C. W. Gilmore (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
→Topic ban: new section |
||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
*'''Additional comments by volunteer:''' Conduct issues should be taken to [[WP:ANI]] as needed. Feel free to open a DRN topic again if you wish to discuss the content of the article in question. An alternative would be to garner community input via a [[WP:RFC]]. |
*'''Additional comments by volunteer:''' Conduct issues should be taken to [[WP:ANI]] as needed. Feel free to open a DRN topic again if you wish to discuss the content of the article in question. An alternative would be to garner community input via a [[WP:RFC]]. |
||
== Topic ban == |
|||
I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=804771820&oldid=804770687 closed the ANI discussion]; it will not surprise you that it closed with a topic ban. You are not to edit [[Patriot Prayer]] or its talk page. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:44, 11 October 2017
Welcome!
Hello, C. W. Gilmore, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
August 2017
Your recent editing history at Patriot Prayer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, stop with the POV pushing. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I DO NOT repost, but I will not let the historical record be revised by those that want to hide their actions.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)C.W.Gilmore
September 2017
Your recent editing history at Patriot Prayer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:C._W._Gilmore reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @User:Darkness Shines, may your wishes come true.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- "User:C. W. Gilmore reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: No violation)"C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Question
Who are you sharing this account with? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- As the name implies, just me, myself and I.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- I am an old person so not the best with computers, but a history buff that prefers the writing of slave biographies Lewis Charlton, or editing seminal moments in racial justice history of the USA The Longoria Affair, or pass times like rescuing dogs Redbone Coonhound and British bulldogs; then posting my findings here. I happened upon your little fiefdom quite by accident as Patriot Prayer held their provocative Pro-Trump rally the day after Charlotteville, near me, while the local anti-Trump tax rally cancelled their. I found this to be in the worst of poor taste, so as I went by their Wiki site, I saw the major gaps in the record, so I corrected it. Only to have User:Darkness Shines undo my every effort to correct the record and the rest is history, thanks for asking.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Darkness Shines: Do you have associations with BNP?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- 😂 Darkness Shines (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Darkness Shines:, What? One rude question does not deserve another in response? -Though it would explain a lot about your editing style.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- What editing style would that be then? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- One that weighed the local news reporting more as it if the best record we have, rather than calling it, "lazy and sloppy" when it contradicts the editors point of view. -The editor must adjust to the facts, not the other way round.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- O' wait, that would be a fair and balanced style, not pushing a point of view.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Darkness Shines:, if you wish to get your way or get people to consider your views more positively, it may be worth considering not calling them 'obtuse' or questioning whether 'English is their first language'; just a thought.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- O' wait, that would be a fair and balanced style, not pushing a point of view.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- One that weighed the local news reporting more as it if the best record we have, rather than calling it, "lazy and sloppy" when it contradicts the editors point of view. -The editor must adjust to the facts, not the other way round.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- What editing style would that be then? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Darkness Shines:, What? One rude question does not deserve another in response? -Though it would explain a lot about your editing style.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- 😂 Darkness Shines (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Patriot Prayer II
Just so you know, you are once again on 3RR Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Darkness Shines:, you should not go there for it never works out the way you want and I only corrected a mistake in good faith. The mistake being that MAJOR changes should be brought to the Talk page, and be re-worked until it meets consensus by the majority before being added to the page. I had to do it before I re-organised the rallies and did it the way you suggested. I hope you will take my suggestions for your sect rewrite with equal gravity. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:C._W._Gilmore reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @ Darkness Shines,You need to gain consensus before you do major edits and work with the others to compromise and fine common ground, this means that you listen and give a little. Better luck next time, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- This was odd, Darkness did not have me blocked for my efforts to keep the article matching the referenced sources.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- "User:C. W. Gilmore reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: No violation)" Again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- This was odd, Darkness did not have me blocked for my efforts to keep the article matching the referenced sources.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
October 2017
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)- [1][2]Please ask the other person(s) to bring major changes to the Talk page for consensus, before exploding them onto the article. This will help END any edit wars, thanks.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- He has been. He's been bringing the changes you've been reverting to the talk page. What I am seeing is that he's not getting anywhere with a discussion with you. You are claiming a consensus exists for outright reverting instead of collaboratively working to improve the proposal. The content has been challenged multiple times from separate users. Quite honestly, I don't see any consensus for constantly reverting and dismissing almost every edit of his.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyberpower678:, I asked him to bring his revised version to Talk, before he posted it but instead he just throw it up. I made suggestions and 'Tornado chaser' agreed, but it's no where in this version.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- [Might I suggest moving SPLC to the last of the section and lede with PP's stated aim so the first line starts more like: (Patriot Prayer has held rallies from the San Francisco Bay Area to Seattle,[30][31] in areas known as centers of liberal politics, with the stated aim is support of First Amendment, free speech and to “liberate the conservatives on the West Coast.”) This might take care of the issue, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]
- [Sounds good to me. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]
- He just does what he wants and throws it out without working with anyone or taking input.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've taken a closer look at the talk page, indeed some things don't seem to have consensus, but also you two seem to be butting heads. You haven't been very responsive or helped to propose improvements to the proposal either. I suggest you two seek dispute resolution over this. Consensus is hard to obtain when hardly anyone else is giving their opinion and this will go in circles.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- We are butting heads because Darkness was making edits without supporting sources like his change of "anti-government" in the lead to 'anti-big-government, but the sources don't say that. Darkness even deleted my contributions with references, first saying it was not in the reference, then I pointed out it was, then it switched to that's just 'sloppy and lazy journalism' and deleted it again. I don't want to be in an edit war, but I will not let the locally reported record go unheard in a balanced way. KOMO News and The Columbian are on the ground, but Darkness goes for second hand reporting from the Daily Mail and the Washington Time, first and believe them more. This is where the conflict began and why 'Pro-Trump' has 5 references, because when I posted it with anything less, Darkness deleted it, even though the I've got another 20 more, Darkness still deleted it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyberpower678:I realise Darkness has the capacity to become a great editor, but when the facts don't match Darkness's opinion, the opinion needs to move, not the facts and this is a hard lesson to learn. I gather that Darkness is far away from this group (most likely the UK) and is still young (thus the ease with new tech like this); but with great talent at youth can also come a level of hubris and that could be very damaging. Darkness shows skill but can be unfocused and emotional, a guiding hand will show him how to shine.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hello @Cyberpower678:. I was just about to leave an incivility warning at DS's talkpage, but saw that you had already been there with a *very* gentle warning and ultimately left a block here. Are you telling me starting sections like this is constructive? Or leaving comments that border on being threatening? Gilmore is not the only one trying to build consensus with DS. I told him my concerns several times and was met with varying degrees of "bugger off IP" or just plain old dismissiveness. That kind of thing is unfortunately par for the course, but to have it normalized by an admin is absolutely unhelpful. Please reconsider your advice to Gilmore, and your admonition to DS. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The project is about collaboration. While I have no knowledge of this subject, maybe instead of just reverting, maybe modify the pieces you disagree with and slightly reword it so you can both agree on the change. I've suggested something similar to DS, and he's agreed to stay away from the article for a few days.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- To the IP. The block is for edit warring. I see a massive count of reverts from this user. As for DS, he's agreed to cool down, and stay away. I see no reason to block him if he keeps his promise and lets his frustration dissipate. Being harsh to either party only inflames the situation more.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- I had no problem with the block for 3RR, and I agree being harsh just makes things worse. The resolution below is a good one to allow some cooling off all around. 207.222.59.50 (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've taken a closer look at the talk page, indeed some things don't seem to have consensus, but also you two seem to be butting heads. You haven't been very responsive or helped to propose improvements to the proposal either. I suggest you two seek dispute resolution over this. Consensus is hard to obtain when hardly anyone else is giving their opinion and this will go in circles.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- [Might I suggest moving SPLC to the last of the section and lede with PP's stated aim so the first line starts more like: (Patriot Prayer has held rallies from the San Francisco Bay Area to Seattle,[30][31] in areas known as centers of liberal politics, with the stated aim is support of First Amendment, free speech and to “liberate the conservatives on the West Coast.”) This might take care of the issue, thanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]
- @Cyberpower678:, I asked him to bring his revised version to Talk, before he posted it but instead he just throw it up. I made suggestions and 'Tornado chaser' agreed, but it's no where in this version.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- He has been. He's been bringing the changes you've been reverting to the talk page. What I am seeing is that he's not getting anywhere with a discussion with you. You are claiming a consensus exists for outright reverting instead of collaboratively working to improve the proposal. The content has been challenged multiple times from separate users. Quite honestly, I don't see any consensus for constantly reverting and dismissing almost every edit of his.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Gilmore, if you agree to stay away from the article for the remaining duration of the block, I'll unblock you right now.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyberpower678:I will not edit the Patriot Prayer page, but will contact you if I see something amiss on the page until Monday or longer if you like: On that you have my word.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have unblocked you. Happy editing.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyberpower678:, I have posted a comment on Darkness Shines page and suggestions for the rewrite of the Overview on Patriot Prayer "Talk" page. I hope this will be given due consideration by all editors and resolve any issues. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Go self revert your comments on that talk page, it violates your unblock condition, it applies to the talk page as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Stop posting on my talk page, you are to have nothing to do with the article, it was your unblock condition. Just drop it now please. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Please, just read the Talk section and consider it for a day or two before responding and I will not make changes to the article as agreed. Please don't be defensiveness and consider working on what you began. You have a good start to a section, but need to deal with a few weaknesses and we need to learn to work with each other. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyberpower678:, well that did not go so well as it appears Darkness Shines has reported me again to the Administrators fro trying to reach out. I tried, sorry if I messed up. This makes 7th or 8th reporting of me for 3RRN and one for singularly focused which I still don't quite understand.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Please, just read the Talk section and consider it for a day or two before responding and I will not make changes to the article as agreed. Please don't be defensiveness and consider working on what you began. You have a good start to a section, but need to deal with a few weaknesses and we need to learn to work with each other. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Cyberpower678:, I have posted a comment on Darkness Shines page and suggestions for the rewrite of the Overview on Patriot Prayer "Talk" page. I hope this will be given due consideration by all editors and resolve any issues. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have unblocked you. Happy editing.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Cyberpower678:, Darkness Shines' edits are now over 30 and still counting as the wave of edits continue from the first line to the bibliography. Consensus was for the lead section to be as proposed by "K.e.coffman", but even that has been ignored as the edits continue without consensus or review.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:C._W._Gilmore reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, Darkness Shines has reported me again, this time for trying to work with him on his purposed changes. Not the outcome I was hoping for...C. W. Gilmore (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- P.S. This makes the 7th or 8th time since the end of August. We need to work together on the PP Talk page to build a better page, not reporting every perceived slight. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- "User:C. W. Gilmore reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: No violation)" Again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- P.S. This makes the 7th or 8th time since the end of August. We need to work together on the PP Talk page to build a better page, not reporting every perceived slight. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Gilmore, a user is within their rights to remove a message from their topic except in a few very specific circumstances not applicable here. If Darkness Shines has asked you to stay off their talk page, as they have, then posting there repeatedly is not constructive. If you are engaged in a dispute on a specific page, post on the talk page of that article; otherwise, try WP:DRN, or just leave them alone. Most certainly do not repeatedly post the same or similar messages once previous ones have been removed; the removal may be considered evidence of the message having been read. Vanamonde (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93:, I was only attempting to inform that I had put forth a compromise on the articles Talk page made up the Darkness Shines' own words and was told to stay off that page, I have done so and will not return for it seems nothing would be gained at this point. Thank you for your understanding.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution
Please see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Patriot_Prayer.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
DRN case closed
This message template was placed here by Nihlus, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Patriot Prayer". The case is now closed: this is not a content dispute. If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Nihlus 05:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Additional comments by volunteer: Conduct issues should be taken to WP:ANI as needed. Feel free to open a DRN topic again if you wish to discuss the content of the article in question. An alternative would be to garner community input via a WP:RFC.
Topic ban
I closed the ANI discussion; it will not surprise you that it closed with a topic ban. You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)