User talk:Br Alexis Bugnolo

Welcome!

Hello, Br Alexis Bugnolo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! . If I can be of any assistance to you as a fellow member of the Catholic faithful, let me know. --File Éireann 23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Br. Bugnolo; I've responded to your note on Talk:Anselm of Canterbury. KarlBunker 01:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than starting an edit war, I recommend you seek whatever form of arbitration Wikipedia administrators can offer. I can't direct you to the correct page, because I don't know much about that myself. I do know that there is no requirement that a consensus be reached prior to an edit; it is only recommended as a means to prevent edit wars, etc. We have given that approach a good shot, but unfortunately it didn't work. So please take your complaint to the people in authority. KarlBunker 23:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karl, it is you who have breached the agreement that we would work on a consensus text. If there is need to complain, it is on account of your uncivil behavior- --Br Alexis Bugnolo 11:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. KarlBunker 02:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. KarlBunker 02:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Anselm...[edit]

In reference to your 3RR report; I'll leave it to someone else to take action on this either way, but how many reverts do you reckon to have made yourself, on this article, in the last 24 hours? Alai 05:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked both you and KarlBunker for 24 hours for a 3RR on Anselm. please discuss issues on the talk page instead of a revert war-- Chris 73 | Talk 09:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alai,

The many edits I did on the Anselm page were not violations of the 3RR rule, because it is not a violation of the 3RR rule to:

1) reverse one's own mistakes

2) restore a vandalized section

3) edit a section to remove POV

4) edit a section to conflate (that is join together by rewording) two sections.

If you think I did violate the 3RR rule, please explain to me how, because I have only been editing at Wikipedia for 6 days, and admit that I am not so familiar with the rules. Also see my talk page, where I have posted the email of another user who says that KarlBunker, the other editor, is a socket puppet name for a major offender.

As you can see from the Anselm Talk page, it is not I who has refused to discuss the issues.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 16:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have been also emailing him. I would be more productive if Karl Bunker had continued to participate in the discussion on the Talk Page, but as you can see from the entire discussion (in archives and what is visible) he was only concerned with his proposal and never attempted to comprimise, or allow any other proposal. The many RV I did, were only to put back what he erased. That is not vandalism, nor a 3RR violation. I even tried chaning it several times, to suit his fancy. But it seems that nobody is willing to look into the matter, only cite both sides. If you know a college educated equitable administrator at WP, please do invite him to take a closer look. Hipocrite was proposing a new version of what I had previously attempted to put on the Anselm page, but even though I guessed and wrote a new version before I saw Hipocrite's suggestion, they were nearly the same. It seems that accordign to Bunker, you cannot use the word "refute" "rebutt"; nor can you question his use of the words "passionate" "debate" etc.. He has a good deal of POV and uncited material in his Dilecto Dilectori, and I have said as much on the discussion page, without erasing his section, after he insisted it remained. I have show A LOT OF GOOD WILL in the last week, have freely identified myself as who I really am, publically, choosen my own name as a user name at WP, cited by education and website, and why I believe I know something about the matter, why I was invited to poste comments; I began a debate before editing anything, and I continued that even after Karl left the debate and started to edit his own POV onto the page. Seeing that no admit stopped him or faulted him, even though I contacted David (see talk page), it seemed that there would be no problem adding another more appropriate section, marking this as under dispute and that Karl Bunker would leave it be; but NO, he thinks that he is allowed to edit the page, and no one else, and is guarding it as his own property, because EVERY single time I edited it, he RV edited it. And no one faulted him for it, until I reported it. And then what do I get for my good will, a 24 hr block? If this sort of thing is multiplied accross WP, you will soon have no one of good will participating.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 17:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris 73, I think you should consider the following information, which I received today via email from another user:

You may wish to request CheckUser for User:KarlBunker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser this may be another sockpuppet of Ruy Lopez, a user already in Arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ruy_Lopez#Statement_by_DTC_20:01.2C_16_January_2006_.28UTC.29 with a long history of creating numerous sockpuppets http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ruy_Lopez/Proposed_decision&diff=38395005&oldid=38371055

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser&oldid=35620406#Ruy_Lopez_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29

--Br Alexis Bugnolo 12:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I got your emails. The 3RR rule is not about who is right, it merely gives a time out in an edit war, trying to force the 3RR violators to discuss their dispute on the talk page instead of fighting an edit war. I do not prefer one version over the other, hence I have blocked you both. This is also not against you personally. About "Sockpuppetry": That would have to be checked, please do so after your block expires or is lifted. -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris 73,

If it is not a violation of the 3RR rule to revert a vandalized section, a section which already has a NNPOV marker dispute, which asked readers/editor to see the discussion page, before touching it; how can it be equitable to cite me for violating the 3RR rule, when I infact only restored a vandalized section. Your decision has left Karl Bunker's vandalism as the current version of the article. If you were equitable, you would have reverted it, before his last edit, or before he added the section "Dilecto Dilectori" earlier this week, since it is he, not I, who is insisting that one person's view (his own) be represented on the page.

Also, why band me, without checking if KarlBunker is a socketpuppet name for another major violator? It seems to me you were acting in haste. Also, if I had any intentions of violating the rules, why on earth would I bring your attention to it, by citing Karl for a 3RR violation?--Br Alexis Bugnolo 16:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you got the quotes 1-4 above, as the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule does not list the exceptions you mention. If you believe it to be simple vandalism (I don't) then you should bring it to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Read up on Wikipedia:Vandalism if needed. There are no other exceptions for articles besides the simple vandalism. About Sockpuppetry, that I cannot check, but your opponent has also been blocked. Finally, please read up on Wikipedia policy as on the links above. As you are a new user, I have reduced your block to 12 hours, of which about 4 hours are left. Again, this is not against you personally. -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this consideration. I guess that if you are a sloppy speller, or editor, and go back and fix your mistake, or put in a POV and then saw that it was a POV and then RV to remove it, that you can without forethought or malice materially violate the 3RR rule. I will try to use the preview box from now own, and give my edits more thought first. The facility with which one can use the interface to edit, without there being any warnings to the contrary, gives a new user like me the impression that he is doing something expected and normal. Or otherwise, why not put in the interface a counter, limiting to 3 edits every 24 hours, and saying so as much, right up front. However, I do not believe that many of my RV edits were truly RV's, because most of my edits were corrections to my own edits.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 17:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing your own edits is OK, as are multiple consecutive edits. Also, I would be surprised if an admin would block anybody if there is no dispute. Two or more editors working together are not a problem, and this frequently happens on current news pages (i.e. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, or Pope Benedict XVI). Also, FYI, I reduced your block because of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Just try to sort out discussions on the talk page, instead of an edit war. happy editing (in about 40 minutes again) -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Br Alexis Bugnolo 21:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got your email that you were still blocked. Strange. I unblocked all blocks of you. Let me know if there are any problems, and sorry for the extension, that was not planned. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alexis. I'd noticed you were new, and I'd assumed you weren't clear on the details of the 3RR, given the nature of the report (which is partly why I didn't want to deal with it myself, not being sure how long I'd be around to deal with the aftermath). As Chris says, a revert is an edit, or a series of edits, that returns an article to some recent previous state, in whole or in significant part. Only clear vandalism is excepted from the 3RR. There's certainly no limit to three edits per 24 hours: you can make as many non-revert edits as you wish, and if your "revert" takes five edits rather than one, it's still just one revert. Hope that helps. Alai 23:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to All who wish to Contact me[edit]

See the bottom of my personal page. Don't post anything here, as I will not read it, or respond to it.--Br Alexis Bugnolo 02:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]