User talk:Sprogeeet

Talk pages
How about explaining some of your tagging on the talk pages? You are clearly already familiar with how Wikipedia works, so I am sure that you are aware of them. DuncanHill (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please
Please start using article talk pages before making further major changes. Your editing pattern is currently suggestive of a single-purpose account, and your evident familiarity with Wikipedia process and jargon may make it hard for other editors to accept your major edits on emotive subjects as being in good faith. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A thread which concerns you.
Please see Administrators' noticeboard. DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Insertion of false citations
The reference you gave for Payton being born in Brighton did not actually say that. The insertion of false references or false citations is vandalism, and if repeated may result in a block. DuncanHill (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Philip Payton
Please stop. What you are doing at Philip Payton is an edit war, which may result in your being blocked. You may want to try using the talk page to gain consensus for the edit, and make the edit again only if consensus is reached. Thanks! Inferno,  Lord of   Penguins  23:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You have already been warned
Stop. If you continue to edit war at Philip Payton, I may have to file a report at WP:ANEW, which could result in you being blocked. Inferno,  Lord of   Penguins  00:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that you think that it is sourced information, there must be a conclusion on the talk page before the edit is made again, so that the edit war may be resolved. Inferno,   Lord of   Penguins  00:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * Inferno and Duncan were reverting what they perceived as vandalism. Vandalism reversion is exempt from 3RR. --Smashvilletalk 01:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read the talkpage on the article and compare the edits in the article itself. Duncan was fully well aware that he was not reverting vandalism he was reverting sourced information that he did not like. I reverted what I percieved as Duncan's vandalism (blanking information) as the edit summaries show. Inferno was just a busy body reverting because me and Duncan were in a dispute, he is not involved in the content dispute. Content disputes are not vandalism, either I should be unblocked or these two, especially Duncan should be blocked also. - Sprogeeet (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also why on earth have you Smashville reverted my sourced edits in the article?? Aren't admins supposed to be impartial. - Sprogeeet (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the information was questionable and had not reached consensus. Just take a deep breath, relax and have a nice day. When your block is up you can continue discussing the content on the talk page, and it probably would be a good idea to get uninvolved parties to contribute to the discussion. If you have any more questions leave them below, I'd be happy to answer. Inferno,   Lord of   Penguins  01:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. You were blocked for edit warring. All I did was restore the pre-edit warring content of the page. When your block expires, remember: bold, revert, discuss. If your changes are reverted, do not keep reverting back...especially when users question that the sources do not line up. It can take several days or even a couple of weeks to garner a consensus. Don't continue to revert back because you don't have a talk page consensus in 5 minutes. --Smashvilletalk 01:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I'm looking for a response from the blocking admin who decided to randomly cherry pick who not to block and who to block based on Duncan's blatant abuse of the word "vandal". He was the one "vandalising" the article by removed sourced information on the Sussexman. Duncan has no sources for his argument, I do. If he hasn't come up with a source by tomorrow then its clearly good for reverting to the sourced version with no misrepresenation. - Sprogeeet (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You were reported by two different users at both WP:ANI and WP:AN3 for edit warring. Both editors believed they were reverting vandalism. There was no "cherry picking" involved. You were blocked for a WP:3RR violation. --Smashvilletalk 01:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You still have not bothered to read the talkpage discussion and the edit summaries in the article, to see what is going on here? Me and Duncan were having a content dispute. Duncan removed sourced information because he did not like the CONTENT. I reverted his blanking (which I viewed as reverting vandalism of legitimate sourced info). That Duncan called a content dispute "vandalism" does not mean he was using the term legitimately nor is he covered by WP:3RR, read the WP:3RR for godsake. This states only obvious vandalism is covered by that, it explicitely says content disputes are not; myself and Duncan were even debating on the talk so this can in no way be confused as "vandalism".


 * WP:3RR says "Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding bad language. Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. Administrators should block persistent vandals and protect pages subject to vandalism from many users, rather than repeatedly reverting. However, non-administrators may find reversion unavoidable before administrators can respond."


 * Inferno decided to get involved and revert on the basis of a consensus not being reached, nothing to do with "vandalism". Again this is not covered by WP:3RR. Why did you decide to become involved with this and block me if you aren't even willing to be neutral and look at the case fully or properly? According to the WP:3RR page, either all three should be blocked or non at all. - Sprogeeet (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, per the talk page and the source, you were adding unsourced information on a living person. In addition, you were adding information claiming that it was in the source. Either you were vandalizing (adding false sources) or violating BLP, both of which are revertable per WP:3RR. But here's the bigger question - you've been a Wikipedia member for all of 5 hours. How do you know so much about WP:3RR? --Smashvilletalk 01:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are actually taking the piss now. I was the one adding the source to the article. THIS IS THE SOURCE I WAS ADDING, the very same source Duncan was removing. CarnegiePublishing.com is not a "false source", it is a legitimate source from the publishing company the subject of the article is releasing a book through. Check the edit history and then check the source, BLP has not being violated and neither is anything you have mentioned present in WP:3RR, nowhere is there obvious vandalism in my edit to the article during this takes-two-to-tango content dispute. You seem to have being grossly incompetant when dealing with this case, to the point of not even bothering to check it over before blocking me and surely you must realise now that you've made a mistake, but you're unwilling to admit it. - Sprogeeet (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By 'false source,' I think he means that that source doesn't say that this person was born in Brighton. It only says that he spent much of his childhood there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * After Duncan made me aware of that on the talkpage I changed the wording to this very early on, i think it was after the first revert; "He was born in 1954, sources documenting his location place him earliest at Brighton, Sussex " Which is entirely in following with the source as it doesn't say he was born there. Duncan was well aware of this change in the wording as the talkpage shows, yet continued to revert me claiming the content dispute was vandalism. Duncan as a 100% non-Cornish person interested in Cornwall, similar in a sense to Payton's situation seems to be defensive over the issue and that seems to be the deal here. Not any "vandalism" or even misrepresenation of sources. - Sprogeeet (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've messaged Smashville so that they may respond to you. In the meantime, please read WP:DISPUTE and WP:3RR as suggested. Thanks Inferno,   Lord of   Penguins  01:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read WP:3RR to understand why you were blocked, and why what I was doing does not constitute 3RR. When your block is up, try to gain consesnsus on the talk page before you make the edit. No hard feelings. Inferno,   Lord of   Penguins  01:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is going nowhere productive. I'm protecting the talkpage for the duration of the block. --Smashvilletalk 05:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)