User talk:Crzyclarks

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome to Wikipedia from Gareth Griffith-Jones

Signing and dating your editing

Hi, Crzyclarks. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. You also might want to consider being "adopted" by an experienced user, who can show you how Wikipedia works through a program called "Adopt-a-User". Again, welcome! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will the sinebot's signing be the same though? Crzyclarks (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your typing the four tildes at the end of your posting on a talk page shows up similar to mine above. The sinebot only picks up when someone is editing the Discussion page of any Article – not User talk pages.

Consequently, your two entries here have not been signed or dated.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009 film), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or 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. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I did go to the talk page and say why I thought the removal was necessary. I got no response for quite a while so I changed it again. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response. It is appreciated. I do not want to put you off editing Wikipedia, but there is a lot to learn.

Removing chunks of text, without first giving an explanation on the article's discussion page, is not a good idea. What you are suggesting by your edit is not essentially incorrect. However it has been in the article for some time now.

Keep in touch! All the best, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This morning, I have posted on the The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009 film) discussion page. Have a look!

Consequently, I have reverted my revision. Your edit is now the current version.

I sent you an e-mail too, regarding the section above on Wikipedia signing. See above!

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok cool. Thanks for being so helpful btw! Crzyclarks (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ME3 reception

Hi Crzyclarks,

Concerning IGN, if you do feel that IGN should be mentioned in the reception, please expand beyond 'gave it a 9,5 review and called it "amazing"'. The score is listed in the reception box, so it basically is just a one word review :P. I don't really care for the whole Chobot - ahem - "controversy", but I am in favor of good reception sections! Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 15:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I thought I'd leave it to others to go find some quotes from the review, I just didn't want IGN to be left out because of something so ridiculous. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok edited so it's better, hopefully it won't be undone. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. If others still claim it should be removed, I got your back. --Soetermans. T / C 19:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Crzyclarks. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 15:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Just click on my name above to take you directly to your message!

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Crzyclarks. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 16:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Another one.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Crzyclarks. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 16:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Question for you

... Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Your recent editing history at Kony 2012 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Zhou Yu (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality

Hello again Crzy, I have removed the warning posted last night because it was not signed & not dated. The editor was wrong in that respect. However, you really don't want to risk getting a block. Best to keep away from the article for a few days. With kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, my internet lagged a bit and I think I undid two different edits when I was trying to undo one. I'll wait another day or two for a response on the discussion page before editing it. Crzyclarks (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what you mean. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a day for edit warring, as you did at Homosexuality. 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:48, 18 May 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).

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

Request reason:

I made 5 reverts to edits that changed the article a lot, and I think misrepresent what the sources actually say. I didn't stick to the 3RR, as the discussion page would take to long, all the while people who are reading the article will be under a false impression of what the statistics are. They are very important statistics, as they are in the introduction of the article and people reading will be under the impression that up to 13% of people are homosexual, when in fact, the sources say 1-3%. The responses I received on the discussion page did not address the issue at all. I also stopped reverting after the 5th and waited for a response, replying in the discussion to statements that had very little to do with the issue. There was some reverting before this incident, however I think if you look at the information there, it is well sourced and didn't deserve removal (only one source should have been removed). My last reply regarding that edit hasn't been addressed. If you read what I was trying to add and the reasons, then I don't think the previous incident will affect how you perceive this one (I didn't break the 3RR). The warning on my page up the top is in response to 3 reverts of material, though the issue has been rested for now. Talk:Homosexuality#Unreliable_sources

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, although there are some times that we are permitted to break WP:3RR, what you describe is clearly not one of them. Indeed, you can be blocked for edit-warring after a single edit in many cases. This is a short 1 day block to protect the project while you read and truly understand WP:3RR, WP:EW, WP:DR and WP:BRD (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:13, 19 May 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.

Disruptive editing

Please don't edit disruptively. Don't remove common use of language from an article in an attempt to make a point. To start a conversation in an elevator falls clearly within the standard usage of the word "approach", both the second meaning "to make advances" as well as the 5th "To speak to, as to make a request or ask a question". Is English not your first language? Yworo (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is designed for the reader, not the editor. I believe most readers will see "approach" as walking up to somebody. In the context of the article, that person sounds more dangerous or devious than he actually was. It makes it look like he got on the same elevator in order to invite her to his room. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, native speakers of English are quite aware of the various subtleties of meaning of the word "approach" and are aware that not all uses involve physical movement. Wikipedia is written for the fluent speaker, and is not to be dumbed down for the reasons you suggest. Yworo (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blame the education system, not me. The sentence can be reworked with the word approach in it. At the moment it may not be clear that he was simply talking to her whilst in the same elevator. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for any reworking. It is completely accurate according to the Mail & Guardian article[1]. He was not already in the elevator. He came up behind her and followed her into the elevator: "she was tired and headed off to the elevator and to her room. A man came up behind her and joined her in the elevator." Falls clearly within the meaning of "approach", including the physical aspect. Yworo (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best to stick to the account she gave when she first said it. She changed her story after criticism, for example on her next video she changed it to say he cornered her in an elevator. If you say he approached the elevator, then fine, he didn't approach her. Crzyclarks (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, secondary sources are actually preferred to primary ones. Take it up at Talk:Rebecca Watson and get a consensus or leave it alone. Yworo (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's made an edit there for 8 months. Yes, secondary sources are usually preferred, in this case a primary one is required for an account of what happened. Her first account of what happened is required, as opposed to a changed account later on. If you find a secondary source that quotes what happened from her first account, as opposed to subsequent ones, then fine. From what she said, they happened to be on the same elevator, so we're getting sidetracked. I don't see the problem in making what happened clearer. Crzyclarks (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRIMARY: "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Use of either primary source relies on interpretation on your part: we allow secondary reliable sources to interpret and report what they say, we don't allow Wikipedia editors to interpret primary sources themselves. Yworo (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a consensus on the talk page is the only way you will get to change the article. Article wording is presumed to be the product of the consensus of the editors involved in writing it. If you make a change and another editor such as myself disagrees, then the consensus which resulted in the wording is presumed to remain. It's one against one, so there is no change in consensus and no change to the article. You need to show that multiple regular editors of the article agree with you. So unless you start the discussion where others can join, the article doesn't get changed. How long it has been since the article or the talk page have been edited is irrelevant. Interested parties are watching both. Yworo (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care enough to bother lol. I don't see how the reader loses out when the event is made more clear. Use a secondary source based upon what her first account was. If you can't find one, then just quote what she said. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised you and I were debating the Rupert Murdoch article. I'm curious if this is a coincidence. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bold, revert, discuss

Please be aware of our Bold, Revert, Discuss process. If you make an edit, and another editor reverts you, your next step should be to start or join a conversation on the article talk page. You make your point and see if there is a consensus in agreement with you. You should not revert to your preferred version unless such a consensus forms. Following this process will result in a more enjoyable experience on Wikipedia, which is not about you being "right". It's about developing articles via consensus. Yworo (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Service award

This editor is a
**Novice Editor**
and is entitled to display this **Service Badge**.

In recognition of your 200 edits and 1 month on Wikipedia, I award you this badge. Other versions of this service award are available here. You may put whichever version of the award you prefer on your user page if you wish, and may upgrade yourself to the next level of award after you have achieved 1000 edits and three months of service. Yworo (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Crzyclarks (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Yworo (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Noticed that you dropped into my User page last night ... thanks for leaving a calling card. All the best! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I was having a read and noticed the tiniest error possible lol. Btw, if you still have IC on your watchlist, you can remove it if you want. Crzyclarks (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to A. E. Wilder-Smith. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed he was still alive, as no information on his death was there. Crzyclarks (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that he died in 1995 (as fact confirmed by his website). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I didn't see that. The biographies I've seen state the year of their birth then their death, after their name. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Can you please stop the multiple edit wars across several articles with several users, and stop acting like you own those articles? Please stop reverting everyone else's contributions just because you don't want something in an article. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 15:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Granted some of the edits that I undid could be debated, but most of them were obviously wrong. Crzyclarks (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientiom (talk • contribs) 12:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hrs for edit warring, as you did at Marriage. 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. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:56, 14 June 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).

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

Request reason:

According to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, they should have gone to the talk page before reverting my revert. So doesn't that mean I was justified in reverting their rule breaking? Crzyclarks (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, it doesn't. Even if the essay you cite were a "rule" (which it isn't) it still wouldn't. You were edit warring, and edit warring is not justified because someone else has done something you think was wrong. If you look at the edit warring policy you will search in vain for anything that could, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded as meaning that you are allowed to edit war as long as another editor in the war has not commented on the talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:22, 14 June 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.

Hi

Hi, please don't edit-war again, and assume good faith - see WP:AGF - saying "ludicrous" is not proper. --~Knowz ^(Talk) 17:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to assume good faith after all this time. Every reason given so far has been changed when it's been refuted. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring warning

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --~Knowz ^(Talk) 17:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're really determined to get blocked a third time, get on over to 3RR, tell them you've seen the light, and promise on your mother's big toe that you're going to be a good boy from now on. The more contrite, the better. Blocks are preventative, not punative, and if you amply and convincingly demonstrate that there is no worry about further tendentious editing in the future, they just might let it slip. It worth a shot. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, thanks. Though I think I've explained pretty well that I was not edit warring. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week, as per standard escalation for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should 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. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:24, 16 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I stated the reasons why this wasn't edit warring here [2]. I'll go over them again. I didn't game the system, my return to the disputed edits was over 48 hours, not 24. The first accusation of a revert that was listed there, was not a revert. I gave another go at editing the information, keeping the wording that I disagreed before but adding some information so that the facts are stated. Another revert I was accused of, was not actually a revert, it is no.2 on the listed reverts. I took into account the problem that the editor had with my edit, and fixed it accordingly. The 3rd and 4th reverts were reverts, and on the 4th I took it to the talk page, (even though I was probably only on my 2nd revert) Crzyclarks (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've just come off a second block for edit warring and practically the first thing you do is ... return to edit warring. As the policy says "(3RR) is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." And it is certainly what you did. I suggest that after this block you do not start the same editing pattern, because any further block is likely to be very long. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 16 June 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.

This is an edit-warring block, not a WP:3RR block, in case you didn't notice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first revert accusation was me sticking to the wording that Knowz and Scientiom wanted, but added a couple of details in so it doesn't state the wrong thing. The second accusation was when I took Scientiom's objection into account and changed it accordingly. The 3rd and 4th reverts are the only ones that count, and since I was not returning to the wording I wanted a couple of days ago, but the wording that they originally wanted (excepted a couple of facts added), I don't see how it is a continuation of edit warring. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:53, 16 June 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).

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

Request reason:

The reasons are what I've already written above. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The reasons are what another declining administrator already written above. Max Semenik (talk) 08:17, 17 June 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.

See WP:GAB. If you can't be arsed to actually attempt a new, viable, policy-based unblock request, then why even try. Asking the exact same question a second time will get the same answer (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming administrators who respond to these know the rules. What I've written is what happened and admins are welcome to check the article and talk page to corroborate it. I guess I can say that it violates blocking policy because it was not a continuation of the previous edit conflict, as I'm sticking to their wording but adding a couple of details to keep it factual. And I'm still allowed to edit the same article and the same paragraph, unless I get blocked from that specific page. Crzyclarks (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not entirely clear why you think that what you did was not edit warring, but as far as I can make out from your comments you seem to have two reasons: (1) you did not break the three revert rule, and (2) some of the edits in question did not revert to exactly the same version as had existed before, but partly reverted and partly changed to something new. If that is not what you meant then you may like to think about how to express your meaning more unambiguously.

Looking at the messages on this talk page, I have seen four places where, in different words, it is pointed out that edit warring does not have to involved breaking the three revert rule, the first being in the section headed "May 2012".
The edit warring policy says "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert". Almost exactly the same wording appears above on this page.

I have no idea why you say "it violates blocking policy because it was not a continuation of the previous edit conflict". Edit warring is sufficient grounds for a block, whether or not it is a continuation of an earlier "conflict".

Basically, the essential point, which you seem to have missed, is that Wikipedia policy is not that you must not keep changing part of the content of an article back to your preferred version unless you stick to a few rules (such as not doing it more than a certain number of times in a certain period, or making sure that you make new changes in each edit as well as changing some of the content back, or any other "rules"); it is simply that you must not keep changing part of the content of an article back to your preferred version. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "May 2012" was not edit warring. I just missed the bit in the article that said when he died, as it was written in the wrong place. So I changed a couple of words such as "was" to "is", only once.

Since it wasn't a continuation of the previous edit war, and I didn't break the 3 revert rule, then it wasn't edit warring. Unless you consider 2 reverts to be that. I didn't change it back to my preferred version. I kept the pointless change in structure from the stable version, but made the statements true. I'm allowed to do that, as I've not been banned from that article. When I reverted twice, (perhaps technically 3 times), I went to the talk page. I think the problem is that because I went to the same spot in which I was banned, everybody is assuming bad faith and that my edits must be edit warring from last time. Crzyclarks (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't reading what people are telling you.

(1) It is irrelevant whether it's a continuation of a previous edit war. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning this.
(2) You didn't break the 3RR rule, but that doesn't matter - I'll quote it again, the policy says ""(3RR) is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.". You reverted or partially reverted three times to re-insert the "However, in ancient and recent times..." section. That's edit warring.
(3) "Making something true" is not a valid reason for edit-warring; the very limited situations when edit-warring can be valid are listed at WP:NOT3RR.
(4) People aren't assuming bad faith, they're seeing a continuation of the behaviour which got you blocked twice previously. Black Kite (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I keep mentioning it because it is the reason you and others have given. More like two reverts, as in the first accusation, I took the persons objection into account and changed it accordingly. The problem is that he just made up a new reason, that was ludicrous, so I reverted twice. Two reverts, then going to the talk page, does not warrant a block. I'm not sure the first block of mine counts, as the revert I made is the current version and I was reverting OR, specifically synthesising sources. It's not a continuation of behaviour from the second block either, as I stuck to the 3RR and did not try to return to the stable version that I was reverting to last time. Unless I get banned from that article, then I'm allowed to continue editing it, so these objections based on disruptive editing or edit warring should not be exaggerated just because it is the same article. Crzyclarks (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Can you not read that the fact it was only 2 reverts is irrelevant because those 2 reverts meet the definition of an edit war. It's an offence you've been blocked for twice before, so you theoretically know that by now. As such, it is a continuation of the behaviour, although not necessarily a continuation of the same content. In other words, regardless of the CONTENT, you still edit-warred immediately after being blocked for edit-warring.

When this block expires, you should probably self-ban from any article related to marriage or sexuality, broadly construed. You should also restrict yourself to WP:1RR for a few months. If not, I highly expect your next block to be indefinite - personally, if I see anything more than 1 revert on any article in the near future, I will indeed be implementing an indef block - you simply DO NOT seem to be reading what everyone is linking to (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two reverts does not automatically mean somebody is edit warring or deserves a block. Other circumstances need to be taken into account when it's 3 or less reverts and I think right now the reasons are bullshit. Crzyclarks (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are unwilling to accept what at least five different editors have told you now, I don't think there is any point in wasting others time any further and I have therefore locked your talkpage until your block expires. If you wish to request an unblock again, please go to this page and fill out the form. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't planning on making another appeal, even though you had already made your decision [3] and Max probably wouldn't cut it as an investigative journalist. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

To quote User:Bwilkins above, "When this block expires, you should probably self-ban from any article related to marriage or sexuality, broadly construed. You should also restrict yourself to WP:1RR for a few months. If not, I highly expect your next block to be indefinite - personally, if I see anything more than 1 revert on any article in the near future, I will indeed be implementing an indef block". Assuming that particular user doesn't see your recent edits on Homosexuality and implement that block in the meantime, I am adding to it now; I am watching your edits in this topic area, and the next time you edit war I will block you myself. You were warned last time - you don't appear to understand the concept that you can't keep blindly reverting to your own version against consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making sure I stick to the 3RR, I don't think the opinion of one editor forces me to stick to the 1RR. I'm not some right-wing religious nutter lol. I'm trying to keep these articles neutral and factual. I think if you actually look at the content of my edits, you can see that. Crzyclarks (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point: 3RR is not a right. You can and will be blocked for edit-warring for going over 1RR. Intentional stopping at 3RR in a 24hr period, then doing a 4th outside that day is gaming the system, and also blockable. Take my advice and BK's advice to heart now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never tried to game the system. The 3 reverts I did were obviously justified and were only with one editor. I didn't break the 3RR and I wasn't edit warring against consensus so I don't see why I'm being blocked again. Crzyclarks (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're edit-warring against two other editors on Homosexual recruitment. Seriously, are you trying to get blocked here? Black Kite (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No i wasn't. Look at talk page, it was decided to edit out the quote marks. Scientiom thought it was against consensus when it wasn't. Crzyclarks (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then you bring the consensus to Scientiom's attention, and have them self-revert. This is not rocket science (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oops hit the wrong button

point was, 1-6% are in the sources used. .03% is not. – Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 03:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 0.3% source in the demographies section. Crzyclarks (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --~Knowz ^(Talk) 15:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you chose to not accept it voluntarily, there is now a discussion at WP:ANI to formally implement a topic ban and 1RR restriction. this is the thread (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts in ANI show that you do not understand WP:EW whatsoever! Your lack of knowledge is not helping your case. I'm close to recommending flat out ban instead if you don't start reading the damn policy. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it and just read it again. But I already know where some people are coming from and I know that avoiding 3RR does not automatically mean somebody isn't edit warring. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding spurious RFC's to pages you're about to be topic banned from

I'm about to remove this again. Can I suggest it would not be a very good idea for you to restore it? You're about to get a topic ban, why on earth would you start an RFC on a topic only you appear to be interested in (and won't be able to comment on)? Black Kite (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the debate needs to be resolved. Doesn't matter if I can't comment on it anymore, it's about getting other editors to decide on it. You're not supposed to remove stuff from the talk page unless it isn't constructive to the article so I don't think you should remove it. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually trying to get blocked here? Black Kite (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the rule on removing stuff from talk pages and this isn't one of them. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't read the rule on what RFCs are actually for, and when they should be used. We've given you every chance, through your multiple edit-warring, to stay editing here. At any point recently an admin could have pressed the indef block button and that would have been it - but the community gave you another chance through a topic ban instead. And what are you doing now? edit-warring again without understanding the policies. Can you give me a good reason why you shouldn't simply be blocked instead of wasting multiple editors time? Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. It's for requesting outside input and dispute resolution with respect to article content. That fits perfectly to the roadblocked discussion. I'm avoiding editing the articles and I'm sticking to the talk pages, I don't see where I've gone wrong. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you used WP:3O? Have you used WP:DR? No. RFC is for when these things haven't worked and is usually for major disputes over articles, not over a silly dispute whether something should be bolded. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Calling an RfC for such a trivial matter is very disruptive, especially in your position. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than two editors involved in this so 3O isn't an option. DR has RFC listed as a perfectly valid avenue for resolution. The RFC page says it is informal and light weight. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3O is to obtain neutral opinion on a topic, no matter how many people are currently involved. Wikipedia is not a vote, so 3O is not intended to create a majority = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 20:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 3O page says, in bold, that it is only if there is two editors. The RfC page says is is light weight and informal, the opposite of the descriptions Dominus and Black gave. Crzyclarks (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just read the parts you want to. What about (from 3O): "For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard." = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 20:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DR page has RfC as an option, the same as the others. Why can't RfC be used? Crzyclarks (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of common sense. RfC's consume editor time that can be better spent than on opining on trivial matters such as whether a particular word should be in boldface or not. "Lightweight" doesn't mean it should be treated lightly. This is especially true when WP:DEADHORSE aplies in spades. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The noticeboard seems like it would take up more time and be more complicated than getting a couple of editors to the talk page for a few minutes. It is a dispute that has not been resolved so we can't just leave it because you think it's trivial. If the editors at RfC don't care, they won't get involved. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet more or the WP:IDHT that led to your fall. WP:DEADHORSE means you do not prolong a dispute that is very clearly not going anywhere, no matter how right you think you are, especially after being blocked three times and not having convinced anyone after countless kilobytes of discussion and a trout. Capisce? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC is designed to resolve a dispute, not prolong it. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was resolved. Long, long ago. Just not to your satisfaction. Consensus on the talk page was very clearly against you, and you were a minority of one. Yet you kept on going, block after block after block, and are still unwilling to concede after a fourth 3rr report, a snow topic ban vote, and indefinite block. WP is a collaborative project, and you clearly have major problems working along with others. I highly recommend finding a different hobby. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been resolved, there wasn't a consensus and it wasn't all against me. I came along to the discussion late. I de-bolded it once then went to the talk page and joined the dispute. I don't know where you got "Yet you kept on going" from. Crzyclarks (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add it back? Crzyclarks (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should 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. ✉→◌BWilkins◌←✎ 17:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Within mere moments you were going to simply have a 1RR restriction, and a ban from certain topics. The you go off and wantonly disrupt a number of articles, edit-war, and all the same things we've told you to stop doing. As such, there's really no choice but to provide an indefinite block from this project. You clearly cannot fathom how this project works, and cannot apparently be damned to read the policies you've been gently guided to over and over ✉→◌BWilkins◌←✎ 17:59, 26 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't disrupt "a number of articles". I have been discussing things on a few talk pages since the block discussion, even though I'm still allowed to edit the articles of those talk pages. It's most definitely not for the same things as before. This block is a result of my two reverts on a talk page to reinsert the RfC I made. From the description on the RfC page, the rules on removing content from talk pages, I think the RfC I made is valid and allowed. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please read the discussion above once again. You're just back from a medium-length block, why on Earth did you continue exactly the way you've been blocked for? Max Semenik (talk) 19:13, 26 June 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.

I haven't though. Can you provide some examples? Crzyclarks (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is open to everybody now; you win a toffee if you can find one. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to lock this page

While blocked, the ONLY use of your talkpage is to request unblock. You have had the reasons behind your block clarified a half-dozen times. You have had proper DR explained. You simply choose not to read. There's no more reason for further discussion if you cannot read, nor look at your own contributions (I assume the question directly above is rhetorical, as one only needs to look at your contributions to answer). If there's no more unblock requests that are WP:GAB-compliant, I'm happy to lock this talkpage = ✉→BWilkins←✎ 22:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since the topic ban discussion I've only been editing on the talk pages. I'd like evidence that I've been on a "path of disruption all morning on articles he's about to be topic-banned from", "launched a swath of RFC's" and had a "last minute disruptive spree". More importantly, an example of this accusation, which is the reason for the block: "wantonly disrupt a number of articles, edit-war, and all the same things we've told you to stop doing". Crzyclarks (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing unblock-en-l, or by using the unblock ticket request system, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

(✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should unblock ever occur

The ANI thread was closed implementing the restrictions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]