User talk:Aemathisphd

Hi.

April 2012

Your recent editing history at Israel Shahak shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. This page is covered by a one-revert-per -day rule; this applies even if you make the reverts by an IP, rather than through your main account. RolandR (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Israel Shahak

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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.

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.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Aemathisphd reported by User:RolandR (Result: 48h). The report makes clear that you have reverted this article both with IPs and with your registered account, which violates our WP:Sock puppetry policy. EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Aemathisphd! Thank you for your contributions. I am Jayjg 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 {{helpme}} 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! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jay. 38.112.4.154 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

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

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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. RolandR (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bibliography of The Holocaust may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Armenian Genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Mann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ramsin93 (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Notably, you didn’t go for dispute resolution. One wonders why not. One further wonders why one might consider it necessary to defend the work of a neo-Nazi. Aemathisphd (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's a critic of the Roman Catholic Church and their involvement in usurious practices prior to Judaism, not everything revolves around his criticisms of WW2, like you've accepted. Ramsin93 (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself why anyone at all knows who this guy is. Clue: It’s not his criticism of the Catholic Church. Willis Carto didn’t care what Hoffman thought about the church. Neither did Tom Metzger. I really wish you would take this to mediation.

I really wish you would use wikipedia as it was intended and leave your personal opinions in your diary, for a PHD you should have academic integrity. Ramsin93 (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion? Are you joking? Have a look at the following link and say with a straight face that this guy isn’t a neo-Nazi: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ryac0t8uvpkawla/Hoffman.pdf?dl=0

You're putting words in my mouth, did I remove the information in the article that states anything you're saying?

All I did was arrange the information to include a neutral lead into the article, as a notice tag was placed indicating the impartial tone of the article. After I fixed the introduction, I removed that notice because the article now had a neutral tone to it. What your attempting to do impose your personal views on this author, by representing him the way you feel about him. Ramsin93 (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to look over the page’s history and the Talk pages before you edited it? You reinserted false information (his alleged work for AP) with your edits. And he is not by any meaningful definition of the term a “scholar.” I am confident that your attempt to whitewash his record will fail. Aemathisphd (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the Cambridge dictionary under the entry scholar:

scholar noun

C1 a person who studies a subject in great detail, especially at a university: a classics/history scholar Dr Miles was a distinguished scholar of Russian history.

informal someone who is intelligent or good at learning by studying: David's never been much of a scholar

There's a discrepancy between the definition of scholar and your idea of scholar. Ramsin93 (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn’t. He has no academic credentials in the areas he writes about, and even in those topics, he lies enormously. Aemathisphd (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Michael A. Hoffman II. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I am appealing this block and ask that both my and Ramsin93's block be reversed. Rather than continue edit warring, I would like to take this to the Talk page. If he agrees to do so, I will leave the current edit in place until the issue is fully discussed and resolved Thanks.Aemathisphd (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Thank you for expressing a willingness to move this to the Talk page and your patient understanding that the block is a protective measure only and not punitive. While the block was correctly applied, since you've indicated you intend to move this to the Talk page there is no reason to necessitate its continuance since its protective function has been fulfilled. That said, while I have no authority to impose editing restrictions on you once the block has been lifted, I would kindly suggest you voluntarily choose not to make edits to the page in question until such time as Ramsin93's own block has expired or been lifted, whichever comes first, at which time you proceed with the discussion you previously described. Unfortunately, Ramsin93 has not requested his block be lifted so, for now, I can only lift yours. Chetsford (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]