User talk:Johnson1945

Your edits[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Angus Robertson. 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 24 hours, for Edit-warring at Angus Robertson. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you try some of the suggestions at WP:DISPUTE for determining whether the best version of this article would include this information or not. I'll be watching the article, and I expect that the next change made will be one which has clear consensus on the talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I should be blocked because I was trying to discuss it with the guy and he kept just deleting it because he has a political agenda.

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).

Johnson1945 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't think I should be blocked because I was trying to discuss it with the guy and he kept just deleting it because he has a political agenda.

Decline reason:

It really doesn't matter why you were edit warring. The point is that edit warring is not welcome, no matter what the reason. The only exemption is blatant vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2010 (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.

Have you read his talk page? He's saying precisely the same thing about you. When your two blocks expire, the version of the article will be the one that has consensus - not the one written by whoever managed to fight off sleep and keep reverting longer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is just saying that because he is an SNP supporter and he want's one rule applied to every other politician and another for those he supports. Angus Robertson is prominant politician at Westminster, every other prominent politician has information about their expenses on their articles. I fail to see why SNP politicians should be excluded.

Besides, I was trying to discuss it with him, I made my point in the discussion page, I proved that expenses information was in the articles of the majority of prominent UK politicians. So is this wrong? How can it be right that it be removed from this article but kept in the articles of all of the rest? That is deeply unfair.Johnson1945 (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't think I'm going to discuss the actual dispute with you; I live on a different continent and could not possibly care less about some UK MP's expenses. I'm sure that those of you who are interested will discuss it like reasonable adults, or use some of the suggestions at WP:DISPUTE, when your blocks expire tomorrow. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that and I accept this is irrelevant to you, really I do. I was just explaining this since he seems to have insidiously claimed that the addition of information which was reported prominently in the media is politically motivated where as I think the removal of said information is in fact politically motivated. Anyway I just wanted to tell you that so you are exposed to both sides of the argument rather than one.Johnson1945 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would ask you to read what AngusMaclennan said in the discussion page of the article, he cited as reason for its removal that rivals to Angus Robertson's party, all of these rivals are from the same party, all have corruption stories related to them in the media. Such as Steven Purcell, Baron Foulkes and Jim Devine, these are all Labour politicians he cited whilst defending this SNP politician.

Regardless of this we have the 3RR rule that forbids an editor to revert more then 3x on a articular page in the timespan of a day except for vandalism - which does not apply in this case as we are talking about a content dispute. Both of you kept reverting each other over and over, and both of you are blocked for this exact reason. Establish consensus on the talk page and THEN edit the article. It does not matter if your preferred version remains on top as that will likely change after the discussion anyway. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]