User talk:AFolkSingersBeard

March 2011

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Nir Rosen has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Greetings, AFolkSingersBeard, and welcome to Wikipedia's deletion process! Thank you for your contributions. As a newcomer, it may be helpful for you to read Wikipedia's deletion policy, and the pages describing the articles for deletion process, proposed deletion, and speedy deletion. Remember that deletion debates are not votes, and reasons matter, especially reasons relating to the central content policies of verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not, and to the consensual community guidelines for biographies, corporations, music, and fiction. Also remember that deletion is not always the answer to a bad article. Feel free to drop me a line at my talk page if you have any questions. Again, welcome! Prioryman (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominems

Please cease deleting my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid. It is usual to notify closing administrators if a contributor to an AfD discussion is a new editor, and doing it in the neutral way that I have done it is a lot kinder than tagging you as a "single-purpose account", which I would have been entitled to do. It is not in any way an ad hominem - it is a simple, neutrally worded statement of fact. On the other hand, this comment is absolutely an ad hominem. Please undo it - it is irrelevant, substantially untrue and an obvious personal attack. If you do not remove it, I will do so myself as I'm entitled to do under Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy, which I strongly suggest you read and observe. Prioryman (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. RolandR (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, 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/Chorlseton. Thank you. Prioryman (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews ‎. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You have already been warned several times against removing such comments on another AfD page. Please do not start edit-warring on this one too. RolandR (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

Please stop edit warring over your proposed changes to Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Instead, discuss them at Talk:Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. If you continue to revert other editors without engaging in discussion, you may be blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews ‎, you may be blocked from editing. If you keep removing other editors' comments from AfD pages, you will be blocked again. Please stop. RolandR (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for your continued disruption of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. Prioryman (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for disruptively refactoring other editors' comments in AfDs. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miqdam Al-Khadhari

You appear to consider the views of this cleric of importance for Wikipedia and yet there is no article about them. I suggest that if you want to quote this person's opinions as notable, you first create the article Miqdam Al-Khadhari in order to demonstrate they are notable. At the moment I can find no evidence in Google News that they might be notable or that they opinion carries any weight. Fæ (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=Miqdam+Al-Khadhari&aq=&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9d3468ca0635b6d AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said Google News, random blogs, forum posts and personal or promotional websites are not sources to justify notability. Fæ (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So because it's not on the internet, it doesn't count? I don't see how neither Al-Rahma TV nor MEMRI are not reliable sources. AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the article talk page. Fæ (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on English Defence League

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on English Defence League. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Pontificalibus (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Palestinian Jews

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Palestinian Jews. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RolandR (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

I suggest you stop hitting the revert button and start editing more agreeable ASAP, as you are quite close to an indefinite block, despite not even having been here for two weeks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I have reported you at the administrator's noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AFolkSingersBeard. RolandR (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you've doubless seen, you've received many warnings already to stop reverting so readily. Here at Wikipedia, content is determined by consensus, not by who's able to revert the most times; if you continue to revert in this way, it will likely be seen as reason for an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive revert

Re this. Indeed, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. If you read it you would see that my last edit was done to address the disagreement regarding the bolding of terms in the lead. It would be nice if you would participate in the discussion, rather than blanket reverting to restore flat out errors, OR and other inaccuracies corrected by the edits made. Could you please self-revert? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 06:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk. AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did. And it explains nothing. Please raise specific concerns that would allow me to address your issues with the material introduced. We cannot make progress when you accuse me of POV editing and throw out the baby with the bathwater. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 06:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TN X Man 15:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wtf?

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).

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

Request reason:

I know what I did was wrong and against Wikipedia policy. My reasoning for creating multiple accounts was to escape the WP:HOUNDing by a certain long-time user who was reverting all my edits wholesale, without bothering to engage in Talk. I've read the relevant documents and now understand completely how one is expected to behave on Wikipedia. I promise to never create another "sockpuppet" account again. Please give me a chance to redeem myself - I think you should be able to see by many of my edits and sources used, that I have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia. Best regards. AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please make the unblock request at your original account, and make sure to address the issues that lead to the block there. Block evasion is only an additional problem -- a siginificant one, seeing the number of accounts you created, and in my opinion it shows a disregard of community norms, but it's not the main issue. Amalthea 09:54, 20 April 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, this is my original account I'm sure! The multiple accounts is not the main issue? What is??? I admit to being combative when I first joined, but I didn't really understand how Wikipedia worked, and I didn't think anyone would reply/engage on the Talk pages - as the editor who kept reverting me didn't. (And he's continuing to undo all my edits, now that I'm blocked btw!) AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A checkuser has confirmed, below, that it is very unlikely that this is your original account. Sandstein 16:32, 20 April 2011 (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.

It is very unlikely that this is your original account (reviewing admin, feel free to request evidence from Tnxman307 or me). Amalthea 12:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely how? I mean, it is, so... I don't know what "evidence" you're supposed to have. Which is supposed to be my original account? AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]