User talk:Randomcommenter: Difference between revisions

Hello, Randomcommenter and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Reliable Forevertalk 15:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)+[reply]

No need to start getting threatening. Change is coming-- it may not be substantive policy change, but now's a good time to disOWN the language of the page, guys. --Randomcommenter (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The warning is a formal warning, as any further reverts on your part will be reported and handled in the appropriate manner. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relax, we have are whole lives to argue about this, Hammersoft, and blocking won't solve anything. We wanna freeze the page text for the discussion, that's fine. The discussion is happening though. "I said so" doesn't fly.--Randomcommenter (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said because I said so. I've no need of relaxing. You were edit warring. The warning is pro forma, a formality before being blocked for edit warring. You can violate it at your own peril, I don't really care. If you do violate it, blocking will solve the problem of continuing disruption to a pivotal policy of the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tweaked three sentences for a total of a few seconds and let M. revert them-- the only disruption I'm causing is asking questions you think we have no right to ask. --Randomcommenter (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for placing words in my mouth. I never said you didn't have a right to ask questions. I asked you to seek consensus before making changes. You've been reverted by multiple people and asked to stop. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. I recommend you engage in discussion and seek consensus first. You can ask all the questions you like. You might not like the answers, but that doesn't make the answers wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ditto. Randomcommenter, this is not helpful: keep reverting the text of the policy without consensus from the community and you'll be blocked--this is not the way to go. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Edit wars solve nothing-- I made some subtle changes, a rv without specific objections were made, I restored and requested specific feedback, and that's occuring on talk now. we'll evolve it further on there. I am well aware that no individual gets to substantively dictate policy and my changes to the policy were believed to be quite cosmetic and noncontroversial. --Randomcommenter (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free image File:Utah State University Logo.svg was recently restored to USU-Uintah Basin by you after it have been removed for failure of our non-free content criteria policy, specifically item #10c which requires a "separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". The image still fails the 10c policy requirement and has been removed from the article again. Please do not restore this image to that article again without complying with the requirements of that policy. For more information on how to write an appropriate non-free use rationale, please consult Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. If you have questions about this, please ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wikipedia, how you failed me. My last edit was an attempt, however humble, to add a rationale to an image, cleaning up the mess caused by random deletions. My edits before were to talk pages.

I guess the discussion I started will be a lot easier to finish now that now that you had to resort to strong-arm tactics to stop the discussion. Bad show, Wikipedia, bad show. Shame shame shame. I raised valid questions that can't be blocked away.

Now I feel comfortable in citing WP:DICK. Banning me to silence discussion is a dick move.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

This block is trying to stop a valid discussion, not prohibit disruptive editing. See summary below. This is doubly inappropriate while there's an election running and the below issues might merit inclusion in that discussion too.

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=This block is trying to stop a valid discussion, not prohibit disruptive editing. See summary below. This is doubly inappropriate while there's an election running and the below issues might merit inclusion in that discussion too. |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=This block is trying to stop a valid discussion, not prohibit disruptive editing. See summary below. This is doubly inappropriate while there's an election running and the below issues might merit inclusion in that discussion too. |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=This block is trying to stop a valid discussion, not prohibit disruptive editing. See summary below. This is doubly inappropriate while there's an election running and the below issues might merit inclusion in that discussion too. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Here's my point, distilled to it's finest:

• Sometimes fair use images are necessary.
• Some people have an ideological commitment to a free-content-only encyclopedia.
• Sometimes images are being deleting at the EXPENSE of article quality. That is, sometimes legal images are being deleted and the result is a less informative article.
• For a vocal minority (or more) of editors, they are happy gain "ideological purity" at the expense of "educational quality"
• For readers, editors, and donors, they are not well served by this "ideological purity". They would prefer to keep "article quality'.
• I do not believe this extreme stance has true consensus of any group.
• I believe changes to the guidelines should be made to encourage 'rehabilitation' of images wherever feasible, recognizing that the 'burden of proof' to produce such a rationale can never be on those arguing for deletion, I nevertheless feel those arguing for deletion have a duty to their fellow editors to try to explain or rehabilitate the images if possible.
• I have proposed changed to the policy to clarify this.
• I am currently unable to discuss the subject pending a block. This is further troubling.. --Randomcommenter (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]