User talk:Rbaish

Say Something!

deleted the sourced section?

Why did you delete the sourced section on violence, alcoholism and aggression from White Christian male? futurebird 13:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These topics are not specific to the WCM, and theses topics have no special relationship to the WCM. Basically, I am deleting the section due to its irrelevance to the topic.Rbaish 17:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

There is a 3 revert rule here on Wikipedia. You have conducted two reverts already. You have 1 left. If you revert four times within 24 hours will be reported and may be blocked. Do not revert more than three times. See WP:3RR. Signature ^brendel 18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been advised. :\ Rbaish 20:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours as a result of your disruptive edits to White male. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. Rlevse 03:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???

Race and health

Regarding these edits:

[1]
[2]

Please do not change the headings of sections in this article from "racism" to "racism as an excuse" this is vandalism and POV pushing. This is a warning. futurebird 17:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Affirmative action

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Affirmative action page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --VectorPotential^Talk 16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Kwame Kilpatrick, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TedFrank 03:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I've been quoted by the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times objecting to a particular affirmative action program as racist against whites, and even I think your edits violate NPOV. Might you take the time to actually review Wikipedia policies? -- TedFrank 10:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rbaish, please cease edit-warring, adhere to WP:DR, and self-revert your re-insertion of the Kilpatrick material. There is no consensus for its insertion, and it self-evidently violates NPOV. -- TedFrank 12:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule report

I have reported a prima facie breach of the three revert rule by you on the article Black supremacy. Please see the reports page where you may wish to comment. Sam Blacketer 16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to white flight

Your recent edits have been reverted, as they were blatant violations of the NPOV rules. --Orange Mike 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

, also BLP and NPOV vios, 48 hours. Rlevse 23:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV edit to Racism

Your recent edit to this article has been reverted, on the basis of POV bias - your judgement that a large section of the text is 'silly' is your personal opinion and adds nothing to the article. If you have something constructive to add to the topic, please do so.Eyedubya 11:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Racism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Slp1 14:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rv Racism again, 28 May

There are tags to use if you want citations. Don't just remove entire sections of text that other editors have worked hard on. See above.Eyedubya 15:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Black Supremacy

Please quit adding Jesse Jackson et. al. back into the list of black supremacists on the black supremacy article, and particularly quit doing so without so much as an edit summary. You cannot add these people back into the list just because you think they are black supremacists--it's not even close to being good enough and I think you know that. Extraordinary claims--and calling Jackson, who founded the "rainbow coalition," a black supremacist is extraordinary--need extraordinary sources and you have provided none. If you find some sources which label these folks black supremacists, stick them on the article talk page so they can be discussed.

Placing Jackson, Waters, and the others in this list violates rules laid out at WP:BLP, an official policy, which says that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." I believe I've cited this policy to you before on the article talk page so you should be familiar with it. Labeling Jackson and the others black supremacists is extremely contentious, and I will continue to remove it (without violating WP:3RR of course). If you continue to add in this information you might well end up getting blocked as you have several times already.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Please don't make any more disruptive or defamatory edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rbaish, as I've said in edit summaries I hope you take your desire to add in a second usage of the word "racist" to the article talk page, rather than constantly adding it in without any discussion when it is opposed by at least three editors. I'd be happy to talk with you about it there if you are willing--the revert warring is obviously completely non-constructive so we should discuss your proposed change instead, as another editor and I have already done.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your reversions to this article. Several of us are discussing the issue on the talk page and are hopefully going to come to a consensus, quite possibly one you will agree with. You've probably revert warred about 10 times in the last week or so, without so much as an edit summary, much less a talk page comment. Why not discuss it on talk? If you will not do that, then please just leave the article alone. You just pushed the boundaries of 3RR (3 reverts in just over 24 hours--not technically a violation of course but not advisable given your constant reversion and your refusal to discuss) and risk getting blocked again if you keep up your rv warring without even bothering to discuss the issue.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul

From who? Click here: {{test}} ←Ben^B4 01:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Black supremacy. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Gscshoyru 16:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Racism, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jeeny ^(talk) 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Racism, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gscshoyru 11:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeated vandalism and violations of our NPOV policy. When the block expires you are free to continue editing if you intend to make useful contributions. However, if you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, this account will be subject to a longer block.

- Philippe | Talk 19:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black supremacy

Again, as in several months ago, there is a discussion happening about content in this article on the article talk page, but rather than participate in that discussion you edit war - without even using edit summaries - for your preferred version. Why is it so difficult to simply have a discussion on the talk page and explain your view? If you do not do that it is highly unlikely that you will be able to keep in the content you want to include given that there are several editors who disagree with you. Obviously your approach to editing Wikipedia is not working very well (witness comments on this talk page and your four blocks) so you might think about taking a more collaborative approach. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you on the administrators noticeboard/incidents.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word of caution

Good day, Rbaish. I'm dropping by to address concerns from another editor, as notified above. Your editing habits are getting somewhat concerning: your recent contributions seem to be very much centred around a single purposes, which can be somewhat harmful. Whilst I am not going to make any statements with regards to blocking, I will say that you should be careful that you do not cross the boundary whereby your editing becomes disruptive.

Perhaps it's time to spread your wings, and edge away from your current area of contributions? Again, you seem to be very heavily focussed on it, and it's probably best to find some fresh areas that you (perhaps?) don't feel so strongly about. This is just a word of friendly advice, but I do hope you follow it. If you have any questions, please feel free to get in touch. Cheers, Anthøny 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia

Per the report here, I have executed an indefinite block for disrupting the encyclopedia. I note from your contribution history that you generally edit within a narrow interest area, and that your edits are frequently challenged on the grounds of WP:NPOV. I see little attempt at your part to attempt to edit within the established consensus of the various articles, and less at establishing a dialogue with other editors.

Should you wish to challenge this block, please place {{unblock|"your reason here"}} under this message, giving your reasons for requesting unblock. I would further comment that an indefinite block does not necessarily mean an infinite block, and the sanction may be lifted as soon as there is an undertaking to abide by Wikipedia editing guidelines. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

There is no reasoning with bigtimepeace. Rather than waste my time engaging in a fruitless conversation in which he will undoubtedly stick to his marxist perspective, I immediately engaged in an edit war. I think I saved everyone some time.

Decline reason:

Unblock declined. You clearly understand why your edits are often problematic and you have expressed no willingness to change. The language of your unblock request is deliberately inflammatory and arrogant. I suggest, if you sincerely wish to be unblocked in the future, that you allow some time to pass before your next request. — CIreland (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.