User talk:Proofknow

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Human Rights in Venezuela
helpme I would appreciate if someone can explain to me what is the best way to deal with unhelpful editors that keep editing away perfectly valid information.


 * Hey, Take a look at WP:DISPUTE. Can you give the article you are talking about?-- Gordonrox24 ''' &#124; Talk 01:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He's refering to the article with the same name as the section title -> Human rights in Venezuela --MiloKral (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to take a look at WP:Dispute for a general guideline on how to handle disputes such as this one. Since there are only 3 contributors to this particular article, reaching a consensus within the articles' talk page might be difficult. As such, it might be beneficial to start a discussion at WP:WikiProject Venezuela to get input from more editors in order to reach a consensus. Until a consensus is reached, I would suggest refraining from adding your proposed changes to the live article (see WP:3RR & WP:BRD). I understand it can be frustrating when dealing with a situation like this; Try to stay calm, discuss everything with an open mind, and apply your disputed changes only once a consensus is reached. --MiloKral (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for this. Will pursue those suggestions.Proofknow (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. - Sinneed  16:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Replying in the middle of a post
Please look over wp:talk page guidelines. When replying, please be certain to reply after a signature... otherwise it will appear that your words are those of some other editor, or that the words the other editor typed are yours. If one must refactor another's edit for clarity by answering in the middle, adding a may be acceptable, but it is rather wp:BOLD.-  Sinneed  16:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP
If a person is accused of a crime, and this is a matter of record visible in generally wp:reliable sources, then it is acceptable to report that in Wikipedia. It is NOT acceptable to call a person accused of statutory rape a pedophile, for instance, only to report that they were accused of the specific crime... and this MUST be backed by wp:RS that meet wp:BLP and must comply with the kagillion rules of WP... but it also must wp:NOT be censored.- Sinneed  16:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Human Rights Foundation, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''wp:NOT censored. Here, we follow wp:consensus. You will find it relatively unproductive to wp:edit war your changes into the article against multiple editors. If you believe the consensus is somehow damaging to the encyclopedia, or if you believe the wider community will not support it, you might consider wp:dispute resolution. Since there are 3 editors here, perhaps an wp:RfC.'' - Sinneed  22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not accept your point of view, unwillingness to reach consensus or accept other views, and POV pushing. I am escalating the issue.--Proofknow (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Perhaps, after seeking, and getting, a new and uninvolved editor to come to the article once, you may be more pleased with the results the second time.  As I have said repeatedly: please consider wp:dispute resolution.  However, in the meantime, you must not continue to wp:edit war against wp:consensus.  All the best.-  Sinneed  22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Duplicating wording and source in consecutive sentences.
Here, you have duplicated both the source and most of the content of the previous sentence. Please give a read to wp:no ownership of articles and wp:tendentious editing. Your behaviour makes it difficult to continue to wp:assume good faith.- Sinneed  22:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A cursory glance to the talk page will demonstrate to any uninterested parties who is being unreasonable here. I do not accept your arguments, the debate on inclusion of information relative to another entry has already been had, therefore, in light of my previous unfruitful efforts to reach consensus, I have little to discuss with you. Do stop commenting in my page. If you have issues with my edits, discuss them in the talk pages of the entries, not here. Do visit WP:NOT.--Proofknow (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Current article wording: "Granma, the official organ of the Cuban Communist Party, considered it to be a CIA front organization.[6][7] Granma also considers Human Rights Watch a CIA front.[8]"

Source 8 and 7 are duplicates. Please note the wording:
 * "Granma, the official organ of the Cuban Communist Party, considered it to be a CIA front organization.[6][7]"

Is immediately followed by:
 * "Granma also considers Human Rights Watch a CIA front.[8]

Again, if you study carefully, you may be able to identify these as duplicate sentences, with a duplicate source. However, since this seems too difficult for you, I will leave the duplicate text in. I will convert the reference to a named ref, though. No need to confuse the readers... boring them with a duplicate sentence, while wp:tendentious editing, at least does not mislead them.- Sinneed  22:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Cathar11 has finally managed to pound through my thick head that Proofknow was entirely correct about this section, and I was entirely wrong, and has corrected my error in removing the reference to HRW. My apologies for the error, and for behaving rather rudely.-  Sinneed  20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that the above was added at the time the editor was posting the immediately preceding remark, resulting in an edit conflict. I completed the edit, and read the editor's response.  I will, of course, honor the editors request.-  Sinneed

First of all, it is entirely besides the point to give undue weight to a propaganda organ of the Cuban regime. But since editors are engaged in POV pushing, and refuse to eliminate irrelevant information, balance must be included. So Granma thinks that HRF is a CIA front. It thinks the same about HRW and about every other human rights NGO that criticizes the horrendous human rights situation in that country. So what's the point? These are, I remind you, Wikipedia rules. If you don't like them, change them, if you can. Other than that, open your own blog and start ranting about the issues that concern you.--Proofknow (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning
You are consistently ignoring 3RR if you continue your account will be nominated for blocking.Cathar11 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And you aren't? I have also warned you.--Proofknow (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning at Cathar11 not appropriate

 * I see 4 reverts by Proofknow, 2 by Sinneed and 2 by Cathar11. The warning at Cathar11 was not appropriate. -  Sinneed  01:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
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 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. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.  Intelligent  sium  00:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message and advice Intelligentsium. Now that you have been made aware of the situation, please do visit the talk page. I have tried to reach consensus, I have explained myself extensively. Furthermore, I initiated and Editor Request, a RfC, and for the entry to be fully protected. Behaviour of users Sinneed and Cathar11 amounts to POV pushing, and is in clear violation of WP:NOT. All I'm saying is, their discussion about Santa Cruz referendum belongs in that entry, and not in the entry of the Human Rights Foundation.--Proofknow (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I take it that you have decided I am welcome here. If you were serious about your decision not to have me talk on your talk page, let me know, strike the above reference to me, and don't do that again.  If not, no problem, I will continue to post here, with your approval.-  Sinneed  01:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As before, it is essential that you wp:AGF. Please explain how the text you are removing fails wp:NPOV.  Your argument thus far is that it should not be mentioned because it has its own article, and the discussion should take place there, and that it should not be mentioned at Human Rights Foundation.  Thank you in advance for your attention.-  Sinneed  01:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR violation thread
As you have welcomed me back to your talk page by discussion me, I will now notify you that your edits are the subject of a thread I have opened at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Again, if your decision to discuss me here was an error, please feel free to Sinneed, and let me know.- Sinneed  01:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.


 * This block is totally unacceptable. If you care to visit my contributions page, and the talk page of the Human Rights Foundation you will notice: 1) it was me who requested comment from other editors; 2) it was me who intitiated a RfC; 3) it was me who requested full protection of entry, in light of the repeated reverts, without consensus, of editors Sinneed and Cathar11.


 * I have discussed at lenght the subject in the talk pages, and editor commenting in Editor_assistance/Requests has agreed with my point of view, and not with the one Sinneed and Cathar11. Therefore I request for this block to be removed immediately.--Proofknow (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether someone agrees with you or not isn't the issue, the issue is you acted in a disruptive manner by edit warring. Assuming consensus was on your side, all you had to do was make it clear (on the talk page) and engage in discussion on the talk pages. If people continued to revert then you should have followed the guidance noted in the 3RR warning you were given above, which says to use WP:DR and consider requesting page protection. Simply saying 'discuss on talk pages' in edit summaries is wonderful, but you must actually do so and prevent yourself from revert warring, which is pointless, disruptive, and always ends up in a block unless you're reverting blatantly obvious vandalism or defamation. NJA (t/ c)  13:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nja247, thanks for your explanation, but I beg to differ, for I did all those things you and Krazilec suggested I should have done. I debated extensively in the talk pages, before escalating the issue through the appropriate channels, only to realise that editors were constantly reverting changes, without consensus, without respecting the fact that other mechanisms were being used to settle the issue, without even considering that other editors agreed with my position. So it is not me the one being disruptive, inconsiderate, or disrespectful of WIKI etiquette. I have played by the rules. It is not me at fault here. Do check the talk page of the entry and my contributions page. This block ought to be reverted with immediate effect. For if disruption is the cause, then Sinneed and Cathar11 are just as disruptive, while at fault of not observing Wiki policies.--Proofknow (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but it's a clear and strictly enforced rule that you broke. You have to simply avoid temptation to get caught up in the moment, and that's why we have noticeboards, particularly one to make requests for page protection on. There's no fault with the block. Take the time to relax and collect your thoughts. NJA (t/ c)  15:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, while I am blocked, the other editors have already reverted my edits, without any consideration whatsoever to all the attempts that have been made by me to reach consensus about this issue. I am afraid to say that this has been handled extremely poorly by Wikipedia's higher beings. No action was taken on my request for full page protection, and the other editors involved are merrily POV pushing as if nothing has happened. This is not acceptable, and is a clear violation to Wiki rules. So once my block ends, I will revert again, until somebody somewhere realises what's going on here.--Proofknow (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And you'll be blocked again. Argue all you want on the talk page, pursue dispute resolution if it seems necessary, but don't edit war; we're real hard-nosed about that here. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, I am actually tired of arguing with people that refuse to engage. If you would care to visit my contributions page, you would see that I have pursued dispute resolution, in three different recent occasions. That proved, as a matter of fact, entirely useless, for despite the fact that other non-involved editor saw the merits of my argument, nothing was done with regards to the two other parties that had been involved in this edit war. You should be really hard-nosed about all parties involved in edit warring, not against the newbie, as Wiki rules say. But hey, this is Wikipedia after all, where some editors are more equal than others.--Proofknow (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that no admin will consider an unblock request when you're still obviously upset, and particularly when you're threatening to revert and thus continue to be disruptive. For the second time, I urge you to step away from Wikipedia for a while to cool down and collect your thoughts. NJA (t/ c)  16:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How can I not be upset, in light of the relentless ganging up that I have been subjected to? One of the main policies of this encyclopaedia is that it strives to be neutral. Yet none of you are demonstrating that at the moment. I don't need to collect my thoughts, I would like you all to be reasonable, that's all. If editors Sinneed and Cathar11 have their way, that means that WP:NOT and WP:WORDS policies are not respected and enforced by those who supposed to know better.--Proofknow (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)