User talk:Autoarbitaster

Welcome, and the FBI

Hi Autoarbitaster, welcome (back) to Wikipedia. Having just seen your edit @ Federal Bureau of Investigation, I wanted to suggest two things. (1) Details and citations are good, especially on issues of this sensitivity. (2) If you have expertise in this area, the page on COINTELPRO needs work and could really use help from someone knowledgeable/passionate. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Hello, I'm Cyclopia. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Grad missile seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor it is a place to vent your opinion. Thanks. Cyclopia ^talk 18:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the wiki pages in question, I'm not wrong about the primary claim regarding missiles (computer guided precision weapons) vs rockets and artillery. (And I'm not wrong about the rest though one may despute details or attempt justifications.) I'm well aware that I made the redirect manual, instead of automatic, and made what I deem constructive contributions, namely noting egregious propaganda, despited those being deemed otherwise by Wikipedia policy. But I am not wrong about the propagandistic misnomer of referring to rockets and artillery as missiles and I shall restore my edits as a form of protest until all erroneous, bad faith references to Qassam missiles, Grad missiles, etc. are removed from the multifariously disproportionate number of articles devoted to the murder of civilians by Palestinians, compared to Israeli terror, apartheid ethnic cleansing and aggression (war crime). (Which unfortunately is not a war-crime as evidenced by the fact that the Allies (including gold old "uncle Joe") murdered more defenseless civilians by military means with no credible pretext of military targets than the Axis, and any type of despicable act that the Fascists' attributed beyond reasonable doubt to the Allies was therefore not criminal.)Autoarbitaster (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS other troubling issues are the way the structure of pages frames things, and using state (and corporations') propaganda agencies as sources for unattributed claims to objectivity, especially when these states (and corporations) are actors in the events being described.Autoarbitaster (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)220.233.78.32 (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Grad missile, you may be blocked from editing. Again, Wikipedia is not the place to promote political causes (no matter how noble). If you have issues with the factual accuracy of the main article where Grad missile redirects, go on its talk page and discuss it there. Cyclopia ^talk 10:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Grad missile, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cyclopia ^talk 10:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I thread about you

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Autoarbitaster replacing redirects with propaganda. Thank you. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Grad missile 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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 11:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Grad missile. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. De728631 (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The original redirect is propaganda and violates incontrovertible objective fact, not mere Neutrality. See missile, Iron Dome and the target pages Qassam rocket, BM-21 Grad, and all the many pages linked to those via x missile > x rocket redirect. The original redirect serves to equivocate the rockets used by some people in a beseiged area, compared to the most advanced (alongside the US) military machine, that possesses means of violence that allow for both more death and less death should the IDF wish to use precision, the IDF has chosen to murder and maim many times more civilians than Palestinians have, despite their technical capacity. These besieged people (see links at bottom) suffering decades of military occupation, air strikes, shelling, invasions, military law, repeated demolition of schools, houses, wells, and entire villages, systematic murder and maiming of non-threatening people by shooting rubber-coated metal bullets at eyes and joints, see unchallenged footnotes: Boston Globe Nov 4 2000, [1]
LAW, Israel’s Excessive and Indiscriminate Use of Force: Eye Injuries, November 2, 2000, Dr. Aghlab Khouri of St. John Eye Hospital in Jerusalem explains in his affidavit to a human rights organization the effect of the impact of a rubber coated metal bullet to the eye: “The cases that I [have] treated during the clashes were cases of direct shots to the eyes with rubber coated metal bullets. This kind of bullet does not have a sharp end but has a piece of metal inside; they hit the eye with great speed, creating an impact that shatters the eye.”
LAW, Israel’s Excessive and Indiscriminate Use of Force: Eye Injuries, November 2, 2000. [2]
Physicians for Human Rights, ‘Evaluation of the Use of Force in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank’, November 3, 2000. [3] I communicated with wikipolice, no compromise was offered, for example just a note that the redirect is misleading and they are not missiles, and that the linking pages need to be corrected.Autoarbitaster (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

the WP:TRUTH never excuses edit-warring or other forms of disruptive editing. Wikipedia is a community that runs on WP:CONSENSUS, and sometimes consensus is against you so you need to live with it. You were clearly warned multiple times about your behaviours, which finally culminated in an Administrator's Noticeboard report - it should never have gone that far (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:47, 19 November 2012 (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.

You were given plenty of warnings: you were the one who should have stopped and offer a compromise, if anything. And you still do not get that we're not here for propaganda. I doubt your request for unblock will be granted. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/wikileaks-israel-aimed-to-keep-gaza-economy-on-brink-of-collapse-1.335354 http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/un-chief-israel-s-blockade-on-gaza-strip-serves-only-to-bolster-extremists-in-region-1.464087 http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/un-independent-panel-rules-israel-blockade-of-gaza-illegal-1.384267 http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-announces-let-up-to-gaza-siege-but-only-in-english-1.296809 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/gaza-siege-chokes-israel-diplomatically-1.382984