Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Norman Finkelstein. I have disabled your editing permissions for 2 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 please take your differences to the talk page and refrain from edit warring in the future. (Note that I in no way endorse or distance myself from the changes made by you or the person who reported you, I merely apply Wikipedia's policy against revert warring.) Cheers, —Ruud16:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same four as Ragout listed on the talk page. I initailly did not see #1 as a reverts (#3 and #4 were rahter obvious, #2 less so) but Ragout gave me the following reasons for #1 and #2:
In the previous consecutive series of edits I changed 'his supporters claim that it technically does not amount to "plagiarism,"' to "neither of these sources call it "plagiarism,"' Deuterium then reverted it to "Some claim the practice to not be plagiarism."
Deuterium's second revert is a series betwee 10:22 and 11:37. By the end, he's removed 'neither of these sources call this practice "plagiarism,"' entirely, and not replaced it with anything resembling the original statement..
I personally found this some lame quibbling over semantics, although technically a 3RR violation and more importantly no less of 3RR vio than Ragout had committed, which is why I blocked you both for 123 minutes. Cheers, —Ruud15:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried my best to conform to the wishes of those complaining the Anti-Arabism article is POV and unsourced. But despite my sources (Amnesty, Washington Times, etc) and despite my attempts to show all angles of the debate in the Iranians section, I am still told what I write is rubbish. I have given up. In truth, a user who has continually complained about my edits and reverted them elsewhere has followed me onto this article and challenging me there. I will never be able to get a compromise with him, so I am giving up Wikipedia. This was my last try and my last attempt to get away from him and it failed.--Ahwaz20:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Deuterium, you're right about that passage, so I restored your version, though I deleted the "perceived" dangers of terrorism and extremism. The reason I reverted is I was getting increasingly confused about the reverting back and forth, so I reverted back to a version that I recall was okay, but I apologize for not checking it more closely. SlimVirgin(talk)02:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deuterium, you have now reverted the Al-Aqsa Intifada page 4 times in 24 hours, which, as you know, is a violation of WP:3RR. Please revert yourself before you are blocked again for this. Thanks. Jayjg (talk)15:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley16:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you find it difficult to find my comments on the talkpage? Well, here is a hint for you: They are at the bottom of the page, just below your rant regardig the intro section. -- Karl Meier12:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit is illogical as it actually narrows down the definition of what Islamophobia is to one definition... there are a number of examples of definitions. Please try and do further research on this topic (including the talk page and archives) as you wade into editing on this article. (→Netscott)10:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deuterium, would you mind if I deleted your user subpage with the list of editors? This kind of thing is widely seen as an attack page, and they often cause unnecessary bad feeling. I can't see that it has any legitimate purpose. Let me know what you think. Many thanks, SlimVirgin(talk)06:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you believe your "rights" are as an honest Wikipedian. We're here to write an encyclopedia, nothing more. The descriptions are not at all objective; they are your own opinion, and they constitute criticism. What is the purpose of the list? SlimVirgin(talk)06:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "The purpose of the page is to keep track of edits I take objection, which is part of building an encyclopedia." How exactly does that help toward building an encyclopedia? SlimVirgin(talk)07:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how it's useful. Don't ask me; I'm not the one keeping the page. You are; therefore, you must have a reason, and I am asking what that reason is. This is the fourth time I've asked. SlimVirgin(talk)07:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you're playing games. Please either remove or completely neutralize your descriptions of people, or the page will be deleted. There's no justification for attack pages on Wikipedia. If you're preparing some kind of case, it's fine to keep diffs and evidence, but there's no reason to post your unsubstantiated personal opinion about other editors. Our user pages are not our personal property. SlimVirgin(talk)07:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find your "bad edit" page a form of harrasment against any editor with whom you have a disagreement. I suggest that if you disagree with an edit you will follow DR process. Zeq05:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the 3RR warning, you still violated it making 5 reverts in 24 hours and 4 minutes. This is gaming the system. Also, you failed to respond at talk. This time I'll show goodwill and won't report you. ←Humus sapiensну?09:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, BookwormUK was responsible for what you claimed on her talk page. BookwormUK insists on including non-notable theories on the Black Stone being a Hindu relic (the Shivling of Makkeshwar, which is up for deletion by the way) and related nonsense. She's also deleting comments on her talk page (including the warning I gave her about being blocked). Just thought you should know what you're getting into. I've been engaged in an edit war with her for days now. Wish me luck. :) MP (talk)10:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the talk page where a consensus seems to have been reached. Thank you. For the record: Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Avi03:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please carefully read the talk page, you are the only one who feels it is pertinent. Every other editor felt it was non-reliable, out-of-scope, fishing, or all three. Please refrain from doing so again until you can acheive a consensus with other editors. Thank you. -- Avi00:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So do you admit you were wrong when you said I was adding "commentary and personal analysis"?
Secondly, other people in talk agree with me; there is no consensus. For example,
Hello all. I saw the RFC and wandered to see what all the hullabaloo was about. May I suggest including the (admittedly bizarre) Times reference but following it up with a statement to the effect of "However, the Jerusalem Post has questioned the credibility of the Times' coverage of Israeli issues" or something like that. Additionally, if any others have questioned the credibility of this report then those sources should also be included. I think that TheronJ is right that WP:V demands we include the Times' article. I would further suggest that this issue be revisited in the not-too-distant future (a month or two) and if no other sources have reported anything about this it be deleted to prevent from giving undue weight to what would then appear to be a very minor issue. --ElKevbo 03:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you read Ken Arrondee's advice and read WP:RS. Feel free to follow any and every Wikipedia policy and guideline including WP:RFC. If you would follow them all with the zeal you display, such as WP:RS and WP:NPA, you may a) see how your edits in this article are not apropos and b) find it easier to reach a consensus that gains approval of enough people. -- Avi01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
“commentary and personal analysis” is the term used for POV warnings. I believe it is your POV that is pushing to have this piece of information in the article, when its notability and reliability vis a vis Israel are of sincere doubt. Would you like me to e-mail you the Jerusalem Post article I referenced above discussing the Times’ abysmal record when it comes to Israel? If you can find somewhere else reliable and verifiable where this is brought as a serious concern, I'll back you, as I did with the Ivana Watson article. Until such time, you have most of the wiki policies and guidelines against you. As an aside, this has been a great week, I've been accused of being an Israeli magephone pawn, an anti-Zionist vandal, and an atrocious admin in the space of a week. All I have to do now is let loose with a load of sockpuppets and start posting non-fair use images. Any ideas for me? 8-D -- Avi01:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And by all means, if you feel the need for an RFC, please go ahead, but your actions in this article, in my measured opinion, still amount more to pushing a non-notable point for political purposes than they do in helping encyclopædic content, until they can be explained otherwise. -- Avi02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you of informing me of what policy I am aware of. However, can I sugest that if you have a complaint about my actions, taking it directly elsewhere on the administrator's noticeboard, rather than reverting (ironic under the circumstances) my edits. Or alternativedly, questioning me on my justifications, rather than presuming that I don't understand policy?
In my opinion, by commenting out the original research, Nescott had avoided reverting your edits - he had not undone your work or actions, merely sidelined it until he, or the community as a whole, could be convinced that it wasn't original research. By not removing the content, the editor was not 'undoing the actions' of anybody. I did not interpret these as reverts. --Robdurbar20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous, many others had specifically removed the OR tag because it obviously wasn't OR and Netscott repeatedly put it back in. So, according to you people can revert as much as long as they are adding tags or commenting out material?
Secondly, by referring to the material as original research you are obviously taking a side in this debate, which places your actions and motivations under suspicion.
When relisting, you failed to draw attention to the listing above and the admin's decision - the second listing was deceitful in its present form, perhaps you didn't mean it to be so but that is how it looks. What you are trying to do is to have a review of a decision of the no block result. Do so overtly.--Arktostalk00:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the admins who looked at the 3RR report were incorrect, you are being disruptive by repeatedly bringing the matter up. One 3RR is not a big deal. I strongly suggest you find something more productive to do. JoshuaZ00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I've been blocked for 24 hours for "gaming the system" by following policy and posting my 4th revert just outside the 24 hour. Yet Netscott gets away with going against a consensus and reverting 5 times in 8 hours!
I regard the relisting as disruption, given you had been advised by the editor involved in the original decision that the correct course of action was if you have a complaint about my actions, taking it directly elsewhere on the administrator's noticeboard, rather than reverting (ironic under the circumstances) my edits. Relisting was better than reverting but not better enough. Your suggestion "that explanation was nuts." should be escalated with a request for review of actions. I find you have breached WP:POINT as has PinchasC.[2] --Arktostalk00:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest you let it go. Dwelling on this will not be helpful or productive regardless of whether or not you are correct. JoshuaZ00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So admin decisions are always right, even if they are a mistake? I don't see Papal Infallibilty in the Wikipedia policy. Deuterium00:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is not that they were correct but that even if they were wrong it is a waste of time to keep arguing over it. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, not see who deserves to be blocked and who doesn't. JoshuaZ00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Netscott has been disruptive to building an encyclopedia on the Islamophobia page and the more he's blocked the better that page and Wikipedia will be. It's been protected now because of his continual revert warring. Deuterium00:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Multiple reasons why I imagine: 1) Netscot's was not a clase of clear cut reversion, since the difs are complicated. 2) Because Netscot was more polite about things (to be blunt, politeness does influence how admins deal with you, it shouldn't be that way but it does) 3) The admins may have made a mistake. But the reasons aren't relevant, the point is that the block request was turned down and continued insistence on it is being disruptive. Oh and one more thing: please don't mark all your edits as minor, especially if they involve reverting people. JoshuaZ00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you aren't bothering to defend the original decision, which was a mistake.
As for impoliteness, I've been assertive but not impolite and I'm not willing to suck up to admins to get a result. My original listing was quite neutral.
It has been suggested that you are still over the fine line. Please remove the reference to the 3RR from your user page. All three complaints from you are on the 3RR report page. All have been dealt with. As advised previously there are verious avenues to have the decisions reviewed if you chose to do so. Your user page is provocative and as a consequence if not modified, I will modify it for you and block you for disruption and personal attacks.--Arktostalk02:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look harder - you do indeed mention the user by name. The incident has gone far enough. I direct you to remove all reference or face a block. Don't go in for wikilawering.--Arktostalk02:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No - remove it. If you wish to appeal, you don't do so by inviting comment on your user page, I suggest you go formal for an RfC. Get rid of it now.--Arktostalk02:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It seems you have accidentally chosen to mark all edits as minor by default. As Joshua says, it's bad to mark for instance a revert as minor. (I wish I knew why the option to mark everything as minor even exists, it does far more harm than good.) Anyway, please change it in your Preferences. This is how: click on "My preferences". Click on the tab "Editing". Look for the "Mark all edits minor by default" option in the list presented. Untick the box in front of it. I hope this helps. Bishonen | talk02:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Attacking and harrassing other users, regardless of where you do it, is considered vandalism. Re-adding that information will be considered trolling and will be dealt with accordingly. --InShaneee02:19, 18 August 2006 (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).
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.
(Reverting admin decisions re: 3RR) [Deuterium: But I already got blocked for that! THIS is double jeopardy]
You copied it back to your userpage, and added an attacking userbox, which is both a personal attack and falls under the continuation of the disruption to make a point. -- Avi03:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was only the latest in a series of egregious recent policy violations and disruptions, including repeated deceptive changes of other user's edits on WP:AN/3RR. 48 hours is richly deserved, and I'm surprised you weren't blocked sooner. Bishonen | talk02:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
And no, you didn't already get blocked for changing posted admin decisions on WP:AN/3RR. William M. Connelly's block of you yesterday was for edit warring on WP:AN/3RR, it didn't address the content, or the deceptiveness, of your edits. This is shown by the fact that Netscott, for merely reverting your bad edits, got exactly the same edit warring block. Bishonen | talk03:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Please stop reposting the attack information on your User page
