User talk:U-Mos/Archives/2009/July

Doctor Who Companions
I understand your concerns regarding the the inclusion of The Brigadeer in this article, but he is listed as the 3rd Doctors companion, so you would need to open a discussion in the talk page before making anymore changes. We canot have him listed as a companion in one section, but not in another, we need consistency. magnius (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. magnius (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your argument hinges on another wiki page, which itself could be wrong. A change like this needs to be discussed with other editors so that we may decide where the mistake lies, and change relevent pages. I you change one section on a page, but leave another, it leads to confusion and inconsistency. The consensus could be reached that he is a companion and that the other page is incorrect in saying that he isn't. I'm nt being difficult for the sakek o it, I am simply looking for widespread agreement, not your own personal POV. So rather than continuing an edit war, which just lead to us both being blocked, we need to open a discussion on the relevent talk pages. magnius (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule&#32;on Companion (Doctor Who). Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. magnius (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Incident discussion initiated
Hello. An incident complaint has been initiated at the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents wherein you have been named as being an involved participant. This is your notification of the aforementioned complaint. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
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, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Unblock request
In case any of the involved users are tempted to read this and use it against me in the future (I wouldn't put it past them), I'd like the clarify that I do not have any problems with the block given and understand its reasoning. I utilised an unblock request for no other reason other than wishing to have the situation assessed using the facts, rather than the exaggerated claims in the aforelinked section. U-Mos (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For my own edification, U-Mos, could you explain how you were guilty of reverting only five or six times, and not the eight I had reported? Also, I am unsure how I exaggerated the separate complaint in regards to your language. If you could specify how you feel I exaggerated these issues, I'd appreciate it. -  Arcayne   (cast a spell)  13:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You and Phil both stated that I been repeatedly swearing, which as I only used the word in question once (and, admittedly, requoted it at a later stage) this was not really sufficient to justify Phil's rather uncalled for claims of my being a "complete nutter" and your own hugely impartial claims in this incident report. As for the number of reverts, what can I say other than the five I have linked to above were reverts, and the extra three you listed were not (your "first revert" was the first edit I made and the other, which you counted as both your fourth and fifth reverts here, was an edit I made to the same page that was not a revert and had nothing to do with the three characters in question ). Simple as that. U-Mos (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I cannot control what Phil said and, for the record, I think he was out of line to say that. We are supposed to focus on the edits, and not the editor, until that editor's behavior becomes problematic enough that it needs addressing - in the appropriate forum (WQA, ANI, etc). I've been guilty of this before, as have you and practically everyone here in the wiki; the key is to learn from it and try to limit how often such happens. Again, I am not condoning what Phil did, any more than I did your behavior. You said you've figured out where your behavior went wonky, and that's great. I am a little worried that you've latched onto Tan's characterization that you were "goaded" into your behavior; it implies that you aren't in control of your actions. Anyone who cannot control their actions shouldn't be editing until they can. That's my personal call on the subject, though; your mileage may vary.
 * As for the number of reverts, the way I had counted them was the initial revert (noted by your #9) was a revert in that it removed the Brigadier as a Companion - a topic that had gone back and forth in earlier edits. You did not have to be involved in the earlier back and forth for the edit removing the character to be considered a revert; that said, an argument could be made for the converse. As for the link numbered #10, that was a separate revert based on another conflict - indeed separate from the issue of the Brigadier, but no less a revert. Reverts (for the purpose of determining 3RR) do not reflect whether the revert was in regards to a specific issue; it simply counts as a revert.
 * Both of the issues were in dispute, and adding in contentious material contributes to a destabilizing of the article, which is why we have 3RR and protective blocking in the first place. I know you know this, and I am not covering this ground to serve as a lecture to you. I am stating such to explain why I considered them reverts. You were using the discussion page, but your editing the material back in while discussion was ongoing was not helping the situation. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  14:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Link #10: I see and have seen no evidence of contention on that issue, and certainly did not check its history before making the edit; it was quite simply a case of seeing something I felt was wrong and hitting the edit button to change it. Plus it was made before the talk page section was started. U-Mos (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy
Hi there. Today I made some serious corrections to the above article by deleting large amounts of unsubstantiated OR that had been tagged for a while. Another editor immediately mass-reverted my corrections. You agreed with her, and suggested I should seek consensus for my corrections if I wanted them to stand. Please could you clarify why you thought reinstating large amounts of unsubstantiated OR was in Wikipedia's best interests, or why you think such corrections require a consensus in advance? Thanks Wdford (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. It just burns me that Zara blatantly breaks the 3RR rule to consistently reinstate unsubstantiated OR, but her version gets to stand and I am automatically in the wrong. This looks wrong to me. Wdford (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)