User talk:Nokilli

WP:3RR

Nokilli, you have violated the WP:3RR rule on List of Jewish American journalists. Please revert yourself to avoid being blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You've been blocked for 24 hrs for violating WP:3RR at List_of_Jewish_American_journalists. Please use this time to become more familar with policy. FeloniousMonk 20:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again for 3rr at the same article. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks? Nokilli 08:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock denied, you didn't do 4 reverts in 24 hours, but 4 reverts in 24 hours and 20 min, but because you were blocked a few days ago for 3rr in the same article, you knew about the 3rr and how to evade it. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

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.

abakharev 08:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am genuinely confused now as to the WP:3RR rule. The editor who requested the block states that this is my 3rd 3RR violation in a week. I did violate it the first time, I'm new here, and I didn't understand what a 3RR was. So I read the rules, which state that you can't do 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. And so I follow the rules, and don't do 4 reverts in a 24 hour period, and still I get my second 3RR violation (even though I didn't do 4 reverts in a 24 hour period, nor was I warned.) The administrator who recommended that 3RR has been stalking me, and so I attributed being banned to his clout within Wikipedia. Now I am banned a 3rd time for 3RR, even though again I did not perform four reverts in a 24 hour period. By reading now the entire WP:3RR page I see that in fact the 24 hour time period is mostly meaningless. This whole series of incidents then could have been avoided had it been stated up front that the 24 hour time period is open to interpretation.

More importantly, I would like to point out that the editor who recommended I be banned this time lied in the process of doing so, stating, "this user engages in OR and racist conspiracy theories". In fact, as can plainly be seen, I do not engage in WP:OR, nor am I promoting any kind of conspiracy theory, especially a racist one. A person actually needs to visit the page, and the context of the change I made, to understand why this is so.

I believe that any impartial view of my participation on the page in question would find that, not only am I not guilty of 3RR, but that those editors on the other side of this issue are guilty of any number of abuses. Nokilli 20:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm denying your request for an unblock. To say what Jaranda said above in a different way, just because we have the 3-revert rule doesn't mean that reverting repeatedly it allowed if you do it just slowly enough to ensure that no more than 3 take place in 24 hours. The point of the 3-revert rule is to make people discuss and come to a consensus rather than simply changing as often as possible to their own version. I'm not going to get involved in the merits of the revert you kept doing; I'm sure you have some valid points. What I can suggest is that you discuss with the editors who disagree with you, on the talk page of the article in question, or on their user talk pages. It helps if you remember that you shouldn't be arguing over the truth (THAT can easily never get solved) but rather over how the article on this one topic should be written. If this doesn't work, you can try mediation or a request for comments as a way of broadening community participation. I'm sorry, I know it's frustrating to be blocked, but it's important to use blocks to channel disruption into constructive effort towards improving the articles in the encyclopedia; that's what this is all about. Mango juice^talk 05:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would just respond that if it is the spirit of the rule and not the actual timeframe specified that is important, then the editors on the other side of the edit conflict should be similarly affected since they are as guilty of this as I am, and I do believe WP:3RR states that as well. There is also the question of the user who falsely reported me as inciting racist hatred that I think needs to be considered, but I understand that some races get to hate more than others here on Wikipedia.

In any case, thank you for a thoughtful reply. You could have knocked it down to 24 hours, but hey, nobody's perfect. Nokilli 05:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, I see I forgot to mention that by adorning his request that I be blocked with information regarding the content of my edits, this user was in fact seeking to censor my input. If indeed I was in violation of WP:3RR, then why the need to bring content into the matter? Nokilli 05:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AND NOW FOR AN IMPORTANT WORD FROM AVRAHAM

OK Avraham, it's all yours. You were about to say something about my not being WP:CIVIL, even though that is incorrect, and violating WP:OR, which is incorrect too, and which you already know since I've already explained this to you on the appropriate talk page. I would accuse you of violating WP:DICK but I can't edit your talk page right now.

Don't let the mohels find you! Nokilli 06:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an outsider who is not acquainted with the practices of circumcision, I would say that your edit summaries here

([1], [2]) constitutes a sensationalist inflammatory wind-up - and would almost appear to be hinting at The "Mohel" being a paedophile of some sort. The above comment, associated with an inflammatory heading is also a gross personal attack.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you SHOULD become acquainted with the practices of circumcision before jumping into the middle of a heated exchange about the subject. Did you note that the accusations being hurled against me, including one of promoting child pornography, are based on a description of the procedure that has been a part of this article since its inception and for which I had absolutely no involvement in whatsoever? No? Hmmm.

I wonder, were you aware that this procedure is almost certainly responsible for the deaths of many, many thousands of Jews over the centuries?

Do I have your permission to express outrage that such an act is allowed to be performed today despite the risks entailed?

Do I have your permission to express outrage over the overt actions being taken on the part of the pro-circumcision community to censor this information so that the public not be made aware of this practice and so that many more Jewish babies can die as a consequence?

It just shocks the conscience. Look at what is going on here, and then talk to me about what is "sensationalist", what is "inflammatory". My God man, you want to talk about a "gross personal attack"? What do you call taking a knife to a newborn's penis? Nokilli 01:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Nokilli's rant against circumcision above

Moved to Circumcision talk page. Nokilli 20:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page. It may be considered vandalism. If you do not wish a certain topic to be immediately visible, you may archive it.

Please remain civil, try to avoid gaming the system, and try to keep within the three-revert rule. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be considered vandalism. But then again, it may not. Nokilli 19:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nokilli, I noticed as others have that you have removed posts from your talk page. As a relatively new user that is a perfectly understandable mistake - in fact I made that mistake myself once, long before I became an administrator. The proper way to do it, so it doesn't look like you're trying to hide bad stuff you've done, is to archive old posts. And if the warnings were unfounded - don't worry, that happens all the time too, just respond to them explaining why they are unfounded (it would reflect more poorly on the person issuing the warning than on you). I also noticed you removed some messages because you think the subject material is too offensive to be on your user talk page. I understand that quite well. Instead of deleting them outright, a good alternative is to move them to the talk page of the article, and leave a note saying you've done so. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-06 07:07Z

Well, of course I would love to move them to the talk page of the article, but I'm not able to edit talk pages of articles at the moment because I am guilty of not violating WP:3RR two times in a row. I do however appreciate the very positive tone to your warning. If the big stick that people get whacked with around here is indeed preventative rather than punative, then your approach in wielding this stick (and MangoJuice's, see above) is to be emulated. Everybody else seems to feature a nyah-nyah attitude about it, ya know? Nokilli 07:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like this Stifle guy. I mean, is that a great username or what? Nokilli 07:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Quarl has far more patience and tact than me. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Nokilli, if you have a problem with me, then by all means explain. However, comments such as this are wholly unacceptable: "Your pose as being without bias is fooling noone." Such comments assume bad faith and are incivil, bordering upon a personal attack. This must stop. Jakew 19:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the comments which engendered this response assumed bad faith and were incivil, and the entire exercise over at the Circumcision talk page borders on personal attack. It should all stop, but you seem to be interested in only seeing such conduct on the other side of the issue stop. Why is that? Could it be that your side has no substance, that if it actually resorted to a plain and objective rendering of the facts that circumcision would end up being portrayed as the vicious, unconscionable act it really is? Nokilli 20:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific. What particular comment(s) do you identify as assuming bad faith and incivil? Please quote a particular example. Jakew 20:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hex RfA

This is the RfA of user:Hex. I believe he would make a good and unconventional admin, so I'm running around right now, trying to encourage some of the more sensible people I know of to support him. Subversive 09:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]