording that achieved consensus on the article talk page.  --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This doesn't negate the issue of a cabal. You're still failing to account for a cabal. Try again. Mfwitten (talk)
 * What you call a "cabal" the rest of us call "4-5 editors who all disagree with Mfwitten". I've explained the block, and the duration, per WP:ADMINACCT, and can see now that you intend to be a timesink, so I am not going to answer any more questions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * See begging the question. And the response to being a timesink in this area is usually a topic ban. --Neil N  talk to me 23:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. Mfwitten (talk)

October 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Murder of Botham Jean. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —Aranya (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * Thanks you for taking the time to cool the dispute. In fact, that's what I was trying to do, as explained in the talk page of that article. Unfortunately, you have not reverted the article to the "pre-edit-war" version, but rather to the version that marks the beginning of the edit war; my version of the edit preserved the information in question, but moved to a dedicated place so that it could be expounded constructively. Mfwitten (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violating the 3 revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. El_C 23:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"special interest group"
Mfwitten—I am not a member of a "special interest group". I am merely transcribing information from a good quality source to an article. I am sorry you are blocked. Your argument isn't with other editors, whether they be part of a special interest group or not. Your real argument is with The New York Times. They prominently state this is an issue involving a black person and a white person. I think it would take another reliable source to take precedence over or to modify that reliable source (The New York Times). I don't care whether the terms "black" and "white" are in the article or not. It is not that I am a member of a special interest group. But I do care about adhering to sources. And so far the sources are saying that the terms "black" and "white" are applicable. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request
Shouldn't this be lightened up to 2 or 3 days? Why block for 2 weeks? The message has been sent that edit-warring is impermissible and will be met with blocks. I was in dispute with and I think their position was not entirely unreasonable. I appeal to the blocking editors to make a goodwill gesture and reduce the length of the block. Bus stop (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I went with the last block for edit warring as a basis for the current duration. El_C 22:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are mitigating circumstances. I think Mfwitten did not want to make a bad situation worse. I am sympathetic to that. I know we are not here to right great wrongs, but in racially charged news events Wiki has the possibility of understatement, and that can be heard in Mfwitten's arguments. They weren't arguing for elimination of that information, merely less prominent placement. Bus stop (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The user has not expressed anything resembling an introspective or reflective acknowledgment that their edit warring was problematic, so I'm not inclined to reduce the block length at this time. El_C 22:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how these are mitigating circumstances for edit warring, much less for 3RR. I agree with El C; the user hasn't indicated they know why they are blocked. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 01:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hopefully will weigh in to this thread. Bus stop (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with El C and Jpgordon. In their latest "unblock request" alone, Mfwitten tries the "the others made me do it" defense and simultaneously indicates that he believes that those who disagreed with him and reverted him were deliberately gaming the rules, driven by "special interests". That doesn't bode well. What I haven't seen anywhere is an acknowledgement of responsibility for their own actions, a promise not to repeat the same conduct, and an indication of what they'd do instead if they found themselves in a similar situation again. Huon (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)