User talk:Nicholas Griggs

How Wikipedia works
Officially published book, licensed from the BBC, and overseen by the Production Team at the time: https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/7f945dk34018f3ut/images/19-afe1f114bf.jpg

NOT a Reliable Source!

A critical history of Doctor Who, from a major publishing house, written by a man well-known for his critical histories of Science Fiction and Television:

https://books.google.com/books?id=fSySCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=%22peter+butterworth%22+%22the+master%22&source=bl&ots=CzUuAibjBu&sig=3N0NmW5dmXPRngjAyGtl0pPsHXI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEkQ6AEwC2oVChMIwqWgw7KSyAIVpaDbCh2fLAvD#v=onepage&q=%22peter%20butterworth%22%20%22the%20master%22&f=false

NOT a Reliable Source!

The prejudice of a rude editor, who repeatedly blanks pages and insults other users:

(see user:Mezigue)

THAT'S a Reliable Source!

Nicholas Griggs (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Peter Butterworth
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  Cassianto Talk   00:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Three different editors have reverted you. At this point, you need to use the talk page to gain consensus for your changes. --Neil N  talk to me 12:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

People are blanking Reliably Sourced material. So, if someone says, eg. that Washington DC is the capital of the USA, and adds Realiable Sources to back it up.....but then three trolls remove it, and say it is nonsense, the one person who added the fact(with reliable Sources) must gain "consensus" from the cabal of trolls who keep blanking Reliably Sourced material?! Surely, that way, a group of meatpuppets can simply bulldoze their way over any facts they don't like? Surely, WP:RS trumps meatpuppet theatre? Nicholas Griggs (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Peter Butterworth. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. ''Please do not "shout" at other editors(using all caps). Also take care in using the world 'vandalism'; an edit that you disagree with is not vandalism if made in good faith. Please calm down and use the dispute resolution processes available to you.'' 331dot (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. 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. Neil N  talk to me 13:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hos is adding Reliably Sourced material "disruptive"? Surely deleting Reliably Sourced material, and calling it "nonsense" i s disruptive? Nicholas Griggs (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, forget it. I am blocked? What about Mezigue, DonQuioxte etc.? All I did is add Reliably Sourced material(what is says in the RS). Clearly this is a bunch of meatpuppets pushing their POV,(as shown by Mezigue referring to what it says in multiple RS as "nonsense"). So, I was blocked for trying to add Reliably Sourced material to Wikipedia, while the person who keeps blaking Reliably Sourced material, and insulting me, has not been blocked? Nicholas Griggs (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Assuming that editors agree that the sources are reliable, not all material that can be sourced should appear in an article. What goes in and what stays out is a matter for discussion. --Neil N  talk to me 14:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that the very definition of POV? It's not 'consensus' if it's 3 against 1. Because that's only 4 people. There are more RS than that, several fold. Also, by cherry-picking information, you will never get a NPOV, or an evenly balanced article. Rather, you'll get propaganda. Nicholas Griggs (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

And your link to NOTVAND, which shows why you didn't consider Mezigue's edits vandalism, also means that mine weren't vandalism or disruptive either. So, yeah, you're cherry-picking what to do, and showing clear bias. Nicholas Griggs (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for edit warring, not anything else. As noted above, WP:3RR is a bright line rule. Instead of continually reverting, you should have used the talk page and waited. --Neil N  talk to me</i> 14:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe you. And I don't need to be treated like this. i tried to add WP:RS to Wikipedia. Instead, a user (User:Mezigue) repeatedly reverted my edits, blanking RS and insulting me. I reported her, and then you said that blanking RS and insulting other editors is NOTVAND. Then she rallied the meatpupepts, so that 2 other people reverted my edits.

And I never broke 3RR, because I made different edits, actually using what other people said every time, to make something that both matched RS, AND took other peoples' comments(excluding the insults) into account. But Mezigue and her meatpuppets wouldn't have that. They just blanked EVERYTHING.

And Now I am the one who is blocked? So, everything is the way it was, without the Reliably Sourced material, and all you've done is show how prejudiced and ineffective you really are. So, in short, NOTHING can ever be improved, because anyone who tries to add RS, will be constantly reverted and insulted, and then THEY will be the ones whoa re blocked, for daring to try and add new, Reliably Sourced material to inaccurate articles. And note how on another talk page, certain people have banded together, saying how some material is "not valid" for no other reason then it says something that they don't want to accept as true, even though there are multiple RS saying it is true?

Your NOTVAND link warns about Admins driving people away with their behaviour. Well, you should have taken that advice yourself. Because that's what you've done. Keep your inaccurate pages, keep your vandals who repeatedly blank everything they don't like(including of course Reliably Sourced material), keep your one-sided arguments, and keep on not realising that it is precisely your actions here that have driven me away. Yes, Mezigue is a vandal, Mezigue insulted me, Mezigue repeatedly blanked a Reliably Sourced section of an article. But, I really expected more from you. Nicholas Griggs (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTVAND states, "In addition, if an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, then that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." I believe the only one calling other editors vandals is you. And WP:3RR has, "...whether involving the same or different material...". In this case, you were trying to insert the same type of material which multiple editors had objections to. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)