User talk:D.Prok.: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | |||
<div style="background-color: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid red; padding: 3px;"> |
|||
==Regarding reversions[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Michael_Shields_&action=history] made on [[November 16]] [[2006]] to [[Michael_Shields ]]== |
|||
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Octagon-warning.svg|left|30px| ]] |
|||
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.</div><!-- Template:3RR5 --> The duration of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User:D.Prok.&action=edit block] is 24 hours. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 09:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)</div> |
|||
Re: your mail. There is nothing I can do re completeness of the block: you're either blocked or not. As to the length of it: part of the reason its 24h (not 8 as a start) is that you seem to do almost nothing other than edit and discuss this article, so we're not losing a lot by having you blocked for a while. However, if you will promise to be good and obey [[WP:3RR]] I can unblock you. Please reply here [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 11:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
First, I did not know about this rule, being fairly new here. |
First, I did not know about this rule, being fairly new here. |
||
Second, according to the rules, I should've been warned first, not blocked immediately. |
Second, according to the rules, I should've been warned first, not blocked immediately. |
||
As for why I persisted in reverting this article is because the article I reverted to was an already IMPROVED version where I'd complied |
As for why I persisted in reverting this article is because the article I reverted to was an already IMPROVED version where I'd complied |
||
with previous complaints by other editors relating to the version of |
with previous complaints by other editors relating to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Michael_Shields&oldid=84344275 version of 01:59, 29 October 2006]. |
||
01:59, 29 October 2006: |
|||
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Michael_Shields&oldid=84344275 |
|||
More specifically: |
More specifically: |
||
1) One complaint was that some of the statements in the article were |
1) One complaint was that some of the statements in the article were |
||
unreferenced. |
unreferenced. |
||
I provided all the lacking references for the parts in question in my |
I provided all the lacking references for the parts in question in my newer version. |
||
newer version. |
|||
Later editors keep on simply deleting these parts. |
Later editors keep on simply deleting these parts even though they ARE referenced now. |
||
2) Another concerned the POV status of the article. |
2) Another concerned the POV status of the article. |
||
Several Bulgarian visitors/editors have expressed their displeasure |
Several Bulgarian visitors/editors have expressed their displeasure |
||
with the article, saying (on the Talk page) that it is too unbalanced |
with the article, saying (on the Talk page) that it is too unbalanced |
||
in presenting too many (unsupported) claims |
in presenting too many (unsupported) claims attempting to discredit the |
||
Bulgarian court decision WITHOUT presenting the Bulgarian court |
Bulgarian court decision WITHOUT presenting the Bulgarian court |
||
evidence against Michael Shields. |
evidence against Michael Shields. |
||
In particular, user Goldie was unhappy about the Forgotten Fan documentary claims, which are numerous (and taking up a lot of space) but none are properly referenced, thus making him regard all these claims as |
In particular, user Goldie was unhappy about the Forgotten Fan documentary claims, which are numerous (and taking up a lot of space) but none are properly referenced, thus making him regard all these claims as |
||
unverifiable. |
unverifiable. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
additional minor factual corrections - like putting a more precise |
additional minor factual corrections - like putting a more precise |
||
figure for the weight of the stone (attempted murder weapon) in my |
figure for the weight of the stone (attempted murder weapon) in my |
||
newest version. |
newest version. |
||
So why all my edits should simply be ignored I don't know |
So why all my edits should simply be ignored I don't know |
||
Latest revision as of 08:05, 22 November 2007
I was blocked by William M. Connolley at 0911, on 16 November 2006, for breaking The Three-Revert Rule in relation to the Michael Shields article.
First, I did not know about this rule, being fairly new here.
Second, according to the rules, I should've been warned first, not blocked immediately.
As for why I persisted in reverting this article is because the article I reverted to was an already IMPROVED version where I'd complied with previous complaints by other editors relating to the version of 01:59, 29 October 2006.
More specifically:
1) One complaint was that some of the statements in the article were unreferenced.
I provided all the lacking references for the parts in question in my newer version.
Later editors keep on simply deleting these parts even though they ARE referenced now.
2) Another concerned the POV status of the article.
Several Bulgarian visitors/editors have expressed their displeasure with the article, saying (on the Talk page) that it is too unbalanced in presenting too many (unsupported) claims attempting to discredit the Bulgarian court decision WITHOUT presenting the Bulgarian court evidence against Michael Shields.
In particular, user Goldie was unhappy about the Forgotten Fan documentary claims, which are numerous (and taking up a lot of space) but none are properly referenced, thus making him regard all these claims as unverifiable.
Therefore, I think that the POV tag should stay for the time being until someone comes up with a better version of this article.
3) I've also kept the later grammar editing, as well as making some additional minor factual corrections - like putting a more precise figure for the weight of the stone (attempted murder weapon) in my newest version.
So why all my edits should simply be ignored I don't know