User talk:Flawfixer

Welcome!

Hello, Flawfixer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ltwin (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello Flawfixer, I would like to welcome you to Wikipedia. Thank you for your edits to If Americans Knew, however, you have picked a very controversial article to begin editing on. You need to be aware that this article is under dispute and your edits may aggravate that dispute. This is why I ask you to please restore the article to the form it was in before you made your edits, making changes to the article only after you have discovered what the consensus is. This can be done here at the article's talk page. This is because many editors have strong opinions about this article and I would hate to see an edit war begin.

I would advise you to ask what other editors think of this information you are introducing. This article is currently in mediation, and if you would like to comment on the mediation process you can do so here. Please, think about what I said and remove your edits until it is decided on the talk page. If you have any questions you may reach me by just leaving a message on this page or by going here. Alternatively, I can be reached on the If Americans Knew talk page or its mediation case page, the links to which I've given you above. Welcome and thank you. Ltwin (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ltwin

Thank you for your welcome. However, I disagree with your suggestion that I restore the page to an inaccurate, defamatory version. I have addressed this here at the If Americans Knew talk page. I apologize for not including this explanation during my initial edit. Flawfixer (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you commenting on your changes at the talk page. You seemed to have misunderstood me. I was not saying that the article had to stay the way it was, only that because it is a controversial article and currently under mediation, it might have been better for you to wait on editing it until you had learned what the consensus was. Anyway the information is there and it is sourced.

This was not a judgement on the material you introduced. I personally do not have a any interest in this article, I'm just here to help people come to their own consensus. If you are not a new user I apologize for giving you the new user treatment. Judging by you contributions it seemed like you were relativley new here so I thought why not leave a welcome message since I didn't see one. Good day. Ltwin (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Can you say what other accounts you've used in the past, if you have? Thanks. IronDuke 18:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spotfixer. How is the "fixing the rules" thing going for ya? 82.35.46.176 (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flawfixer. You have new messages at Ltwin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

for Ltwn

Actually, you have the cart before the horse. I followed wikipedia guidelines, which was to edit an article and provide sources for my edits. The article as it stood was inaccurate. Ironduke then reverted it to an inaccurate version. You then asked for no more reverts. Unfortunately, Ironduke and NoCal100 continue to insist on an inaccurate and defamatory entry. To try to end this nonsensical war, I then proposed and executed a real compromise. You should have been pleased.

Yes, while I have had an account for quite awhile, I am relatively new to taking part in Wikipedia, precisely for this reason. As an article revealed and which I referred you to earlier, Israelis and pro-Israel zealots frequently attempt to subvert the wikipedia process -- and often succeed.

This is not a wikipedia game. Israeli forces killed over 1300 people recently, blowing off arms and legs. The pretext were 3 Israelis who had been killed -- after Israeli forces had killed 7 Palestiians and injured another 6. Altogether they've killed 6,288 Palestinians in the last 8 years; Palestinians have killed 1,071 -- after Israeli forces had already killed and injured hundreds of Palestinians.

If you don't know anything about Israel-Palestine or about Israel's most recent massacre read the If Americans Knew website to find out. <personal attack removed> I suggest you learn the facts. You might even want to visit the West Bank and Gaza personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flawfixer (talk • contribs)

Exactly. I asked for no more reverts not just from the others but from you too. I'm sorry if you and everyone else thinks its unreasonable to seek consensus first. But if this article is going to succeed with all the emotion that it stirs up, we all are going to have to think before we act. Otherwise we are going to be caught up in a never ending cycle of reverts. Its that simple. Your proposal has been made. Now we should wait to see what consensus forms. Thank you and good luck. Ltwin (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it seems that you've just reverted this yourself. Is there one rule for everyone else and a different one for you? I am going to ask for a new mediator and return this to an accurate, compromise position.

Yes I have because several of you have consistently undermined these mediation discussions. You are welcome to ask for a new mediation. But if you ignore that mediator like you have me it want do you any good. You said this was a proposal for compromise. If that is true then you should be happy that it is being considered. Ltwin (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I have contacted the WP:Mediation Cabal for alternative mediation. Ltwin (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on If Americans Knew. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

weird system

A threat from an anonymous editor seems bizarre. Does this mean that if someone like IronDuke gets a pal like NoCal100 or someone else to revert to an unfactual entry, that's okay?

Just curious about how this system works...or doesn't. Does anyone involved here actually care about getting the information correct?Flawfixer (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't anonymous, just unsigned. And you are acting in a very aggressive, disruptive manner. You aren't doing your political POV any favors by engaging in that behavior. IronDuke 23:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Aftonbladet-Israel controversy. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alan (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Aftonbladet-Israel controversy. Thank you. Alan (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Aftonbladet-Israel controversy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Alan (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Aftonbladet-Israel controversy. Alan (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aftonbladet-Israel controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 06:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Enigma^msg 06:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

once again the Wikipedia process fails. Factual, substantiated material is removed and irrelevant, unsubstantiated material is inserted. I explained on the Talk age why I was reinserting the factual material. Yet this continued to be removed. It's sad that the process is so easily manipulated by Zionists. Many people have written about this. They're right.

More unfounded complaints about supposed bias. You repeatedly violated Wikipedia policy by endlessly edit warring, and you're going to sit here and complain about how the system is biased against your POV? I have no idea what your dispute is all about, and frankly, I don't care. All I know is you reverted nine times and ignored repeated warnings about your inappropriate behaviour. Enigma^msg 07:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Aftonbladet-Israel controversy, you will be blocked from editing. NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC) 07:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]