This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoRight (talk | contribs) at 20:55, 12 November 2007 (→wp:3rr again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

An Inconvenient Truth

Elhector has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wow, that talk page is a warzone :-P Elhector 23:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Hi GoRight! As far as I can tell, you have either already violated Misplaced Pages's 3 revert rule, or are very close to a violation on An Inconvenient Truth. The rule is intended to limit unproductive reversions by restricting editors to no more than 3 reverts per article per 24 hours, where a "revert" is defined broadly as any edit that at least partially undoes another editors work. In particular, a revert for this rule does not have to restore an older version, and reverts that undo different edits still count towards the limit. If you did not already do so, please read this rule and abide by it - preferably in letter and in spirit. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You've made at least 4 reverts in the past few hours (, , , , and a partial revert here which undid part of the prior edit). You express familiarity with WP:3RR here. It should be clear that there is no consensus supporting your proposed changes; please discuss them on the talk page after the block expires rather than continuing to reinsert them. MastCell 22:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I do not believe that my edits constitute reverts in the sense intended by WP:3RR. In each case I actively provided commentary in the discussion page concerning my rational for the changes thus demonstrating my willingness to cooperate with the community. Also, a close inspection of my edits will reveal that I was, in fact, making alternate wordings in an attempt to accommodate the views of others while still presenting the material I feel was relevant to the article. In addition, all of my material was clearly sourced and as such should be allowed in the article. If my interpretation above is incorrect, please clarify what actually constitutes a revert under WP:3R. Does changing the wording to accommodate the views of other editors also constitute a reversion? Is merely touching a given section of text considered a revert? For example, the item you list as a partial revert is did not restore any of the original content at all but was merely a new edit.

Decline reason:

The idea behind 3RR is to prevent people from repeated edits that make the same point or convey the same information. I have reviewed your edits and you repeatedly inserted references to anthropogenic leanings. Please be more careful and if you find yourself inserting or deleting similar language repeatedly, go to the talk page and discuss it there first.

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.

-- But|seriously|folks  05:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Zen Garden Award

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		I award this to GoRight for the infinite patience he has shown while attempting to improve the An Inconvenient Truth article and also for having to deal with the above ban because of his efforts. Elhector 23:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You can move this award to your main user page or wherever else you like :-) Elhector 23:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I haven't given up on the AIT page but have been focusing on other topics for a while. --GoRight 01:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Smoke and some sort of fire

There are traces of Singer's fire which others aren't willing to examine. I'm not in a hurry so it will take several days for the address of the info to reach me, then I'll probably have the search space reduced by 98%. (SEWilco 03:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC))

wp:3rr again

looks like you close to breaking the rule again if you not done so already so watch it on the article An Inconvenient TruthOo7565 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have been careful about which sections I am touching. I am done for now anyway. --GoRight 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, a second look on my part indicated that I had erred so I self-reverted. --GoRight 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may... it seems there's an ongoing problem here. It was good of you to self-revert, but the underlying issue appears to be that you're making changes without consensus and thus being reverted by a number of different users. The point of WP:3RR is not to wait for 24 hours to expire and then keep going; it's to discuss these changes on the talk page before repeatedly re-inserting them. You will find peope willing to engage in dialog; if you hit a roadblock, you can always ask for a third opinion, request for comment, or mediation. But please consider holding off on repeatedly reverting without gaining some sort of consensus for your proposed changes, which appear quite controversial. MastCell 20:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, however there are frequently some users who simply refuse to acknowledge valid points and thus use the discussion pages as a means of stonewalling any changes. If you actually take the time to read my comments on AIT I do try to compromise. I do attempt alternatives. But if even one user is determined not to let my change in I am totally blocked, and unfairly so.

I am following the rules. I am providing valid references from legitimate sources. Now given the subject matter sure there are people who won't agree with my perspective, in some cases you even seem to be one given your comment above. This is fine. We worked through the Singer page updates, right? But I had my comment on the WP:BLP/N regarding the Newsweek source for quite some time before I made my changes to force some action. I think that I would still be waiting for a reply on that point if I had not "boldly made the changes". How am I supposed to know that consensus has been reached when I get stonewalling silence in return to my points on the talk pages?

You were adamant that the Newsweek and Monbiot quotes were properly source and thus should not be deleted. No consensus had been reached there. I had not agreed. So now let us consider the edit that I self reverted. It has been discussed days ago. I have outstanding commentary in the talk page. The quote is from a notable commentator on Fox News. I was respecting the previous complaints of undue weight by replacing the AAAS quote (which was my addition in the first place) as well as a previous complaint regarding the AAAS article requiring a (free) subscription to read.

But after a couple of days of discussion and with other users supporting me my change is still stonewalled off the page with you talking about I need to reach consensus like I never even tried to do so. In my interaction with you you simply reverted my edits without so much as a howdy and I didn't feel we had a consensus over on the WP:BLP page. You simply instituted your favored option, but somehow I am at fault for doing the same? Will you now argue as fervently that properly attributed criticism should be allowed in on the AIT page as you did on the Singer page?

The quote itself should not even be that controversial. The only reason they object is because it is from someone they don't like. It is being censored not because it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion but because they don't like the person who wrote it. Do I get that same veto power? No. So why do they?

I have a real problem with the way RealClimate is being used in this context. It is like wikipedia is their personal soapbox which allows them to use their scientific credentials to vanquish dissent on anything GW related, even on things that are NOT related to the science involved like their speculating on the ExxonMobil funding. They have no more credibility to speak about what funding arrangements ExxonMobil had with NSTA that the man in the moon. Yet they are climate scientists so we must all bow before them? I don't think so.

As you are no doubt aware (since you seem to be "watching" over me) I have taken that particular case to WP:BLP. Is this not exactly what you are suggesting? Getting independent help on the issue? Am I being beligerent in this respect? No. Go read my post there. I make it quite clear that I don't want to take sides and I don't want to single any specific group out, but that I have some concerns and here are some real world examples. Go read William Connolley's page and my discussion there. There may be a pointy stick or two but the substantive parts are very reasonable and well intentioned as I discuss there.

If I sound like I am venting it is because I am. Don't take it as an attack. I appreciate your taking the time to offer advice.

--GoRight 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)