User talk:Editor7373

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Editor7373, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing advice[edit]

Instead of just edit warring, you should be attempting to establish consensus on the article talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. You're not going to get your way by repeatedly POV-pushing and edit-warring. Take it to the Talk page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider providing reference to videos of actual events "POV-pushing"? Isn't that simply childish "Name-calling" ;-) No "warring" is done here - adding links to additional information is providing useful information. Your repeated "Undo"s and deletions are what is defined as "edit-warring". If you cannot support edits with actual facts and verifiable information, you are just making statements and pushing your point of view. Let people see the evidence and decide if they believe it. Editor7373 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it what you are doing - you just reverted to a previous version deleting the additional references I provided to the readers? You are the one that should be blocked, NeilN, for that. Editor7373 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1, you have erased references to Voice of America and RT articles describing referendum in Crimea from the Annexation of Crimea article stating that a "state propaganda channel is not a reliable source..." Which one are you calling "a state propaganda channel" - VOA or RT ? ;-) Can you provide a better reference? Argumenti ad hominem and slanderous labels can be direct at anyone and anything but such verbal brawling is not constructive and retract from Wikipedia's incredible worldwide value. Deleting other peoples' work without adding anything is also an example of edit warring. Editor7373 (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the edit warring policy page (WP:EW), and note that "an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring'". Additionally — with only some very narrow exceptions which don't seem to apply here — edit warring is still edit warring even if you believe you are simply undoing someone else's edit warring. See the section of the edit warring policy entitled "What to do if you see edit-warring behavior". If editors cannot agree on an article's content, you need to pursue the accepted dispute resolution procedures (see WP:DR); edit warring is unacceptable (and can get you blocked) even if you are sure you are right and everyone else is wrong — and even if you really are right.

In response, Toddy1 is one of the editors who , along with NeilN and Kudzu1, repeatedly restored a previous version which they obviously prefer, i.e. the definition of "edit warring", albeit, collective. That they appear to be different editors (whether they are different online personalities of the same person, or different people working toward the same POV/goal) but the end-result is that the enriched new version is deleted and the same, identical, old version pushing corporate media POV is reinstalled. No new information was added, and useful information was removed, and the old "sanctioned" version reigns supreme. As to the "everyone else" comment - the 3-4 people involved here are quite a small number relative to the thousands, possibly, millions of people who have been able to see the cited links you seem to be so eager to delete, who DO now know the truth, but not via exposure to these Wikipedia articles. You can't hide the truth. Many believed the Earth was the center of the Universe, but you just had to look through Galileo's telescope to start thinking and learn it was otherwise. Editor7373 (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read the content guideline on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites (WP:YOUTUBE). YouTube videos can sometimes be used as sources, but we need to be very careful to make sure they meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Regarding the three YouTube videos which you repeatedly tried to add / re-add, one of them does not exist on YouTube anymore (it might have been removed by the uploader, or taken down as a copyright violation); the other two appear to be unauthorized uploadings of copyrighted material. It would probably be better in these cases to cite news articles (from highly respected sources) which quote Yanukovych and/or Nuland in text form. And while you might think that a video is obviously a better source because it is a primary source, Wikipedia's sourcing policies actually strongly prefer secondary sources; for an explanation of why this is so, read the "no original research" policy (WP:NOR), paying particular attention to the subsection on "primary, secondary and tertiary sources" (WP:PSTS).

Your current block could have been avoided if you had read / re-read the relevant policies and guidelines and engaged in discussion with other editors rather than repeatedly trying to impose what you were convinced was the obviously correct content. You can be unblocked and return to editing provided you make it clear that you understand the issues better now and that you're willing to abide by the rules — but if you persist in arguing that you're right and everyone else should be blocked instead, you're not going to get anywhere. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the references to Voice of America nor RT articles were Youtube videos, and both are quite respected around the world. But they also were removed three times, within minutes of posting, by the above-mentioned editors in the same wolfpack-like edit warring. THAT is allowed on Wikipedia... For the sake of the blanket and unsupported "staging a military intervention" statement Editor7373 (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for tendentious editing and acting as a revert-warring-only account. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: . However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Editor7373 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I provide additional information to the readers and references to videos which help them understand what happened. I do not make unsupported statements, let alone "edit warring" which is defined by Wikipedia as confrontational edits to win an argument which is what the NeilN and Kudzu1 editors who simply erase the references that I provide and replace them with blanket unsupported statements. Theirs and your actions are blocking readers' access to information about the events that transpired.

Decline reason:

You are edit warring; this alone is not acceptable. Here's more from the definition of edit warring: an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable. And that's what you were doing, and that's why you were blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.