User talk:MalesAlwaysBest

Your recent editing history at Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from September 2012) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

Discussion is ongoing, so stop reverting. Sopher99 (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The policy of the 2012 Syrian Civil War timeline articles has been to have no mention of the slogans, and you've sought to breach or change that policy with the current timeline article. Well if you want the change then you put the case and you marshal support for it. Still waiting to see that materialise: me and 8 others. And don't forget to supply one of those scolding templates that you're handing out in the exact same terms to your own talkpage. There's a pal.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

I am complaining about you edit warring here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Yworo_reported_by_User:Doncsecz_.28Result:_Declined.29 Sopher99 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Bring it on, bud. But wait, you won't. How could one have predicted that scale of cowardice from one of those associating with that corner??</sarcasm>MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from September 2012). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from September 2012) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

An Idea

If you delete this article and re create an article called

List of Friday names during the Syrian civil war

I can remove all those Friday names from the timeline and put it there. I will simply add a link on the top of the timeline page for the list of Friday names. Sopher99 (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I've defended your effort at the suppression of the documenting article which exists and is entirely needed and appropriate, and happy with the defence I've put. Knock yourself out with the attempts to kill, which started with your not even attempting to find and link to a known CSD rationale category. Your ultimatum's rejected.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The subject matter of propaganda slogans of this war is not so broad that it needs splitting up and narrowing into just Friday names (which, my, would only document one side!). We have seen slogans which are not Friday names (eg. 'Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the coffin') and which are operational and campaign names held to by the people and their government in a number of the specific antiterrorism efforts against those styling themselves 'rebels'. Such things are not of the come-and-gone-in-a-week moldMalesAlwaysBest (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Jeancey (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Gee, the Syrian Opposition seeks to rally people to its partisan goals with its unending stream of constantly shifting slogans boasting about itself or lying about its influence and blaming and vilifying others. That's controversial or somehow unverifiable?MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ever heard the term "Two wrongs don't make a right?" If you are so sure that the titles are POV, then you have no reason NOT to wait for a new discussion to take place, since if it is so obvious then other people will see it too, right? Adding extremely POV statements to an article is NOT going to help your position at all. Jeancey (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a look on the talkpage of the Jan-April '12 timeline article and you'll see a discussion was had then and what the outcome was. Someone having a willingness to fuh-get that and restart a failed campaign doesn't make me a 'wrong' in what I've stood up and defended.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of sixty hours for edit-warring and disruption at Timeline of the Syrian civil war (September 2012 - December 2012). 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.  -- tariqabjotu 03:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What has been termed a war is from my part of upholding a policy arrived at in February that propaganda references are unwelcome in the SCW timeline articles. Now I know that 3RR is excepted when banishing vandalism and BLP abuse, and I cannot concede that trash like 'The only terrorism in Syria is from Assad' - about a living person who has no criminal record and has never been charged or impeached or had to answer an indictment about anything, who is also a father and a husband and a sitting Head of State - ought be allowed to stand as neither of those. In present circumstances, such a slur upon him also acts as a slur upon the government and Syrian nation he's the embodying representative of. This is a case where 3RR bears excepting for the sake of being vigilant against nationalist bigotry slurs and protecting the man's name and reputation (& for ethical reasons, as well as for the sake of truth, & for legal reasons also). If you still want to say it's an 'edit war' then necessarily there have been other parties that have brought it to its 'war' quality. (Has there ever been a war where there was only one belligerent?). I see no attempt at a sanction of those other initiators and therefore to have an equal application of justice that attempt must be made or absent that it compels that this block forthwith must be lifted. Also have a serious look at the impropriety of my not having been called to defend myself BEFORE a proposal to block was acted on, and the ignoring of the clearness of policies such as WP:BLOCK and WP:3RR to their effect that a first ever sanction for exceeding editing restrictions is never to be a block of more than 24 hours duration.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Whilst BLP concerns can be a mitigating factor in an edit war, the text that you removed SEVEN times in 24 hours, and ELEVEN times in around 36 hours, had no such issues, it was merely a POV dispute. As regards your claim that 24h should be compulsory, note that WP:3RR says "Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident". Given the extent of your edit warring on this article and others at the same time, I would have probably blocked for 48 hours; 60 is not excessive in any way. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What's usual should be applied in this case rather than regrettable example of running away with emotions. There was nothing in addition to the editing restrictions matter which was raised to justify the block. There were no threats or namecalling, no BLP violation, and no vandalism. I had been allowed to continue editing and I continued to do so without neglecting to explain my actions in summary and talk. Block action is for preventive purpose only and in the intervening time we've had comment into the current SCW timeline article that it is indeed the appropriate action to remove propaganda slogans from titles and to have a slogs article, both of which I take credit for initiating. Also, theres been said to be a 'war' but its a war with the disgraceful injustice of the other willing participants getting off absolutely scot free, so far.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 6:19 pm, Today (UTC−6)

Decline reason:

This is not a usual case as it's not usual for editors to blithely speed past 3 reverts to make seven. I find the length of block quite appropriate. You haven't reverted since you've been blocked, so it seems that this block has been preventative. In regards to prevention, I have no idea why the other participants in this edit war weren't blocked, but they have ceased edit warring and blocks are not punitive. Danger ^{High voltage!} 00:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

WP:NPOV

Read it, stop POV pushing. You just got off a block, do you want another? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of any statement in the history of mankind that doesn't disclose a 'POV'. Keen to be informedMalesAlwaysBest (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

All men are created equal. There you go. Also read WP:NPA[1] Do not accuse editors of dishonesty. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, and that doesn't have the POV that implies involvement of a Creator or process which can be given the name of 'creation'. Oh wait maybe it does, however there's no other possible alternative viewpoints on that dependent idea, or upon the general concept expressed either. What's the 'personal attack' in highlighting the dishonesty of a powertrip bunch of raping murderers who seek to deflect scrutiny with the old playbook maneuvre of constantly shifting propaganda slogans demanding accountability of everything and anything but themselves?MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Syrian Civil War slogans for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Syrian Civil War slogans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Syrian Civil War slogans until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a fortnight for move warring. 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.   Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

How'm i supposed to point out at the just-created renaming discussion on the article's talkpage that it cannot be changed from its original created name (ie. propaganda slogans) until pending deletion nominations are fully dealth with, and as yet they are not. Really, if you just had to be such a big bully you could lockdown to prevent move and achieve the same without this policy of silencing which prevents participation in the discussion and the other good work of casting the worthless slogans out of timeline articles as recently agreed in the discussion on the current SCW timeline article which concluded with User:Bjellkang. Now do the right thing; not just your worst.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not a reason for unblocking this account. You are familiar with Wikipedia's way of making decisions, which involves, not repeatedly trying to force your desired change into the encyclopedia, but talking, coming to a consensus, and then making the change that has been agreed upon. You know that repeatedly forcing the same change before consensus is reached will result in being blocked. You made an informed choice to be blocked, presumably because you decided that moving the pages right that moment was more important than being available to participate in later discussion. Your choice is one that I respect, and I won't show disrespect to you by undoing its results. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

Write your reasons against the move and I will copy them over to the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Just cut out the silencing and step back altogether from the bullying which has started from the moment I came from block.

Propaganda is "a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes." How oh how on God's earth is that not --exactly-- what every one of those worthless dishonest anti-Syria slogans amounts to?MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)}}

Is that what you want copied over? Not a very compelling argument and not founded in policy. But if you want I will copy it over. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The slogans are all boastful, dishonest, manipulative, and various shades of aggressive and threatening. None of them make any overture at reconciliation, or acknowledge the viewpoint and core human dignity of their opponents, or the sanity of the desire of most people to have nothing to do with their ideology of spoiling into the cockfight. In short: atrociously, and blatantly one-sided with deliberacy of intention to be that way. Just google 'Syrian Civil War propaganda' and you see what I mean. There is no way 'The only terrorist in Syria is Assad' is not pitching to be propaganda.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)}}

The neutral point of view policy is one of Wikipedia's most important rules. Should all articles with 'slogan' in the title be changed to 'propaganda,' or only the articles related to the Syrian Civil War? Why? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's face it. All these slogans come from the bad guys for their anti-Syria purposes. Outside of these, sure, there are slogans that aren't of the character of propaganda. The Rumble in the Jungle is an example; it just raises the profile and awareness of a sporting event. Even in relation to war, there are non-propaganda slogans such as "The War to End All Wars", "Great War", and "World War I" which all belligerents to that conflict approved as accurate enough and objective. But the Syrian Opposition rapes, murders and propagandises like you or I eat, sleep and breath. These Friday names all variously put out the message that their opponent warrants no mercy, that they are the only people wronged, that their opponent has inferior human dignity which makes them undeserving to enter dialogue with, that your neutrality from them is a mark of evil, or that they are the only martyrs and the only ones who speak for God. It becomes a DISservice not to acknowledge things of that spirit as propaganda. Only bought and sold sheeple indoctrinees of their own camp would raise an effort to deny it.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Your argument - that most slogans should remain 'slogan,' but slogans of the Syrian Opposition should be renamed 'propaganda' because they are the bad guys- might be true. However, because it doesn't meet the requirements of the neutral point of view policy, it will be ignored at Wikipedia. If, as you say, you think that it is evil to write about this subject in a neutral way, then you should avoid writing about this subject at Wikipedia - you won't be able to follow the rules without violating your own conscience. Instead, write about subjects that you can approach in the spirit of the neutral point of view policy. Don't feel badly; we all have subjects on which our feelings are so strong that we cannot remain neutral, and most of us avoid those subjects or engage in them very, very carefully. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Were you listening, and thinking at the same time, at all? It -lacks- 'neutrality' to describe actual propaganda slogans, of which you seem to accept the arguability of their quality as that, as some euphemism short of that. It would be like renaming 'List of Syrian Civil War battles' to 'List of public places where opposing armies in the Syrian Civil War met each other'.

But with the new year I'll give a thought to not 'feel[ing] badly' that when you dream up a propaganda slogan to enable a band of rapists in their onslaught against a country, you can have it classified as something blander and less than that for the sake of a fear of controversy and the wanting to make a show that there can be some sort of illusory evenhandedness between pure evil and corrupt-and-distant-but-at-least-not-harmful. After all, no-one can be all bad & everyone has their reasons. Even rapists are nice to their own dogs, right? And one gang's outrageous claim to be soldiers of God, can at the same time be another gang's self-evident revelation of the Truth which could not conceivably be admitted to have the character of propaganda by an encyclopaedist standing objectively. Not.

Why is the above still not being added into the talkpage rename discussion, and why should I accept the humiliation of having to sit in the naughty chair and talk to myself for two weeks when it's not yet been concluded that I'm incorrect? I'm yet to be personally convinced that I am & it might even be there.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Who knows? Maybe consensus will agree with you that 'propaganda' is the right word, especially if you can show that it is entirely neutral and factual. When your block expires, you can still make that argument, and see if others will agree with you that it's the most factual, most neutral term. But don't repeatedly revert other users until you have consensus- that's the behavior that keeps resulting in you being blocked, and unable to participate in reaching consensus. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The name that I moved the article to is the name it remains to have and which is also the name it originated with and which it must continue to have while the deletion debate remains unfinalised (because who ever heard of the topic of a debate being changed before the debaters had finished debating it). Continuing to silence me the for pretext offered is therefore a hypocrisy and a demonstration of corruption. What will -you- do about it?MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The name that I moved the article to is the name it remains to have and which is also the name it originated with and which, as a matter of process integrity, it must continue to have while the deletion debate remains unfinalised. There has been an unbroken effort to have the article killed via deletion ever since my creation of it as part of implementing what has only become clearer and clearer consensus to root propaganda headlines (some of which amount to personal vilification of living people and national groups) out of the timeline articles.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This still is not a reason to unblock your account. You were move warring; the fact that the move warring has since stopped does not mean that you were right to do so. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What means that I was right to do so is that the other party was move warring the article to displace it from its originating title that it must remain to have, for deletion debate participants to take exact awareness of what has been brought up to debate, until the deletion question is dealt with conclusively and unless at the conclusion of that debate the outcome is a title name move. The moving of the article to begin with was something initiated by another party and to move it back is to insist upon the requirement of a proper talkpage proposal and discussion to precede that which, to that time, wholly had not been attempted.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

What bizarre logic - just because someone else was smart enough to stop move-warring does not mean the article is in the right place. It means they're not dumb enough to move war. As this unblock does not address the reasons behind your block, it's not WP:GAB-compliant (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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.