User talk:Elstong

Welcome!

Hello, Elstong, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attack? You are the one making personal attacks. Elstong (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ThaddeusB (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you refrain from editing articles that you have a strong personal opinion about in the future. Both your edits and edit summaries were ~~extremely~~ biased and ~~completely~~ inappropriate. ~~If you return to make the same kind of edits in the future, the next block will be indefinite.~~ --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong personal opinion on Jewish code words. I think that the article does not match the source, as I explained on the Talk page. Elstong (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I was removing a false and defamatory allegation from a biography of a living person. The allegation had a source, but it misstated the source. I explained my concerns on the Talk page. No one answered me on the Talk page, but reverted my edits anyway. My block cited "personal attacks & disruptive editing". All I did was to make edits that conformed to what the source actually said.}} Elstong (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

After further thought about this, I probably acted too hastily. Just about every edit made by this account has been problematic, but I can see how they were intended to be good faith. Further explanation and/or warnings should have been given before I considered a block and I apologize for not doing so.

Request handled by: ThaddeusB (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I will let another admin review this (and won't object to whatever conclusion they reach), but I think at minimum you need to amend your request to address the personal attacks. Edit summaries like "remove inappropriate abuse from KillerChihuahua" most certainly are personal attacks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? No they aren't, any more than templating someone in the first place is. There might be other reasons to block this editor, but I don't anything that rises to the level of a personal attack. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not quite convinced to the point that I will removed the unblock outright, I am considering the following things as I read this RFU... First, this editor has made very few edits and has yet to learn the way a lot of things work here. Second, He was given a single warning before being blocked for a week when all I can find are two truly questionable edits he's made. Third, requests he made on the article talk page and his own talk page for the opposing party to explain their point of view went unanswered. I think that the block is sketchy at best, and the length of the block is extremely unreasonable. Trusilver 01:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are in error. He was given two warnings, and his concerns had been disputed and the rationale explained before I ever arrived. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 10:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, he made this edit in which he said, in both edit summary and content: "KillerChihuahua, please stop inserting false, defamatory, and anti-Jewish allegations". IMO, that's calling me antisemitic. I don't need to tell you how I feel about that. All of his edits have been to label someone "jew" or, after protest, "antisemite" or to remove sourced content, which he complained about on the article talk page did not match the source, and he was answered there. In addition, I was "inserting" nothing. I was reverting, as had another editor, Elstong's removal of the sourced content. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed entirely the "anti-Jewish" comment. Oops. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nods, thought you might have. That was the edit which prompted the NPA warning. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 03:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that. I never said you were wrong in what you said or did, but a one week block for disruption in light of what amounts to two hot heads and a misunderstanding is more than a little unreasonable. With an acknowledgment of his errors and stating an intent to not let it happen again, I would unblock this editor. This strikes me as a user that has good intentions but doesn't do such a good job in expressing them in a useful manner. I have seen a lot of such editors turn into productive members. Trusilver 02:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two hot heads? Indeed. One biased POV pushing SPA edit warrior and one admin of over five years experience. Please explain where I have erred. This is Dinkytown painstakingly explaining why Elstong's edit was reverted the first time, by Dinkytown. If you are not calling me a hothead, perhaps you are accusing Dinkytown? I await eagerly your explantion of who, precisely, the "two hotheads" might be. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Phyllis Schlafly. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post block

If I made some error, then why can't someone explain it to me on the Talk page? I am not pushing a POV.

I edited an inflammatory sentence about a Jewish issue in the Schlafly biography page. I think that the sentence is anti-Jewish, but you may have your own opinion. Maybe you think the sentence is pro-Jewish. Either way, the sentence is contrary to WP BLP policy and must be removed immediately, unless it is reliably sourced.

The source is a paragraph in a NY Times book review by a Jewish columnist. Schlafly did not write the book in question, and Schlafly is not Jewish. The book is not about Jews. The paragraph is not backed up by anything. The paragraph is partially explained by the fact that columnist is Jewish and likes to write about Jewish issues. The paragraph is a criticism of the book, and not a criticism of Schlafly.

I think that the sentence is too unsupported and too far removed and too strange to even be included in an article about Schlafly. But if it is going to be there, then it should stick to what the NY Times columnist said. I believe that the sentence in dispute implies something about Schlafly that is not stated in the NY Times book review. That is what I argued on the Talk page, and no one rebutted that argument.

Blocking me is just a way to put a false and defamatory allegation about a living person in a WP article. It is wrong, and those who put this Jew-related allegation in should be blocked, not me. Elstong (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't get blocked for your edits, so far as I know, but for your personal attack against me. Please note that when Dinkytown reverted your edit the first time, he took the time to post This on the talk page. Keep the discussion about content there. Note that Wikipedia works by consensus, and the onus is on you as the one desiring the change to convince others. Your edits have been reverted by at least three different editors so far, and no one supports your very original interpretation. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given for blocking me was "disruptive editing and personal attacks." So yes, I was blocked for my edits. I did not make any personal attack on you or anyone else, except to criticize your edit. No one has addressed my comments on the Talk page. The opinion of three editors does not justify inserting false and defamatory allegations about Jewish code words in a BLP. Elstong (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were blocked for both. On the disruptive side, you repeatedly made the same basic edit which was reverted by multiple different users. You continued to make that edit after a detailed explanation as to why it was wrong was given (said explanation was not on your talk page, but that is irrelevant.) You kept occasionally making the same basic edits over a long period of time (months) without editing any other article. Therefore it was perfectly reasonable to assume you were here only to push your POV on that one specific article. I acted hastily in that you hadn't been sufficiently warned, but the edits themselves remain problematic.

As far as person attacks go, it was your edit summaries that were the problem. Writing things like "remove inappropriate abuse from KillerChihuahua", "remove false jewish comment by KillerChihuahua", and "KillerChihuahua, please stop inserting false, defamatory, and anti-Jewish allegations" is not appropriate. While none of these is "over-the-top inappropriate", considering collectively you have accused one user of being being antisemitic, abusive, and falsifing sources. Those are some pretty serious accusations for which your only evidence was a revert of your inappropriate edit which added your personal opinion to the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse KillerChihuahua of being anti-semitic. I have no idea whether he is or not. I do say that his edits are inaccurate, that they do not match his sources, and that he introduced an inflammatory anti-Jewish issue into the article. In plain english, I think that his edit is wrong, and I explained why on the Talk page. I was criticizing his edits, not him. I also did not like the way he reverted my edits without explanation and without addressing my comments. I am not pushing a POV, but just making sure the article matches the source. Elstong (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, I didn't make that edit; I didn't "introduce" a damn thing. Your edit was reverted by Dinkytown, then me, then an IP. Your desired edit has been soundly rejected. Trying to pretend that isn't the case, and that I "added" something instead of preventing your POV pushing is not only nonsense, its false witness - which I think your mommy might object to you doing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing multiple accounts

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment intended for Schlafly page

I received a 7-day block for my previous comments, and now an indefinite block. Here is a comment that I intended for the Schlafly talk page.

I believe that the Phyllis Schlafly article falsely maligns Schlafly by misinterpreting a NY Times book review.

The article implies that Schlafly opposed Nixon over "segregation and discrimination", while the source only says that she was with conservatives who were going to oppose whatever Rockefeller proposed.
The article relies on a Jewish NY Times columnist raising a Jewish issue, without mentioning that the columnist is a Jew who writes about Jewish issues, and that no one else raises this Jewish issue.
The article implies that Schlafly used Jewish code words, while the source does not explicitly say so. All the source really says is that her opinion is that the biography should have commented on the matter further.

The WP BLP policy requires that these false allegations be removed. Elstong (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, you're lying, again. The source specifically states "segregation and discrimination", see page two. The other complaints you list have been answered already by Dinkytown. BLP does not say we have to match a son's opinion of his mommy in order to be neutral, and you calling something well sourced "false" doesn't magically make it so. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 09:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]