User talk:Rebyid

Welcome!

Hello Rebyid! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Netsnipe ► 04:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Attribution • Neutral point of view • Notability Conflict of interest • Autobiography Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Citing sources • Footnotes Image use policy • Copyrights • Fair use External links • Spam • Vandalism Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry What Wikipedia is not • Deletion policy

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The "perfect" article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

3RR at Barack Obama, referring to him as a "practicing Muslim"

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Barack Obama. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Italiavivi 23:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI, Italiavivi reported you for 3RR violation on Barack Obama. WP:AN/3RR#User:Rebyid reported by User:Italiavivi (Result:) It's generally a good idea not to make another revert after someone puts a warning on your page. --Bobblehead 02:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 18 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule on Barack Obama. In the future, please solve editing conflicts through discussion rather than edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Heimstern Läufer 03:52, 6 April 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not just undo the edits. Each time I undid it I then tried to improve it to make it more pallatable. I was the first to write the sentence and my accuser is the one who actually reverted me 3 times. See history on Obama page.

Decline reason:

WP:3RR: "Editors who revert a page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in certain special circumstances, are likely to be blocked from editing". User:Bbatsell made one revert, User:Italiavivi made three, and User:Bobblehead made the most recent one. You however, have reverted on 4 occasions in the last 24 hours:

Your block for violating WP:3RR is indeed valid. WP:3RR is a mechanism to force editors to seek consensus FIRST before resuming the reinsertion of controversial edits. -- Netsnipe ► 04:33, 6 April 2007 (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.

But those users work in tandem, they know the 4 revert rule so one guy does 3 and then the other guys steps in and does 1. This way nobody get's kicked off.

Sorry, but that's the way Wikipedia works. You have to build consensus to get anything done around here. And some friendly advice: before you get the "bright idea" of using more than one account to create the illusion of consensus, be aware that can lead to a permanent ban under the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. -- Netsnipe ► 04:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read that wikipedia believes in the communist idea of shared intellectual property. But I see that here too, communisim quickly turns to fascism. All it takes is a group of 5 or 6 wikipedians who are well versed in the rules of wikipeidia with a common POV. With dedication they can silence any opposition to what they want to say.

Not entirely true. There's third party mechanisms in place under the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes process that can break such deadlocks if you believe an agenda is unfairly being pushed. -- Netsnipe ► 12:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusing editors at Barack Obama of being paid Obama staffers.

I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Italiavivi 17:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming something doesn't mean you shut your mind to evidence to the contrary.

Obama

Although I have not read your Obama edits carefully, I think you are trying to say that Obama is Muslim. As far as the citations that I have seen, this isn't reported. Wikipedia is about citing reliable sources so if you have citations, I might be in support of such an edit. If you don't have such citations, I would be opposed to inclusion.

No. I'm simply saying he was BORN and RAISED a Muslim according to those who knew him as a child. This is substantiated by valid sources including the L.A. Times article you will find I cite on the Obama talk page. Rebyid 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to agree with your feeling that there is a concerted effort of "political spin". Unflattering information is quickly deleted. My evidence for this is that Obama has had some police support but significant opposition. One person just put "Obama got endorsed by the F.O.P." and then cited a reference. I read the reference. What the reference actually said was "Obama got a chilly reception at the IACP" and mentioned the F.O.P. only in passing. A NPOV view would be to report both. The appears to be a concerted effort to stamp out the truth and only report the F.O.P endorsement.

I have raised similar questions about Republican Mitt Romney. In that article, there doesn't seem to be a concerted effort to wipe out everything and put out only the best about him, at least not yet.

Don't worry about your block for 3RR. As long as you edit for fairness and truth, I am for it. If someone edits with unsubstantiated information, I say "produce a reliable citation for that or withdraw it".KMCtoday 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Rebyid 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]