User talk:Atlantacity

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Atlantacity! Thank you for your contributions. I am Bosstopher and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Bosstopher (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you should know about this too[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Bosstopher (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Mattress Performance[edit]

Hi, I'm afraid you don't understand WP:BRD works. What you're doing is considered disruptive editing and can result in sanctions if it continues. Since I'm in a good mood, I'm writing this instead of just slapping the disruptive editing warning template on your talk page. I'm reverting you again. Please go to the talk thread and discuss this there. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, thanks for your message but I'm not the only one thinking that a reference to the Jezebel article must be included. It's the world upside down that you keep removing the footnote even though you're alone in your position. Please leave it in until you have found more people that agree with you. Atlantacity (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your article talk post. The next step is to give the discussion some time to play out, understanding that some interested editors only have time to come to the article every few days. Understand that consensus does not require unanimous agreement, which is very rare anyway. See WP:CONSENSUS. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that goes for either side, that consensus doesn't require anonymity. Atlantacity (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a discussion about a content dispute, arguments should be based on policy and guidelines, which are all written down on one WP page or another. You don't just make a statement, you back it up with a link to the policy or guideline page, perhaps with a quote from that page. In theory, the side with the stronger argument wins, even if they are outnumbered. In practice, it's more complicated, since there are many editors with some experience who don't really understand the policies they are citing, and misinterpret them, and so on. In those cases, if you care enough about the issue, you can pursue some of the things in dispute resolution. But, until you have spent a considerable amount of time learning all those policies and guidelines and where to find them, you will be outgunned in a discussion. Unless there are other editors around to support you, you will probably lose most disputes. Every editor goes through this very difficult beginning phase, and I can only suggest trying to be patient, stay calm, be willing to lose, and read policy and guidelines. Your heart is in the right place, you just need experience. Feel free to call on other editors you respect for guidance, and there's always the Teahouse and Help Desk. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I think little of what happens on Wikipedia is rule based, it's mob based instead. But that's probably not something you like to hear. Atlantacity (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're both right and wrong. There's a lot of both. It's maddening at times, and I basically had to stop caring quite so much if I wanted to continue and keep my sanity. I even created a personal userbox for my user page, "This user understands that, in the end, it's only Wikipedia". I learned to recognize when I needed a WP:WIKIBREAK, and to take a short one when things got too difficult. So I have survived to be one of the good guys, so far, instead of being driven off by the bad guys. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I don't think I risk a Wikipedia addiction anytime soon. Atlantacity (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Hi, I don't want to have to spend time reporting people for edit warring, but I will if you restore the complaint again. If you want it to be added, gain consensus on the talk page. If you can't, open an RfC for more eyes. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 06:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote yourself on the talkpage that linking to the complaint was okay. Your subsequent argument that a text message is taken out of context doesn't hold up though, so there is consensus. Atlantacity (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That you have to keep restoring it shows there's no consensus – five times in three days, [1][2][3][4][5] plus an article about it three times, [6][7][8] and for some of that time the lawsuit was already in the article. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 06:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Im not going to count your contributions on the topic. Just citing your own words seems enough to deduce consensus. Greetings from another woman Atlantacity (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

Your recent editing history at Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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:Atlantacity reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mob rule at Wikipedia. Great! "I love you Paul. Where are you? !?!?!? !" United States District Court Southern District of New York/15 CV 03126. Atlantacity (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm. Thank you. W C M_email 09:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heleen Mees[edit]

Better. Be mindful of edit warring. You should know our policies on that. Have a nice day, Drmies (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest to add to that, please refer to WP:COI and if you wish to have your entry edited, place a request on Talk:Heleen Mees rather than do it yourself. Please also be mindful of WP:BLP. W C M_email 08:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. Thank you.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not the one engaging in edit warring imho. Atlantacity (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are. You even violated the WP:3rr!--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not.

The correct behaviour is the following: You get reverted with an addition: You go to the talk page and tell the others why the content you added should stay. If nobody responds in a few days, revert again. If they revert again, warn them on their talk page to go to the article's talk page, then revert again with the reasoning "Please discuss on talk page". If they revert again, do not revert, but report them.

If, at any of these steps, they begin to use the talk page, follow the discussion, present your arguments, look at theirs. No reverts with an ongoing discussion. Try to get a WP:Consensus. See also:WP:BRD--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But "they" did not begin to use the talkpage. Instead they just reverted my edits without explanation. Atlantacity (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But "you" didn't begin to use the talkpage, either... You should have, after the first revert. Please, use the talk page, not the article, to discuss.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This way it is a moving target for me, not? You'll always find a reason to revert my edit. Atlantacity (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert any of your edits there. Nor did I say that what the others do is good(it isn't). If they have no valid reasons for a revert, then they will have a problem. You did provide sources, so you should be able to present arguments why to add something to the talk page.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did, on the talk page. In Mees v. Buiter the Second U.S. District Court (that is only one step away from the U.S. Supreme Court) ruled last week that Buiter must hand over evidence in the defamation case against him, which he has refused to do so far. Atlantacity (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Now, please don't edit on the article page again right now, but wait some days for responses. If no one joins the discussion in several days (or no one disagreeing), then revert again. Be also prepared to get a warning for not going to the talk page earlier and violating 3rr.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Please stop reverting other editors at Willem Buiter. A slow moving edit war is still an edit war, this behavior is not acceptable and can lead to your being blocked by an administrator. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why Wikipedia doesn't have a rule against making up rules on the fly. That behaviour is not acceptable. Atlantacity (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is making up rules? If you're referring to me, let me draw your attention to what WP:EW actually says, which is that "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." By my count you've reverted other editors (on the same content) seven times over four days, in a situation where consensus seems to be against you. This is disruptive and not an acceptable way of trying to "win" a content dispute. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other editors are making up the rules. The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is whether serious media have reported about the issue. They have in the case of Buiter. But now the Wikipedia editors decide that the issue is not encyclopaedic to Buiter. An entire new rule, made up out of thin air, and the same sentiment that shielded Bill Cosby for decades. See Buiter's talk page. Atlantacity (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Speaking of making up rules on the fly, your edit summary, "You take it to the talk page. Till then the new version stands." turns the concept of status quo ante upside down. You have it exactly backwards, for any disputed edit, the old version stands until consensus is reached for the new version. You're not just wrong, but aggressively wrong, a losing combination. Even if you're right as to the content issue, that doesn't mean you can flaunt the process rules. Frankly you're begging for another block, and the second one is longer. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I can't refer to Buiter's talk page anymore, because other editors have removed my comments. That way you can always win a discussion, not? First I was guilty of edit warring, then the other editors make up new rules solely to object to my edits, and when I respond with a sound and solid counter argument, then I get accused of sock puppetry and blocked indefinitely. What a great experience. Atlantacity (talk) 04:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extramarital affairs - when they come in the open - should be included in people's encyclopedia. And then Buiter can respond to it just the way Boris Johnson does. That's the fair approach. Not suppress the information, as happens here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11155025/Boris-Johnson-voters-dont-care-about-my-extra-marital-affairs.html Atlantacity (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. W C M_email 16:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. w^L^{<speak·check>} 16:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indef for abusing multiple accounts[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Abusing multiple accounts. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Atlantacity (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't use multiple accounts. Not at all. I only use one account, but I may at times use VPN as I often travel.The reason to use VPN during travel is simple. It allows you to watch HBO, Netflix et cetera. Atlantacity (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your logged out edits constitute the use of a sock puppet. PhilKnight (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Atlantacity (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You're turning my words upside down. I have one account, and I don't make comments on Wikipedia without logging in first. The one time I accidentally posted a comment without signing in first, I corrected that within a minute. But as I said, I am quite often using VPN when I'm traveling. So behind the Atlantacity account you may find a number of different IP addresses. I don't do that to shield my identity, but just because I'm traveling a lot. Currently I use VPN to watch HBO's True Detective. Atlantacity (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even assuming you weren't that IP editor there's also the issue of you being Bmwz3hm. And then there's the edit-warring you did with this account. Huon (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock}}

I've revoked your Talk page access. You have nothing new to say, and you're wasting the community's time. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]