User talk:Bbarnett/Archive1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Regarding your posts to C-17 Globemaster III, see my comment at Talk:C-17 Globemaster III Also, when you add a comment to a talk page please do it at the end and sign it (use 4 tildes) Wakemp 17:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

u r vandling page Khalidkhoso 15:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Cbrown1023 18:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[1] made on January 28 2007 to Muhammad

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 12:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recieved a warning about 3RR, and was told in that warning to use the talk pages before performing such revisions. I did so, formed consensus, and am now banned for performing an edit based upon that consensus. How is one to enforce consensus, if any time there is a revision issue, consensus is not taken into account?

Greetings, you may prefer to self-revert the fourth revert you've just performed on the Muhammad article rather than face another block for a 3RR vio, no? (→Netscott) 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather that the spirit of the talk page's consensus is carried out, than revert that edit. Brad Barnett 22:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but when you are reverting multiple times across multiple editors you are engaged in edit warring which is what WP:3RR is intended to help prevent. I suppose once you've been blocked a few times for 3RR you may find that such editing is not only not in the interest of the project but also not in your own interest. (→Netscott) 22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to change with Wikipedia. Some pages need to be edit locked, and go through a valid community wide call for vote to allow modifications. While the concept of open editing is great for 99.999% of the articles out there, articles such as this one and others are constantly NPOV edited. Worse, some people are simply unable to understand the idea of NPOV.. and when it comes to high tension articles like this one, the system breaks down. Again, I think an article like this should be edit locked, with a valid voting system and Wikipedia wide call for votes to made modifications. As for the 3RR rule, it breaks the spirit of what Wikipedia is about (NPOV) more than my 3RR does. :/

I've added a welcome message to your page here. It is clear that you'll need to educate yourself on Wikipedia norms if ever your intend to continue editing on the project. The attitude you've expressed earlier and also in this last message are very unharmonious with how things work around here. (→Netscott) 23:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I simply want the Wikipedia to become the best encyclopdia it can be. While the Wikipedia method is most adventageous for (as I said) almost all articles it presents, there are definitely some that are unable to keep NPOV alive for even a few minutes. Those articles would remain NPOV, if their revision was taken out of mainstream, yet still voted on democratically. The Wikipedia project clearly understands this, as there have been enhancements to the editing system purposed for just this reason.....

Once you are blocked (or even before) please do follow the above welcome links to pointers on how Wikipedia works. One of the big things about Wikipedia that you should know from the get go is that Wikipedia is not a democracy. (→Netscott) 23:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say Wikipedia is a democracy, I said that specific pages should be earmarked for revision restriction, and then voted on democratically. This is another change, in a long line of many changes, that will aid the Wikipedia in getting over this horrid issue of NPOV on "heated" articles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbarnett (talk • contribs)

Bbarnett, it indeed appears that you've violated WP:3RR. Unfortunately, it may be too late to self-revert, as another user has replaced this image with another. However, I think if you acknowledge your violation and pledge not to repeat it, it can't hurt.Proabivouac 23:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to make that pledge, for I can not truthfully state that I will abide by it. A pledge is not something I take lightly. Brad Barnett 23:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not pledge to abide by it, you will be blocked again. Such violations are reported on this page:[2]. There you will see how this system works - though enforcement is hardly consistent, yours is a straightfoward case, and the fact that you've just returned from a block may be held against you. If you wish to comment, that is the best place to do so.

It's simply practical to abide by the rules, and it makes everyone's life easier. In the medium term, the images issue will likely be decided through mediation, in which you are constructively participating (albeit perhaps a bit too aggressively, tonewise). If you are blocked, you will not be able to participate in that discussion.Proabivouac 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I prefer mediation, and am taking that route, current mediation on this subject has continued for 4+ months. It appears to be a dead end.

If you visit the page to which I directed you, you will see that I reported User:Aatif.haider, who was also blocked, for 24 hours instead of 48 because this was his first reported violation.

The mediation isn't at a standstill, but is behind schedule, because the first mediator had to leave Wikipedia, it's said, due to real-world threats.Proabivouac 08:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is at a standstill. It's been going on for 4 months, and seems to be dropped on the floor. What is required to act as mediator?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbarnett (talk • contribs)

It was dropped on the floor when User:Ars Scriptor left. I agree it should pick up now, and I hope it does. I'm sorry I can't say more.Proabivouac 05:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The duration of the block is 48 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Nishkid64 00:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bbarnett, I have blocked you for 1 week for 3RR violation with sockpuppets on Muhammad, and per your Talk page it seems you are a repeat offender. Please take this time off to review WP:3RR, WP:SOCK and our overall body of rules. If you'd like to remain here and edit productively, I suggest you try to adhere to these rules, as the alternative would be longer blocks or a total ban. I am convinced you have important contributions to make here, but please try to do so within the system, in a collaborative fashion. Thanks, Crum375 21:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove warning templates from your talk page. Thanks, eddie 07:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]