User talk:Mtngoat63

September 2008

You seem to be edit warring across the encyclopedia on Saul Alinsky-related topics, which seems to be the sole purpose of this account on Wikipedia. In particular, you have added and reverted the poorly sourced a number of times[1][2][3][4] that The Obama Nation covers the POV claim (popular now among the conservative blogosphere) of Barack Obama's indirect ties to Alinsky. Please note the general community probation on articles relating to Barack Obama (notice to follow), and desist from edit warring on Obama-related articles. If you do not you may be temporarily blocked from editing the encyclopedia to avoid disruption. Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, The Obama Nation, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

I did not think my adding of a line in the book contents section dealing with the book's covering that Obama was a community organizer in South Chicago and how Obama got the job by being hired by an Alinsky disciple, Gerald Kellman, was out of line and I did not think it was poorly sourced and thus you should not have removed it in the first place, thus starting what you are now calling edit warring on my part. Some of the anti-Obama Nation comments in other parts of the article are far worse and weaker sourced. Thus I put it back not knowing I would be accused of starting warring. Then you took it out again. And I put it back and I found stronger sources as to the books content which is asserting links to the Alinsky schools of South Chicago right within the book itself which I posted. Since the book is about Obama, I thought it was totally fair to add the line into the content paragraph of the article. I did not spew any far right venom. This book like all books deserve a fair hearing. However, as the article is now, I personally think this article about the book Obama Nation is totally biased against the book and smears Dr. Corsi. It seems that moderate or conservative comments about the book are not welcome in this article. And the probation issue is being used to silence any moderate or conservative input. The article is about a book about Obama. Assertions to major points made in the book by Dr. Corsi should be displayed. Links between Alinsky school and organizser and Obama are extensively covered in Corsi's book. As should be the Obama responses be covered, which are there in droves and have been left there linked to in full.

As to you giving me a formal warning for edit warring, I am new to all this and I am disappointed that you have elected to put me on the warning list. I think you started it not I. My initial post was an accurate portrayal of what is reported in the book's content. I personally feel you did the repeated delete and then the edit warring warning that to intimidate me. Yes I do have a major interest in Alinsky. But, I think my postings in Wikipedia about Alinsky have been very fair and objective and I have greatly improved the article on this great contributor to the field of organizing and the pioneer of community organizing. I think Alinsky would be proud of what Obama has achieved. I think you have unfairly pounced on me about my work on Alinsky and my pointing out in the Content section of this article, that the book Obama Nation discusses extensively links between Obama and the Alinsky school and Alinsky trained organizers of South Chicago. I simply added a short line paraphrasing that into the 'content paragraph' of the article from the book that Dr. Corsi discusses in depth the affiliation by Obama with Alinsky schools and methods in South Chicago and how Obama got his job there as a community organizer. I ask that you remove me from the warning list as I think I was unfairly put there. Thank you. This is my first try at the signing icon. I hope I am doing that correctly too. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a case for including it the article talk page is the best place. Per the terms of article probation, which more or less follow WP:BRD, if a proposed addition of material is disputed you should leave it out while you seek consensus on the article talk page rather than edit warring to try to get it into the article. We are all on notice that the article is on probation and you will see that most repeat editors of the article are on the list. The templated message simply confirms that you know. Wikidemon (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did more than just let me know. You said my addition of a sentence about another major piece of Content in Dr. Corsi's book was poorly source. The source was an article in the Washington Post. Many other anti-book, anti-Corsi source references in this article are to newspaper articles such as the New York Times and the Boston Globe. You have not removed any of those as poorly sourced. This article is basically devoid of any positive newspaper reviews and article about this book. It is filled with references and links to hit pieces on the book and Dr. Corsi. The article is very unbalanced as it is now. By putting it on "probation" you have effectively frozen the piece as a totally anti-"The Obama Nation" book and allow a smear of Dr. Corsi to be perpetuated. This article needs balance added of positive reviews of the book. And what you have done is put me and probably others on the warning list for attempting to do so, in my case for simply adding a line about a major content subject of the book. You did not just tell me about the probation (protection of the article in its current state, imo) but you also slapped me on the warning list and threaten to ban me from posting on Wikipedia. Again, I believe that was meant to intimidate me. This article is dramatically biased against the book as it stands now and is not a fair discussion of the pro reviews of the book. It just has the cons. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SineBot. I just tried the signing icon and it worked. Here goes again. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions and sources

Material sourced to postings on 3rd party personal websites is not suitable for an evaluation of an authors work, in either an article about the work, or about the author. Especially not the author--re Robert Greene. See WP:RS and WP:BLP. Please do not reinsert it. DGG (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So noted. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama article probation

You persist[5] desipte repeated requests that you desist from making personal attacks (WP:NPA), unfounded accusations (WP:CIVIL), and assumptions of bad faith (WP:AGF), particularly in articles covered by the Barack Obama article probation (see above notice). I have closed the discussion in question. Editors have suggested that you review Wikipedia's policies on content and behavior. Please do not further edit Wikipedia in a disruptive way. Wikidemon (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deny all your charges as trumped up exaggerations. And you yourself made an assumption of bad faith (WP:AGF) towards me in your very first message to me in this when you deleted my addition of one factual sentence to the article, and all threads about the simple attempt to add one sentence to the CONTENT section of the article about the book. That was hardly good faith and a welcome to me as a new editor to the Obama Nation book article. You are not neutral and objective in this. You are engaging in transference or engaging in tactics to discredit me. A classic Alinsky tactic. Oh well, alls well that ends well. As Alinsky said, the ends justify the means. Enjoy your means. And please stop the threats towards me. (WP:NPA) Have a good day. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to The Obama Nation, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Good Damon 23:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too. And so noted. See these links. (WP:AGF) --Mtngoat63 (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and edit warring

You continue to make accusations, personal attacks, edit war, etc. This edit was not in good faith you are basically declaring that you have a personal battle with other editors.[6] Stop now or an administrator reviewing the matter may block your account from further editing the encyclopedia. Wikidemon (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

stop now - this edit[7] is edit warring poorly sourced information into the encyclopedia, and the accusaitons of edit warring and vandalism are a personal attack. Please desist.

Seriously, read WP:RS and WP:V now. You are risking being blocked from editing with your continuous and persistent attempts to introduce poorly-sourced material to Wikipedia. It honestly doesn't matter what you or I think of the sources you are using; they violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Good Damon 01:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I report

This is a courtesy notice. I have reported your recent edits here. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Saul Alinsky, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. This has officially become vandalism. You are seriously trying to argue that a blogspot page is a reliable source, and have refused to read any of the official Wikipedia policies and procedures associated with content. --Good Damon 02:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have also violated WP:3RR - I am filing a report presently. You should probably self-revert your latest changes, although I cannot promise you at this point that this would avoid your being blocked. Wikidemon (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Saul Alinsky. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Good Damon 02:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Saul Alinsky. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Again, deliberate introduction of poor sources such as blogspot -- and this should go without saying -- qualifies as vandalism. You get 1 more warning --Good Damon 02:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Gerald Kellman is a student of Alinsky should not be in dispute. He organized the Developing Communities Project of South Chicago, a noted community organizing project founded and using Alinsky methods of community organizing of churches for political action. Looks like I fell into the trap you and WikiDemon (as Wikipedia pros) set for me as a newbie to this and thus I got placed on a temporary block as a result of the activities you two started on the Saul Alinsky article after our disagreement on the Obama Nation book page when I tried to add one simple sentence to the CONTENT section about Gerald Kellman hiring Obama as a community organizer in South Chicago. That is a major content discussion in the book. I got to give you credit though. You and WikiDemon did a good job building a negative case file all over the Wiki records to build your case against me personally for my postings by "personalizing the argument as making me the problems" and making me the target instead of the facts of my two proposals for the Obama Nation page. Personalizing the "enemy" is a classic Alinsky tactic. And Wikimond and then you later did an excellent job of personalizing the debate, building a negative Wiki case file on me, and ignoring the factual accuracy of my postings. Deleting all my entry for having one weaker reference was your tactic. Wiki now says that you violated Wiki rules doing that. The Wikipedia referee has since stated in your talk page that the Washington Post IS a reliable source in their opinion. So you should not have deleted my sentence in the Obama Nation page nor the Gerald Kellman name and paragraph of his hiring Obama in the Alinsky page. Since I used that reference in both cases. But reading your personal talk page it looks like your reasons for making wholesale deletions on the Saul Alinksy article were not accepted by Wiki either when you appealed your beling blocked. I think it was clear who was doing the vandalizing on the Alinsky page. Your deletion of entire blocks of writings using one unreliable source as justification as to the prominence of Gerald Kellman were not justified, and Wiki told you that. I think you did it just because you were angry. As to Gerald Kellman, he is nationally known and prominent person in the Alinsky school in South Chicago and also is nationally known and prominent for his activities with the national Democratic Party and that party's convention, including speaking at the convention for Barack Obama for President and discussing his first meeting and hiring of Obama in that speech. Being new at Wiki I fell into the trap you two guys set because of my inexperience with Wiki. I forgot Alinsky tactic and rule number 2. But it looks like you fell victim to not obeying his 11th rule. You can eliminate the blog reference but I think you should voluntarily put Gerald Kellman back in the list and the paragraph about his hiring and being a mentor of Obama and Obama becoming very skilled at Alinsky Methods back in. It was supported by the Washington Post article alone on page 3 of that article. I can also provide an additional reference link to Gerald/Jerry Kellman speaking about hiring Obama and his pride in Obama's accomplishments and achievements which was posted on Reuters. If you wish to be friends, revert voluntarily Gerald Kellman's name to the list of those who were students or influenced by Alinsky and the paragraph you deleted about Gerald Kellman being hiring Obama and that Obama became skilled at Alinsky Methods and taught courses in same. I'm still on block. But I see you talked your way off yours. I didn't try. I have other things to do with my life. Despite my strong interest in having a fair and rational article about Alinsky in Wiki, and keeping far left and far right personal disparaging comments off that page and let Alinsky speak for himself on that page and to see the successes and impacts he has had on American politics, I have other things to do with my life. Show your good faith with your "can we be friends" overtures elsewhere and put back the name of Gerald Kellman in the list of Alinsky students with the Washington Post story to support it and also revert the paragraph you deleted about his hiring Obama, minus the blog reference you pounced on with extra relish, of course. I will then laster add an additional reference to the Gerald Kellman speech about Obama at the DNC convention printed in Reuters, once I get off the block and when I have time. You can find the speech everywhere on the net if you want to read it. I would use the reprint in Reuters in the Alinsky article references. Have a nice day. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we be friends?

We have obviously gotten off on the wrong foot. I'd like to pretend the last 24 hours of tendentious editing didn't happen. In the spirit of cooperation, as a longtime Wikipedia editor, I'd like to offer you some more friendly advice on how Wikipedia works.

Wikipedia has content policies and guidelines. I myself did not write those guidelines or edit them in any way, but I try as best I can to adhere to them. There are certainly some with wiggle-room, such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There are circumstances in which a source might be perfectly valid for one article, while completely invalid for another. For instance, the Washington Post is generally a reliable source. But imagine if someone tried to use a story about automotive fuel efficiency as a source for an article describing diseases of Central Asia. In that instance, the Washington Post story would be inapplicable and invalid for the Wikipedia article in question.

And there are sources for which there is no wiggle-room: Opinion pieces, personal websites, self-published newsletters, opinion blogs, editorials, etc. The common denominator between these sources is that they're all designed to push a particular individual's bias concerning a topic (and worse, can contain things that are entirely made up). For those reasons, however accurate they may be, they are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. So sources such as the wordpress blog you attempted to add, the images you've hosted at freeimagehost, and similar sources simply can't be used in Wikipedia. That is not an argument against the accuracy of those sources... it is simply a reiteration of Wikipedia policy. If you disagree with that policy, you do have recourse: You can argue your position at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where you can state why you believe your sources qualify as reliable.

I hope you find this helpful, and hope you will begin editing Wikipedia with a broader understanding of the reasons your edits were reverted. --Good Damon 16:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See comment and discussion above the I'm blocked notice. Have a nice day. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly sorry, but that cannot happen. Look... It's not that I think you're wrong, or that your sources aren't accurate. It's that your sources aren't reliable. Please read that link, by the way. That's an official Wikipedia guideline on what does and does not qualify as a reliable source for citations. If you find better citations -- news articles from reliable source newspapers, for instance -- that discuss Obama using "the Alonski method" then you'll have grounds from which to argue the point. But citing blogs and religious news sites simply does not work for an encyclopedia. Might I suggest Conservapedia? It is a conservative-biased online encyclopedia with a far less stringent set of rules regarding sources, where your arguments might hold more sway. --Good Damon 13:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another word of advice, should you consider continuing to edit here... When you have contentious material that you think may be suitable for an article, it's polite to present it on the article's talk page first. In the case of your sources, before the unfortunate shouting match started, you would have immediately learned what can and can't be used as sources in an article, and would have gotten guidance on your edits. Now, I'm not saying I was entirely without culpability... I overreacted to your insistence on including that material, and started marking it as vandalism, which was not my call to make. But your insistence on including badly-sourced controversial material, and refusal to discuss the matter, would possibly have gotten you banned had I instead waited for the incident report on your activities to take its natural course. I say that not to scare you, but as a simple statement of fact; tendentious editors who won't pause for a discussion usually don't last here. --Good Damon 13:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say it is not going to happen. How neutral and fair you are as one editor in Wikipedia. So you now think you OWN Wikipedia and its rules and what can be written about Alinsky. And again you are using intimidation ignoring what you did. You removed an entire paragaph about Gerald Kellman hiring Obama and Obama's success working for Alinsky spawned organizations in South Chicago. You could have deleted some references and left the rest. But you deleted it all. See the Wiki rules and the warning you got from Wike about that when you or WikiDemon filed the complaint about me which then got you blocked too for doing such things and thus encouraging edit warring. The paragraph cited the Washington Post story for Gerald Kellman hiring Obama and also cited how skilled Obama became as a community organizer, a job and job title that Alinsky pioneered. It also literally mentions the "Alinsky method" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152_4.html . You obviously did not read the article and are shooting from the lip. See page 4 and page 1, if you choose again not to read the referenced article. You have obviously not read the article and are objecting to my paragraph on the influence of Alinsky method for personal biased reasons, imo. The person who put you on block told you that. You could have deleted just the references you didn't like, but the Washington Post reference and article supports all statements made in the paragraph all by itself. It was not quoting the Washington Post. It is a paragraph summarizing the article in the Washington post about Alinsky's influences on Barack Obama, a candidate for the USA. Keep it up. You in effect reported yourself the last time by your actions. I guess I will have to file a report about you and your other so called neutral buddies that you are trying to OWN the Alinsky article and hide the impact of Alinsky's ideology on modern, prominent politics and leaders in the country. Alinsky would be proud that he has two people who studied his ideology, tactics, and methods and became candidates for the Presidency of the USA. You apparently wish to hide it for you own personal reasons. You and your buddy WikiDemon, etc., who descended on the Saul Alinsky page are not neutral and objective editors. You are on a mission. It is obvious. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm sorry, but that's a blatant misrepresentation and an attack on us both, highly uncivil, and I urge you to re-factor it. As for the block, I'm afraid you misunderstand the reasons behind it. We were both blocked for edit-warring, but my block was revoked shortly afterward when I agreed not to edit-war. I am now in the process of going through proper channels for administrative oversight of the disputed content. I freely admit I let your tendentious editing get under my skin, and I'm happy to follow those extremely slow and careful processes to deal with the content. But let me be blunt: You have lost all credibility on this issue, and it is up to you to recover that credibility. First, you absolutely, positively must stop attacking me or any other editor. I will not report you for it yet, but be aware that insulting other editors isn't just a blockable offense, it is a bannable offense, meaning you could be permanently banned from editing Wikipedia content. I do not want that, but you should be aware it is a possibility. Second, you have repeatedly refused to engage in productive discussion of the content on which we disagree, instead choosing to C&P the same arguments over and over, ignoring the reasoning behind other editors' edits and responses. That needs to change. You need to work with, not against, the rest of the Wikipedia community. I am not your enemy. --Good Damon 17:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

This edit[8] is uncivil, assumes bad faith, and makes personal attacks. You have been warned about this before. Stop attacking other editors. Wikidemon (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pure transference tactics. I am civil. You are just trumping up exaggerated charges about me in your "case file" attempts to accomplish you mission. You and your buddy GoodDamon, and it appears some others you brought in to the Alinsky page, are acting in concert as a tag team. The facts show that. You all showed up after my suggested addition to the Obama Nation article of one line about CONTENT in the book. The Alinsky was stable until you and your buddies showed up. All is documented in Alinsky's books and the Washington Post article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html . Again read it, especially pages 1 and 4. And read Alinsky's books if you are going to edit his page. I have. But you have chosen only to delete material in big chunks and all references citing poor quality sources in broad brush comments. The paragraph about Gerald Kellman hiring Obama in South Chicago and Obama teaching Alinsky Methods should be put back. Maybe others will. You and your tag team have swarmed me now so trying myself is likely useless. As a thought in my mind, only Wiki can know if you may all be sock puppets or close allies working in concert in a war room somewhere or networked somehow to suppress information in the Obama Nation book page and keep it slanted and biased against the book and now you're doing same attempts on the Alinsky page. And of course, you have tried to personalize it by attacking and threating me. The very first post in my talk page showed bad faith by WikiDemon, your tag team buddy. You and he follow each other around Wiki. It is obvious in the postings. Again, the Washington Post, a credible and reliable source, supported all my postings. The one sentence on the Obama Nation page I tried to edit in. And the paragraph as to the influence of Alinsky on the presidential candidates this year, i.e., about Gerald Kellman hiring Obama and Obama having great skill and having taught the Alinsky method in South Chicago. You deleted it all and not just the secondary and tertiary references. Even the Wiki admin fellow told you that was wrong. You just don't want certain material in your articles you are monitoring and you and your buddies are scrubbing them, imo. It is obvious. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Coming off a WP:3RR block only to revert the content you were blocked for inserting[9] is a disruptive move. Please desist. If you revert again, or make any more uncivil comments on the article talk pages, I will file another WP:AN/I report on your behavior and you will likely be banned or blocked for a considerably longer time. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue statement by WikiDemon. He is not neutral of objective and is now not being truthful. Paragraph was in the article for quite awhile before WikiDemon and his buddy GoodDamon started deleting. I was blocked for violating the three revert rule, not for putting the paragraph in there. GoodDamon got blocked too for wholesale deleting of the paragraph. You are not being truthful. Sources are reliable and accurate as to the paragraphs true and factual statements of the Alinsky school influence on Obama. The source are third party newspapers such as the Washington Post and Reuters. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I report

This is a courtesy notice. I have reported your recent edits to AN/I here. Wikidemon (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mtngoat63 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 05:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! A false charge. Another stone thrown my way by the raiding gang of buddies, WikiDemon and GoodDamon, now joined by Clubjuggle. These guys are true Wiki pros. But why are they so vehemently attacking this article all of a sudden. Hmmh! There on a mission this last week. And the accuse others of what they are doing, imo. Transference again. They should be accused of Sock Puppetry as they are acting in concert ganging up on me first in my attempt to add one line to the Obama Nation book article about the discussion of Alinsky in that book and now they have since descended on this article to scrub a stable and true and factual, well sourced fair article about Alinsky and his teachings influence on American politics. They are either sock puppets themselves are members of some close network on a coordinated mission. They are obviously friends and follow each other around from article to article to pursue their current agenda. A simple Wiki search shows that these three run together. It is obvious. Maybe they even sit across the room from each other in some room somewhere. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly think that, I invite you to file a report against me at WP:SSP by following the instructions listed on that page. If nothing else, the response should be amusing. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't encourage the new and seemingly inexperienced editor to abuse process. With an ongoing attitude like above and below (seeing Wikipedia in terms of "buddies", "cohorts", psychoanalizing imagined motives of other editors, "missions", agendas, trying to do battle with experienced editors, they're not going to be last long before a long-term block. If they do sincerely want to stay they're going to have to calm down and start working with other editors. Either way, a flame-out isn't a good way to go.Wikidemon (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should use the word amusing. I found it amusing that your cohort reporting me before got one of your buddies blocked and cautioned for his activities. All the weak links were deleted but Damon was told not to delete the entire paragraph because the Washington Post and NPR sources are considered reliable by Wiki. You and WikiDemon should follow that advice too. See this dialog below from GoodDamon's page of admins advice to GoodDamon, one of your helpers. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. GoodDamon being blocked:

Request reason: "Begging your pardon, but please check my edit history. I am a longterm editor in good standing, and, should you review the edits in question, have been reverting a single-purpose account whose edits have become vandalism in the name of inserting as a supposed reliable source a creationist's Wordpress blog."

Decline reason: "But it wasn't just that. The footnotes you kept removing also cited the Washington Post and NPR, both confirmed RSes. You can't use one source's unreliability to taint them all. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)"

I support a speedy unblock of this editor, who was vandal fighting. The edits in question were a poorly sourced WP:COATRACK from a wildly tendentious SPA and entirely inappropriate for the encyclopedia. The Washington Post and NPR were duplicate citations were cut-and-pasted from elsewhere in the article (including duplicating the reference name assignments), and did not at all support the statement deleted, which was a claim that the person was a nationally prominent leader influenced by Alinsky. At worst the editor was overzealous in dealing with a problem editor and should have stepped aside to let an administrator do the deed. We need ongoing help keeping the peace here, not to have good editors blocked for dealing with vandlas. I'm sure GoodDamon will promise to be more careful and not repeat tis if unblocked. Right? Wikidemon (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Agreement to cease multi-article edit war as stated below. Please ask for help the next time you come across a tendentious editor like that. Toddst1 (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Request handled by: Toddst1 (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] Comment from blocking admin

It's not that I don't think you weren't well intentioned. WP:3RR is an electric fence. You say you were reverting vandalism, which the edits were not. I'm not saying they were good edits that you reverted at all - in fact I wouldn't defend them in any way, but they do not appear to be vandalism. However, none of the exceptions to the 3RR apply and you hit it on several articles.

If you agree to cease this multi-article edit war and seek other resolution (I'd be willing to protect the page), I'd be glad to unblock. However, this is a classic edit war as I see it.

FWIW, I think 3RR is by far the most common rule to trip up otherwise well-intentioned editors such as yourself. Toddst1 (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

   I will gladly agree to that. I suppose I got a little overzealous with this particularly pugnacious editor. Thank you for re-reviewing. --GoodDamon 04:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

       I'm glad it's worked out. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

           Thank you! I'm not planning to do any more editing tonight, but when does the unblock take effect? I attempted to edit a page for testing purposes, and am still unable to. --GoodDamon 05:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

End of cut and paste from GoodDamon talk page.

I suggest you and your cohorts respect the directions and spirit of the admins words to GoodDamon. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I have filed a WP:3RR report regarding your edits, here Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some unsolicited advice

Hi Mtngoat63,

I think you've been treated rather roughly since this account was started. I appreciate your interest in trying to add relevant information to articles. I think a good amount of the information you want to add would be very helpful to readers and therefore the encyclopedia, and I'd like to see you become a successful, productive editor here. Please be patient when editors revert you and please don't continue reverting back. The way Wikipedia policies and guidelines want you to deal with conflicts with other editors is by discussing on talk pages rather than reverting, which is just going to get you another block and won't help anything -- in fact, it will hurt by removing another editor who wants to help readers, something we need more of on this site.

If you're not editing only with the Mtngoat63 user name, that will only hurt you in the long run, so if that's the case, please don't do it again. Since you're editing a politically sensitive topic, you're going to run across difficult editors, so you'll find some frustrating circumstances. It's less frustrating to edit noncontroversial articles. You'll also be suspect as a "SPA" ("single-purpose acount") if you stick to editing only one general topic, so it's a good idea to edit some divergent topics and give people a sense that your interest in Wikipedia isn't narrow -- editors suspect SPA accounts as being here to push a point of view rather than push information into the encyclopedia with a more distant, more neutral motivation. Some of these concerns of editors are not very predictable for someone who's new, but believe me, they're important concerns that other editors have.

Please look over the various policies and guidelines. If you have questions or need some advice, please feel free to contact me.

Also, if you want to avoid the dashed boxes I see on your talk page, you can indent by typing a colon (":") just before the begining of the line you're typing or pasting in. Leave no spaces between the colon and the left-hand margin.

To indent more, type in two colons ("::")

To indent more, type in three, and so on.

I hope your future editing experiences on Wikipedia go more smoothly. Please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page if you'd like advice or have questions. Best, Noroton (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second 3RR on Saul Alinsky

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Saul Alinsky. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR at Natural born citizen

Please take care at that article, regarding WP:3RR. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]