User talk:Ror Is King

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Shirt58 (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011[edit]

Your addition to Ajmer Singh has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Ajmer Singh, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Ajmer Singh. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tags on that page are all valid, and in any event you only mention one in your edit summary. I have quite deliberately done a lot of small edits in the hope that you can see the thought process. I am happy to explain any of those that you do not understand but a complete revert of my edits is completely unacceptable. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ror status[edit]

I have just noticed that you have not apparently edited the List of Ror article, although perhaps you did as an IP before registering. In any event, if you take a look at Talk:List of Ror then you'll see a fairly decent explanation of what is required to verify the status. Simply bearing the last name or coming from a certain village is not enough. Hope this helps. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ror[edit]

I have reverted your recent edit at Ror and made a statement at Talk:Ror regarding that. There has recently been a change of policy regarding how Indian caste/community articles are handled here on en-Wikipedia and so I am inserting the standard template below so that you are aware of this. I am not suggesting that you have yet engaged in "inappropriate conduct", as the template refers to it, but present the thing in the spirit of open-ness. - Sitush (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions.

- Sitush (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your feedback[edit]

Don't talk down on other users just because they reverted one of your edits. Look at his reasons on your talk page; they are legitimate. So, calm down and try to resolve your problems constructively.

I am a Ninja, and this is my master. 14:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 

I am afraid I have to disagree with you. Please scoot over to the Ror Talk page and see my reasons (scroll to the end). Sitush has very little grasp of Indian history. He does an online check of sources that are avaialble to him and then he starts feeling he is an expert and everyone else is an idiot. Ror Is King (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring of talk page comments[edit]

Please do not refactor the talk page comments of others - as you did here - without first getting their consent to do so. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not change a single word. Just for clarity of the discussion I interspersed my comments against yours. If there is a wiki policy which prohibits this please do point out. Thanks! Ror Is King (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim that you changed a word, but your interspersing did cause the edit stamps and the flow to change. Read WP:TPG, and next time please do ask permission first. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article James Tod, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific for what you need a source on the James Tod article. I have added two references: 1 -> [1] ; 2 -> [2]. For the David Kopf's quote I am going to add the citation soon. Ror Is King (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should not add unsourced or poorly sourced content to a Good Article. Furthermore, the article is not about Macaulay and extended content regarding that man is out of place there: he has his own article, where such content might be more suited, if properly sourced. - Sitush (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what is unsourced or poorly sourced in the additions I made to James Tod article. Ror Is King (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've tried to explain (though Sitush has already done a pretty good job) why your concerns have nothing to do with how WIkipedia works on Talk:Ror. However, I'd be happy to discuss Tod's reliability at WP:RSNB, which is a good place to go when we have such disputes. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Q means WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can only chime in. Please do not edit disruptively. The article is a GA, which means that it has gone through peer-review, which also judges the validity and applicability of the sources. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me what is disruptive. I have just added sources which point out that Macaulay had a deep bias in things related to India and is not reliable for his criticism against Indian Historians and the extrpolation that Sitush is using for slamming vernacular Indian Historians. Ror Is King (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at James Tod shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

Sorry, but now you are at the limit of the three revert rule and given that you have erroneously posted a warning such as this on my talk page it is clear that you are aware that the rule exists. Sitush (talk) 06:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I am just undoing vandalistic edits of yours. Ror Is King (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are also at the 3RR limit on Ror. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So how very convenient? you get your buddies involved who happen to be admins and then you attack others as a pack. Way to go! Keep it up. Ror Is King (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear. I just came here to warn you about the discretionary sanctions on caste articles...but I see that Sitush has already given you that link. I very strongly encourage you to read about what the sanctions means, read WP:V and WP:RS (the two key policies/guidelines that are relevant in the dispute above), and revise your editing behavior. Since you've already been warned, and now you've taken to attacking other editors (as in the comment just above this, along with calling good faith edits "vandalism")...any more, and I will have to ask that you be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ror, I don't happen to be an admin, and I won't be blocking you. This is a community of editors (who select admins) with a set of rules that we all have to abide by. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Drmies despite me asking you, Sitush and Qwyrxian, repeatedly, for a link on English Wikipedia which CLEARLY SAYS TOD CAN'T BE USED as a source I have not seen any of you three respond. In absence of a stricture against Tod's use if Sitush deletes correctly referenced material from Tod on the Ror page and edit wars over this why is this not considered bad wiki behvaior of Sitush? Should'nt you atleast advise him that till such time Wikipedia prohibits the use of Tod as a reference it can remain in any article? I am sure you know I have also asked Sitush for counter evidence to Tod for the two references on the Ror article (just see the talk page) and he has no evidence that Tod is wrong.
  • All of you seem to be finding faults with me and not Sitush. Ror Is King (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qwryxian has given you a link to the current discussion at WP:RSN in your chat on their talk page. There were previous localised (article-level) discussions that achieved a consensus but taking the issue to the higher community forum should produce a consensus that is stable for some time and across all articles. We work on consensus here, and thus far it has tended to oppose inclusion of Tod. Because of the way that consensus works, it is often not the case that you will find a formal rule saying that "X is ok" or "X is not ok" ... but it is nonetheless the consensus. I realise that this can be tricky to understand but it is how it is. - Sitush (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you kidding me? What consensus did you build on the Ror article's referencing the two quotes from Tod? You practice and preach two different things. Ror Is King (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus was already there, from general discussion on other articles. WP:OSE applies to article content but not necessarily to talk page content. - Sitush (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You and your friends have been asked repeatedly to point out precisely where in wikipedia does it say Tod is not usable. Since then you have been obfuscating and neither Drmies nor Qwy have come forth. Why are you wasting everyone's time? Ror Is King (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have explained time and again that it is WP:CONSENSUS. If you do not understand that then you are going to struggle here as it forms one of the core policies. In any event and to further satisfy your desire, I took the issue to WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The struggle is with your behavior, total lack of civility and consensus building, edit warring, getting your friends who are admins to gang up against me. Nothing else. Ror Is King (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it is my behaviour that concerns you then you know what to do - WP:ANI or some similar venue, as has been said previously. You may be correct. - Sitush (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I will try again. But why don't you try and change yourself? Give other points of view a chance. Discuss with them what they are trying to say. You might learn something from them or they might learn from you. But once you antagonize people discussions have a negative tone. An encyclopedia is about constructive co-operation. For example had you just asked for additional references for the two quotes from Tod I would have done it in a jiffy and we would not be having this discussion but now it seems like you and your buddies first want to prove a point that you are right and then arm twist. How is this a good approach? Ror Is King (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did suggest that you to provide alternates, on several occasions. Not "additional" because Tod lacks consensus, but alternates would make Tod redundant anyway, as I pointed out. Suggest that you check the thread at Talk:Ror. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Way after the fact. You should have asked for additional sources on the article itself instead of deleting the references. Ror Is King (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I put a cite request there, right at the outset. I removed the quotation, sure, but for the reasons that you have been told time and again: we cannot quote Tod as a statement of historical fact. - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are going around in circles. Anyway my 2 cents: to keep your blood pressure down had you just put "cite an additional reference" for each of the Tod sourced matter things might have been more amicable. But in the end choice is yours. You can continue to operate they way you do. Perhaps you like it. Ror Is King (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can one put a cite request against a quotation? It was already cited but the source is invalid. I am finding this entire series of threads with you to be extremely illogical in its basis & that is why you have gone round in circles not just with me but with others also. My suggestion, seriously, is that if you dislike my way of doing things then you should report me. I am happy to answer to the community but if you do not wish to do that then perhaps you should pull back a little from the insinuations etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not want to hear my sound bytes you can choose to not comment here. Any way I am thoroughly bored talking to you. Have fun. Ror Is King (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caution[edit]

Hi Ror is King , I thought I would caution you about the possibility of cabal's on Wikipedia .
And some very strange happenings if you operate alone . There are dexterous means employed by furtive teams , to bully , subvert , block individual editors by belligerent teams . Stuff that could happen .

  • Provocative edits by one member to lead you to a block by another .
  • Antagonistic deletions of your content to be followed by attacks bya group which may include an admin .
  • Contradictory standards of what should constitute civil debate applied to you in relation to cabal member .
  • Wiki rules and warnings applied systematically against you even as you are goaded to technically transgress .
  • Archiving done to muddle and confuse debate .
  • Blocks ....there are "Sultans of Swing" who will drive you there , several great editors have been lost to Wikipedia this way .
  • Sudden appearance of seemingly innocuous but very wiki proficient and experienced new editors, with a single agenda on an article working exactly opposite to you and in conjunction to views of your opponents ....
  • Sudden appearance of absolute turkey/loony editors with long quotes on talk pages which will fill space and your antagonists will have sham discussions with them .
  • Deletion of your talk edits providing specific proof .
  • If you engage in a specific focused discussion with an opponent from a cabal ...he will obfuscate , ambiguously respond ... then lo and behold a warning message from another "friendly" editor will come along on your talk page ... before you know it an admin is very upset with you for your bad faith and "your" aggressive behavior .
  • Strangely connected edits on related articles by unrelated editors , which bolster positions taken by someone opposing you ...then everyone could feign innocence ..pass the parcel .
  • Feverish feeding of content by friendly editors to your opponents by "academic fellowship" companions
  • Tons and tons of South Asia related articles have been completely "conquered " this way
  • Many other forms of undermining ...

..... and all the time you may feel you were only arguing with one lone ranger . Best of luck ....
Intothefire (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right on the brink, Intothefire. Please be careful with your unfounded allegations. If you really do believe these to be true then you should open a discussion at, say, WP:ANI rather than start insidious conversation threads on user talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you Intothefire and I can assure you I also feel ganged up against by the same lobby. But please be bold and do remember you are as important a part of wikipedia as these guys are. I will start looking into your edits and see if I know much about your topics of interest. Will surely collobarate with you. Thanks for leaving a note on my talk page. Regards. Ror Is King (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folks, if you have evidence for any of the allegations above, you need to make a proper report at the appropriate forum. But if, instead, you continue making such snide comments on user talk pages or anywhere else inappropriate, engage in personal attacks, or generally fail to abide by WP:AGF (and Ror, that means not accusing others of lying), then you will end up blocked from editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tod[edit]

You refactored a message at WP:RSN around here. Do you have a copy of that book? I would be interested to see some of it. - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not a significant refactoring. I see what you have done now, sorry - inserted a new message in order to respond to Fifelfoo. Still, I looked at that book (The Mertiyo Rathors of Merto, Rajasthan) last year when I was down in Cambridge and saw nothing of particular note in it, so I'd be grateful to see a copy of whatever it is you believe is contained there and is relevant to the Tod article. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would refer you to my latest edit on the James Tod page. Also the entire two volumes of Saran and Ziegler's book is based on histories written in vernacular language of rajasthan called dingal. There are literally 100's if not 1000's of such khyats available. If you do pick up the book please see pages 163 to 168 and specially footnote 35 on page 167. You will see how the same battle is described identically yet very differently in the rajput and mughal sources. Happy reading! Ror Is King (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that i shall remove the info, unless you provide a page citation to the reference later today. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 11:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the omission. I have updated the Volume and Page information. Ror Is King (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for providing it. Happy Editing! Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 12:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, the article is about Tod, not Indian sources. Now, please can you co-operate and provide the info that you claim is in that book regarding Tod. I know that it does mention him but from my time reading it last year, I know of nothing significant in there regarding Tod. If you cannot then the quote should be removed because it is neither criticism nor praise, merely a statement that he was "painstaking" - which we already know. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What part of this statement don't you understand Sitush?: "His comprehensive history of Rajasthan and its local kingdoms besepeaks his knowledge, gained through years of association with this area and painstaking work with local documents." Ror Is King (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That could be read either way: he certainly had a lot of knowledge, but not necessarily correct. It is neither a criticism nor praise, although I do think that the "painstaking" word is useful. I need to refresh my memory on the context of that quote in the book, hence I will get a copy if you will not provide one. Is that your typo, by the way? - "besepeaks"? - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes my typo! Thanks. I cannot send you my copy can I? Have you tried a library near you? Ror Is King (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No library near to me with this sort of book in it. That's why I spent some time at Cambridge last year, using my old university library. Generally speaking, people can scan a couple of pages etc but if you do not want to do that then I'll get it from WP:RX or by asking another editor directly. I recall it as being a good read, but not particularly relevant to a biography of Tod - and it was stuff about Tod that I was interested in. - Sitush (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any copyright issues in posting images of pages that you might be aware of? Ror Is King (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that does constitute copyright infringement. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 14:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very murky area. I know people who have done it but they probably should not have done and the things get deleted pretty quick. There are various methods used by the folks who frequent WP:RX, including direct email (you can set up a temporary free email account if you are bothered) and uploading to sites such as http://ifile.it using the free option. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I have requested a copy at WP:RX - I still cannot see the point of this quotation, based on my memory of the book. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sticking the photo here because copyrights need to be respected. Why don't you see the point in the quote? Two modern historians are saying Tod was very good. It is directly in opposition to the Criticism section, which as it stood, was very one sided. Ror Is King (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The quote does not pass a comment on Tod being anything more than "knowledgeable" or "painstaking" - both of which are pretty much self-evident. Perhaps there is additional stuff on those two pages that goes to explain the leap from that to "very good" (or even "good"). It won't do me any harm to re-read them in any case. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"His comprehensive history of Rajasthan and its local kingdoms bespeaks his knowledge....". A modern historian making this comment about Tod's work is quite emphatic. Your POV getting in the way? Ror Is King (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions.

Ror, in the light of the above sanctions, one part of the standards of behaviour required is that you Assume Good Faith. I warned you once, above. Now, if you fail to follow WP:AGF over any India-related article again, I will block you from editing. Sitush is being perfectly reasonable and civil with you, and has clearly explained his point, but you are ignoring what he says and making bad faith accusations in return - repeated examples of WP:IDHT will get you blocked too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please slow down on Tod and discuss matters on the talk page. Your recent edits - even if correct in statement - are poorly phrased and poorly placed. It is causing problems with what was (and is acknowledge to be) a very flowing piece of text. We do not just dump sentences into such content, and we must be extremely careful to follow the existing format for citations. This has been explained to you before but you seem not to be listening. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush it would help if you please point out what is wrong specificially. It would help me learn what mistake I made. Parsing your comment I do not know, other than the very fact I edited the page, what mistake I made. I thought I followed citations as is given for other lines on the page. Ror Is King (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly, you have ignored requests to discuss changes on the article talk page. Secondly, Tillotson what? What is the book? Thirdly, it is just a poorly phrased and placed quote dump, only a part of which appears even to be relevant. I suggest that you self-revert and propose your changes at Talk:James Tod, including a link to the source. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and you have overlinked - see WP:Overlink - such things cause problems for others who are trying to steer this through the FAC process. We are having to tidy up after you. - Sitush (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First: Tillotson book was already present in the article see here (just scroll to the end): Tillotson, Giles (2008). James Tod's Rajasthan: The Historian and His Collections. Mumbai: Radhika Sabavala for Marg Publications on behalf of the National Centre for the Performing Arts. ISBN 81-85026-80-7. Secondly the only thing I created a hyperlink for was the theory of orientalism and prior to my using that word the article did not have a hyper link on that word. So how is this a mistake? Ror Is King (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. You are demonstrating a lack of care. Tillotson is in "Further reading", Orientalism is linked in the lead section - and you still have not addressed the quote dump issue nor your continued tendency to ignore requests that these things be discussed beforehand. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see it that it was linked as oriental scholar and not as orientalism. Two things are quite different. This is why I did not spot it. On Tillotson I will move it to Bibilography. Ror Is King (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are still not addressing my points. Now, please, self-revert and discuss. It is usually easier at this stage in the article process if just one or two experienced contributors make alterations, based on consensus achieved on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed both your points. Removed the hyperlink on orientalism and moved the Tillotson book from Further reading to Bibliography. What is the need to revert? Ror Is King (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained above why this is so. You are continuing to engage in a form of disruptive behaviour, imo. Please, again, read WP:Consensus and note that you have received past messages regarding this unilateral conduct. I am trying to be polite here rather than engaging in an edit war but if needs must then I will revert and initiate that discussion. It would look much better if you did it because it would demonstrate a willingness to abide by the norms of this community. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ror, one of the principles of collegial editing is that if an addition is disputed, it should be reverted and a discussion held on the article's Talk page in order to achieve a consensus as to whether it should go in, and if so, in what format. This is especially important for articles that have "Good" or "Featured" article status, or are candidates for such, as all changes need to be kept to the same high editorial standards. Your current approach to editing this article is damaging the Featured Article review process. If you engage in discussion (as opposed to argument) you will find Sitush and others (who have considerably more experience of how we work here than you do) to be very helpful - you need to start seeing them as experienced editors trying to help you and turn you into a better editor, not as foes to be argued against and beaten. Now, either you revert your changes and start a discussion on the article Talk page before you attempt to add them again or modify them further, or someone else will. And if you edit-war to put your changes back, guess what will happen? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Ror Is King. You have new messages at Boing! said Zebedee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at James Tod shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sitush (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at James Tod. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has passed FA now, and we cannot have this level of disruption. Your changes have been reverted by two different editors, and you must now wait until you can get a consensus for making those changes. If you give us a commitment to not make changes before getting a consensus, and to not edit-war at all, I'll be prepared to unblock you - but further edit-warring or other disruptive editing will get you further blocks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you are not able to contribute directly to the ANI discussion, I'll be happy to copy any comment you make for you - just say what you want to say here, and I'll copy it for you (or someone else might if they see it first) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of three days for showing a problematic battleground mentality. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:05, 3 March 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have no idea what you took exception too. can you please explain? Ror Is King (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request does not address the issue(s) that resulted in your block. Tiderolls 14:55, 3 March 2012 (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.

Almost every edit you have made today contains assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks on other editors: [3], [4], [5]. These edits need to stop. You are welcome to discuss the issue and, if you want, start any of Wikipedia's dispute resolution methods, but you cannot attack other people or question their motives. Moreover, you are also exhibiting signs of WP:IDHT. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this [6]. There is a long history here with Sitush and his admin friends. I am planning on taking it to dispute resolution because I am getting harassed by admins at the behest of Sitush. Ror Is King (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not employ the unblock template for purposes other than those explained at WP:GAB. If you have questions or concerns regarding procedure or details regarding possible unblock, simply post a message here with an appropriate section header. I'm sure your talk page is being watched by enough editors that a prompt reply will be forthcoming. Tiderolls 14:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit unfair. I had never interacted with Salvio ever so was at total loss to understand why he would block me. So I asked him the reason. He explained and then I replied. What rule did I break now? Honestly I still do not know why I have been blocked. I just cut and pasted the discussion from ANI board to James Tod talk page because the ANI board had archive the discussion. No admin warned me or blocked me for writing what I wrote on the ANI board.
When I cut and pasted the same discussion from ANI board to James Tod talk page Sitush jumps over to Slavio's page [7] and promptly Salvio blocks me for content that was atleast two days old and had been seen by other admins already on the ANI board.
Do you realise that Sitush does not want to answer questions about his POV pushing on James Tod page and he has access to obliging admins? Ror Is King (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can only address part of your concern. Yes, you asked Salvio a question; in and of itself, that is no violation of any "rule". That you did so employing an unblock template broke no rule, it was simply an error on your part. I assumed that you had misunderstood the function of the unblock template and directed your attention to the page that explained how best to address an unblock request. In reading your last post it would appear that you have not read that page. I can also tell you that the unblock request below still does address the issue of your block. Please take the time to acquaint yourself with the procedure. Regards Tiderolls 15:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to know the "issue of my block" can you please tell me the reason? Honestly I still do not understand. Ror Is King (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's more of a case that I know what is not the issue of your block. You would understand the concept as well if you would follow my advice. As you seem to be unwilling or unable to see that I am attempting you to help you I will stop bothering you. Regards Tiderolls 16:04, 3 March 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked by Sitush's friend for copy pasting discussion from ANI board on to James Tod Page. How is this fair? ANI discussion was already archived and had been seen by many admins and no told me I had written anything improper.

Decline reason:

Please read WP:NOTTHEM and WP:EBUR. The problem here is your battleground mentality; you should consider yourself fortunate that I'm not the admin who noticed it first, as I would have blocked you indefinitely. As it is, you will need to convince us that you won't resume tossing around accusations and disrupting work on those articles before anyone will unblock you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:42, 4 March 2012 (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.

You have been blocked for showing a battleground mentality, as it says in the first sentence of this section. What part of WP:BATTLEGROUND did you find unclear? JanetteDoe (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ror_Is_King&oldid=1143273478"