User talk:ShuttleBox

December 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. A. Demidov Talk 07:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. A. Demidov Talk 07:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton
If you believe that The Hilary Clinton page has no controversies section so you lose all the data, you can add these data there. A separate article may contradict Wikipedia policy. Please, ask the author of the Redirecting. If a page seems to be vandalized, it does not mean it is vandalized. An article like List of Hillary Rodham Clinton Controversies should be integrated into another. Thank you.

A. Demidov Talk 07:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

== However,

you may be right.
But it does not mean the author has vandalized the page. He or she may be a Wikidragon or a Wikiogre. The redirect might be a mistake, but you said it was vandalism. That is called not assuming good faith, and that's why I reverted it. I don't want to be dragged into the edit war, so I am not going to revert the page any longer. But, please, do assume good faith. It could be also testing, and testing is not blatant vandalism. If it was not his or her first redirect, you could stated that. Thank you.

A. Demidov Talk 07:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see what I am reverting
I use Twinkle, so I can see all the changes. The page was redirected to an existing article, the redirect was logical, although it could be wrong as well. But the author didn't blank the page out, didn't insert inappropriate letters, words or sentences, didn't redirect the page to an non-existiing one, etc. Note: according to your wording, I could find your edits vandal-like, but they just didn't assume good faith. Sorry for reverting back, if it was wrong; but I had to place these cautions on your talk page in any case, even if I didn't revert yout edits. Thank you!

A. Demidov Talk 08:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Hope, you like the place and decide to stay! Sorry again, if I have offended you.

A. Demidov Talk 08:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

History of the redirect
Once upon a time there was a Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies article. Then, due to considerations of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism, it was dismantled, with all its appropriate contents disbursed into other Hillary Rodham Clinton articles. The controversies page itself was redirected to the Hillary Rodham Clinton article. Then someone created this list of controversies article. However it suffered from the same problem related to WP policies as the original article, and so it was redirected as well. All of the HRC controversy material is still in Wikipedia, just in context with the events that caused the controversies, not pulled aside and labeled as "here are all her controversies". Since then, the exact same thing has been done for the Rudy Giuliani controversies page, the Joe Biden criticism section, the John McCain controversies section, the Bill Richardson criticism section, etc., and hopefully will be done for other 2008 candidates' articles where such sections or subarticles still remain. Wasted Time R 14:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. ~ Enviroboy TalkContribs - 01:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Comment
Hi ShuttleBox. A request for administrator attention was made concerning List of Hillary Rodham Clinton Controversies and I have reviewed the situation. Generally any act of "edit warring" (which includes reverting a page repeatedly) is frowned upon, and a block could have been applied.

For the moment I have not taken this action, but I do invite you to engage with other editors in a civil fashion, and if the existence of a previous consensus is made known to you, do not attempt to alter it without engaging in discussion first. Regards Manning 10:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)