3RR edit
You appear to have violated the Three revert rule (3RR) at William White (agitator). As you haven't been warned before, I'm not going to report it, but if you do it again, you will be reported, and are likely to be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours for each offense. Please also read our core policies before editing any further, particularly No original research, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and Cite sources. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:54, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, you have repeatedly vandalized the William White (agitator) page that I have been editing, and no violations in my reversions to the non-vandalized versions have occurred. I am also not the only user who has reverted the page in question and deleted your vandalism. I have asked for mediation and reported your account for disciplinary action. Baxter3 01:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Please note that any revert to a previous version in whole or in part counts as a revert. If you do this more than three times in 24 hours, you're in violation of 3RR. The only other person who has reverted to your version is, so far as I can tell, User:Sam Spade. I strongly encourage you to start editing in accordance with our policies, as your edits will not be allowed to stand otherwise. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Ma'am, you're not in charge here. You reverted three times before I did, because you did one, then SamSpade went back, then you again, then me, then you again, then me, then you again -- four times. Further, correction of page vandalism is not "reversion". Read the rules. The whole point is to avoid edit wars, and you are engaged in one -- not me. I've referred this to mediation. Please accept it. I have also asked your acccount be suspended from editing the article -- we ar trying to develop a structure by which the sources cited can be evaluated and both sides of the issue can be discussed, and you are simply deleting it and trying to impose your POV. 68.10.35.153 01:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't revert four times: go and look more carefully at the page history. You're correct that reverting vandalism isn't subject to 3RR, but edits don't count as vandalism just because you disagree with them. Please stop reverting and allow the editing to continue; once it's finished, you may find that you don't disagree with it. But regardless of anything else that happens, that long list of articles you inserted can't stay, as WP is not a place to store lists.
- It generally isn't a good idea to create and edit a page about yourself; it invariably leads to these disputes because people can't view themselves with any objectivity, and so I advise you to step back for a bit, and wait to see what other editors come up with. Also, I note that you're editing as User:Baxter2, User:Baxter3, and User:68.10.35.153. Although there's no policy against having multiple accounts, we're not allowed to use them to make it appear that there's more support for a position than really exists, or to try to get round 3RR or violate other policies. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:25, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Sources and request for mediation edit
Have you considered cutting down the references to the most important ones. If you include over a 100 references, not only is it too time consuming to go through them all, the list would be longer than the article itself.
In mediation, you should always warn the other party of the request. I'll do so now. Mgm|(talk) 20:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
I've just about finished the rewrite of this page. If you take a close look at it, I think you'll find that it's a fair and well-sourced write up. (In case it's been changed since I last looked, check the last version under my name to see what I wrote.) I've tried to stick closely to what the third-party sources say, and linked to them whenever I could - though sometimes I had to link to websites other than those of the news organizations, because not all the articles are online. Rather than reverting, how about letting me know what specifically you disagree with, if anything? Or if you think something important has been left out, or something has been emphasized unfairly, please say how you think it could be rectified, bearing in mind that it probably shouldn't get much longer. Regarding the list of articles you wanted, Willmcw suggested as a compromise that we put a link to the list on your website under External links; he or I will do that as soon as we can access your site. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:36, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)