User talk:Neptunion

IP 128.83.131.122 -

OrgName: University of Texas at Austin OrgID: UTAA Address: ITS - Telecommunications and Networking Address: 1 University Station, C2900 City: Austin StateProv: TX PostalCode: 78705 Country: US

NetRange: 128.83.0.0 - 128.83.255.255 CIDR: 128.83.0.0/16 NetName: UTAUSTIN NetHandle: NET-128-83-0-0-1 Parent: NET-128-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Assignment NameServer: CHISOS.OTS.UTEXAS.EDU NameServer: CHINATI.OTS.UTEXAS.EDU NameServer: CS.UTEXAS.EDU NameServer: DNS2.CSO.UIUC.EDU NameServer: MARIANAS.ITS.UTEXAS.EDU Comment: RegDate: Updated: 2005-04-19

OrgTechHandle: ZU83-ARIN OrgTechName: Network Operations Center OrgTechPhone: +1-512-471-6387 OrgTechEmail: net-tech@its.utexas.edu

1. ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-02-06 19:10
2. Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

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. Rama's arrow 22:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ram, You left a warning on my page when clearly a group of editors are engaged in nothing more than reverting my edits, on strange grounds.Do I not have any freedom to contribute here.Neptunion 23:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you've only been here a week, I'll assume you aren't aware of how the three revert rule works. Unless you are reverting vandalism (which you were not doing; content disputes are not vandalism), if you revert the same article to the same state more than three times in a twenty four hour period, you will be blocked for 24 hours, regardless of the content of those reversions. It's a hard and fast rule that is applied pretty mercilessly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. Better read our definition of vandalism. You're in a content dispute. That's not vandalism. Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia...Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed mine is a good faith edit while those editors have knowingly subverted the articles.Please don't be judgemental before reading the edits and going an inch deeper Neptunion 23:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're still unclear as to the differences between good faith edits and vandalism. For one, good faith edits are those which can be rationally explained by the editor making the change; his reasons may be falsely held beliefs, or even patently demonstrable as outright falsehoods, but teh edit was made in the spirit of improving Wikipedia. A vandalous edit would be soemthing in which vulgarity is added, information is randomly removed (this is often referred to as 'blanking', when applied to a large quantity of text), or in which malicious changes are made. Seen in this light, redirecting Hindu fundamentalism to the larger article on Religious Fundamentalism, instead of one of the Right-Wing groups in India would be a Good Faith edit, especially since directly tying only ONE group in India to Hindu Fundamentalism makes numerous fallacious constructs, including:

• Ignoring any and all other right-wing indian groups IN India
• Ignoring any and all other Hindu Fundamentalist groups outside India
• Suggesting that the agenda of the group it linked to was ONLY Hinduism in it's reactionary ways, and not nationalistic or possessed of any other agendas.

As such, the edit in question is CLEARLY a Good Faith edit. Further reversions will almost certainly result in administrator intervention being unkind to you, which no one finds to be the optimal solution. I recommend that you go find somethign else to do for a few hours, cool off, then come back to Wikipedia, and try to see the recent edits in a better light, by assuming Good Faith and looking for better ways to improve these, and related, topics. Engaging in an edit war, however, will serve only to make other editors dig their heels in. I will be reposting the 'arguments' for the edits on the AN/I page as well. Thank You. ThuranX 03:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Neptunion, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hi, I read your messages on the administrator's noticeboard (disclosure: not an admin). You may want to click around some of the links above. In addition, you may want to read the useful essay on tendentious editing. If you want more eyes to offset a group of editors you think is trying to violate WP:NPOV, you may want to list the disputed articles on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. I hope this has been helpful. JChap2007 23:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]