User talk:Labargeboy

October 2010[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Juan Williams. 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. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mkativerata!

Thank you for trying to preserve the integrity of the articles. I did edit the piece on Juan Williams, but my entry was factual and not opinion, although I did use that term. My final modifications were geared more toward removing my Citizen Noun and Stating only the facts of the piece, which were all factual.

I dont know if you are aware of this, but see below...

This is the only part that was opinion. My apologies... "This U.S. Citizen believes "

These are Indisputable facts -Islamic terrorists attacked us on 9-11 in the name of Islam. -Islam requires that all non-believers be converted or killed -Political correctness demands that any special minority group may not be spoken against in any fashion, causing anyone not belonging to that minority group to be verbally paralyzed -Islam perfected, that is following Islam strictly, will bring pain and suffering for those that speak out against it

Please reconsider your ban, as I was warring against those that would remove facts, so in fact, I was the one protecting the integrity of the article and ensuring it was representing the facts, not opinion. Forgive my use of the opinion term, I will be more careful next time.

The problem was not just the insertion of opinion, it was WP:3RR edit-warring with other editors to do so. I suggest you read WP:3RR and WP:NPOV over the next 48 hours. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Mkativerata;

The 3 Revert Rule is essentially rule by the majority. I can see how edits open to anyone could bring chaos to the integrity of the Pedia. However, this also ensures that Majority Rule is established in light of factual integrity. So if the Majority believes something to be fact whether it be or not, it makes it so simply by limiting how much the minority can voice their edits as the majority will clearly have more instances of the 3 Revert Rule than the minority as expressed in the equation Mj x 3 > Mn x 3 where Mj could = 100 people believing a fact, and Mn could = 10 people believing an alternate view. The Mj would have 300 instances to edit, easily overwriting the 30 minority edits. I would suggest to Wikipedia that this rule should be revisited as it could restrict valuable insertions that could be factual even in light they are a minority.

I suggest that all edits be voted on by a jury of 10 random Wikipedia members. An edit would never pass unless it was passed by unanimous approval. If the editing jury is hung, the edit fails until reproposed in a future virtual hearing. This insures all are in agreeement, and also encourages fellow members to find common ground as most will likley be willing to give an inch here or there for the sake of the growth and maintainence of the Pedia. The random selection engine could be done automatically, something I could help with if need be.

Please suggest this to the counsil. Thanks for all your hard work to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia.

That's a long way from the consensus-based non-elitist model on which this project is based. As for the 3RR rule, it has its weaknesses and you're right it benefits the "majority", but the rule is principally designed to stop the damage caused by rapidly changing article content. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]