User talk:Paul Keller

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for all this information. I'll try to make myself acquainted with these guidelines as my time-schedule allows me. Once again, thanks.Paul Keller (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Pegida. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr. K. 01:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA3

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee has placed restrictions on who may edit in the Arab-Israeli topic area. They have required editors to have 500 edits and 30 days of tenure. You currently do not meet those requirements and as such may not edit in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area until you do. Thank you. nableezy - 20:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for noting me, I had no idea there was such rule. --Paul Keller (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Panther Party

So, you really believe that Black Panther Party should appear in the list of endorsements here [1]. Well, you are not helping yourself. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well your mentor Volunteer Marek is edit warring to keep Zhirinovsky in the resp. article on Trump [2], despite the fact his source does not really say so. What is it, political blindness or hypocrisy?--Paul Keller (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he is right because Vladimir Zhirinovsky is one of the most visible political figures in Russia, no matter if you like him or not. However, Black Panther Party does not exist for a long time. So, why did you bring it in the list of endorsements of Hillary? My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Duke is just as marginal as Angela Davis, actually more so, because the latter has some civil rights credits. And yet Duke remains listed under List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. What you and your buddies are doing is classical POV pushing: adding unpalatable "endorsers" of one camp and removing such "endorsers" in case of the opposing camp. I mean how much more POV can it get?Paul Keller (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding behaviour

Do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors as you have here. Article talk pages exist for a reason: to discuss content and allow other editors to engage in the discussion. Edit warring is not acceptable under any circumstances. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's your buddies warring. And now please don't post here any more.--Paul Keller (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1RR Applies on SCW article

Please note that 1RR applies to all articles or content relating to the Syrian Civil War, as stated here WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR. You have already made 2 reverts in 24 hours over at Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (which is more than you're allowed!). Here's the official notice:

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Stickee (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nikita Khrushchev, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Voluntarism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions - American politics since 1932

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 12:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. Does the same apply to Volunteer Marek and his satellites as well or is there an exemption granted for them? Paul Keller (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly advise you to stop the snarky comments/personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women's rights in Iran

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Women's Rights in Iran. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. And I hadn't seen this when I made the comment above. Don't do this again. If you want to deny being a banned editor I suggest you post your denial somewhere. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is getting odd. I get assaulted as a 'banned user' or 'sock puppet' on a daily basis by one user in something like 10 different edits summaries and you see no fault there, let alone call the editor to senses, but instead you accuse me of making personal assaults when I revert him after he followed me to yet another article he'd never edited before just to perform his silly reverts? Are you sure you are impartial enough to function as an administrator?Paul Keller (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what. You deny it and I'll tell VM to go to SPI. I would have done that before if I'd seen you deny it. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I called his allegation an "absurd insinuation" the first time I saw it so how many times do I need to repeat my denial? I already said that relevant authorities are available for proper proceedings on such matters [3], but he merely uses his claims as a pretext to justify his revert warring. Paul Keller (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my first rodeo and I don't consider that a denial. A denial should be made in plain but explicit words, eg "I am not a blocked or banned editor". So, not many more times, just the once. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting time-consuming. I though we had a special Wiki for users who prefer Basic English? Therefore: I never used sock puppets and have never been banned for multiple accounts abuse simply because that is my first account. I know Wikipedia for many years as a passive reader, but actually I've made smaller IP edits - I think most of them a couple of years ago - like fixing a typo seomewhere or adding an external link, but then everything completely minor and uncontroversial. Until I registered 3 weeks ago (and as you may have seen I initially only dared to do small edits [4] - to topics where I actually have some potential for real content writing. As for the SPI that could follow, I'd like it to be quick and I'd prefer it to be performed by CUsers who have not exchanges views with me, i.e. I'd appeciate if Doug Weller recused.Paul Keller (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an SPI, a clerk will determine if CU is needed. I'm not involved in a way that requires me to recuse. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I told VM to go to SPI or stop calling you a sock. It's been time consuming because you didn't make an explicit denial. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our project and our editors, and neither do we.
Just wanted to inform you that I'm in the process of drafting my unblock request which I hope to finish within a couple of days. Paul Keller (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]