User talk:Renseim

Leave messages for me below: Renseim (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Darcus Howe

Please stop adding uncited interpretations of his BBC interview to Darcus Howe; see WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV for reasoning. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying HARD not to say anything that isn't sourced including by the interview itself. I'm sincere. Please deal with the specifics (sentences) if you feel I've made a mistake in any sense. The latest version I posted is a bit stronger exactly because the Wash. Post article sources the fact of the criticisms (not just on youtube). Is that cool?? Renseim (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not cool. You are posting your on interpretation of the video, which is not a reliable source for the statements you are making. You're also edit warring; you've restored specific sentences once I've removed them. You don't appear to be an experienced editor; others will happily advise you, so please don't make further edits to that section until you've discussed them on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please also urgently make yourself familiar with WP:3RR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well of course I restored sentences when I didn't think that they should have been removed, but if you'll point out the specific sentences (or simply edit them to correct a specific problem with them) then we can take it from there. Yes, I will deal with the talk page (I hadn't realized a discussion began there but was just looking at the edit summaries.). Yes I am familiar with the 3-R rule. Renseim (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your AN3 report

Can you please fix your report at WP:AN3? The diffs are not readable. You should also add your signature at the bottom of the report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I'll try. I never filed these before and it's a hassle.... Renseim (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning

Formally given for your violation of the edit war policies of Wikipedia. Please self-revert or a report shall be made on the appropriate noticeboards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please answer my objection on the talk page. Specifically dealing with what I say (do you disagree?). Renseim (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I went to the RS discussion page and didn't see anything about youtube in particular let alone relevant to the current dispute. Or point more specifically if needed.Renseim (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

From WP:RS:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources; and, all majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

Youtube is not a "published source."

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Claims that a person interrupted someone repeatedly, cut off a person etc. are "contentious" and need strong published reliable sourcing.

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

Wikipedia editors are not to interpolate any claims not specifically made in the published source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, youtube is not being used as a source of fact. I am very sensitive to the issue of bias in BLPs. The negative issues raised are not about the person of the biography but of a public figure on television. I don't believe there is any unsourced fact presented, but if so them please refer to it specifically. Renseim (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31h for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Renseim (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I realized that I may have technically gone beyond 3 reverts. But ALL of my edits were good-faith efforts to converge toward a consensus, and it can be seen that I backed off on portions of text which defied consensus. In other words, I was not usually reverting to the exact same wording but trying to test compromise wording (in fact, the bulk of the current text in that section originated from me!). My position thus shifted over time in response to pressure from other editors, as is proper. The only time I made wholesale reverts was when someone made a edit which was radical or had already been rejected by consensus but was trying to re-introduce it, and where there was NO JUSTIFICATON or DISCUSSION either on the talk page or in edit summaries. (Also several incidences of vandalism were reverted.) It's not a big deal to me to get unblocked quickly, and I am mainly posting this because I don't think I did anything wrong and seek vindication. So please don't waste much time considering this if you have better things to do (which I'm sure you do). My conscience is clear. Renseim (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Also I will add my specific motivation in editing this page for accuracy and completeness. The BBC interviewer in question displayed an ugly racist attitude toward this black militant that was extraordinary and has angered many people. She defamed the interviewee (and the BBC subsequently issued an apology for the portion which could be covered under British libel laws), which is a relevant fact regarding the biography. However a large number of white racist opinion (and I am certainly not applying that label to all of the editors I disagreed with) immediately identified with her and sought to erase the incident from history: witness the multiple cases of IP users with no previous editing who tried to blank the entire section. Following my block, some of the editors reduced the paragraph to the one aspect of the abuse that the BBC apologized for, removing all mention of his being repeatedly interrupted (as was reported by RS's). This would be like if the article on Hitler only mentioned crimes for which he apologized! Give me a break.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I realized that I may have technically gone beyond 3 reverts. But ALL of my edits were good-faith efforts to converge toward a consensus, and it can be seen that I backed off on portions of text which defied consensus. In other words, I was not usually reverting to the exact same wording but trying to test compromise wording (in fact, the bulk of the current text in that section originated from me!). My position thus shifted over time in response to pressure from other editors, as is proper. The only time I made wholesale reverts was when someone made a edit which was radical or had already been rejected by consensus but was trying to re-introduce it, and where there was NO JUSTIFICATON or DISCUSSION either on the talk page or in edit summaries. (Also several incidences of vandalism were reverted.) It's not a big deal to me to get unblocked quickly, and I am mainly posting this because I don't think I did anything wrong and seek vindication. So please don't waste much time considering this if you have better things to do (which I'm sure you do). My conscience is clear. [[User:Renseim|Renseim]] ([[User talk:Renseim#top|talk]]) 17:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC) :Also I will add my specific motivation in editing this page for accuracy and completeness. The BBC interviewer in question displayed an ugly racist attitude toward this black militant that was extraordinary and has angered many people. She defamed the interviewee (and the BBC subsequently issued an apology for the portion which could be covered under British libel laws), which is a relevant fact regarding the biography. However a large number of white racist opinion (and I am certainly not applying that label to all of the editors I disagreed with) immediately identified with her and sought to erase the incident from history: witness the multiple cases of IP users with no previous editing who tried to blank the entire section. Following my block, some of the editors reduced the paragraph to the one aspect of the abuse that the BBC apologized for, removing all mention of his being repeatedly interrupted (as was reported by RS's). This would be like if the article on Hitler only mentioned crimes for which he apologized! Give me a break. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I realized that I may have technically gone beyond 3 reverts. But ALL of my edits were good-faith efforts to converge toward a consensus, and it can be seen that I backed off on portions of text which defied consensus. In other words, I was not usually reverting to the exact same wording but trying to test compromise wording (in fact, the bulk of the current text in that section originated from me!). My position thus shifted over time in response to pressure from other editors, as is proper. The only time I made wholesale reverts was when someone made a edit which was radical or had already been rejected by consensus but was trying to re-introduce it, and where there was NO JUSTIFICATON or DISCUSSION either on the talk page or in edit summaries. (Also several incidences of vandalism were reverted.) It's not a big deal to me to get unblocked quickly, and I am mainly posting this because I don't think I did anything wrong and seek vindication. So please don't waste much time considering this if you have better things to do (which I'm sure you do). My conscience is clear. [[User:Renseim|Renseim]] ([[User talk:Renseim#top|talk]]) 17:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC) :Also I will add my specific motivation in editing this page for accuracy and completeness. The BBC interviewer in question displayed an ugly racist attitude toward this black militant that was extraordinary and has angered many people. She defamed the interviewee (and the BBC subsequently issued an apology for the portion which could be covered under British libel laws), which is a relevant fact regarding the biography. However a large number of white racist opinion (and I am certainly not applying that label to all of the editors I disagreed with) immediately identified with her and sought to erase the incident from history: witness the multiple cases of IP users with no previous editing who tried to blank the entire section. Following my block, some of the editors reduced the paragraph to the one aspect of the abuse that the BBC apologized for, removing all mention of his being repeatedly interrupted (as was reported by RS's). This would be like if the article on Hitler only mentioned crimes for which he apologized! Give me a break. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I realized that I may have technically gone beyond 3 reverts. But ALL of my edits were good-faith efforts to converge toward a consensus, and it can be seen that I backed off on portions of text which defied consensus. In other words, I was not usually reverting to the exact same wording but trying to test compromise wording (in fact, the bulk of the current text in that section originated from me!). My position thus shifted over time in response to pressure from other editors, as is proper. The only time I made wholesale reverts was when someone made a edit which was radical or had already been rejected by consensus but was trying to re-introduce it, and where there was NO JUSTIFICATON or DISCUSSION either on the talk page or in edit summaries. (Also several incidences of vandalism were reverted.) It's not a big deal to me to get unblocked quickly, and I am mainly posting this because I don't think I did anything wrong and seek vindication. So please don't waste much time considering this if you have better things to do (which I'm sure you do). My conscience is clear. [[User:Renseim|Renseim]] ([[User talk:Renseim#top|talk]]) 17:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC) :Also I will add my specific motivation in editing this page for accuracy and completeness. The BBC interviewer in question displayed an ugly racist attitude toward this black militant that was extraordinary and has angered many people. She defamed the interviewee (and the BBC subsequently issued an apology for the portion which could be covered under British libel laws), which is a relevant fact regarding the biography. However a large number of white racist opinion (and I am certainly not applying that label to all of the editors I disagreed with) immediately identified with her and sought to erase the incident from history: witness the multiple cases of IP users with no previous editing who tried to blank the entire section. Following my block, some of the editors reduced the paragraph to the one aspect of the abuse that the BBC apologized for, removing all mention of his being repeatedly interrupted (as was reported by RS's). This would be like if the article on Hitler only mentioned crimes for which he apologized! Give me a break. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}