User talk:Dhimmi

Welcome!

Hello, Dhimmi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 10:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Ye'or

Hi Dhimmmi, you've reverted 10 times today at the above, which means you've violated the three-revert rule. This says if we revert, in whole or in part, to the previous version of a page more than three times in 24 hours, we can be blocked up for to 24 hours. I'm leaving this warning for you in case you haven't heard of the rule before. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This does not apply to vandalism. Dhimmi 22:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You have been blocked for 24 hours due to a violation (and following warnings) of the Wikipedia:three revert rule. You may still edit this talk page, though. I have added it to my watchlist in case you wish to discuss the block. Thanks. El_C 00:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The other side was simply removing material for invalid reasons, without disputing its factuality. That should count as vandalism and thus reverting it does not violate 3RR. For a source mentioning the name Giselle Littman, see "Europe's Jews Seek Solace on the Right", New York Times, February 20, 2005 (multiple copies available through Google). Dhimmi 01:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory glance reveals to me that now is the first instance in which you cited a source. But at any rate, its reliability (and by extension verifiability) may still be challenged, so it dosen't constitute vandalism. One way to get past this is to attempt to account for how they arrived at that name, provide other sources that substantiate the factual basis behind that and other sets of evidence, etc. Good luck. El_C 15:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you did on returning after the block was to insert the name again. Could you please go to the discussion page and state your reasoning there? My understanding of the difficulty is twofold: (1) that online sources for the name are not particularly reputable, and (2) that she prefers her real name to be withheld for security reasons, because of the type of writing she does. If you could address those two issues, it would be much appreciated. However, whether you're right or wrong about the substantive issue, you must stop reverting: 3RR applies regardless of content, except where the issue is simple vandalism or some other form of serious disruption. Removing this name doesn't count as that, though your continued reversion is getting close to being disruptive. Don't put yourself in the wrong here because of your behavior: argue the content issue instead, and try to persuade people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR(2)

Hi. Either you agree to limit yourself to 1 revert per day for the next four days, or you'll be blocked from editing for 24 hours (yes, I just made up that arithmatic right now!), and you're all out of reverts today. Up to you, but I thought of giving you a choice, esp. one that furthers discussion. El_C 03:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR again. I agree with El_C: Please do not revert more than once a day. You've been identified as a problem user already; rather than being blocked repeatedly, please try and reach a compromise on talk pages. If you have any questions about this block, address them here; I've put this page on my watchlist and will be paying attention to it. Ral 315 15:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR yet again

Hi. I've blocked you for another 24 hours because of the constant revert warring on Bat Ye'or. If I may offer a few words of unsolicited advice: the WP:3RR rule is one of the few "brittle" rules we have here at Wikipedia. Violating it, for any reason, even if you were right, is a certain way to get banned. I've never read about Bat Ye'or before. Reading the talk page, and looking at the edits, it seems to me that you were in the right: this woman's name was apparently published in the New York Times, and therefore it is legitimate for us to print it; that's my personal opinion as a latecomer to the article. But that doesn't make it OK for you to violate 3RR. When you encounter stiff resistance like this, often the right thing to do is to find someone uninvolved in the article, bring them, in, and get them to comment. You can do this formally, through an article request for comment, or informally, by just posting on some other editors' talk pages and asking them to come by and take a look. Persuasive evidence speaks louder than a thousand mechanical reverts. I strongly suggest that you try this technique out when your block expires, rather than mindlessly trying to fight a revert war all by yourself. Regards, Nandesuka 14:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually no need for an article RfC, as I'm quite amenable to persuasion on this issue. I would just like to give the anon who was reverting you a chance to say why, in case there is a legitimate security reason for removing the name, or in case it's not accurate. But regardless of that, as Nandesuka says, you can't violate 3RR whether you're right or wrong, and the fact that you edit only this article also doesn't do much for your credibility. Please try to outline on the talk page why you have such strong feelings about this, and hopefully the anon will do the same, and then we can decide whether the name is accurate and ought to be published by us. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for Giselle Littman

The place to dispute deletions is at deletion review. Please do so there. Kelly Martin is a member of the ArbCom and she isn't likely to delete something on a whim. She thought she had had a good reason. If you disagree, take it up at deletion review. For now, I don't see any reason not to do what SlimVirgin did. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

Ignoring the erroneous sockpuppetry allegations since having a sock isn't against the rules (though it is discourged) unless your using it to break rules and/or go around a block which doesn't seem to be the case here, I still think a 48 hour block is warranted for repeated edit warring and for gaming the rules in regards to reverts especially considering that this is not the first time that you have had to be blocked for this. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you permanently, as a sockpuppet created to violate policy (in this case 3RR and edit-warring). If you create another sockpuppet for this purpose, I'll block your main account as well. Please abide by policy in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]