Good day,
I am attempting to overcome having been, I believe, unfairly blocked by User:Tom harrison. I am new to Wikipedia, so am still learning proper procedures. I have attempted to provide reference to the 9/11 Truth Movement on the main 9/11 Wikipedia entry. My additions have been repeatedly deleted by Mr Harrison and others without sufficient explanation. I would like to resolve this matter in a fair manner, without my rights as a Wikipedian being unfairly censored. The information I was asked to provide is:
"3rr, evasion with sock" and IP address (68.254.122.199)
Thank you, Joe ___________________________________________________ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Those links were already at September_11% 2C_2001_attacks#Conspiracy_theories but you kept insisting that they go into the first introductory paragraph. They represent a minority point of view and while they deserve mention, are not properly presented in the introduction.
Fred
On May 11, 2006, at 11:18 AM, joetkeck@netscape.net wrote:
Good day,
I am attempting to overcome having been, I believe, unfairly blocked by User:Tom harrison. I am new to Wikipedia, so am still learning proper procedures. I have attempted to provide reference to the 9/11 Truth Movement on the main 9/11 Wikipedia entry. My additions have been repeatedly deleted by Mr Harrison and others without sufficient explanation. I would like to resolve this matter in a fair manner, without my rights as a Wikipedian being unfairly censored. The information I was asked to provide is:
"3rr, evasion with sock" and IP address (68.254.122.199)
Thank you, Joe ___________________________________________________ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am attempting to overcome having been, I believe, unfairly blocked by User:Tom harrison.
It appears that you were blocked because you re-inserted the same two sentences more than three times. We have a rule that prohibits this.
However, in your case, I don't understand why your sentence was removed at all. I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe someone else will elaborate.
Here's a link for others to see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&d...
Timwi
On 5/12/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
It appears that you were blocked because you re-inserted the same two sentences more than three times. We have a rule that prohibits this.
However, in your case, I don't understand why your sentence was removed at all. I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe someone else will elaborate.
Just to stick my oar in, it's important to understand that 3RR applies whether or not the person's contributions were correct, NPOV, welcome, etc or not. Edit-warring is the crime, not "making bad edits" or whatever.
No idea about the specifics of this instance though.
Steve
It was already in the article further down under 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Fred
On May 12, 2006, at 12:45 PM, Timwi wrote:
I am attempting to overcome having been, I believe, unfairly blocked by User:Tom harrison.
It appears that you were blocked because you re-inserted the same two sentences more than three times. We have a rule that prohibits this.
However, in your case, I don't understand why your sentence was removed at all. I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe someone else will elaborate.
Here's a link for others to see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11% 2C_2001_attacks&diff=52396066&oldid=52394304
Timwi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
It was already in the article further down under 9/11 conspiracy theories.
He was reverted without any comment. The talk page says nothing about him. His User talk page warns him of "undoing other people's edits repeatedly" when in fact it was *HIS* edits that were undone by others repeatedly. Then we was blocked with an incomprehensible code for a reason.
What is he supposed to think of this?
Timwi
On 5/12/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
He was reverted without any comment. The talk page says nothing about him. His User talk page warns him of "undoing other people's edits repeatedly" when in fact it was *HIS* edits that were undone by others repeatedly. Then we was blocked with an incomprehensible code for a reason.
What is he supposed to think of this?
I agree with your point, but there's a logical fallacy: your edits can't be undone repeatedly if you aren't redoing them repeatedly.
(again, nothing to do with the specifics of this case)
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/12/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
He was reverted without any comment. The talk page says nothing about him. His User talk page warns him of "undoing other people's edits repeatedly" when in fact it was *HIS* edits that were undone by others repeatedly. Then we was blocked with an incomprehensible code for a reason.
What is he supposed to think of this?
I agree with your point, but there's a logical fallacy: your edits can't be undone repeatedly if you aren't redoing them repeatedly.
I'm aware of that, but the point is that the user (usually) isn't. It is non-obvious that putting the stuff back in can be viewed as "undoing someone else's changes". It is far more obvious to refer to the removal as "undoing changes". An admin who doesn't see this, shouldn't be blocking people.
Timwi
On 5/13/06, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
I'm aware of that, but the point is that the user (usually) isn't. It is non-obvious that putting the stuff back in can be viewed as "undoing someone else's changes". It is far more obvious to refer to the removal as "undoing changes". An admin who doesn't see this, shouldn't be blocking people.
Ah, fair point.
Steve
Good point, I guess I am a bit prejudiced against 9/11 conspiracy theory so did not look closely enough.
Fred
On May 12, 2006, at 2:18 PM, Timwi wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
It was already in the article further down under 9/11 conspiracy theories.
He was reverted without any comment. The talk page says nothing about him. His User talk page warns him of "undoing other people's edits repeatedly" when in fact it was *HIS* edits that were undone by others repeatedly. Then we was blocked with an incomprehensible code for a reason.
What is he supposed to think of this?
Timwi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 12 May 2006 19:45:05 +0100, you wrote:
in your case, I don't understand why your sentence was removed at all. I don't see anything wrong with it. Maybe someone else will elaborate.
Undue weight. It is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. I'm with Fred on this: crank theories can be discussed, but not generally in the lead of an article on a significant historical event.
Guy (JzG)