User talk:BelindaGong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please review WP:CON and WP:SOCK. KHM03 13:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Belinda. Welcome to Wikipeadia and thank you for your support for NPOV in the Christian page. I guess now they think I'm you! hehe Funny. Anyway, welcome. Giovanni33 14:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Gio

Hi. When you get a chance and you give you inpute on the Early Christianity page, also? The same POV pushers who suppress any information about the early origins of Christianity (even though this is what the article is about and its a stub!) are tag-teaming. I dont want to violate the revert rule so I want to get feedback from others in the community such as yourself. Thanks. Giovanni33 00:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Reverts 2 Criticism of Christianity 3 3RR block on Christianity 4 IP and username 5 Wikipedia Policy 6 3RR on Christianity 7 Hitler

[edit] Reverts

Please review WP:3RR...thanks...KHM03 12:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your denial of reverting with your IP address, I have already asked you if you are User:38.114.145.148 or not, and you have not replied. It seems to be strongly indicated by your signature here and by your creation of an account with the name Belinda a few minutes later. If you are User:38.114.145.148, could you please confirm it, because it's getting really confusing with all these signatures on talk pages, and all these reverts from anons. Also, is this edit (which has nothing to do with reverting, but comes from a very similar IP, and makes your arguments) yours as well?

If you are User:38.114.145.148 your revert rule violation is here.

12:26, 25 January 2006

12:59, 25 January 2006

11:44, 26 January 2006

12:00, 26 January 2006

12:31, 26 January 2006

Even if you're not, it's still a violation, because only the first one came from the anon.

Could you please confirm. And in any case, please stop reverting to controversial stuff that was added recently, has not been accepted, and is still under discussion. Thanks AnnH ^(talk) 12:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

But you are reverting to controversial stuff that was added recently, has not been accepted, and is still under discussion, too! At least this version we had a signifant consensus and were making progress with the contributions of many editors based on compromises taking place on the talk page. Its a shame that you are ruining this bridge building and progress. I'll stop and let other editors voice their opinions. I guess in order for there to be progress we might need to get other admins here to help. BelindaGong 12:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Belinda, I don't agree that I'm reverting to controversial stuff. But in any case, it's irrelevant. The 3RR rule does not make allowances for whether stuff is controversial or not. You can only revert REAL vandalism (which is not what you call vandalism). You have one opinion. I have another. I can't see how you and Giovanni are building bridges by grossly violating the rules. Also, could you please confirm whether or not you are that anon. We can have a sock check carried out, when there's suspicion of people splitting reverts or voting with more than one account (or with IP and username), but it would be much simpler if you just answer. Are you or are you not User:38.114.145.148? And are you or are you not User:38.114.145.145? Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 13:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Another point you should be aware of is when people have a history of violating that rule, some admins actually block them (legally) if they "game the system" by making a fourth revert in, say, twenty-four hour and three minutes. I'm not talking about myself. I haven't ever blocked for 3RR so far, and I wouldn't do it with someone whose reverts are to an article I'm involved in. But I just thought you should be aware. AnnH ^(talk) 13:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you insist on violated the 3RR rule repeatedly, and apparently intend to continue, I've reported your violations here. I just wanted you to be aware. Wesley 17:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Christianity

Belinda, take a look at this article when you get a chance. I think there might be another case of history repeating itself with the double standard stuff we've all seen before. hehe Hope your doing well and not giving up. I have a thick skin so it doesn't phase me much. I will be careful not violate the rv rule, and you should be also. Giovanni33 22:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Hope you are not scared off. We need more diverse editors like yourself! Take a look at homosexuality and Christianity as an example. Giovanni33 14:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block on Christianity

I have blocked you [1] for 8h for WP:3RR on Christianity [2]. Please reply here if you think there is some mistake. William M. Connolley 20:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] IP and username

Hi, Belinda. Could you confirm whether or not this edit from User:38.114.145.145 was actually from you when logged off? It gets confusing when you and Giovanni so frequently edit when not logged on. I know you don't do it on purpose. This IP address is very similar to one you've used in the past. Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 17:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I know your looking for violations of reverts to get me blocked again, but I've been careful. So, no, that IP address is not mine. I've made my changes while logged in. BelindaGong 17:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Policy

Wikipedia Policy clearly states that there is to be no edit warring changing articles that were already written in AD over to CE. If you want to try to get the policy changed, go for it. Until then, please adhere to policy. One admin had already given me the green light on my talk page to revert this change as many times as necessary, as he considers it a violation of policy equivalent to vandalism. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Christianity

I have reported you for 3RR violation on Christianity, supported by results from Checkuser[3]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 05:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours.--MONGO 05:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler

Just a personal request: we should all avoid revert wars as much as possible as it tends to work against one's credibility.

Certain highly POV editors will never back up their arguments or cite good sources, and reject scholarly information when it suits them, yet have pretences of being NPOV and scholarly, preferring to dominate over articles through sheer obstinacy, subtle provocation, or the defamation of other editors. To make things worse, better or more experienced editors are likely to support such characters based on the appearance of credibility they project, failing to see the issue at hand. This routine can be observed over the last seven or eight archived Talk pages at Hitler, for example.

Such POV affairs are a fairly common occurence at Wikipedia. However, since (I assume) our common interest is in keeping articles as contextually accurate as possible, we should keep our distance from them so as to better tackle the successive issues that will keep cropping up over a period of time. We have a better chance of stabilising articles for the better this way, rather than letting rule-abiding weasels get away with patent nonsense, thanks to the hypocrisy and community support they exploit. -- Simonides 02:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)