User talk:Yqbd: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:00, 3 August 2007

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 20:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent design

I've blocked you for 12 hours for going over the three revert rule on Intelligent design . JoshuaZ 17:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I could use a break. --Yqbd 18:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

I have blocked you for 24 hours for your recent edits to the intelligent design talk page, this edit in particular. Raul654 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 aug 2007

Your recent editing history at talk:Intelligent Design shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ornis (t) 04:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have now made seven reverts to Talk:Intelligent design, accusing multiple editors of vandalism. This is a serious accusation and a violation of WP:AGF. Please curb your behaviour or you may be banned or blocked from editing. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 05:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eight by my count. ornis (t) 05:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nine. ornis (t) 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you don't think it's obvious. I'd like to know your opinion on the actions of ornis, Filll, and Kenosis removing discussions while you're at it and what you plan on doing about it. --Yqbd 05:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yqbd has implemented at least eight reverts by my count, all on exactly the same ussue: here. here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. All of these directly involved a very substantial mass of presently irrelevant argument about the notion of "peer review" of intelligent design in the scientific community, already extensively consensused and extensively discussed in the article. Offhand, I'd say this is more than beyond the WP:3RR limit. Enough already, please. No need to go through administrative channels, I sincerely hope. Take care. ... Kenosis 05:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your opinions. I'll have to disagree with you and we're back to square 1. --Yqbd 05:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor you have accused of vandalism, plus myself and I think JoshuaZ, seems to think that the style, size and content of that particular section of yours is not appropriate for the Talk page and would be better removed to a subpage. Now, if you were engaged in a dispute with just one other editor, you would have a very good case for saying that they were acting inappropriately, and arguably vandalising the Talk page, by moving (not removing, note) material to a subpage. I known you know this, since you yourself were recently blocked for modifying comments by other editors that were critical of this very section. But when one editor insists that their debate must be carried on in their own way, and repeatedly reverts edits made by multiple other editors - when no other editor supports your actions or your accusations of vandalism, then you need to take a long hard look and ask yourself if it isn't you who is being disruptive to the proper functioning of wikipedia. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 05:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, I question their assertions in a efficient, organized, and easy way. They are free to respond to questions however they want they want. --Yqbd 05:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But every other editor disagrees with your opinion. Where does that leave us, given that wikipedia works by consensus? Or don't you care what other editors think? Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 05:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked them questions of what they think and I'm waiting for their response. Looks like they're the ones not responding or caring what other editors think. It's up to the authorities of this place in the end or the majority with the most time. --Yqbd 06:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olive branch

This is just a little note to say that I hope you can find a way to discuss subjects such as Intelligent Design constructively with other editors. I know that most of the editors on that page can come across as having very little patience. This is in part because of their past experiences with particularly uncompromising and zealous editors. I'm afraid that the style in which you attempted to discuss your proposed changes was interpreted as disruptive by some of the regular editors - I think simply because of the amount of space it took up.

A Wikipedia Talk page isn't a courtroom or a soapbox. It's a place where, to be truly successful and productive, you need to make your arguments as concise, polite, and constructive as possible. It is also invaluable to read, and attempt to take on-board, the core wikipedia principles, in particular those covering neutral point of view and verifiability.

I hope this helps. Wikipedia benefits from every editor who volunteers to help in good faith. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 04:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Talk:Intelligent Design. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

This is the third block in as many days - I seriously considered making this an indefinite block. Stop disrupting this article right now or you will lose your editing privileges permanently. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 I hope this helps. Wikipedia benefits from every editor who volunteers to help in good faith. <font color="006622">[[User:SheffieldSteel|Sheffield&nbsp;Steel]]</font><sup>[[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|talkers]]</sup><sub>[[Special:contributions/SheffieldSteel|stalkers]]</sub> 04:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
+== Blocked  ==
+<div style="padding:5px; border:1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#FEC;" class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]]  You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{time|}}}|a period of '''{{{time}}}'''|a short time}} in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for violating the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]] {{{{{subst|}}}#if:Talk:Intelligent Design|at [[:Talk:Intelligent Design]]}}. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] rather than engaging in an [[WP:EW|edit war]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{sig|}}}|[[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 07:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block -->
+This is the third block in as many days - I seriously considered making this an indefinite block. Stop disrupting this article right now or you will lose your editing privileges permanently. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 07:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)