User talk:CartoonDiablo

Archives:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3

VSP

Considering you made no comment on the talk page and another editor also believes it should not be included, I cannot accept your assertation. Arzel (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I am curious. Exactly what were you going to report with this? Arzel (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question, I don't see that any report was filed and reverted. WP:BOOMARANG would certainly have applied, though. Yworo (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Very Serious People. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Very Serious People. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Very Serious People shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yworo (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky

What to do when he's gone, eh? I read stuff in his books, articles etc. that I see nowhere else. Ah, well. 86.180.158.124 (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Very Serious People. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I believed I was editing for a consensus in tandem with other users. Essentially there were two issues: (1) involving whether or not to keep an image and (2) involving sources. Some of the reverts for the first issue done to maintain a discussion until a consensus could be reached for an issue (and actively went against what I believed to be true). For the second issue, I believed reached a consensus in a noticeboard, I edited in tandem with others (diff)(diff) to maintain it. Even the user that reported me believed that was the consensus
I realize ignorance is not an excuse but it seems punitive when everyone believed there to be a consensus and I was editing for it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"Editing for consensus", whatever that may mean is not a valid reason to edit war. As the matter of fact, there are no valid reasons for it. Max Semenik (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I believe you have several problems: (1) you don't understand WP:3RR; (2) you don't understand WP:CONSENSUS; and (3) you misinterpret other editors' comments. With respect to the third reason, your notion that Yworo believes that your edits represented the consensus is wrong and the diff shows that. Similarly, your idea that the discussion at WP:BLPN supported your edits is also misguided.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

How am I misinterpreting it? Yworo didn't say "no such consensus exists" etc. it was that "consensus does not justify edit waring" (my wording, not Yworo's). Was it simply a case of edit-warring with multiple users (diff)(diff) and I just happened to be doing it the most? CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

My interpretation of Yworo's comment was literal. Yworo doesn't say your edits were in line with any consensus. We'd have to ask Yworo whose interpetation is correct. Either way, you had 6 editing cycles, 5 of which were clear reverts. No one else came close to that, and no one else breached WP:3RR, and no one made the kinds of comments you did at WP:ANEW, which, to me, meant you had learned nothing from this content dispute. I'm going off-wiki now and will let an uninvolved admin respond to your unblock request. I suggest you take the time to reflect on your own conduct and what is expected here.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not believe any consensus existed, I was simply stating that even if one did exist, it would not in any way, alone or together with other editors, provide any justification for any single editor to violate 3RR. Yworo (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this you?

CD, is User:74.113.108.3 you? I noticed that the IP was from Pennsylvania, am I wrong in surmising that you are from PA as well? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No but based on their WHOIS its from a university (probably an open proxy), but yes I am in Philly. I remember reading somewhere that someone else who edited the single-payer page (Scjessey?) was also in PA. Looking at the article history there are apparently various IPs that only made edits to single-payer (ie here and here) although obviously not as involved as that one.

Actually I posted on their talk page to get an account for almost this exact reason, they were yelling at everyone and as an IP could be construed to be me. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Your revert

You'd better look at the discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Use of primary sources in Very Serious People. The consensus now is that the sources are not adequate and that it shames Wikipedia to include such rubbish. Yworo (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Very Serious People, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Hayes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Bush Derangement Syndrome for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bush Derangement Syndrome is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yworo (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Article probation notification

This isn't a warning, in the Wikipedia sense, but Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- v/r - TP 13:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)