Commissioner Gordon
|
Commissioner Gordon, you are invited to the Teahouse edit
|
Hi Commissioner Gordon! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
WP:3RR edit
Please read WP:3RR Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Are we in the kindergarten or are we two grown-up men???--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Besides this rule does not apply for justified reverts who were reverted themselves several times without proper argumentation. You should be open for discussion instead of pointing your finger at others and looking for ways to shut someone down.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Please discuss this on the Scott talk page, section BRD III. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- WP:3RR does, indeed, apply. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- When one is disregarding and ignoring the following 3RR exemption, than you're absolutely right
- "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material"
- But if one does, your (and especially Ruhrfisch's) claim is unsustainable. One can give you the benefit of the doubt, as you obviously do not possess enough knowledge to know that Scott has been a target of defamation and malicious gossip by envy-driven supporters of other polar explorers...--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- And when it comes to the extent that Wikipedia is abused as a form of personal anger management by villainizing someone you're jealous of, then the red line has been crossed and the fun ends,abruptly.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- The "Controversies about Scott" article does just that and to protect Wikipedia from libel and slander, I had removed the link to it. It's as simple as that. Completely unexpected the fish jumped out of his water named the "Ruhr", swam all the way to the English Wikipedia, and repeatedly tried to hinder me and denies the intrinsic and established truth, that articles with libelous and defamatory content mustn't be linked in another article in order to not undermine its neutrality.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
ANI notice edit
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
The section is titled "User:Commissioner Gordon and disruptive editing at Robert Falcon Scott" Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
August 2013 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)- You have illegitimately and illegally blocked me without giving any kind of evidence. The burden of evidence is clearly on your side and you should fulfill this duty as soon as possible, if you do not want to see yourself lose your position inside Wikipedia for unlawfully gagging&muzzling an innocent user!--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is nothing "illegal" about it. Please read WP:NOTTHEM before requesting an unblock, and note that further personal attacks are likely to result in your block being extended and/or your talk page access being revoked. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- You may take a look at WP:PA, where it is unambiguously stated that
- "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack."--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- In addition, concerning Ruhrfisch's recent tirade of unjustified pretenses, it is made crystal clear at WP:PA that only "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are to be considered a personal attack. Bear in mind that I perfectly adhered to the mentioned principles of offering "serious evidence", even having linked a screen cap on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that clearly proves a delict by the guy who is trying to get rid of me,..--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am also eagerly looking to forward to hear an explanation why and how he was able to remove the "undo" option from one of his "edits" (which happened to be another revert of an edit mentioning positive aspects of Captain Scott)...--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing sinister, which you would know if you had read WP:UNDO, especially the last paragraph: "This feature removes the need to manually redo useful changes that were made after the edit that is being reverted. However, it will fail if undoing the edit would conflict with later edits. For example, if edit 1000 adds a paragraph and edit 1005 modifies that paragraph, it will be impossible to undo edit 1000 automatically. In this case, you must determine how to resolve the problem manually."
- Please note that as an admin, I can block users, protect articles and files, and delete material. Public logs of all such admin actions are kept - please see these links for mine: Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and enjoy your wiki vacation. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- If it were conflicting with any other edit, the "undo" button wouldn't have been (miraculously) back, after I addressed its absence, which can be witnessed here:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Falcon_Scott&offset=&limit=500&action=history
- The more curious aspect is that the edit orginally included your deletion of Scott's statue and, like a wonder, these changes in the edit have magically disappeared. Absolutely coincidental, you were given the self-proclaimed competences of "deleting material"....--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- As explained, the "undo" feature simply works that way. All the PAs here have been coming from you, and if you continue to post on your talk page in the manner you have been, instead of following WP:GAB, you will have your talk page access revoked. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- It would be nice if you could stop permanently threatening me and wagging your finger at me and it also would be way more constructive to actually go into the matter offering any kind of "argumentations" other than "does indeed apply" or "simply works this way".--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- And I can only repeat my self, WP:PA states that "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." When you are alledging a PA, you need to justify, otherwise you're doing the very same thing you are accusing someone of and render yourself liable to possible sanctions--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Scandalously gross differences between the Shackleton and Scott articles edit
While in the Shackleton article, every single military decoration is mentioned, some have unabashdly and barefacedly swept Scott's decorations completely under the carpet:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Shackleton "Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton [ˈɜɻnɛst ˈhɛnɻi ˈʃækəltən] CVO, OBE (Mil.), LL.D,[1] OLH[2]"
Robert_Falcon_Scott "Robert Falcon Scott, CVO"
To go right into the matter of Ruhrfisch's attempt to falsely and pretendedly block me, he was coincidentally the one who removed information about Scott receiving the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) Distinguished_Service_Order(in the edit I used as proof for his misbehaviour and he ended up trying to turn the tables on me) with an overly, overly paltry excuse:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Falcon_Scott&diff=482463696&oldid=482420783
One can only shake his head at such blatant exorbitance.
Ruhrfisch, please stop using Wikipedia as a tool to conceal facts and foisting misrepresantations on the Wikipedia community!--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is no mention in the article that Scott was awarded the DSO, and he is not listed as one of the notable recipients in the Distinguished Service Order article. (The DSO article notes the award is given for service "during wartime, typically in actual combat", which is not the case for Scott's naval service). If you have a reliable source showing that Scott was awarded the DSO, please provide it here and I will be glad to add it back. If not, the information cannot be in the article (and from all I can find, appears to be a false statement.). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of the truth to the information, the appropriate way you should have done the revert would have been to give your argumentation above as reason, rather than only writing "(Remove DSO and RN - Royal Navy already linked later in the same sentence)". There's no reason whatsoever concerning the DSO and by reverting it without justification you acted in breach of the rules.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- PS You can't compare the German Shackleton article (which lists honors the English Manual of Style says not to list in the lead sentence) with the English Scott article. The English Shackleton article lists fewer honors in the lead sentence (compared to German, CVO OBE FRGS), while the English Scott article lists more than the German article does (CVO). If you keep this behavior up, I fear you will soon be banned on two Wikipedias. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- The German article on Shackleton not only lists all imaginable honors including the ones that violate the overall Wikipedia Manual of Style, the person who is responsible for this is the same one to not feel the need to include any honors in the Scott article. What you say abouve is not really relevant, if you had included your DSO argumentation into your revert, the whole discussion wouldn't have went the way it did.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- PPS The LLD is an honorary academic degree (not military). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Is to say...?
And once again, could you have the spark of decency of stopping to threaten me and to swag the finger at me for the nth time!? You aren't even remotely giving ANY justification for your accusations and you aren't offering any argumentations about my critic on your (mis-)behaviours concerning my suggestions for improvement of the article and your incessant tries to disrupt them. The only reason you got away with your false prentend of blocking me is, that the person who decided to believe you without checking the facts is chummy with you and his view through the rose-coloured glasses of sympathy.
What got the ball rolling is that you recently have linked the Scott article to an outrageous and heavily one-sided commentary that has not the least to do with the principles of Wikipedia and repeatedly tried to hinder me to correct this misalignment and ended up trying to criminalize me and block me. All my other edits have been additions to improve the quality and neutrality of the article and the fact that you are trying to accuse me of "disruptive editing" shows that you are way off reality and have rigged and construed the matter.
As a gentleman, the first thing to do would be acknowledging that and at least taking back the "disruptiveness" accusation, for now,or even more truthful to withdraw all false pretenses and , but I don't know whether you have the guts or the class to do that...--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
A gentleman would also immediately withdraw the outrageous "Controversies" Article, as it is actually a shame for Wikipedia to have such lopside included. The fact that you are waving the flag for this is greatly undermining your credibility, from my point of view.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Concerning the alleged personal attack, which you put into the plural version but only stating a single possible case: Like you said in the discussion, you didn't even exactly know what "defraud" means at first, when feeling attacked personally. I can tell you that what I meant was an equivalent to the German word "unterschlagen, im Sinne von dem Leser vorenthalten", and "to defraud" is one possible translation. Whereas I should have probably used a not so strong word, like deprive or withhold, I actually exercised clemency by not putting the reproach on the discussion page but leave it rather hidden only communicating it in the version history.--Commissioner Gordon (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Blocked edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)- I've revoked your talk page access because of your posts (removed), which are pretty close to the same as last time. To appeal, follow the instructions in WP:GAB.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have restored your talk page access to give you another chance at posting a well-thought-out unblock request. Please be especially mindful of Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, and WP:NOTTHEM in particular, else your unblock request may likely be declined. Your unblock request should be all about you, as much as possible. Explain your understanding of why you were blocked and how you intend to conduct yourself if unblocked. Good luck. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)