User talk:Stevengriffiths

Proposed deletion of Portas pilot areas


The article Portas pilot areas has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable local interest story about a new organization. Was redirected to Mary Portas.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &#124; Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  14:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Portas Pilot, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place " " on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Portas Pilot was changed by Stevengriffiths (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.938845 on 2012-05-27T18:36:01+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

History of the metric system
Hi Stevengriffiths

Thank you for your comments. A quick courtesy note to let you know that I numbered the paragraphs to make it easier for me to respond as I consider each comment. I trust that this is in order. Martinvl (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No probs. Stevengriffiths (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

History of the metric system
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Hi Stevengriffiths. You've made three reversions in the past 24 hours to History of the metric system, which puts you right up against the WP:3RR rule. This behavior is known as "edit-warring" and can be grounds for temporary suspension. As you're new here I don't expect you knew about this rule so I don't think there's a need for further action. You might, however, want to self-revert your most recent change.

Wikipedia generally operates on the principle of WP:BRD: you were WP:Bold in making a change and Martinvl reverted it. At that point you acknowledged his concerns on the talk page but I don't believe a consensus was reached before you restored the changes. After I reverted them again the best course of action would have been to take this up on the talk page again. This can be a time-consuming, frustrating process, but it does usually result in consensus instead of tit-for-tat reversions.

Best,

Garamond Lethe 22:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the warning (although I think you'll see, if you check again, that I've actually only made two reverts in the last 24 hours). You'll notice that I accommodated your observation about Bigordan's view, so, hopefully, you are now happy with my most recent edit.


 * And, reading BRD, I think it was Martinvl who was bold, and I moderated his contributions a bit, and to be closer to what the cited sources support. I think he is generalizing too much, and distorting the picture too much.


 * You'll also notice that I did put a full explanation of my reasoning and concerns on the article talk page, and that he has not responded to that. Stevengriffiths (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A few comments. First, four reversions in a 24-hour period is a breach of WP:3RR. Sometimes, when the 4th revert falls just outside the 24-hour window it will still be considered a breach of 3RR. Edit-warring is a blockable offense and doesn't require a breach of 3RR. Second, I suspect you are familiar with the edit-warring policy. Third, you have clearly edit-warred on the article and possibly breached 3RR depending on how I or another admin might assess the space of time in your 4th revert. Consider this as an additional warning that any continuation of reversions on the article by you may be met by a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please explain what you mean. As far as I can see, I have made a total of two edits in the last 26 hours, and only one of those was a revert - Garamond Lethe had undone more of my previous work that he had covered in his summary, so I restored it. The other was to address his concern, but as he had already reverted me for a second time, I had to restore some of my previous work again too. I have explained it all on the article talk page - please check it out there. Stevengriffiths (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You have made the following reverts in a period of fewer than 30 hours: January 18 at 16:44, January 18 at 19:05, January 19 at 21:49, and January 19 at 22:01. Your "explanations" for those reverts are not policy-compliant.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The second two of those were more than 26 hours after the previous two, and both in good faith, all positive contributions to attempt to improve the integrity of the article and as described on the article talk page - is that a contravention of the rules then? Stevengriffiths (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you mean the third and fourth, not the "second two", but no matter. The short answer is yes, it's violates policy. Whether it breaches 3RR is debatable but it is obvious edit-warring. Your claims of "good faith" and "positive contributions", etc., are dubious, but in any event irrelevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is Martinvl, or even Garamond Lethe, also in violation then as you need at least two sides to have a war? Stevengriffiths (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If it were a 2-way war, that might be true, but it's not. Two editors disagree with you, and you're fighting both.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look back a few days though, you will see that I am reflecting in some way the similar views of MeasureIT, which Martinvl also disregarded, and it was discussions over this on the noticeboard, and my sympathy with the views of MeasureIT, that brought me here in the first place, as I mentioned in my first contribution to the article talk page. Look at some of the exchanges on Martinvl's talk page over the last couple of weeks too, it seems as though he has already been admonished for edit warring over this article, yet he continues to do it. Stevengriffiths (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, your first edit to the article talk page doesn't mention MeasureIT, and your comment about what brought you "here" makes no sense to me. I'm losing patience with this, but I suggest you focus on your conduct rather than Martin's.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What I said above was "it was discussions over this on the noticeboard, and my sympathy with the views of MeasureIT, that brought me here in the first place" and what I said in my first edit to the talk page was "I arrived here after intersecting links from a noticeboard discussion and from a MOS edit". The "noticeboard discussion" discussion I was alluding to was the one titled "That Englishman John Wilkins invented the metric system", which has vanished from it now, but in which MeasureIT, Martinvl and Zero (amongst others) were discussing John Wilkins, in which the consensus was with MeasureIT, and which spilled over into the talk page of "History of the Metric System" and to which my first edit, mentioned above, was added. If you look, you will find all that to be the case. MeasureIT vanished, and Martinvl continued with his theory, and his warring.


 * I am not at all comfortable with your (Bbb23) interpretation of all this, can you please review it now you are aware of more of the background. Thanks. Stevengriffiths (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * MeasureIT did not "vanish"; he was indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. What noticeboard are you referring to? What MOS edit are you referring to?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The fringe theories noticeboard and an edit by Martinvl to the styleguide for dates and numbers, which had not been discussed or agreed - there is a notice at the top saying "Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.", which he hadn't done. He altered the bit about the use of the term "in modern times" at about the same time as he was being challenged about the use of the term "modern writers" in the history article. Stevengriffiths (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * These, yes? fringe theory noticeboard  MOS.  Garamond Lethe  17:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Those, yes. One contributor described Martinvl's attempts to find sources to support what he had already decided to write as: "This is starting to look like zealotry.". Stevengriffiths (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
So what exactly does the text in that pretty box mean? Looking at the links in it we have:


 * Blocked: "Blocking is the method by which administrators technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia."
 * Sock puppet: "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking)."
 * DeFacto: Another editor who too has apparently been blocked.
 * Banned: "A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on one or more Wikipedia pages.", but "Banning should not be confused with blocking, which is a technical mechanism used to prevent an account or IP address from editing Wikipedia."
 * Appeal this block: "During day to day operations Wikipedia administrators routinely block accounts and IP ranges, to reduce or prevent vandalism and other serious inappropriate behavior. This page explains to blocked users why they may have been blocked and how to request an unblock."
 * Guide to appealing blocks: "Users may be blocked from editing by Wikipedia administrators to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Blocks are lifted if they are not (or no longer) necessary to prevent such damage or disruption."

Summarising then: I have been technically prevented from editing Wikipedia, but only from this account. I was blocked for using, for an improper purpose, an account of another account (DeFacto). As this account has not been banned, then edits using it cannot be reverted. As this account is not a sock puppet, I can (if I would like to be unblocked) request an unblock, but I should read the guide first, and the block will be lifted if it is no longer necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia.

That raises three questions in my mind:
 * 1) What was the improper purpose?
 * 2) Why wasn't I told that this was another account of DeFacto's?
 * 3) Why were the edits that were made with this account (to User talk:Bbb23) reverted after the block - as it is not a ban?
 * 4) Presumably if I would like to be unblocked all I have to do is request an unblock - or what damage or disruption to Wikipedia is it preventing?

Stevengriffiths (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Question for Bbb23‎
Bbb23‎, to help me to prepare my unblock request, can you explain exactly why you blocked me and why you didn't first discuss it with me. Stevengriffiths (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bbb23‎, do you plan to try to explain any of this for me, or am I expected to guess what the reasons are? Without a full explanation of the reasoning,
 * Perhaps too, you could give me a few links to some successful unblock requests - that is if there have ever been any.
 * I am not sure how I can be expected to prepare an informed unblock request otherwise. Or is that how Wikipedia policy intends it to work? Stevengriffiths (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The block notice has everything you need. Either make an unblock request or give it up - no more trolling. Otherwise, I'll revoke your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The block notice doesn't detail any evidence or reasoning for the block, just the arbitrary, and unsupported, charge of being a puppet of some account called DeFacto. I visited every link, and drew a blank - see my summary above. Was there a complaint? Any evidence offered? What was the rhyme or reason? There was certainly no chance given for self-defence - just bang - you are blocked!


 * I don't plan to give up on this, and don't plan to start "trolling". All I want is a fair chance to rebut the ridiculous notion, which surely means at least some clue as to what is behind it. Stevengriffiths (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)