User talk:LrdSothe
LrdSothe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please read the edits I was making to the article in question
Decline reason:
The correctness, neutrality, or other legitimacy of an edit's content does not obviate adherence to the three revert rule or the prohibitions against edit-warring (except in the case of a few explicit exceptions, see WP:3RR - and just to cut ahead a bit in case this is going to come up, no, others' edits that you feel are POV are not vandalism) - Vianello (Talk) 00:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
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.
While those complaining repeatedly used keywords that they knew would get your attention, they are patently false. My edits were neutral, and presented citations where I could find them. My goal was to remove the propaganda and lopsided presentation of the article, which I feel I was well on the way to doing. I believe that the admin who blocked me didn't take the time to read the edits I was making.
If Wikipedia isn't willing to support the editing of articles to a more neutral perspective, though you claim this as a standard, then I'll discontinue wasting my time in attempting to present more balanced content. The edits I was making removed tons of opinion, propaganda, and unsupported claims.
An example: Activity by labor unions in the United States today centers on collective bargaining over wages, benefits, and working conditions for their membership and on representing their members if management attempts to violate contract provisions.
This is a biased presentation, implying that the union is only involved if "management attempts to violate contract provisions." I edited this to a more neutral wording as follows:
Activity by labor unions in the United States today centers on collective bargaining over wages, benefits, and working conditions for their membership and on representing their members in disputes against the company or its management over contract provisions.(Side note, I see grammatical errors here that I should have corrected)
I believe any neutral observer can see that my edits are adding balance to what is currently nothing more than a flier for pro-union activism.
- Your block has nothing to do with the content of your edits. Please read our policy on edit warring. The block has to do with your behavior. Reverting to your version on any article more than 3 times in 24 hours leads to such a block. See also our dispute resolution processes, that explains what to do when other editors disagree with you. (Hint: discuss on the article talk page). Yworo (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding here, but it seems as if you're saying that the content of my edits wasn't the issue here. If this is the case, wouldn't it be the behavior of those who continuously reverted to their propaganda be addressed, rather than my actions in removing their edit warring? Rather than engage them in what anyone should be able to see was inflammatory dialogue, I instead chose to simply continue removing their propaganda while continuing in my effort to present a more neutral article.LrdSothe (talk)
- I apologize. I should have been much clearer in my block statement. When there is substantial disagreement over an article, repeatedly reverting to your version is edit warring and prevents the problem from being resolved. By my count, you have done so six times in the last day and made no effort to discuss it on the talk page. Six reverts is well above our "bright line" of the three revert rule. Additionally, though the current article has many problems (and I have suggested some changes on the talk page) and lacking a neutral point of view is one of them, replacing one point of view with your point of view is not acceptable either. You may believe that unions have ruined manufacturing in the United States, but that is your opinion, not something to be stated as fact in an article. When your block expires, please discuss ways that the article can be improved on the talk page and make sure that anything you add is neutral, well-sourced, and conforms to our manual of style. --B (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Again, when it is clear that I am the one adding neutral edits(IE, I did go back and change language from my own previous edits in an attempt to be more neutral), and the two who kept reverting attempted absolutely nothing in that regard, I fail to see where I am the one who should be sanctioned. Is the end lesson here that propaganda will continue to be presented as fact if two or more users can gang up on a single user who is trying to present more factual, neutral information? I believe I successfully removed anything in my final edits that could be construed as my personal point of view. If not, please point out to me where this isn't the case. Further, please explain how, even if my opinion did get past me and into the article, it is acceptable for the end result to be basically nothing more than a brochure for pro-socialism, pro-union talking points...?LrdSothe (talk)
- Edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, regardless of the contents of your edits, will get you blocked. Period. Regarding neutrality, this is absolutely not neutral, nor appropriate for a Wikipedia article: "Rather than working hard, going to school, and gaining a skill that was marketable and in demand, all one needed to do was enter a union and survive the probation period to make far above market wage for their position." This is an editorial opinion. It's not appropriate here. If you continue reverting to your version or adding biased content to Wikipedia articles, you're not going to last long on Wikipedia. --B (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Astonishing, this article as nothing but an opinion piece. You even edited parts of it yourself because of how skewed it is. If I can cite sources that show exactly what I said above in your quote, is it then acceptable? That is the philosophy of the unions, and not at all my personal opinion on the topic.
- You don't solve a problem with an article by making it worse. I'm not interested in arguing with you over the value of this edit - it's clearly inappropriate. Adding inappropriate content to articles and revert warring are two ways to get blocked - you did both. I'm not going to argue that there's a strong liberal institutional bias in Wikipedia. But bias needs to be fixed by making it neutral, not by replacing it with more bias. --B (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Astonishing, this article as nothing but an opinion piece. You even edited parts of it yourself because of how skewed it is. If I can cite sources that show exactly what I said above in your quote, is it then acceptable? That is the philosophy of the unions, and not at all my personal opinion on the topic.
- Edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, regardless of the contents of your edits, will get you blocked. Period. Regarding neutrality, this is absolutely not neutral, nor appropriate for a Wikipedia article: "Rather than working hard, going to school, and gaining a skill that was marketable and in demand, all one needed to do was enter a union and survive the probation period to make far above market wage for their position." This is an editorial opinion. It's not appropriate here. If you continue reverting to your version or adding biased content to Wikipedia articles, you're not going to last long on Wikipedia. --B (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Again, when it is clear that I am the one adding neutral edits(IE, I did go back and change language from my own previous edits in an attempt to be more neutral), and the two who kept reverting attempted absolutely nothing in that regard, I fail to see where I am the one who should be sanctioned. Is the end lesson here that propaganda will continue to be presented as fact if two or more users can gang up on a single user who is trying to present more factual, neutral information? I believe I successfully removed anything in my final edits that could be construed as my personal point of view. If not, please point out to me where this isn't the case. Further, please explain how, even if my opinion did get past me and into the article, it is acceptable for the end result to be basically nothing more than a brochure for pro-socialism, pro-union talking points...?LrdSothe (talk)
- I apologize. I should have been much clearer in my block statement. When there is substantial disagreement over an article, repeatedly reverting to your version is edit warring and prevents the problem from being resolved. By my count, you have done so six times in the last day and made no effort to discuss it on the talk page. Six reverts is well above our "bright line" of the three revert rule. Additionally, though the current article has many problems (and I have suggested some changes on the talk page) and lacking a neutral point of view is one of them, replacing one point of view with your point of view is not acceptable either. You may believe that unions have ruined manufacturing in the United States, but that is your opinion, not something to be stated as fact in an article. When your block expires, please discuss ways that the article can be improved on the talk page and make sure that anything you add is neutral, well-sourced, and conforms to our manual of style. --B (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding here, but it seems as if you're saying that the content of my edits wasn't the issue here. If this is the case, wouldn't it be the behavior of those who continuously reverted to their propaganda be addressed, rather than my actions in removing their edit warring? Rather than engage them in what anyone should be able to see was inflammatory dialogue, I instead chose to simply continue removing their propaganda while continuing in my effort to present a more neutral article.LrdSothe (talk)
Blocked[edit]
I have blocked your account for 48 hours. Wikipedia is not a website for your personal essays about labor unions. If you wish to appeal the block, you may use the {{unblock}} template. In the mean time, please read the neutral point of view policy as well as the five pillars. --B (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)