User talk:TBSchemer

A welcome from Master of Puppets

Hello, TBSchemer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :) _-M ^o P-_ 23:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Black Power

I've taken this to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Black Power for discussion, please don't revert again. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

PPACA

Stop reverting, start discussing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to be combative, it's just that when you make that scale of changes on such "hot" subject matter you're bound to get a lot of pushback. Edit warring issues aside, it's a good idea to seek consensus first. E.g. see what other editors think of your views about FactCheck.org before you mass-delete all those citations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( oder ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 21:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I've added a reliable source to the revision I made. TBSchemer (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Z10

{{unblock|reason=I believe this determination was made in error, as I did not violate the 3RR. The alleged reversions are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act&diff=582496367&oldid=582496082 [1<nowiki>]], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. As can be seen, edits [1], [3], and [4] are reversions to my original edits, in response to several intransigent editors seeking to protect POV text represented as fact. Edit [2] was directly consecutive with edit [3], and was a part of the same reversion, due to an intermediate edit by Dr. Fleischman preventing a single-step reversion. Edit [5] was NOT a reversion to the same text as [1], [3], or [4]. Edit [5] came after I had attempted to reach a consensus on the Talk page, proposed several alternative ways to edit the article in smaller ways to improve NPOV, but was rebuffed by several users, including Dr. Fleischman and Prototime who declared that NO EDITS are allowed to the article until consensus has been achieved. Feeling that this cannot possibly be consistent with Wikipedia policies, and after finding several other users who agreed with my proposal (including User:[email protected] and User:MastCell), I implemented my new, alternative edits, but Prototime reverted my edits again. So I reverted back to my alternative edits. These were NOT the same reversions as [1], [3], and [4]. Hence, I have been blocked in error, and I believe we need arbitration on the widespread NPOV issues on the PPACA page. These issues have gotten out of hand, with a small group of editors camping out on the page and warring with anyone who attempts to change their statements of opinion which have been represented as fact.

As for why blocking me is not necessary to prevent further disruption, I believe edit [5] as well as my later edits on the page demonstrate my intentions to find a way to contribute edits in targeted, focused ways which can be more easily discussed, rather than through bold contributions that touch on too many issues to be effectively discussed. I don't know if this will work any better at building consensus, but I was giving it a try until I was blocked.

TBSchemer (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)}}</nowiki>

This block has expired. Kuru (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus, colloboration, etc.

Hello. I came here to give you some friendly advice, but I have to admit my goodwill is stretched a little thin with your combativeness and constant accusations of bad faith. So please excuse me if a little emotion shows through.

1. When you received a couple of supportive comments in the talk page discussion, that did not mean you had consensus to make your proposed changes. There were multiple editors on both sides of the issue, all presenting valid and varied arguments for/against. That's a textbook lack of consensus.
2. If you want to get things done on hot, politically charged articles like PPACA, it's a simple fact of life that you'll have to work collaboratively with your fellow editors if you want to be effective. This means, among other things:
   1. refraining from edit warring (I'm talking more generally than 3RR);
   2. engaging in talk page discussion before your third reversion;
   3. letting the talk page discussion run its course, and proposing compromises, before making edits that you know other editors will object to;
   4. refraining from accusing your fellow editors of bad faith; and
   5. avoiding threats to escalate to ArbCom if you don't get your way.
3. In line with WP:CAREFUL, the above advice becomes more especially important when your proposed edits are particularly long and controversial and even more when they're on hotly debated subjects. Regarding length, I greatly appreciate your efforts -- better late than never -- to break down your proposed 12,000-char edits into bite-sized chunks that can be more easily explained, analyzed, digested, and objected to as necessary. A number of them are non-controversial (to me, at least), but it was extremely difficult to differentiate those edits from the objectionable ones when I was evaluating your initial proposal.
4. I respectfully ask that you give Prototime and me a bit more respect. We are not gatekeepers, just fellow editors who are trying to keep this article from becoming pure chaos. We are not administrators and have no more power than you or any other editor. If you go back through edit histories you'll find we both have bent over backwards to respect and respond to all views coming from all sides (pro-ACA and anti-ACA alike). But, when editors become disruptive (as you did), we will not hesitate to seek administrative support. In fact, a week or two ago I engaged in a furious debate with an edit warrior of the opposite political persuasion as you that, sadly, led to the editor being permanently banned for sockpuppetry. I have also at times supported the inclusion of material pushed by the most ardent anti-PPACA warriors. My point here is that your accusation that I am patrolling the page to preserve a pro-PPACA bias is completely and utterly unfounded and contradicted by my past behavior. I am human and I can be offended just like anyone else. If you want my support for anything, I kindly ask you to tone down the vitriol and insults and start assuming good faith.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Our disagreements about PPACA are diverse and deep, yet you cannot even agree to fix the most obvious NPOV violations. Before any of the unpleasantness began, I stipulated that it would be a clear sign of good faith if you were willing to accept the removal of the severely POV article, "GOP's Insane Obamacare Boycott," from the encyclopedia entry. This should have been an obvious fix to anyone acting in good faith. But because you have repeatedly and forcefully rejected even this small token of reconciliation, I cannot possibly have any faith in your willingness to honestly address the larger NPOV issues with the entire entry (such as your insistence that anything out of Factcheck.org or Politifact be treated as objective fact). I drew the line at the most generous position I could find, yet you still stepped over it.
2. If you want to restore my faith in your willingness to make this a better (less POV, more factual, more complete) Wikipedia entry, you need to start by offering that simple token. There is no compromise on that issue, because nobody acting in even the slightest bit of good faith would want to keep such blatantly partisan propaganda in the encyclopedia entry. Focusing on that small issue first WAS the compromise. I can work with someone who is willing to remove partisan propaganda from the entry.
3. But if you're not going to accept removal of partisan propaganda, even when it is abundantly clear that it is propaganda, how can I have any hope of getting anywhere in a discussion with you about whether other sources are propaganda or not? Even if you know in your heart that it's too partisan to be reliable, if you have no principles regarding propaganda in a Wikipedia entry, then it's a waste of time to convince you of anything at all. In that situation, I'm better off working around you, not with you.
4. You have the power to make this right. You simply have to be willing to yield when it's clear that you're defending the indefensible. Compromise doesn't mean seeking the 50% point 100% of the time. Sometimes, compromise is giving someone 100% of what they want on the 10% most important (or obvious) issues to them, so that they will be willing to offer you the same deal in return.

- TBSchemer (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)