User talk:UrbanisTO

Your recent edits
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. --SineBot (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
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 Republican Party (United States), 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. ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Maddow
Maddow would not describe herself as a Canadian, and that is the salient detail here. May I respectfully suggest that you sign in to your account before making BLP-related edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
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. --SineBot (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Rachel Maddow. 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. Scjessey (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP
When a person (me) removes information from a BLP that is inaccurate, that removal does not count toward 3RR because it is a special case to protect the living individual. I am formally requesting that you don't go anywhere near my talk page again. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Again. Do not post on my talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Scjessey;

Is there anyway to discuss this issue other than by posting on eachother's talk pages? How are we supposed to arrive at a consensus if you prohibit me from speaking? If this is just going to be an edit-war, obviously you're going to win, because this isn't my full time job. I'm actually trying to convince you to agree with me (by analogizing with other things that might superficially be characterized as syntheses). However I get the sense that rather than trying to convince me, you're trying to bully or out-wait me. I thought the animating principle of Wikipedia was that debates should be revolved through good-faith discussion. UrbanisTO (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
On the article Rachel Maddow, you were edit warring, and breached the three revert rule. As I noted on the 3RR Noticeboard, "Scjessey can reasonably draw on the WP:BLP exemption from WP:3RR here. Such issues should be settled on talk, and not left "out there" in the article. If the matter can't be settled on the talk page alone, there is dispute resolution."

There was an ongoing discussion on the talk page, and the whole point of WP:3RR is that you must sometimes not revert even when you think you're totally right. In view of the talk discussion, however, you had and have convincing to do. Bear in mind too that the burden of proof is always highest on changes to articles; you may have to let errors stand until you can convince people. I hope this clarifies how things are done. Rd232 talk 01:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

A Question for You
Hello, Urbanis. You're way more familiar with Wiki than I am, so I was wondering if you could advise me in regards to the process involving dispute resolution on Juris Doctor. As you well know, there seems to be a majority of editors who want drastic change on the "Evidence" section and a few editors staunchly oppose any revision of that section. I was thinking about taking this to arbitration, but it seems like arbitration is more about issues between editors than the content of an article. Based on your experience in Wikipedia, what's the proper course of action in this case? Is the article doomed to endless warring or can some Wikipedia administrative entity step in and "lay down the law", so to speak? I'd be grateful for your help in this, I'm kind of a noob. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)