User talk:Ihateantisemites

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to John Galliano, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: John Galliano was changed by Ihateantisemites (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.952822 on 2011-03-01T15:19:16+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Russell Tribunal, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your edits appear to be unconstructive and biased. Please abide by Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policies in the future. Uhai (talk · contribs) 22:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Press TV. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Press TV was changed by Ihateantisemites (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.853787 on 2011-03-01T22:38:43+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thedarxide (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Russell Tribunal, you will be blocked from editing without further notice.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Russell Tribunal was changed by Ihateantisemites (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.957072 on 2011-03-02T15:46:04+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

First off, I am not the only one reverting your edits. Second, your edits are being reverted not because of any personal beliefs of myself or my fellow editors, but because they are nonconstructive, unsourced, and appear to be biased. If you can start providing sourced and neutral edits that add to the article in some way constructively then your edits will not be reverted. If you continue with your current pattern, however, you will be blocked from editing. You are already at a level 4 warning so I wouldn't push it. Additionally, I don't appreciate the type of message you left for me on my talk page. Thanks. -- Uhai (talk · contribs) 15:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your passion however if you are unable to provide reliable sources for your edits, and edit in an unbiased manner, they will continue to be reverted. If not by me, it will be by other editors or ClueBot. To be honest, I don't care if I'm protecting or attacking anything by reverting edits which do not conform to Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia is not a place to spread your beliefs, it is an encyclopedia that provides verifiable and unbiased information. When I look at your edit history, it's clear to me that you do not understand the point of Wikipedia. I'll say it again; edit in an unbiased manner and provide reliable sources and your edits will stay. Continue with your current pattern, and you will be blocked. -- Uhai (talk · contribs) 16:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to continue arguing with you. You already know what you have been doing wrong, because it has been explained to you several times. I do not care what you claim I am doing by reverting your edits that violate Wikipedia's policies. -- Uhai (talk · contribs) 17:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are really this adamant, go ahead and lodge a complaint. Even though you said you already did it, upon viewing your contributions, it appears that you have not yet submitted a complaint. The main point I am trying to make is that you are providing content that is unsourced and does not adhere to WP:COI. What ever the content you are providing is about is irrelevant if there are no sources. I bolded that because you do not seem to understand. Call me an anti-semitic, call me whatever you want, but at the end of the day, I am right and if I am not the one reverting your edits, someone else will (which has already happened.). "Why do you protect them?" I'm not protecting anything or anyone except Wikipedia's articles from unsourced and biased information. I do not bring any personal beliefs with me when I edit Wikipedia. I have political views, however I do not go around spewing unsourced and biased content on the opposite side's Wikipedia articles because I think that is right or wrong and needs to be said. Additionally I would like to remind you that you are already at a level 4 warning, only one of those is of which I have issued, and if your editing pattern continues you may be blocked by an administrator who believes are you disruptive. I will restate that I appreciate your passion, but it needs to be expressed as neutral as possible with as many sources to back up facts as possible. If you still disagree with me, just waltz on over and lodge a complaint, because I don't want to hear about this anymore unless it's from an administrator. Enjoy your day. -- Uhai (talk · contribs) 05:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name question

I've come here watching a page where you edited and I read your user page, too. I am under the impression that you hate antisemites, as can be interpreted even looking at your username. While I am trying not to have a opinion on this, I would rather ask you a question if I already assumed that you hate them. Well here it goes: why bother hating some people, it takes quite a lot of energy. You might as well try to educate them and you might win them over (if there are sides to win). Educating can take you the same amount of energy and it's more fulfilling for you. Here, at Wikipedia, you have an opportunity to do that with much less energy invested. Best regards, --Biblbroks (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay German

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lindsey German, you may be blocked from editing.

Mezigue (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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. Ironholds (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]