Factlover1

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Factlover1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jezhotwells (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler

Please stop edit warring at the above article. If you don't agree with the other editor, you should ask for an WP:RFC or perhaps use the WP:Content noticeboard. Edit warring is not the answer and will lead to your getting blocked. Please take time to understand established policies and proceduires here before diving in and fetting into trouble. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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 halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hamsun Hitler obit/tone

Wikipedia does take copyright issues very seriously and the editors responding to you on the noticeboard are people who have been here a while and are respected. Though I appreciate your frustration and would also like to see the content in the article, anger and derision in postings are not going to get the assistance you need. They are also correct that we never post email addresses or phone numbers on noticeboards or elsewhere. I suggest calming your tone (and even consider self-reverting some of your comments) and looking at the suggested links including WP:COPYVIO for information about how the copyright owners can grant the necessary license for use on Wikipedia. Once this is done, it removes the main obstacle anyone has mentioned for the use here, and then we can go back to discussing the merits. If you have questions please don't hesitate to post on my Talk page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody outside Wikipedia takes copyright quite that "seriously"... Oh, really? We are one of the most visible websites on the Internet, certainly by far the most visible non-profit. We are a big fat target for anybody with a legitimate copyright claim and a willing lawyer. That is the real world where the grownups have to live. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Mike. You're right, in principle. Only not in this specific case. A "big fat target" still presupposes something to get - from suing Wikipedia. In the case of Hamsun's Hitler-obituary, the publishing-house Gyldendal would never survive the bad publicity. Factlover1 (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We can't take that risk. What if Gyldendal were acquired by Rupert Murdoch or somebody who would revel in the publicity? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point! Which is why I long ago (it seems, i.e. earlier yesterday, as soon as I learned how) bowed to the formality of acquiring the Wikipedia-form permission. - Still, it'll be awhile, I hope, before sueing someone for using a Nobel-laureate's four-line obituary of Hitler will be publicity to "revel" in. Even Murdoch (jewish, sadly relevant in this case) might not want to appear "supporting" Hitler that way. Or maybe not, who knows, he might want that obituary suppressed from ever being quoted again. Better safe than sorry, I agree. I like following the guide-lines, but it was hard getting easy info on them, and unpleasant getting there. I bite back, sure - but only "back". On the issue itself, I cherish being as correct as only possible. Yet in the relevant case, copy for "educational purposes" would be validly claimed - until tried and determined otherwise. Better safe than sorry. Though there's always a limit to how little "risk" should, and can, be taken. No risk is never an option.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Factlover1 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 9 April 2011

Please remember to sign your posts, you have been reminded about this previously. As to "No risk is never an option", it is the only option on Wikipedia with regards to copyright violation. Please try to understand that the established policies of Wikipedia are there for good reasons. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Sorry. I keep trying. Tnx for the reminder. As you may have noticed, as soon as I actually comprehend the policies I try to follow them. I still comment on them, though. And re copyright for the 4 lines at issue, "educational purposes" would appear to cover it in the context - but I bow to yr claims, valid (in general law) or not. Do note that the original discussion on the inclusion of the 4 lines of Hamsun's obituary for Hitler, the reason for deletion, was NOT copyright, but that the deleter didn't want the text there, claiming it irrelevant in an entry "about" it! - So with the copyright-permission in due course obtained (Monday), I hope you'll all support the inclusion of the obituary under its entry? Incidentally, approx. how many Editors am I writing to here? Factlover1 (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Factlover1. Thank you. Danger (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Factlover1, more precise link to help newbie find it. SpinningSpark 09:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I just want to point out to you that personal attacks and insults such as this and this are definitely not tolerated on Wikipedia. Please, in future, concentrate on discussing the issues rather than commenting on the editors involved. This is a lot nicer place that way. Thanks, SpinningSpark 22:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Unfactual personal attacks by Editors should then also be refrained from, which was what I replied to. This issue is still about one person, Eisfbnore, vandalizing the entry "Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler", which continues and is ongoing: I've added factual content, he adds errors while deleting facts. Look it up. Factlover1 (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the dispute is about, gratuitous personal attacks and insults are not tolerated and WILL get you blocked, so no, I am not going to look it up. You have already been given one final warning and I am being criticised for not having already blocked you. You are living on borrowed time - please accept that this behaviour is not acceptable. SpinningSpark 20:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Jezhotwells, you appear partisan in starting an edit-war. My correction is well sourced, while yours and Eisfbnore's are by now "patent nonsense". You should yourself read and use the "talk-page" instead of deleting, it seems. Factlover1 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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. SpinningSpark 20:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

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.

Not clever when you already have so much admin attention on your page. SpinningSpark 20:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

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).

Factlover1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Not trying to be clever, only factual. On the relevant edit of "Hamsun's obituary" I added reference to the official translation of the edit I made. Pls see talk-page. "Eisfbnore" and "Jezhotwells" in conjunction edit-warred and appearently solicited blocking and thus excluded the correct translation as main form. I only held to the factually correct, added ref.s, and the combined undoings by "Eisfnore" and "Jezhotwells" made this appear as though I was initiator - incorrectly. This was not a 3RR, as info was added. When two editors with up to 3RR's each join up to edit-war, a solitary user is unfairly outnumbered. This can only be seen as manipulation against me as user, with the intent to maintain/introduce biased info on Wikipedia. I find this shameful, but have neither time nor editing-skills and -knowledge of Wikipedia-arcania to continue these efforts at defending Hamsun's reputation towards the English-speaking world, against such persistent efforts at negatively biasing the impression of Hamsun. The errors are winning. Why isn't reason supported better on Wikipedia? - As for "admin attention", I don't know what or who that is. I have asked "How many am I writing to?" with no answer. I don't have time to deep-reasearch Wikipedia just to defend this one correct word in Hamsun's obituary on Hitler. Seems the rules you bring to bear should be presented before using them - like the "rules" or conventions about "so much admin attention on your page". That's news to me now. What is it? Factlover1 (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A revert is any action that undoes the action of others, no matter whether information is added or removed, or whether you are right or wrong. What others did is not relevant for the purpose of this request, see WP:NOTTHEM.  Sandstein  21:08, 10 April 2011 (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.

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).

Factlover1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Factlover1 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The edit warring policy doesn't care who is right or wrong in a content dispute. There is no right side in an edit war, anyone who participates in one is automatically wrong. This block isn't about content policy it's about editing policy. You need to demonstrate that you understand why edit warring is not tolerated if you want it lifted early. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2011 (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.

Update: Now the initiators and counter-"edit-warriors" have admitted my translation/edit is in the right. (I added the entry-ref. to the now finally acknowledged article early yesterday [15:19, 9 April 2011 85.165.24.213 (talk) (6,603 bytes) (→The obituary and its impact: Included description, quote, ref. and link to article at the Hamsun-center web-site)], but it was deleted by Eisfbnore as "-soapbox and OR", until he now admits: "Atle Kittang is a noted Hamsun-expert.") But the subordination of the correct translation at the Wikipedia entry to the false one remains. Does this seem right to the "admin"? Should this impact negatively on my editing-permit? - I say my efforts at sticking to the correct translation (over three days, no less!) should be lauded!

- Cf. "Well, Factlover1 has been blocked for 48 hours. Despite this, I feel that the source that was eventually provided is RS, and maym in this context, be better than the NYT. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC) I concur. Atle Kittang is a noted Hamsun-expert. Eisfbnore talk 20:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)".

When these two have used their combined RR's against my RR's to get me blocked, then admit I was right, isn't it overly formalistic to keep the block? I'm reeling here from the unreality of this whole process to get the correct facts onto the entry for "Hamsun's obituary..." Factlover1 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Now, there are two possibilities: Jezhotwells and I have been planning a conspiracy which involved using our combined revert quotas in order to have a user we don't know who are blocked for breaking 3RR. OR: You have been blocked for uncivil edit summaries (such as "Fuck Off"), personal attacks like "zealot", "I couldn't care less for your inflated self-importance" and "You're not worthy", and repeated edit warring at Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler. Choose carefully which possibility you think is the most likely. Eisfbnore ^talk 01:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

: Not really interested in you, Eisfbnore. You irretrievably lost all my respect far back. The facts of your actions and zealotry speak for themselves. Btw, tnx for the elegant admission of your puny collusion "which involved using our combined revert quotas in order to have a user ... blocked for breaking 3RR". I didn't really see it that way, more as a spur of the moment cynicism-thing by you. But you're very convincing in yr description. Never liked nor read Hamsun, did you? - Though you've been forced to admit to have been wrong all along on saying Hamsun called Hitler a "prophet", you still come here to attack and harass, while knowing I'm blocked from complaining on you at "Editor assistance/Requests": shows just the kind of mentality you have. Anyone can go back to the talk-page for "Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler"talk-page for "Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler" , and see how you've behaved. F.O.(Find Out). Grow up. Do something else but censoring plus taunting others. Go read some great Hamsun instead, if you dare: might change your mind. You lost the battle to smear Hamsun. Factlover1 (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

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).

Factlover1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Reason: Thought this to be adhering to "3RR exemptions: Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism" - like another user repeatedly accusing Knut Hamsun of calling Hitler a "prophet", contrary to presented evidence. Factlover1 (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

Decline reason:

One of your edit summaries states the following: Sorry, Eisfbnore, wrong on this being Wikipedia-OR, it's attributed - you're edit-warring here. You are specifically calling it edit warring, and not vandalism here. I would also note that there was a discussion on the talk page of the article itself, which you were involved in. Thus, i would say this definitely doesn't fall under the vandalism banner in any way whatsoever. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:34, 11 April 2011 (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.

Called it "vandalism" much earlier: "00:40, 8 April 2011 85.165.26.222 (talk) (6,150 bytes) (Undid revision 422945938 by Eisfbnore (talk) Referring to Wikipedia's NPOV: Obit reinserted. Stop the vandalism, Eisfbnore" - not that it matters; I've understood now, sirs, three bags full, sirs, it's opportunities for blocking that matters, sirs, not improving Wikipedia, sirs, yesss, sirs, I'll let it go, sirs...

If you continue in the same vein as your response to Eisfbnore , I'll add WP:CIVIL and WP:PA to the list of block reasons and extend. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, now, that's very interesting, Kodpong, I'm sure. Why don't any of you surely excellent admins extend some nice warnings to Eisfbnore, too, for his "vein" of deletions - if equality's among your fortes? I admit to not like threats, and that seems to be the dominant kind of feedback here - for newcomers unfamiliar with your insider-circle's pretty unfriendly conventions (sorry, for mentioning that, it's still my true impression, if truth matters here), that is. Sorry for not understanding the hierarchic ranking-system between editors here before - or even yet. I really did believe in the message "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but took some time to catch the tacit addition in brackets: (- after the anyone has read about 40,000 pages of the small and really convoluted user-instruction print, has learned new kinds of math for rules like 3RR [where one plus one editor plus more friendly admins does not equal another user-editor at all], has familiarized themselves with the outlandish [sorry, I get that they're normal in your finely tuned, high opinions] social hierarchies and conventions operating that's not mentioned but only learned through put-downs, has accepted that "tone" is one thing from editors friendly with admin's and only commonly "equal" for others, and finally has socialized themselves sufficiently through conspiciously friendly behaviour to merit inclusion of their edits - no matter whether factual or correct edits, which traits must be understood always to be subordinate - in the "very serious" website Wikipedia). Not that it really interests me much. Anymore. My single-purpose motivation for becoming an editor is done.

That's what I came here to tell y'all now (- only to meet yet another nice threat from Kidping, naturally - funny how that seems so normal now): The correct Wikipedia-form from the copyright-holder of Mr. Knut Hamsun's works regarding his obituary on Adolph Hitler has now been sent Wikipedia. Could someone pls find it at permissions-en@wikimedia.org and then include the previously posted translation of it under the relevant entry "Knut Hamsun's obituary of Adolf Hitler"? Pleeeze. How about you, Eisfbnore, could you do it, undo your undo, now that everything is in order and confirmed? - You see, I can't do it, for some rather peculiar reason. Tnx. You're all welcome. Don't mention it. I'm sure you won't.

I'll expect to be further blocked now, really for succeeding in getting the truth about that obituary of Hamsun's available to Wikipedia - and for standing my ground in the storm of admins' consistent attack-"warnings" and downers (still a couple of fair exceptions - tnx, people, you know who you are, I do too, it was good to meet you:-). Doesn't matter. Sun's out, beckoning. I'm free of you. - Wow, this has been like getting melted gum on my fingers, all of them, repeatedly. Wikigum.

Bye now. Lighten up. Go play. Have fun. Factlover1 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you don't mind a few words from me. It's unfortunate that your well-intentioned attempts to improve Wikipedia got off to such a rocky start, and it is true that there are a lot of rules around the place. However, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" doesn't mean "anyone can do as they like, without constraints", because that way would lie chaos. One thing we absolutely have to respect is the law - so, for example, we have to have the proper copyright documentation in place (and it's not just law - it's also unethical to introduce material without dealing with copyright correctly). Now that the correct copyright permission has apparently been sent, that's great. Also, I'm sure you'll appreciate that we have to have mechanisms in place to prevent edit wars - if we didn't, we'd see back-and-forth reverts upon reverts going on for ages (I've seen some people carrying on slow edit wars for months) - and one of those is the "3RR" rule. I appreciate you weren't aware of the rules, and that those early warnings might have upset you a little, but the way to deal with it is not to go on the attack and start slagging off everyone else - if we all did that every time we disagreed with each other, we'd have a cyber-bloodbath here. Anyway, I hope things can cool down a bit, and when the current block expires (which won't be long) I hope you have a more rewarding experience that you have had so far. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi back, "Boing! said Zebedee" - Tnx a lot. That's a message I really appreciated - and can easily respect (style & info in). I completely get that, re rules, whence the rules get easier to get. A bit like biking, I reckon: until you get the balance, it's hard going - but after that it gets to be a joy. Grateful for yr "few words", they put me in the picture. Trying to comply will be my pleasure. Factlover1 (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)