There was once a stone cutter who was dissatisfied with himself and with his position in life.
One day he passed a wealthy merchant's house. Through the open gateway, he saw many fine possessions and important visitors. "How powerful that merchant must be!" thought the stone cutter. He became very envious and wished that he could be like the merchant.
To his great surprise, he suddenly became the merchant, enjoying more luxuries and power than he had ever imagined, but envied and detested by those less wealthy than himself. Soon a high official passed by, carried in a sedan chair, accompanied by attendants and escorted by soldiers beating gongs. Everyone, no matter how wealthy, had to bow low before the procession. "How powerful that official is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a high official!"
Then he became the high official, carried everywhere in his embroidered sedan chair, feared and hated by the people all around. It was a hot summer day, so the official felt very uncomfortable in the sticky sedan chair. He looked up at the sun. It shone proudly in the sky, unaffected by his presence. "How powerful the sun is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be the sun!"
Then he became the sun, shining fiercely down on everyone, scorching the fields, cursed by the farmers and laborers. But a huge black cloud moved between him and the earth, so that his light could no longer shine on everything below. "How powerful that storm cloud is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a cloud!"
Then he became the cloud, flooding the fields and villages, shouted at by everyone. But soon he found that he was being pushed away by some great force, and realized that it was the wind. "How powerful it is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be the wind!"
Then he became the wind, blowing tiles off the roofs of houses, uprooting trees, feared and hated by all below him. But after a while, he ran up against something that would not move, no matter how forcefully he blew against it - a huge, towering rock. "How powerful that rock is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a rock!"
Then he became the rock, more powerful than anything else on earth. But as he stood there, he heard the sound of a hammer pounding a chisel into the hard surface, and felt himself being changed. "What could be more powerful than I, the rock?" he thought.
He looked down and saw far below him the figure of a stone cutter.
The rule regarding external links on Wikipedia articles is that they have to be about the subject. The fact that he was an NDP candidate does not constitute a reason to add an external link to the NDP's general website; to be valid, the link would have to be specifically to a candidate biography of Simon Strelchik. If there isn't such a page on the NDP's site, then the NDP's site doesn't go on Simon's article as an external link. Bearcat04:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are not reverting to "more specific language" in any real sense. While specific, identifying the NDP link as a link to a "site on Simon Strelchik" is false. Such URLs for unelected candidates in the last election now direct to contact information for the riding association where they ran. If Strelchik didn't happen to be the riding president, his name wouldn't be there. As it is all it has about him is his name (and an address for the association that might happen to be his, might be the recording secretary's...) You also persist in deleting specific language: the title of the CJN article, and the full name and a wikilink to Canadian Jewish News for the mass of people who may not know immediately to what CJN refers. If you persist in adding a falsely-labelled link and removing basic citation detail, people may conclude your behaviour constitutes vandalism. Samaritan00:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- pm_shef02:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious: do you and your friends ever plan to acknowledge and respect the fact that Wikipedia has rules? Because this business of pretending you can all ignore them and do any random thing you want has been going on for a month now, and it's really getting quite tiresome. I'm going to repeat what I told you at the beginning: an NDP page that merely happens to contain Strelchik's name is not an appropriate external link on Strelchik's article — to merit inclusion, it would have to contain encyclopedically relevant information about Simon. And an article citation has to clearly state what publication the article is from; it can't just use an abbreviation. Please just leave the links alone, and please stop disregarding the rules. Bearcat02:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Wikipedia has formatting rules. The existing version that several of us keep reverting back to is consistent with those rules; your version is not. Given that, I'd really like for you to explain why you think that your version is the one that's entitled to stand as the final word. And I'd also like for you to explain how exactly it is that you think the reversions are vandalism but your repeated change isn't. And just for the record: Wikipedia is not Myspace, where you could put anything you want up in any format you wish because the space belongs to you — Wikipedia is an objective, NPOV encyclopedia. The article belongs to Wikipedia, not to Simon, so it has to stay within Wikipedia's inclusion and formatting rules. In fact, under the rules, Simon and people who know him personally actually have no business editing the article at all, because it's not their space to write anything they want about him; it's Wikipedia's space to write something neutral and objective about him. Bearcat18:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- pm_shef18:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
would not conclude that the link was about the election and significantly discussed Kadis, Strelchik and Reale. For heaven's sake. As for the fact that the headline of the article put Kadis first, we can't change that; it's a point of information. It's also useful - publications online regularly move and remove old articles, and if and when the link dies, a future editor will be able to look for it; it can't be nearly the only "Article on election in Thornhill" CJN published, or even that could have included Strelchik - he's sought election in Thornhill as a school trustee, managed another candidate's previous election campaign in Thornhill, presided over the Thornhill NDP for half a decade already spanning one provincial and two federal elections the NDP contested, etc. The title is the title. Live with it. Samaritan21:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- pm_shef22:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain how it is that you figure I've done anything which constituted a POV violation? Honestly, I'm all ears. (Well, okay, ears and stifled eye rolls, but we won't get into that.) And as for Frankl and Shahaf, how on earth do you figure that unelected city council candidates deserve articles in a city where even the actual sitting councillors don't have their own articles? Bearcat08:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was agreed to at the election talk page that most of the candidates should redirect to the election page, since most of them did not satisfy notability criteria in WP:BIO (specifically: Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature.) OhNoitsJamieTalk 08:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
AfD is not required for a consensus to merge and redirect. Indeed, putting a page up on AfD where a redirection is sought is strongly frowned upon. Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. Samaritan08:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Simon Strelchik. I have disabled your editing permissions for 24 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Wikipedia. Feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page and please refrain from edit warring. Cheers, —Ruud12:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And just for the record, as a site administrator both the direction of consensus and the application of Wikipedia's rules most certainly are for me to judge. Bearcat17:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism accusations
A legitimate content dispute is not vandalism. You are to cease making false accusations against people immediately. Bearcat23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - pm_shef01:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please go to Talk:Simon Strelchik and discuss why you object to the existing version of the article? There's no point in stubbornly insisting on your version of an article if you're not willing to explain why you think your version should be given preference. I'm hereby putting you on notice that I may consider blocking you again if you make any further edits to the Simon Strelchik article without explaining your reasoning on the talk page first. And that goes for both you andUser:Poche1. Bearcat02:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreement
If this works, we'll be making a lot of users really happy. Anyways, Leotardo, you can't simply delete things from the RfC. You can make a "Comment in Response" but you can't delete stuff that's already there - pm_shef00:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leotardo. I know it looks like he broke the deal, but don't back out now. I'm going to propose it again, in case it was unclear to him. VaughanWatch05:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
