User talk:Sleetman - Knowledge (XXG)

3124:

noticeboard. As for the content of the reversion itself, I repeat that the quotes that I re-added had already achieved consensus on the talk page and added editing tags in a manner that fully complied with Knowledge (XXG) editing policies given the unsourced content on Armstrong's Knowledge (XXG)-page (an example: This quote - "This was published in 1982 as, Through the Narrow Gate, to excellent reviews." - in Armstrong's Knowledge (XXG) page under her career's section has no citations); the reversion of these edits suggest that the reverting editor (Nomodeskaticity) is not editing from a NPOV. Sleetman (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

2419:, the first two edits don't show evidence of edit warring, only a simple transfer of information from one section to another (no addition or removal of disputed content) (Administrators should note that at no point on karen Armstrong's talk page does Guettarda make clear why the reception's section should be removed) The third edit shows the same edits as the first two edits with the exception that entire paragraphs sourced to an unreliable source are removed. The fourth edit shows the inclusion of quotes that either comply with Knowledge (XXG) sourcing guidelines or have already been verified on the talk page ( 2106:

female name) As for this statement of yours, "if someone asks you to stop, it's not that hard to just stop" again, short of having done something wrong to a person, many (if not most) people would ask why it is that they're asked to stop what they are doing by that person. I reiterate my defense that I had no idea of Bearcat's sexual orientation (which is the reason why he took such offense at the female honorific) and that had I known about it, I would've stopped calling him that (which I did). I should also point out that the argument was started by Bearcat, so it's not as if the user is innocent here.

1530:. Second, I don't care if you think I hate gays even though I know gays or that I don't get why gays take offense when people call them females despite my knowing the prejudices homosexuals face in society; you don't know me as well as I know myself. Third, actions speak louder than words so if there's the chance in blue h-e-double-hockey-sticks I continue to call you ma'am/miss you can report me to the AN/I where I'll be blocked for X number of years and you can be free to make whatever changes you want on Mulcair's and Davies's page. 2983:

that I've made every possible attempt to avoid editing warring: firstly, when user Nomoskedasticity reverted my edit I immediately took it to the talk page as per his suggestion; the subsequent edits I made (addition of tags) were not the object of contention of previous editing disputes; and secondly, as per DigitalC's suggestion of "reporting it at the BLP noticeboard than to get into an edit war yourself," that is exactly what I did by raising the issue of the neutrality of my edits here. Sleetman (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

3479:(again, no citation for the fact that the book received excellent reviews). And even if I did ask for those sources on talk, my guess is nobody would answer them given: a) the limited number of users who even care about Armstrong's Knowledge (XXG) biography and b)the self-interest of the few users with whom I'm engaged in the edit war over Armstrong's page to filibuster my attempts to remove the POV sentences by refusing to find sources to corroborate the sentences for which I've put Knowledge (XXG)-editing tags. 3243:

re-addition of sources ALL of the sources that had already gained consensus on the talk page (which I admit is a revert in bad faith on my part), edit 8 and 9 are, in essence, edits for the same reasons (qualifying unsourced information) as edits 5 and 6 and so shouldn't be treated as a revert; edit 10 is another revert of bad faith. Despite edit 10, simple mathematics show that I'm haven't yet violated 3RR (hence Nomodeskaticity's edit on my page

2775: 2218: 2121:

and that something could be even remotely construed as uncivil, its polite, and in my mind necessary per WP:CIVIL, to simply stop. No if's, and's or but's about it. Yes, you can question it if they are taking offense at something really far out there, but calling a guy ma'am, and then taunting him about it (see Errant's post below), is not really far out there. That's rude, regardless of whether they're gay or not.

3291: 3038: 2897: 2302: 1915: 1733: 1346: 1045: 751: 2001:

making the disputed change on the article and then (using his administrative powers) protecting the version of article with the changes he wants such that ordinary users with no administrative powers cannot redact that article. Is this kind of conduct of administrator's on Knowledge (XXG) even allowed?Sleetman (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

2995:

doing so does not then mean that repeated reversions somehow don't count as edit warring. Knowledge (XXG)'s policy is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you comment on talk pages on the reversions you are making, or the reversions you are making have not previously been the subject of dispute".

2982:

Sir, the edits I've made on Armstrong's page do not in any way constitute edit warring; they were either changes that were already agreed upon in Armstrong's talk page or changes (tags) that were not the object of dispute in previous edit warring exchanges on Armstrong's page. I should also point out

2700:

The "Involved admins" rule prohibits the use of admin tools in issues in which an admin is involved, it does not prohibit taking part in discussions - so an involved admin would be prohibited from accepting or declining an unblock request, from blocking or unblocking, etc, but not from taking part in

2446:

15:53 is a simple revert of the previous edit. 16:00-16:05 esentially does the same thing, along with the removal you noted. 16:09 is a simple revert of the previous edit. 22:58 reinserts the Andrea Levin material that was just removed in a previous edit. I'm sorry if you're unclear on what a revert

1021:

When someone asks you to stop calling them a certain name (like ma'am or miss or what-have-you), it's generally considered polite to stop. When you continue to do so after several requests from other editors and are obviously trying to upset them, then it crosses the line into disruptive editing. You

2120:

I know very little of the original dispute, so I can't answer that, and it really doesn't look good to say you don't need to apologize just because you're unblocked. That aside, I think I can answer the rest of your statement with this: if someone asks you to stop doing something that you are doing,

2105:

Well as I'm already blocked, I technically don't need to apologize for violating WP:CIVIL since I'm unblocked now, although for courtesy's sake I will go on the record for saying I do apologize for violating WP:CIVIL. (I should also point out, I haven't called Bearcat miss, ma'am or any variant of a

2000:

As I've explained for the above personal reasons, I won't be calling Bearcat miss/ma'am again. I would also like to point out that during my block, Bearcat exploited the situation to report me of Sockpuppetry and made changes to an an article in which the user and I are currently in dispute by first

1640:

I would also like to point out that that is an EDITED version of the exchange; you're missing the beginning part where he fired the opening salvo by accusing me of "Biased "give me my way or else I'm going to whine to the principal" editing much?" Not that that helps to create sympathy for the other

1240:

perhaps edit disputes but not edit warring (and if you're going to accuse me of that charge, for sake of consistency you should at least leave this same comment on Bearcat's talkpage as that user is also guilty of edit warring) I have read the rules of Knowledge (XXG) very thoroughly if i didn't I'd

3470:

That's precisely the reason why I added those tags; because the references at the end of the sentences and paragraphs did NOT contain any of the information for the sentences for which I was applying the tags....which isn't surprising given the clearly tendentious and non-neutral wording of some of

2540:

No, the edits from 16:00 - 16:05 show the removal of quotes sourced to a political self-published web-blog. 15:53 and 16:09 are reverts of previous edits (this doesn't violate the 3RR rule) and in any case it isn't clear why these edits be seen as problematic when all they show is a transfer of the

3455:

and elsewhere isn't a good way to proceed. The best thing is to check the references at the end of the sentence or paragraph to see if the information is there, and if it isn't to look for sources yourself. If you can't find any, then ask for sources on talk. Tagging should be a last resort before

2078:

Sleetman is still blocked because he has yet to really apologize for violating WP:CIVIL. All of his "apologies" have skirted the issue. In his second unblock request, he says that he wouldn't have done what he did had he known Bearcat was gay...does that mean it's okay to call straight users ma'am

3242:

Edits 5 and 6 are not only tag additions that were not in dispute before, but also qualifies unsourced information in a BLP which is more than covered by DigitalC's observation that Knowledge (XXG) guidelines don't treat removal of libelous/unsourced information from a BLP as reverts; edit 7 is a

2994:

You don't seem to grasp what "edit warring" means. Whether edits were or were not "the object of dispute in previous edit warring exchanges" is irrelevant: what is relevant is whether you repeatedly made reversions. Raising possibly controversial edits on a talk page is the right thing to do, but

1818:

I've explained thoroughly why I won't be calling user Bearcat miss/ma'am again. I've also explained why I made that taunt given the threat of editblocking Bearcat made. Had the user expressed why he took offense to it, I definitely would not have made that taunt especially in light of that user's

3123:

As per the comments in the edit block decline, that is a complete misrepresentation of what happened; I didn't "repeatedly" make any reversions, although I'm aware that I did make a reversion....which as soon as another editor an issue with my reverts I immediately went to the talk page and BLP

2140:

To add; the main reason I declined one of the requests was not specifically to do with calling Bearcat "ma'am" but related to the taunting "Please miss (didn't call you ma'am)". After someone asks them to stop referring to you something you don't taunt them with a similar honorific. None of his

3198:

OK, since you have switched from "my edits were justified" to "I didn't repeatedly revert", here are a few diffs which show you repeatedly making edits which are in whole or in part the same. This is not a complete list, nor even anywhere near complete, it is just enough to show that you have

2407:

why he thinks the inclusion of a web-blog with no editorial oversight deserves to be regarded as a reliable source although I have yet to receive a response from him) The fifth report simply clarifies the quotes praising Armstrong and adds criticisms of Armstrong that either fully comply with

1284:

Sir, please stop jumping to conclusions. Before the block was instituted, I didn't even know you were a man, much less that you are gay/transsexual and had I known that, of course I wouldn't have called you ma'am/miss. I know gay people personally, I know people (some of my relatives) who are

2726:

Blocked again? I'm not suprised. I would recommend reading and re-reading the Knowledge (XXG) policies. It doesn't matter if you were right or wrong when you were edit-warring, edit-warring is not tolerated. Making more than 3 reverts is against policy. The ONLY exception to this is removing

620:

Well, sorry if I appeared to be generalizing or stereotyping the Philippine country. What I meant is that any pov can be considered "true" or "untrue" in the eyes of different people. That is unfortunately true. I don't mean to offend you or anyone by saying that. Anyway, thanks for talking

1269:

offensive to address a man by terms which imply that he's actually a woman, or a woman by terms which imply that she's actually a man? You might be able to get away with that as good-natured joshing between friends — but Knowledge (XXG) isn't a Friday night poker party with the gang.

2541:

material from one paragraph to a under a heading (receptions) that not even user Guettarda has objected to using. 22:58 reinserts the Adrea Levin material yes, there's nothing wrong with that as it's already been accepted by virtue of majority decision as a reliable source (See:

1655:

I read that conversation rather differently. The first time Bearcat specifically mentioned he wasn't female (as opposed to taking offense to "ma'am" specifically) was following this exchange. I don't see Sleetman addressing him as female after that clarification either.

2595:

Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this

3251:

of 3RR.....and yes, before anyone attempts to accuse of trying to "game the system," don't. As per the aformentioned summary for my first edit block appeal, as soon as the reverts were made, I took the issue regarding my edits on Armstrong's talk page

849:

Sleetman, the link you provided to justify your addition of Spencer's responses to his critics, mainly culled from his own blog, are in no way acceptable, nor was there any "consensus" supporting that. Quite the contrary. Again, please review the

2087:

something is offensive - if someone asks you to stop, it's not that hard to just stop. In the last request, he just points us to the first three...and then defends himself! All in all, not the best sequence of events if you want to get unblocked.

1490:

And I suppose I'm supposed to have been able to read your mind? I don't know you personally, so all I've got is the words you write as they lay on the page — and again, while both straight and gay guys can generally get away with calling their

661:

will most likely be revert for its bias tone and/or attempt at political criticism in the opening sentence of the article . If you have any questions at all pls ask i am more then willing to help - bellow are links you may find usefull.

2141:

unblock requests have dealt with that issue, focusing instead on why Bearcat might not like being called ma'am (frankly, I don't see the relevance of sexuality, someone calling me ma'am after I asked them not to would be annoying also). --

1204:

I am, how do you know I'm not? I can't prove it to you because at this moment I am blocked, but once I'm unblocked I'll stop calling the user ma'am/miss. Now please remove this unblock as I am currently engaged in three disputes with that

1431:

I've stopped calling Bearcat a miss/ma'am and will not do so given that user's sexual orientation. Had I known about that user's sexual orientation, I wouldn't have called that user miss/ma'am. Sleetman (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

1577:

I still think that there could be a good reason for his actions. Some women take offense to being called "ma'am" because they feel it suggests they are older than they are. Calling them "miss" instead is appropriate in such cases.

2399:, the first report is a simple transfer of information from one section to another (no addition or removal of disputed content). The second and third report is a removal of sections by Armstrong sourced to a web-blog which violates 2161:

of the above was not adequately clear... continuing to use the honorific "ma'am", and even "sir", is treading a very very thin line and you are risking being blocked for it again. Drop the honorific, it will only cause you trouble.

874:. Your citation of consensus reached on a different page does not even remotely apply. You must discuss it and reach consensus with editors on the relevant talk page, but even so, I don't see how it will pass WP:BLP standards 2064:, and he has. He's said that he was wrong to do what he did that got him blocked, and he said that he won't do it again. What else do you want for him? Admit that he's responsible for all things wrong on Knowledge (XXG)? 2545:) I finally find it amusing how this big hullabaloo about edit warring should apply to me, but doesn't apply to Guettarda. Don't see why that user shouldn't get a block for "edit warring" if I'm going to get one too. 1443:

Even without knowing anything about an editor's sexual orientation, if someone asks you to stop calling them a specific name then you stop - and you don't appear to have grasped that simple issue of civility yet. --

3522:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 796:

Yet another warning regarding 3RR and disruptive behaviour. You need to resolve this on the talk page and achieve consensus for your edits first, rather than edit warring to insert your material. PLease review

3135:

As noted in the last unblock, you are still not clear on what constitutes edit-warring. In the future, you need to use the article talk page for discussion if there are multiple editors disputing your edits.

993:

You're in violation of 3RR here, an issue you should be aware of given the warnings you've recently received regarding other articles, and need to undo your violation to avoid the risk of being blocked. I

3376:

As I've yet to receive a response from JamesBWatson to my explanation of how my reverts aren't disruptive, I'm asking once again that my edit block be liftedSleetman (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

2731:

is not an exception. Even then, it is better to report it at the BLP noticeboard than to get into an edit war yourself. Again, while you are blocked, consider reading & re-reading the policies.

3274:

I gave those examples to show that you had made multiple reversions, since you had denied having done so. Now you shift your argument from "I didn't revert" to "my reversions were justified".

1676:

You posted a comment expressing confusion as to why the term was at all inappropriate; I replied. That doesn't constitute "getting involved in an editblock" — it's just replying to a comment.

1141:

You don't seem to have grasped why what you did was inappropriate; if someone asks you not to call them by a specific name it is polite to stop doing so. Instead you used your next reply to

1513:

is to give people the benefit of the doubt. I doubt that Sleetman was doing anything out of malice. Instead, this seems to be a simple mistake that Sleetman has already learned from. --

3395:, and therefore do not show that you understand the reason for your block and that the behaviour will not recur will lead to a locking of your talkpage for the duration of this block. ( 1626:

Yes I did that, but that in my opinion was totally justified as he threatened me with an editblock. If he had told me about his sexual orientation, then I wouldn't have made that taunt.

831:

page, to which you added self-published blog material to address all of Robert Spencer's critics, which others correctly reverted. Your edit warring is unacceptable. Please review the

2567:? The above paragraph seems completely misinformed. Please take a look again; I'm afraid such an understating of the policy is going to lead to very quick future disruptive editing. 40:. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Knowledge (XXG). If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place 2182:, please join in the discussion and make your case for inclusion, also please consider not reverting the disputed content back in whilst under discussion at the noticeboard, thanks 2416: 2396: 2392: 2388: 1495:"ma'am" or "miss" or "princess" or "sister" or whatever, people on Knowledge (XXG) aren't your friends and don't owe you the benefit of the doubt if your intentions were unclear. 698:

Sorry things are not working out for you - i see that the reverts to some of your additions are due to the use of blogs and forum as references. Would be best to read over

62:

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Knowledge (XXG), you might want to consider being "

1308: 3473:"her book, A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, an international best seller that is now required reading in many theology courses." 168: 969:

I haven't added blog-sourced criticism to Armstrong's talk-page nor am I in contempt of Knowledge (XXG) rules. Consider yourself reported to AN/I for personal attacks.

1830:

Declined; three requests in the space of an hour suggest that you haven't really paused to consider the matter properly. Come back tomorrow and try to start fresh.

677: 3439:

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.

3172:

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.

3029:

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.

2485:

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.

2052:

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.

1872:

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.

1478:

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.

1176:

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.

1145:

Bearcat ("Please miss (didn't call you ma'am) "). Pause, think about why you are blocked and consider making a more thoughtful request for unblocking. --

3391:- you're flip-flopping between unblock reasonings. At this point, be advised that further unblock requests that do not show that you have clearly read 2647: 870: 212: 71: 868:

I have reverted your edits that rely upon self-published blog references for the second time. Again, review the the standards for WP:BLP, especially

762:

that is inaccurate and misleading. Specifically, you have claimed consensus for an edit when no such consensus exists. Please use edit summaries that

153: 2400: 699: 190: 686: 2668:

As noted by Guettarda, and addressed specifically in my unblock decline, there was more to that series of edits than just a BLP issue. Good luck.

3424: 3157: 3014: 2819: 2470: 2262: 2037: 1857: 1463: 1161: 3331: 3078: 2937: 2342: 1955: 1773: 1386: 1085: 2423:) by virtue of a majority consensus as reliable sources. I urge the administrator's to please remove this block as it completely unfounded. 447: 3547: 208: 2593:); the fourth one from 16:00 - 16:05 (which would put me in violation of the three-revert rule) should be regarded as as a 3RR exemption ( 1130:

i've stopped calling the user ma'am/miss. I should point out that the user did not tell me WHY calling the user that title was offensive.

2686:

Good luck indeed. What was the issue again? 3RR? Sorry, but I've just shown you in my paragraphs above how my reverts don't violate 3RR.

59: 1285:

staunchly opposed to homosexuality and the prejudices gay's (still) face in society, one of which is that gay's are weak, sissies, etc.

58: 2638:. 2) Scratch the 22:58 revert as an example of an edit warring, it was a revert to enforce certain overriding policies (in this case, 629: 601: 525: 484: 654: 399: 186: 331: 2844: 2635:

Two points here: 1) Sir, I have no idea why you're even involved in my request for an unblock as that violates administrator rules

2281: 263: 203: 2872:

advise that you head for the talk page, and that you do not change the article in question without a strong consensus to do so. --

363: 313: 3543: 2522:

That appears to be Nomo's first edit in three days. This does little to convince me that you understand what edit warring is.

2447:

is. If you have questions in the future, you may want to ask. An unblock while you're still confused seems like a poor idea.

1033: 1007: 2852: 2289: 376: 317: 126: 120: 3408: 3326: 3073: 2932: 2337: 1950: 1768: 1527:

Sir, for one thing I have no idea why you're even involved in my request for an unblock as that violates administrator rules

1381: 1080: 37: 2803: 2246: 439: 300: 2604:

And aside from all that, you've yet to give me a response as to why Guettarda isn't blocked for edit warring. Why is that?

1601:

Yes. Pot kettle black. Biased editing much. Caught red handed. Ma'am, miss, madam. Sleetman (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

2706: 1617: 1567: 1549: 1449: 473: 1604:

Biased how? And if you call me "ma'am" one more time, I'm going to editblock you. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

395: 291: 241: 237: 130: 2271: 1544:

I might have agreed with you Tathar, had Sleetman not been asked to stop what he was doing but carried on regardless --

1022:

have been blocked for 31 hours. You may appeal this block by placing {{unblock|Your reason here}} beneath this message.

3534:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

3304: 3051: 2910: 2856: 2782: 2315: 2293: 2225: 1928: 1746: 1359: 1058: 259: 220: 3539: 2882: 2832: 1840: 815: 783: 3298: 3045: 2904: 2309: 1922: 1740: 1353: 1052: 759: 421: 417: 246: 199: 3303:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

3050:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

2909:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

2759: 2314:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

2206: 1927:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1745:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1358:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1057:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1003: 554: 2179: 906:. Editors should not restore such material without first establishing that the sources are compliant with policy. 339: 228: 195: 2799: 2791: 2501: 2242: 2234: 1237: 326: 295: 224: 112: 63: 31: 2702: 1613: 1563: 1545: 1445: 1192: 557:

about the remark on Global Times. For now, I protected the article in the version before the edit war began. --

1223:

as well. When this block expires, if you continue as you have been, the blocks will escalate in their length.

385: 381: 372: 368: 67: 3482:

But of course you don't need to take my word for it, you can take a look at the article in its current form

828: 579: 2012:

You had plenty of chances to stop. It was abundantly clear that you were baiting the user in violation of

930:

The burden of evidence for any edit on Knowledge (XXG) rests with the person who adds or restores material.

430: 267: 233: 53: 3345: 3279: 3230: 3144: 3092: 3000: 2951: 2356: 2024: 1969: 1787: 1400: 1099: 635: 607: 531: 490: 83: 3535: 2848: 2285: 2079:

after they've asked you not to? In his third request, he says he would have stopped had Bearcat told him

1690:"You posted a comment expressing confusion as to why the term was at all inappropriate" I did this where? 754:

Constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article

322: 308: 254: 159: 2755: 2494: 2202: 561: 547: 466: 434: 49: 703: 304: 163: 116: 3456:

removal, and even then it's best to stick to one tag for the section or sentence in question. Cheers,

593:

Hi, Sleetman, I hope there is no ill-feeling between you and me even though we had some disagreement.—

2651: 2542: 2420: 2409: 2404: 2187: 3511: 3502: 391: 358: 2626: 2129: 2096: 1558:(Oh, and more than that - instead of just stopping, he actually went and reported the other guy at 1185: 1028: 956: 937: 911: 3531: 3515: 3396: 2736: 2069: 987: 879: 859: 840: 575: 2013: 999: 443: 2868:

resumed the same behaviour, including edit wwarring and 3RR issues. Once your block expires, I

657:

may help in editing style - thus helping to save your edits from being reverted. Editions like

3275: 3226: 3138: 2996: 2018: 2016:. If you continue to make essentially the same unblock request, your talkpage will be locked. 1903: 1709: 1681: 1500: 1330: 1275: 1242: 902:

The material you have restored was removed because it does not appear to be appropriate for a

623: 595: 519: 478: 79: 75: 3527: 3519: 3475:(no citation given for the fact that the book is required reading in many theology courses); 1880: 802: 574:

Please discuss your changes on the talk page first, in order to avoid an edit war. Thanks, --

425: 250: 3433: 3166: 3023: 2809: 2479: 2266: 2252: 2046: 1888: 1866: 1661: 1607:

Biased how? Please miss (didn't call you ma'am)... Sleetman (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

1583: 1518: 1472: 1170: 558: 74:

for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the

3530:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3523: 3392: 2586: 2564: 2493:

A final point, after my block, one of the editors who launched the edit warring complaint (

2198: 1559: 1510: 924: 903: 896: 851: 832: 798: 767: 766:

tell other editors what you did. Furthermore, you are edit-warring and in violation of the

727: 335: 148: 3457: 2880: 2830: 2795: 2751: 2650:

or received consensus on the talk page that they should be regarded as reliable sources. (

2238: 2183: 1838: 813: 781: 755: 3388: 2728: 2643: 2639: 1220: 653:

Hello Sleetman i have noticed that many of your edits are being revert. Reading over

2674: 2622: 2573: 2528: 2453: 2122: 2089: 1595:"Biased editing much" Pot kettle black. Ma'am. Sleetman (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC) 1224: 1023: 952: 933: 907: 735: 711: 667: 2727:

libelous/unsourced information from a BLP. Adding back information that is sourced to

923:

reinsert controversial material without first establishing that it is acceptable. The

70:

to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click

3487: 3486:

and judge for yourself whether or not any of the content on that page violates NPOV.

3403: 3309: 3259: 3184: 3056: 2915: 2732: 2687: 2655: 2605: 2546: 2505: 2424: 2320: 2107: 2065: 1933: 1751: 1691: 1642: 1627: 1531: 1364: 1286: 1246: 1206: 1063: 970: 875: 855: 836: 504: 951:

blog-sourced criticism. Your utter contempt for Knowledge (XXG) rules is troubling.

2864:

Note that you were blocked in late May for the same problem. Upon your return, you

2164: 2143: 1899: 1705: 1677: 1496: 1326: 1271: 1147: 1307:

another editor's userpage before making gender assumptions — and furthermore, in

1884: 1657: 1579: 1514: 2874: 2824: 2750:

Friendly notice to let you know that you are currently at the limit of 3RR on

2636: 2061: 1832: 1528: 807: 775: 3477:

This was published in 1982 as, Through the Narrow Gate, to excellent reviews.

2669: 2568: 2523: 2448: 2408:

Knowledge (XXG) sourcing guidelines or have been verified on the talk page (

731: 707: 663: 2599: 2201:

and consider this message a warning in relation to the Armstrong article.

772:

User claimed consensus for adding their text when no such consensus exists.

2497:) immediately restored a disputed version of Karen Armstrong's wikipage. 1303:

that I was a woman. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that someone will

3181: 1612:

I can't see that as anything other than a deliberate wind-up, myself --

3518:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)

2197:

On the slim possibility that you are not familiar with 3RR, please see

3551: 3495: 3464: 3414: 3283: 3267: 3234: 3192: 3147: 3004: 2889: 2839: 2763: 2740: 2710: 2695: 2681: 2663: 2630: 2613: 2580: 2554: 2535: 2513: 2460: 2432: 2276: 2210: 2191: 2168: 2147: 2133: 2115: 2100: 2073: 2027: 1907: 1892: 1847: 1713: 1699: 1685: 1665: 1650: 1635: 1621: 1587: 1571: 1553: 1539: 1522: 1504: 1453: 1334: 1294: 1279: 1254: 1231: 1214: 1199: 1151: 1038: 1011: 978: 960: 941: 915: 883: 863: 844: 822: 790: 739: 715: 671: 642: 614: 583: 564: 538: 512: 497: 87: 2397:

Concerning the first edit warring complaint by user Nomoskedasticity

2589:

proves my point that I've made only three reverts (15:53, 16:09 and

3483: 770:, which may result in the suspension of your editing privileges. 1598:

Er, no. And I'm no ma'am. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

2417:

Concerning the second edit warring complaint by user Guettarda

278: 99: 24: 3451:

Hi Sleetman, adding so many tags to articles as you've done

3289: 3036: 2895: 2773: 2642:. All the quotes re-added in that revert either comply with 2300: 2216: 1913: 1731: 1344: 1043: 726:

So far noone has noticed - but you must be mindful of our

553:

I'm writing to invite you back to a focussed discussion on

2851:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek 2652:

particularly the criticisms by Karsh, Harris and Armstrong

2543:

particularly the criticisms by Karsh, Harris and Armstrong

2421:

particularly the criticisms by Karsh, Harris and Armstrong

2412:) by virtue of a majority consensus as reliable sources. 2410:

particularly the criticisms by Karsh, Harris and Armstrong

2288:. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek 3421:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

3154:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

3011:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

2467:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

2403:(Note that I went to great lengths asking user Guettarda 2034:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

1898:

I'd suggest that I don't see how I've failed to do that.

1854:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

1819:

sexual orientation. Sleetman (talk) Today, 13:07 (UTC−7)

1460:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

1158:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

3441:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

3174:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

3031:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2487:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2054:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1874:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1480:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1178:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

3452: 3359: 3355: 3349: 3340: 3336: 3322: 3318: 3314: 3256: 3253: 3244: 3220: 3217: 3213: 3210: 3206: 3203: 3106: 3102: 3096: 3087: 3083: 3069: 3065: 3061: 2965: 2961: 2955: 2946: 2942: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2618: 2498: 2370: 2366: 2360: 2351: 2347: 2333: 2329: 2325: 1983: 1979: 1973: 1964: 1960: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1801: 1797: 1791: 1782: 1778: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1509:

Actually, I have to disagree here. The whole point of

1414: 1410: 1404: 1395: 1391: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1113: 1109: 1103: 1094: 1090: 1076: 1072: 1068: 658: 854:, or you risk your editing privileges being suspended. 835:, or you risk your editing privileges being suspended. 2855:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request 2292:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request 3297: