User talk:Annoynmous

blocked

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.

John254 20:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

16 December

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.

48 hours this time. Khoikhoi 20:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the wild world of wikipedia.

Hang in there, Annoynmous. You make some good points. I suggest making your points in the talk page first. Please leave sourced material there. Quotes and links. If if is good sourced info, someone will get it in the article in some form or fashion. Censorship is obvious if good material is in the talk page, and not in the article. Please add separate sections to the talk page when needed. And please be clear in section titles since it will show up in the table of contents for the talk page. People scanning the talk page and the article will quickly see what kind of spin and censorship is occurring, and it will stop. I guarantee it. But it takes time. I just keeping adding info to the talk page. --Timeshifter 15:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig

Have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility, disruptive editing, and stalking-like behavior from Isarig. What do you think? Abu ali 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate and civil discourse

this edit contains personal attacks on Wikipedia editors as well as on well known public figures. As such, it violates numerous Wikipedia policies, including WP:BLP and WP:NPA. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant policies, and avoid this type of discourse. You might also want to consider editing the above comment to remove the offensive attacks. Isarig 22:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Counterpunch

Please see my response on my own talk page. RolandR 22:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR and vandalism warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. 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.

3RR block

Hi, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair and have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. Please use the time to review the policy carefully so you can avoid violating it in future. Also, I see you've been making the same revert against multiple editors for some time, so you should also note that, even if you don't violate 3RR, you can still be blocked for repeated reversions if they reach the level of disruption. It's best to try to hammer out a compromise on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Need help?

Saw you on 3RR. If you are having issues with POV pushers, let me know. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw the Nimmo article. The problem is, per holocaust denial, if he so much as questions its extent that's considered to fall under that definition. What's more unclear is whether a blog post should be used at all as a WP:RS in a WP:BLP; I'd lean towards "no".

Asking for Jay's help in dealing with SV is sort of like getting hauled around by a right handed bouncer and hoping his left hand will do something. But I'll try to find out who Nimmo is and what reliable sources say about him. When the article is reasy to be unlocked, perhaps they'll be something more to say. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Image of Adrian Pasdar

Simply put, the image used in Adrian Pasdar can be replaced by a 'freer' image, i.e. one of him at an awards ceremony, at a ball game or walking down the street. The image in Nathan Petrelli can be replaced by a similar photo. As the Adrian Pasdar image can be replaced it is not free. As Wikipedia is a free website, the photo is only allowed under Nathan Petrelli or anything to do with Heroes. Please do not put the image back again without discussing it further. I will put a needs to be replaced marker down in the meantime. (Quentin X 22:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

Warning: Cease your personal attacks

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Kurt Nimmo, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.

I've asked Isarig to review WP:NPA's section on how to properly respond to a perceived personal attack. In the future, frame your remarks in terms of content, e.g. "this sentence is pro-X POV and is biased against the article subject" not "this editor has a pro-X POV and is biased against the article subject". -- Kendrick7^talk 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the proper way to respond to personal attacks. Re-read WP:NPA: "you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page." Isarig 21:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Have you worked out your issues on the Talk: page, or will the edit war resume the second I unlock the page? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like an agreement to me. Why don't you come to a compromise that involves no edit warring, then get back to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see agreement on the Talk: page, not even from you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You still have a reservation, and I don't see agreement from the other side. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If the article is on the version you want, then what do you need to edit it for? I have to keep in mind your previous protestations that you weren't going to edit-war, which you promptly broke as soon as you got the articles you wanted un-protected. I also have to keep in mind your edit-history, which seems to consist of nothing but edit-warring; essentially removing material that you don't approve of from articles, regardless of policy. From what I can tell the risk of you edit-warring on this page once it is unprotected is very high. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at your edit-list, and you seem to monotonously edit-war on every single article you edit, removing information you dislike regardless of the source. It appears that any article you edit does indeed descend into an edit-war for that very reason. Regarding your various comments, you keep insisting that you want various pages unprotected for various spurious reasons, but it is abundantly clear that your only purpose for requesting unprotection is so that you can continue to edit-war on them, exactly as you have done in the past. Instead, why don't you get agreement on the Talk: page from all editors concerned regarding the content of the articles in question? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It looked like just another typical edit-war on your part. Can you explain why you deleted the sourced material without even an edit comment? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hayden Panettiere

Please do not add nonsense only with the intention of reverting it, as you did to Hayden Panettiere. If you would like to test, use the sandbox. --WillMak050389 00:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Annoynmous

Dear Annoynmous,

Thank you for trusting me with your concerns. However, I cannot do as you request. It is common practice in Wikipedia to follow certain procedures, and in this case that means discussing with Jayjg a possible solution, as he decided to protect these articles for reasons he has already explained to you. If you believe Jayjg to be wrong, then the next step should be to bring your request to WP:RFPP, where another admin will review these protections and, if s/he deems it necessary, they will be unlocked. We do not act unilaterally on these matters, and Jay's motives to protect these articles look reasonable to me. Since you have approached me requesting to unlock them, I won't be reviewing your request at RFPP for transparency reasons. I'm sorry, but I hope you understand there are certain procedural steps that cannot be overlooked. Have a nice day, Phaedriel - 05:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the article histories again, and I am seeing quite a bit of reverting. In my personal opinion, I stand by the protections. You are more than welcome to ask another admin for their insight, but I believe you'll receive a similar answer. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop re-adding non-free images into episode lists

Please stop re-adding non-free images into episode lists such as List of Heroes episodes. See WP:NONFREE and Foundation policy for more info. Thanks. ChazBeckett 03:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please also be advised that your continued reverts and edit warring may run you afoul of the three-revert rule. If you have issues with the fair-use policy, you are encouraged to take part in a discussion on another page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR

He wasn't blocked because you didn't fill out the report properly, so no one has any idea when he reverted or what he reverted to. MSJapan 05:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

blocked

You have been blocked for a length of 1 week for using an IP address to violate the WP:3RR. You are well aware of the rule, having been blocked multiple times before for it. Do not do so again: the next time will likely be for a significant length, at least a month. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. I've screaming in in just every corner of wikiepedia that I can about chasbecketts clear violation of the 3RR rule and I'm the one who gets banned. Swatjester I demand you explain yourself immdiately because frankly this is a bunch of bullshit!!!

I did not violate the 3RR rule swatjester knows it. What is it, because I went against the hive mind mentality on this issue.

Also, why am I banned for a week, don't these bans usually only last a day. What did I do to warrant a week. annoynmous 17:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Help Me

Could someone please help me get unbanned. I have been falsely accused by the chazbeckett lackey swatjester of violating the 3RR rule. I am complaining here on my talk page because this is the only place I can edit. So if any body is reading my page please, go on to the wikipedia ,admin. and tell them that I have been blocked under false pretenses.

Further more, the user chazbeckett was the one who violated the 3RR rule and depsite repeated attempts, swatjester has refused to block him. I believe that he is protecting chazbeckett becasue he agrees with his edits and wants to silence mine. That is an abuse of his authority on wikipedia and I personally feel he should be reprimanded severely for that.

Please if anyones paying attention, could you please try and get me unbanned!!!annoynmous 17:23, 2 May 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

falsely accused of violating 3RR rule

Decline reason:

see below.

---

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.

I am requesting that the block on me be removed because claims that I violated the 3RR rule are false. Further more the user swatjester has protected the user chazbeckett from being blocked, even though he clearily violated the 3RR rule. He has admited his own bias in the matter in that if he personally agrees with the edit, then he exempts a person from the 3RR rule.

If you go to the article List of Heroes episodes than you will see my user name appears only 3 times in a 24 hour period. Where as chazbeckett has clearily edited more than 3 times in the same period of time.

If the block can not be lifted, i would at least like it shortened to a day. A week is a little extreme isn't. Given that swatjester has bias in the matter, I don't his judgement in this matter should be to highly valued. annoynmous 17:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You certainly did violate the 3RR on List of Heroes Episodes. Even if we don't count the IP readding the images as your reverts (which is a pretty reasonable assumption, I think), you still reverted the removal of FU images four times (1 2 3 4) within an hour. Yes, 3RR blocks are normally shorter than a week, but seeing as you have been blocked for many 3RR violations before, consider this a warning that the community's patience has worn thin with you. On top of that, I think it's pretty clear you logged out to try to circumvent the 3RR. When the block expires, if you choose to return, DO NOT revert war, or you will face longer and longer blocks. Mangojuice^talk 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So your admitig that what I did wasn't a 3RR violation. Your also admiting that I was essentially blocked because you don't agree with my edits, not becasue I violated 3RR. I didn't violate 3RR on any of those articles.

While wer at it, why wasn't chazbeckett blocked, sense he clearily violated the 3RR rule before I did.

You know I'm the one whose starting to lose patient with you guys. This hive mind mentality is starting to disgust me.

Also consdiering fact that chazbeckett should have been blocked before me, says that this is pretty hypocritical reasoning.

annoynmous 18:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Read my post again. You did violate 3RR. This is the fourth time. Enough. Mangojuice^talk 04:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Transformers

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Transformers (film). Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Bignole 01:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Transformers (film). 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. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

First, you are incorrect in thinking you didn't blank something. I do believe you removed a citation (blanking). Second, IMDb is not a reliable source when it comes to future films. They pose user submitted information. The cast they list is only reliable after the film is released, because it's easily verifiable. Bignole 01:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As Erik has stated, that was a post on the official website from a press conference. Yes, Wikipedia is user submitted, and I will never cite Wikipedia for anything I do. I use it as a guide, to point myself in more reliable directions, but I will never (and no one else should) cite Wikipedia as a reliable source. It's full of good info, but also plenty of bad. IMDb is not more credible. If anything, they are first thing criticized in any type of review. Everything is based on context, and the context of that message boards beats the context of IMDb.com. Bignole 01:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

IMDb makes LOTS of errors when it comes to future films. Future meaning the film hasn't been released yet. When it comes to the cast, that is stuff easily attained from both the film itself, and the SAG. IMDb not reliable. If you wish to challenge the reliability of the message board, do so, but know that IMDb won't be a replacement. At the most, the names not attributed to other sources "Cullen and Weaving" would be removed. There has been no word about Keith David in this film other than IMDb, and those rumors that circulated a long time ago. Bignole 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

VERKLEMPT

I have been researching the user Verklempt and have come to the conclusion that he is very disruptive. I encourage you to take the matter to arbitration if necessary. I think you may need to build a consensus amongst the other participating article editors pursuant to your argument about Ward Churchill. Were you the one who requested that that article be protected. ?? I support your position.... Albion moonlight 08:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Dark Knight (film). 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. Alientraveller 10:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia because you have editors that clearly disagree with you over a content dispute. We have met your points with counterpoints, and that doesn't excuse you at all to be bold. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFG. Alientraveller 11:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN doesn't apply here because it's about two sentences' worth of content. It's basically a content dispute, and you keep trying to make the changes despite an ongoing discussion -- that's a sign that you're not even taking our counterpoints into consideration. Alientraveller and I have offered numerous reasons for the exclusion of Fichtner and the inclusion of Banner. This is a short-term argument that we're having -- if Fichtner does become important for whatever reason, and there's no background information to indicate anything but a minor role, then I'm sure we'd include him. Look at Batman Begins -- the original DA and Flassis are excluded because they're not central to the story. I'm sure adjustments will be made to the cast at The Dark Knight as well, but right now, all these players have indicated some kind of prominence in their characters, not the actors who play them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's ok: but to be honest I'm never heard of William Fichtner... Ha ha. Alientraveller 11:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's alright; I apologize as well. We both were doing what we thought was right. I tend to be a cite nazi myself, so I let it go to my head sometimes. Hope we can discuss more positively in the future at The Dark Knight or Valkyrie or another film article! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The Joker

I suppose that for The Joker's appearances in other media, the image could be used as identification for the section on The Dark Knight, as there are other images that identify the different portrayals of the Joker. You may want to review the guidelines on the matter to see if this is appropriate. However, though, the image would not be applicable for Rachel Dawes or The Dark Knight (film). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I was pleased by your recent comment to TabascoMan. It seems that you've gotten the hang of interacting with other editors, and I applaud you for that. May I suggest creating your user page and sharing some basic information about your interests in relation to Wikipedia? Like what topics or films you may be interested in; it gives a better idea to other editors of your Wikipedian background. If you still feel the need to learn the ropes about improving a film article, I would suggest adapting a film article as a pet project. I did this with The Fountain (film) to sort of teach myself the tools. If you have any questions, please let me know. I can also try to explain image fair use to you, based on what I've encountered so far. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A known Sock puppet .

Check out my talk page. A Known sockpuppet named Getaway entered the picture . He and Verklempt may well be the same person. Read their talk pages and you will see what I mean. Albion moonlight 06:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

HA!! Rambling, rambling, rambling.--Getaway 21:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Watchmen

Sorry mate, been having grumpy today. Sorry to take it on you: hope you're enjoying your summer. Alientraveller 18:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I must have read his language all wrong. He said they were building an NY backlot, and not greenscreen like 300 made me think those had been cut. Alientraveller 11:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Long time no see! I wanted to tell you that I reverted your wiki-link of Edward Norton in the Infobox Film template because in that small of a list of names, only the first instance needs to be wiki-linked. It's like a section in an article -- a person should only be wiki-linked once at the beginning. Hope all is well! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Valkyrie

Can you provide a citation for the release date being moved up? I'd like to create a Release section citing the original release date and the change. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant a reliable source that provides more than just an update than an attribute in a movie website's database. Items like this are what I mean. There appears to be some conflicting information, so I'm sure there will be something to clear that up soon. Sometimes the change in release date is important, as seen at 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film)#Release (covered by The Hollywood Reporter). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I found a citation that would work, considering that we cited the same source for the initial release date. It's too bad there's not more coverage -- I have an underlying suspicion that Tom, in his producer capacity, encouraged a 08-08-08 release date as it would be "easy to remember", but really knew the ties it had to Scientology (as someone mentioned on the talk page). Maybe it was changed to avoid that kind of criticism come 2008. :-P Anyway, thanks for bringing this to others' attention! Sometimes it takes a little sleuthing to get the job done. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: TDC

I looked at this dispute for almost an hour before reaching a conclusion. You are correct that the self-report, while unusual, is irrelevant. However, the point of WP:3RR is to stop an edit war. That has happened without a block. Blocks are not punitive – they are preventative. A block now, after 10 hours of peace, is not appropriate and, in my view, will only punish TDC. If teaching lessons was the point of 3RR, believe me, you would be blocked too.

You're free to ask another admin, which is fine – honest-to-God, I don't get upset or bothered by that kind of thing at all. Of course, if the skirmish restarts, report it and it's more than likely someone else will examine it. It's my bedtime now so I'm in a read-only mode for the next 9 or so hours. Happy editing – KrakatoaKatie 07:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Incredible Hulk

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Incredible Hulk (film). 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 that gains a consensus among editors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because other articles--I fixed those by the way--violate certain guidelines doesn't mean we should perpetuate the cycle. Neither of those films are FA anyway. People don't need a link to someone's name every centimeter. They can clearly see the name linked in the same frame. It doesn't help that several editors have disagreed with you on this either, based on the history of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Check the history, Liquidfinale also reverted you. BTW, just because something is a guideline does not mean that it should not be followed. Only in special circumstances, and link the same word a dozen times in one area is not an exception.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

He reverted an IP address, which was probably you. Even if it wasn't, it was still the same issue, thus it was a disagreement with you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Private views? We cited WP:OVERLINK, and you said in your edit summary you wanted to change it because you didn't like the way it looked. Yet you tell us it's not a big deal -- it's only a big deal when you don't get your way, is that it? There is zero need to go against the guideline that we've linked. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First, stop confusing "unencyclopedic" with simple stylistic criteria. The linking or bolding of a name has no bearing on its encyclopedic value. Also, you have reached your 3 reverts for 24 hours on Citizen Kane. Just because others do it, does not mean it is right. Guidelines are the "approved" manner of writing articles, as decided by the community. The fact that the guideline says there are "exceptions", does not mean you should disregard it as you please. Exceptions need reasons. There is no reason to link someone's name 3 times in the same section, when you can see each link on the screen right next to each other. That's just redundant, and "anal".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Bignole above. There is no reason to redundantly wiki-link names in a concise list of cast/crew members -- the only reason you have expressed is that it "looks weird and unencyclopedic". The former explanation is a personal preference, and the latter explanation is flat-out untrue because we have the guideline WP:OVERLINK. You ask us why does it matter to us that it's redundantly wiki-linked in accordance to your personal desires, but we ask you why it matters to you not to obey a guideline? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Annoynmous... I'm not sure why you've had such an aggressive tone from the beginning. I amicably explained to you my revert. Also, WP:OVERLINK applies to all articles, including ones that cover films. I'm not sure why you think this is the case. Should we dismiss verifiability when it comes to film articles because it does not explicitly mention them? I would also like to remind you that Wikipedia frowns on personal attacks, and you keep implying that Bignole and I have a malicious purpose in avoiding redundant wiki-linking. I thought we were OK with each other after resolving the issue with The Dark Knight. Do you want to find a third opinion? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the manual of style guideline for general linking, you'll see a section on "overlinking" in an article with general links. Most specifically: "A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article,".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion about overlinking

Annoynmous added a second wiki-link to The Incredible Hulk (film), which I reverted based redundant wiki-links in the same section are frowned upon. Annoynmous said "it looks weird and unencyclopedic". He cited Citizen Kane and Garden State (film) as other articles that have redundant wiki-links. Despite this, Bignole, Liquidfinale, and myself have reverted him on the basis of WP:OVERLINK. However, Annoynmous says that WP:OVERLINK is just a guideline that does not need to be followed, and Bignole and I do not think that Annoynmous's personal preference counts as an exception that excuses these particular instances of overlinking from the guideline. A third opinion on the matter would be appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion: I've given a third opinion on the Incredible Hulk talk page. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Citizen Kane

I looked at the talk page to see what your arguments were in this recent dispute, and didn't see any discussion related to it at all. Did you forget to use the talk page to discuss the situation before entering into edit-warring? It's amazing how often editors who talk about the article can find ways to come to an agreement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: I Haven't heard Back from you

Sorry to intrude on this, and reply to someone else's message, but I thought I'd let you know that his user page says he's on a short Wikibreak - I assume the reason for his not responding to you. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 08:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that there is nothing to warrant your personal preference after citing WP:OVERLINK, the layout steps for Template:Infobox Film, about four or five editors opposing you, and an intervening third opinion in support of previous arguments, not to mention that such a negotiation reeks of WP:OWN, there's no reason for such a compromise. I strongly suggest that you dismiss this matter and contribute actual content to Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Orlando Letelier. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Annoynmous. You have new messages at Prashanthns's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rachel Weisz

The website http://www.findmypast.com/ contains records of all birth certificates issued in Britain for at least the 20th century (it is pay-per-view for access). British Birth Records up until the mid 1980s are recorded in bulk - i.e. a page that includes some 100 names, all people born from, say, January until March of 1971, and organized by surname. Weisz is included in the January-March 1970 listing (which also listed her full name, "Rachel Hannah Weisz", something that was previously not up on most websites, including the IMDB). The website used as a reference in the article right now, "BFI" ([1]) evidently has access to these British birth records, since it was one of the few sites that listed the full name "Rachel Hannah Weisz" (i.e. they had it before I added that middle name to her Wikipedia article) and the correct year of birth. I said that this "BFI" site probably has access to these records because it's provided the correct birth information for many other actors, including Claire Forlani ([2]). There is a family tree of Weisz on this website - [3] (see the very bottom), which also lists the birthyear as 1970 (and it was also up there before I added 1970 to Wikipedia). Therefore, I really don't see how it's possible that Weisz was born any other year than 1970. I've left "1970 or 1971" in the article and I guess I've got no great problem with it staying that way, but again, I don't have any doubts about 1970 because birth certificates aren't wrong. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, your kidding me right. I've looked at this website several times and I've entered her name and I haven't been able to find it. As for the other link it's from a nothing site with no credibilty so why should I take it seriously. It's obvious that someone at the BFI made a mistake and put a 0 were a 1 should go. If this the extent of your evidence then we should go with 1971 since the evidence so far for 1970 is thin. I want to know, do you know her or her family or something. Have you seen her birth certificate, becaue if you haven't then this conversation is over. It is frankly getting tiresome. I indulged you for a while, but that's over now until you show the spot on findmybirth were her birthday is. Multiple editors who have said they know her and her family have said she was born in 71. Until she gives an interview and says she was born in 70 instead of 71 I say we go with one with the most evidence to back it up. annoynmous 06:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"I say we go with one with the most evidence to back it up" - What is the evidence to back up 1971? I hope you realize that the IMDB or random Internet websites are not reliable sources. I'm sorry, but I've certainly thought I was being reasonable by agreeing to have both dates in the article. I also don't like the tone of your reply, and I am baffled at the concept of "Multiple editors who have said they know her and her family". What? I have no idea if Wikipedia editors do or don't know Weisz or her family, but the point is we have no way of knowing if they do or do not, and using such a person as a source would obviously violate WP:NOR and WP:V. If it's obvious to you that "someone at the BFI made a mistake and put a 0 were a 1 should go", then it's equally obvious to me that someone originally made a mistake and put a 1 where the 0 should go, and started this mistake. That's why both dates are in the article. As for findmypast - you go to where it says "search over 500 million records", you enter "Rachel" under "first name" and "Weisz" under "last name", you put in "1965" under "from" and "1975" under "to" to limit your results, and you click "search". At the next page, you press on the "44 pages" inscription by "Births - England & Wales 1837-1983". Then you get all the birth records that would include a name like "Weisz". You press on " 1970 Jan-Feb-Mar " and you see a "Rachel Hannah Weisz" listed among the names, and you press on "1971 Jan-Feb-Mar" and you see no one named Rachel Weisz listed among the names (as I said, the website charges to view records). That's about it. (Repeat the exact same procedure for Claire Forlani, by the way; that's exactly why BFI lists it as "Jan-March" - the birth certificates don't include the exact date, but simply list the person in the three month group they were born in). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have entered her name multiple times and I haven' found anything with her name. You are giving the BFI too much credit. It's not like there a credible source just because they have a website. My frustration is that you doing this more to prove your right rather than give evidence. Why don't you link to this entry on findmybirh you say proves your point. Also, with all due respect your not one to lecture me about tone when you remove my entry on your talk page because you say it annoys you. I laso don't like your disrespectful tone towards other editors who say they know her and that she was born in 71. The point I was trying to make is that you have very little proof other than the BFI entry to make your claims. Also, your entry on Claire Forlani is very dubious. Born between January-March, how can yo say an entry like that is reliable. It's obvious they didn't no her exact birthday and they just guessed. I say once again, until she gives an interview that says otherwise we should stick with the 1971 date. annoynmous 06:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course they don't know Forlani's exact birthdate - I'm sure they're using Findmypast's birth certificates, which don't list the exact date but rather tags like "Jan-March" or "July-September". That is what differentiates the BFI's site from the hundreds of other Internet websites, like the IMDB, the NNDB, AskMen, etc., which copy each other's information and spread mistakes like these.I don't understand the confusion on FindMyPast - I gave you direct instructions how to get to that page and what to press on, but, as I said, the site charges you to view the certificate itself. What are you having trouble with on the site? As for "editors who know her" - there are few concepts that I dislike more than Wikipedia editors who insist they are right because "they know the person" the article is about, and use themselves as a source. The first thing that's wrong with it is, obviously, there's no way for anyone to know if they are telling the truth. Next, if a Wikipedia editor actually knows someone on whom there's an article, great. But it doesn't mean that such people can make whichever edits they want without having to adhere to the same rules about sources that everyone else does. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I am genuinely offended that you're presenting "AskMen.com" as a reliable source over at Claire Forlani. Random internet websites with no credited authors are not reliable sources. I really can not make that fact any clearer. I removed all mentions of birthdate from that article and Weisz's until someone presents an actual reliable source. Since this same "Guardian" article is used under "Early life" to present one of several possibilities about Weisz's mother's ancestry, I don't see how it can be definitive on this topic. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well what annoys me is editors on wikipedia who make dubious assertions without evidence. I ask again, how is Jan-March make a sites claim of birth credible. If they supposedly checked the records then why don't they know her exact birthday. Persumably if they could be so exact on weisz why can't they be as exact on Forlani. Do you even realize what an illogical argument you are making. As I've said before I've entered her name on the site and I've narrowed the time span and I can't find her anywhere. Why should I have to anyway sense the burden of proof is on you to provide the link. Either provide proof I will report you as a vandal.annoynmous 07:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Either provide proof I will report you as a vandal". I would actually like you to do that. That way, these two cases will be looked over by many experienced editors who can A. add their input on the matter and B. give you the actual definition of "vandal". All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So now your suggesting I'm a vandal because your crusade on behalf of the BFI contradicts what every other avaible source says. Sure,bring on the other editors sense for the history of this article it looks like they agree with me. Your the one who started this crusade, I'm just sticking up for what was the consensus before you edited it. The Forlani article stays with July 2 date until these outside editors decide. annoynmous07:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, be aware of WP:3RR, a Wikipedia policy that states that an editor can't revert (undoing another's editor's edit) on one article more than 3 times in 24 hours. That means if either you or I revert on Claire Forlani again (and after one more round, Rachel Weisz), we would be subject to a block, since we have both reverted 3 times (each) today. I suggest we turn this case over to a dispute resolution page, like Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Although, as I said, I am perfectly happy with both articles stating nothing on birthdate, until a "definitive" source can be found. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, get an administrator to come and decide who's right. Make sure It's someone neutral who isn't biased. annoynmous 07:19, May 13, 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I just found a few websites that list Forlani's birthdate as December, 1972.[4][5][6][7]. See how confused the Internet is? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay so your admitting that your precious BFI can be wrong. It seems that there sight is old and out of date and know bothered to correct the mistake. Just because it's the BFI doesn't mean it has some special credibilty, It's a website and therefore subject to massive errrors.

I would also like to apologize if my tone sounded harsh, It's just that I don't get your logic. Your claiming that a website that says someone was born between Jan-March is credible. Why by the way is BFI better than geocities. I know there a film institute, but for crying out loud there not the house of records.

It seems that there is some confusion on Forlani's birthday, but there is near unaminous cocnsensu the Weisz was born in 71. I assume you don't know weisz or have seen her birth certificate. Otherwise all your information comes from the internet like me and most of the internet says she was born in 1971.

As I said before find a neutral editor who you think can settle this because were clearily not getting anywhere.annoynmous 07:35, May 13 2008 (UTC)

I moved your comments from my talk page here because I linked to this page as the summary of our dispute from my post at Wikipedia:Third opinion. I'm not admitting that BFI is wrong, I'm saying that there are plenty of mistakes on the internet, so a website that says July or December is not automatically right. I trust BFI because it seems to clearly get its info from the birth records at findmypast, and there's not a more reliable source for a birthdate than a birth certificate. Like I said, I was one the one who added "Hannah" as Weisz's middle name to the article in December or January. At that point, the middle name was not listed on the Internet anywhere except for BFI (another sign that it gets its info straight from the birth records) and the family tree I linked to earlier (I googled "Rachel Hannah Weisz" at the time, and got no matches except for those two). Now, the middle name is on every website and no one has a problem with it, because it didn't contradict anything that was previously out there. So why then, do you trust the middle name but don't trust the birthyear? They both come from the exact same sources. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

So wait a minute all there birthdates come from this website. They don't check the actual birth certificate, but what some website says it is. The website that I"ve entered her name several times and can't find. It seems to me your putting far too much trust in this site, how do you know the certificates aren't faked. What gives this site and the BFI there instant credibility?annoynmous 07:47, May 13 2008 (UTC)

"So wait a minute all there birthdates come from this website. They don't check the actual birth certificate" - that is what I think. As for why Findmypast is reliable, see their "about us" page - here. Among other things, they say they garnered the "Queen's Award for Innovation" of 2007. I don't know what that is, but it sounds good. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't know what it is but it "sounds good" Oh! this just gets better and better. If they had the actual birth certificate wouldn't they have the exact birthday instead of between January-March. Maybe it's me, but that sounds like an incredibly lazy hospital.annoynmous 07:54, May 13 2008 (UTC)

Eh, if you want to know more about the award, see this, at the Government News Network's site [8]:

"Title Research Group Limited wins the Award for developing a web-site for accessing records and information on family histories. Until this century, the national Birth, Marriage and Death (BMD) records, which go back to 1837, were only accessible by the laborious search of microfiche films available at three locations in England. Following the transcription, scanning and indexing of over two million images, the company launched, in 2003, a new web-site called 1837online.com which gave the public easy and fast access to the records. In 2006 the web-site (re-named findmypast.com) was extended to allow access to other datasets useful to family history researchers. findmypast.com now has more than one million registered users and provides a commercial service to an ever increasing number of customers. " All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, a quote from the website trying to promote itself. It is still a website and is therefore subject to error. Just because they say they won an award doesn't mean you have to believe them. I say again, if they have the birth certificate than why can't they do better than born between Jan-March and no amount of talk of supposed prestige is going to make this lapse in logic go away.annoynmous 08:04, May 13 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, the quote is from the Government News Network's website, not from Findmypast, although it is about Findmypast. Oh, enough already. Let Wikipedia:Third opinion do its magic. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but I don't see the words Government News Site anywhere. Anyway, I'm getting tired so I'll check in later to see what the other editor decided.annoynmous 08:24, 13 May, 2008 (UTC)

I've posted about this at Wikipedia:Third opinion (#8). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Oh my goodness. First of all, you both need to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. I'm glad to see your edit war on the article wasn't allowed to escalate too far, but emotions are running high and accusations are being thrown back and forth. That's not healthy for either of you individually, or for the article, or for Wikipedia.

Can we all agree that our goal is to be as accurate as possible in reporting Ms. Weisz' birthdate? Can we also agree that sources disagree? The British Film Institute is certainly an organization that would normally be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia, but the 1971 date certainly seems more widespread -- at least among fan and celebrity sites.

I didn't wish to register at http://www.findmypast.com/, but even if a Rachel Hannah Weisz is listed under the 1970 records, we can't really be 100% sure it's the same person. (Reasonably sure, yes, but birth certificates can rarely be in error, and there are a number of possible oddities that could have occurred to confuse the issue.) The actual birth certificate, showing the correct parents' names, would be extremely strong evidence, but I don't expect anyone to fork over the cash to verify that.

Given the arguments on both sides, I think the reasonable course of action is to list the accepted birth date (month and day) with both possible birth years, citing each of the two years to the most reliable source possible. For the 1970 claim, that would probably be the BFI. I'm sure an equally reputable source could be found for the 1971 claim.

I hope this helps you resolve your dispute. I realize it's not a satisfactory conclusion -- leaving open the question I initially posted as it does -- but such is the nature of compromise, sometimes.

-- Powers ^T 15:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. If I may just note, in my experience, widespreadedness among fan and celebrity sites has not ever stopped a piece of information from being wrong. But anyway, I don't have a problem with your suggestion of listing both dates. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but until conclusive evidence can be found to contradict it, we must assume there is a reasonable basis for the later date. And not all of the sources are inherently unreliable -- Moviefone, for example, says 1971, and though they might have gotten that from another site (such as IMDb), we have no way of knowing. The same is true for other ought-to-be-reliable sources such as E! Online and TV Guide. Even the Daily Mail of England lists her age as 35 in November of 2006. [9] So yes, while celeb and fan sites are not normally worth the pixels they're printed on as far as reliability, I didn't mean to imply they were the only sources listing the 1971 date. Powers ^T 19:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PROD

Once a {{prod}} tag has been removed by another editor, please do not replace it. You can nominate the article for deletion via the AFD process if you so desire. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your continued replacing of {{prod}} tags is becoming disruptive. Please stop, and consult proper deletion procedures. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be sure to complete all steps in the AfD process. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please complete all steps of the AfD process, or do not place the AfD tag on articles. Thanks in advance, Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 01:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to compelte the AFD process this time? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it for you. In the future, please follow these 3 steps for AfDs. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Avoid socking

Please see this. You edited without logging in and accumulated warnings. Do read all the policies, people are pasting for you. Prashanthns (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I realized that it must have been by mistake assumed good faith and hence did not report you for this. DO log in next time and please do read all the links provided. This may do some good to you too! :)Prashanthns (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

Regarding this edit, please note we have a policy on canvassing; particularly, votestacking is discouraged. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting, in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A land without a people for a people without a land. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "The occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice."¹, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that has resulted in blocks being issued. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Avi (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring on my talk page. I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself whether to edit a page.RolandR (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Contras.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record so you don't find out later... I supported at least one of Groggy Dice's reversions! :( I tend to be pro-Contra (talk about oxy-morons!  :) But I really do want an accurate article. You are doing the right thing by criticizing sources. Please continue on objective grounds. I think (hope?) that there are sources out there, that you would accept aa scholarly, supporting my pov. But Groogy Dice will have to find them. I'm too lazy!  :) We need an unbiased article.

There were atrocities I am sure. There always are in war. I doubt that they are all one-sided. Thugs join both sides figuring they won't be held accountable. If Somoza thugs were totally out of control, maybe they should have a separate section. I don't know. You guys are the experts. The other editors will have to stand by and watch as you discuss it.

It will not be simple or short. But the resulting article may be something you both can be proud of! Student7 (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We need some statement from you and GroggyDice (I'm leaving the same note to him) in the discussion page that (a suggested list):

1. some agreement as to what will be done to statements you diagree with when the article is unlocked. My suggestion is to give the other guy a day to supply references, then flag them. Then wait a week or so and delete them.
2. reversions won't occur when the article is unlocked. That you will respect his edits even if you don't agree with them,
3. that changes will be discussed.
4. that an attempt will be made to avoid changing each other's statements.
5. that sections will be changed one at a time so the rest of us can appreciate what is going on. (And considering, polishing a section a day is probably better than having it get to this state. It won't take that long).
6. Whether to keep or lose Brown or Kagan as references

We need you two guys since you seem to be the only ones with this whole article in your head. And we need the difference of opinion to get a good article.

What we don't need is disarray! :)

It doesn't have to be my list, above, but it needs to be something on the discussion page that indicates that you guys can function as a "team" however you may disagree with each other over the facts. Student7 (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reversion. I realize that it is frustrating looking at the "wrong" version, so I particularly appreciate your forbearance.

The "wrong" version, ironically, may be the only thing that will attract the other editor to the mediation, if and when he shows up. These things are always slow. I am still convinced that you two are the best ones to straighten the article out. It will take time, but it will be worth it. Student7 (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Contras

You have been listed as a party on the above request for mediation. Please go to the aboce page and indicate whether or not you are happy to proceed. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 13:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't shown up on the mediation page to accept or reject it. Note that unless all parties explicitly agree to it, mediation will not go through. So silence is effectively rejection, and Student7's mediation request will probably time out soon. I've agreed, as I figure it's worth a shot. (And if you're worried about what the result might be, it's non-binding.) --Groggy Dice T | C 23:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the article was arbitrarily locked in favor of GroggyDice. The admin simply did it when he showed up. Luck of the draw. As soon as we come to some agreement on the mediation, it will be unlocked again. If the mediation goes your way, you will be able to again insert your changes.Student7 (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to apologize for not mentioning that I was establishing this mediation "behind your back" as it were. You and GroggyDice seemed to be getting somewhere in your discussions, and I hated to interrupt it for what (at that point) seemed like a distraction to progress! fyi, GroggyDice felt blindsided as well. The admin running the mediation rapped my knuckles! Student7 (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the mediation! Could you leave a note to the other editor(s)? Might be nice to encourage Jpineda84 to sign up. Also MarkB2. I've tried contacting them without any response. Maybe they will listen to you. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Contras. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Contras

Please could you pop over to the above page and state whether or not you accept Dweller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as the mediator of the case? Ryan Postlethwaite 15:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing. Please read my opening comments at the mediation workspace and then keep an eye on that page for further developments. Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We're off and running for real now. Sections dealing with 2 of the 5 issues are now posted. Please read carefully and respond appropriately. Thanks so much for being part of this process. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing sourced materials

Hello Annoynmous. You removed this from the article All the Shah's Men. Please don't removed sourced materials from articles without any discussion. You also added Category:American humanists on Edward Said. Said was not a humanist. If you have any reliable sources that identified Said as a humanist, please present it. Without reliable sources, please don't add that category. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, as you did to Edward Said, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ave Caesar (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Annoynmous, you have once again added Category:American humanists on Edward Said without any discussion. If you have any reliable sources that identified Said as a humanist, please present it. You also removed this from the article. You shouldn't add and remove materials from articles without any discussion with fellow editors. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Contras mediation - discussion of sources

Hi. The mediation is steaming ahead and I really would like your input. Please come along and find the link to the subpage where the controversial sources are being discussed. When you do, please respond to each and every one, even if you have no opinion. It's useful to me to know everyone has responded on each point, so I can help establish consensus or mediate a compromise. --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi

Please could you return to the mediation pages. It cannot progress without you.

I'd be grateful if you would also enable your email.

Thanks, --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the anniversary of the Sandinista Revolution, so this is an appropriate occasion to let you know that we've put mediation on hold while we wait for you to return. I also suggested that we hold off on editing the article for at least a week, and we haven't touched it. That period will last for a few more days. If we do start editing again, I hope you do not interpret it as bad faith; I feel we're waiting a reasonable period for your return. The preferred outcome is still that you get back to the mediation. --Groggy Dice T | C 22:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Contras

Hi. I'm sorry, I seem to have inadvertently delayed the Mediation. I'll pick this up now. In the meantime, can I recommend you archive your talk page? It's huge. If you like, I can do it for you. --Dweller (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused as to whether you're around or not. Please will you drop me an email? It's enabled. --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

When you show up this time, you might try to give us a timeline of how long you might be online so that we aren't once again waiting for an answer which never comes. Student7 (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Progress on Contras

Yes I'm around. I left a suggestion for a compromise on the mediation page several weeks ago. It looks like theres been a lot on chatter between Groggy and mark2b on the contra talk page since then. Is the mediation page still valid in your view or should we just skip it at this point and try and work it out on the talk page?

You may have noticed on the mediation page that I also objected to Groggy's terms of what sources should be used. To be honest I really am not up to budging one bit from the compromise solution I proposed on that page.annoynmous 00:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll look for that compromise proposal. The mediation talk page is where I want all mediation to be centralised, with subpages used to iron out any substantial detail issues.

I saw your objection. The way for us to deal with it is to discuss each one specifically and reasonably. I'm not a referee, but merely a neutral person who can help the two sides come to a consensual agreement. If (for example) they argue something is not RS, I'll push them to explain why. Which facilitates your counter-argument, because you have a specific point you can counter.

I'd encourage you to move away from thinking about compromise lines in the sand. Compromises are bad - neither side ends up happy with what they've conceded. I'm far more interested in a discussion which should end with both sides agreeing that each point has been reasonably decided on. I'm off to the mediation pages now, to try to work out where we're up to.

If you're planning to be offwiki for substantial periods, please drop me a line at my talk page so I can keep the discussion from ploughing forward too far in your absence. (And if you could enable your email that would be useful, too. I'm sure no-one will abuse it.) --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thought is to perhaps come to some agreement with MarkB2 to keep your irons in the fire while you are away. Just to keep things moving. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a note at the mediation page. However, there are many bones of contention here - and they won't satisfactorily be solved by a grand sweeping compromise deal. If you both agreed to such a deal, I think I would have failed, despite the outbreak of "peace", we'd have a poor solution. --Dweller (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all gone quiet... --Dweller (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Roberto Orci

Yes, I do wonder how it someone would get away with pretending to be the screenwriter working with producer Don Murphy on his forum. Seriously, do you have problems believing filmmakers do use their own blogs and forums? :P Maybe I might remove ReelzChannel considering I myself was unsure of the passing mention of Voight, but at the end of the day it meets WP:V. Alientraveller (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because you can't believe people have official sites/forums with friends who post doesn't mean other's don't. J. Michael Straczynski has his own forum. Simon Furman has a blog. So does pretty much every writer. Now stop edit-warring unless you can prove someone has been impersonating Orci. Alientraveller (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You can read all about Murphy's forum here. If you cannot believe Orci posts there, then it's your own problem to sort out. Besides, Fichtner was in TDK, so why are you bringing that up? Alientraveller (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I forget about the whole Fichtner thing now: in any case, Orci's posts are like any interview, which is a reliable source for hard facts like him rewriting Watchmen. I'd be all too happy to replace the source eventually if a journal or paper reads our cite. Alientraveller (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Contras

Are you still willing to participate in the discussions? It looked promising for a while, but you seem to have scaled down your editing generally and stopped participating there specifically. --Dweller (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR Violation in Business Plot

[10] 21:05, [11] 20:52, [12] 20:40 all by User talk:Annoynmous Note that this one editor has now reached "3RR" on this page today. I am not issuing a formal complaint, but am making the rule clear to that user. Collect (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Content removal

Here, you removed a paragraph that carried a good reference, WITHOUT any summary.....and well, neither is this a new article you are doing this to, nor is this kind of action new. Can I please request you to discuss such action on the talk page and build consensus. If that is too much, could you at least write a justification for what you did on the talk page? prashanthns (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on the pageA land without a people for a people without a land. 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.Historicist (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Business Plot

Collect is at it again, you maybe interested in what is going on there. BTW, you can archive by cuttting and pasting all of those old messages, or all of your messages to this page:

• User talk:Annoynmous/Archive 1

this maybe good so that the first thing people don't see when they visit your page is the 3RR blocks.

Also you don't have e-mail enabled I see. Ikip (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR again

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on A land without a people for a people without a land. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. DVD 00:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Solicting editors with a known POV to come and side with you in a content dispute, as you have done here and here is highly inappropriate. Please review WP:CANVASS, and don't do it again. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Historicist left me a netural message, AFTER I had already edited the page. You left a non-neutral message for 2 editors who sided with you on this very topic in the past, and who are not currently editing that page. Don't do it again. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You have multiple warnings for canvassing, on this very article, dating back to May of last year. If you persist, you will be blocked. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think Historicist has been canvassing as well, feel free to leave him a warning on his page, but please don't mistake me for your servant. Mr. Hicks The III (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and respecting the opinions of other editors

Please stop engaging in an edit war .

You have violated the three-revert rule and engaged in inappropriately partisan canvassing .

I understand that you do not like the fact that the article was begun by an editor who was, according to you, a puppet editor for a Zionist organization. But please try to understand that we have procedures and guidelines at Wikipedia, and since many editors agree that the article as it now stands many editors and many, many sources and edits later is a reasonably good, well-balanced article, it really would not matter if the original editor was Atilla the Hun.Historicist (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop engaging in an edit war .

Your insistence on "perma-tagging" A land without a people for a people without a land is disruptive. Please stop.Historicist (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please read WP:CANVASS and avoid canvassing like this. I have made the announcement more neutral and made a similar announcement on Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel/to do2. In future if you made an announcement regarding controversial issues please make sure that it is formulated in neutral terms and addresses to both sides of the editorial conflict. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A land without a people for a people without a land

Hi. My point was, maybe you should do a little research—perhaps using Google or Google Books—to support your argument. It looks to me like the other side is arguing from a position of strength because they have multiple sources that support their POV. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your post

Hi there, Thanks for the post on my page and the warning. I have been around long enough to be denounced by the Jewish Internet Defense Force, (towards the bottom here [13],) get threatening mail from them, have them create a couple of stalker accounts and clash with them over my exposure of their founder's Kahanist links on the Jewish Chronicle pages. I therefore am aware that there are dubious editors here.

Even though I don't agree with JayJG on most things political I have worked satisfactorily with him on some articles to do with anti-Semites. Similarly, I've disagreed with Historicist on the talk page for the King David Hotel bombing but we've co-operated on Seven Jewish Children and I am satisfied with the current article.

Please bear in mind that the primary purpose of the Wikipedia site is to co-operate in creating an encyclopedia. For this it is expected that people moderate their conduct. There are a lot of contensious areas covered here and some of them are regular battlegrounds. The belief of those who run the site is that these battlegrounds can be cleared if everyone acts in a civil manner. That belief may be soemwhat naive but it is the people who make a big song and dance about the biases of other editors who are likely to be the ones seen as problems. Even if it is the other editors who are advocating extreme positions, it is the people who personalise things who end up being blocked. I suspect that I am politically closer to you than the two editors you have denounced to me, but I would suggest that you are careful how you discuss them are you might fall foul of WP:No Personal Attacks.

I notice that your recent edit history seems to be all concerned with political articles such as trades unionism, the Israel-Palestine confluct and the Contras. I try and make sure that a fair amount of my editing is in areas such as mythology and music that have nothing to do with politics. It might be a good idea if you do something similar. That way you are less likely to be regarded as someone just here to push a point of view and will be regarded more positively. People who are just here to fight for the political truth as they see it can end up with very long blocks because admins who want a quiet life see them as troublemakers. I've seen it happen to both pro- and anti-Israel editors.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A land without a people

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on A land without a people for a people without a land. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Regardless of the merits of the various arguments, you are in apparent violation or on the verge of it. Please pursue and respect consensus and avoid edit warring. Hertz1888 (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior

Please do not make inflammatory statements on another editor's Talk: page in the hopes of goading him into reverting on your behalf. Why don't you instead find some reliable material on the article topic? And by reliable, I don't mean a Wikipedia editor's assessment of youtube videos.Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In what way did I lie, I gave a basic description of what you did which is essentially reducing the article to a stub. Also videos count a sources. If you think the the editors mispresented the sources than put tags on the article and argue about on the talk page and add other sources you feel contradict them. Isn't that what you guys told me to do on the A Land without a People For A People without a land article. Also I asked Ashley to come in on this because I didn't feel like getting in another long edit war and figured someone else could argue for it. Stop being so sensitive and stop leaving intimidating messages on my talk page just because I asked for help from another editor. Ashley was involved with this article previously so my reuest was just an expression of exhaustion and not wanting to get in another long argument. annoynmous 00:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you "didn't feel like getting in another long edit war" and were expressing "exhaustion and not wanting to get in another long argument" then why did you stalk me to another article, one which you'd never edited before, and revert me there? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

references what references?

I wouldn't worry about it...I've seen the sorry arsed links that have been termed references by sections of editor...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

video's are allowed (contrary to j's opinion) just ref them in external links and make no comment on them...You'll find that some sections will remove the link every so often as it may not suit their POV but that's all part of the game...some sections of the wiki community get really techy when their interpretation of the rules that they wish to have applied to others are applied to them...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg is a deletionist and doesn't approve of anything that shows opinions that Jayjg does not hold...he will game and wikilawyer until the cows come home...he will put forward spurious arguments that have little or no logic...get use to him and work around him..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

This is just to let you know that I have reported you to ANI [14] for violating 3RR at the A land without a people for a people without a land article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

re your note on my talk page. Good faith editing does not consist of going up to the wire and being careful not to trip it. This is particularly true in the Israel-Palestinian conflict area, as you may be aware. Please seek consensus on the talk page. Continued disruptive editing may lead to significant sanctions. See: WP:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at A land without a people for a people without a land. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Juan Cole

I dont have a problem with Juan Cole or his politics. What i do have a problem with is aggrandizement. Juan Cole is a typical academic of (at best) marginal note, yet he is plastered all over wiki like he won the Nobel prize. Napoleon I of France is an exceedingly egregious example of this, his name and opinion are glued into the article as if we should care, but there is no reason why Juan Cole's opinion on Napoleon is of more note than, say, a professor of middle eastern studies at Yale, or MIT, or Rice or any of a thousand other professors of middle eastern studies. Bonewah (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Id be happy to take this up on the various talk pages affected. Unless you plan on arguing to the contrary, the Napoleon article will not be featuring the opinions of this particular associate professor. Feel free to weigh in on the talk page there, but the other editor to which you refer had this to say about my explanation and your reversion "I thought the second revision, and the explanation above, were quite sound, but I see that another editor (without discussion) has reverted the change again." so id call that a dead issue unless you mean to argue to the contrary.

On the subject of the Habbush letter, the editor who partially reverted me said this " Salon is an online magazine; Con Coughlin is the reporter who broke the story; Cole has not written about this topic at any length, so he can go" im not going to close the book on that one, but you might have some work ahead of you to establish consensus. For my part you can expect an argument something like the "who is this guy and why do we care?", but, as i said, lets just discuss this on the talk page.

I would like to bring up the question of Charities accused of ties to terrorism. You rationale on the talk page is very weak, we should not be relying on either someone's parents or some professor for accusations of terrorism. More to the point, accusing someone of terrorism is kind of a big deal and requires more than the say so of an associate prof, no matter how impressive his CV appears. Bonewah (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I intend on removing Juan Cole from a number of places, as i feel, as stated above, that this is aggrandizement and generally doubt that his inclusion will withstand scrutiny. I will be happy to let you know where ill be working so you dont have to try and follow my contributions or the "what links to Juan Cole" page. Just let me know if you want me to leave messages for you here. Bonewah (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, lets cover some minor things. You frequently use the term "edit war" but i doubt it means what you think. If you take the time to read that link you will see that edit warring is a bad thing, and, i presume, you actually mean disagreement. I note a considerable number of 3rr warnings on you page so perhaps you should read edit war twice.

Second, I know you are Juan Cole. You have almost exactly the same interests as Juan Cole (both likes and dislikes) and are a tireless cheerleader of Juan Cole. Further, you fiercely defend the Juan Cole article as if you have some interest beyond simply writing a good encyclopedia. Also, your IP address geolocates to Michigan, it's a dead give away. You are either Juan Cole or the worlds most sycophantic grad student. I could go on, but why bother? Frankly, it doesnt matter, Conflict of interest only comes into play if your edits are a problem, and problem edits have to be dealt with independent of COI (in my opinion, anyway).

This leads me into the main point, your proposed compromise. As i stated above, im my view, problem edits are problem edits irrespective of the editor, so i dont see a compromise as either desirable or possible. Look at what happened at Napoleon I for example, once I brought it up, other editors agreed and took action on their own. Even if i did agree to some deal with you I cant and wont stop other editors from doing exactly what im doing.

I want to point out that I actually consider you Juan Cole to be a reliable source on areas of your his expertise (i.e. middle eastern history), and have not interfered with articles that fall in that domain such as Abdullah al Samahiji. However there is a substantial difference between citing you as a source for middle eastern history and quoting you directly in articles about politics. Surely you can see the danger in quoting arbitrary professors in articles, once the precedent is set it would be impossible to exclude professors of middle eastern history from Iowa and Harvard and MIT and everywhere else, pretty soon articles would be drowned in quotes and name checks from academics the world over.

I am not Juan Cole

I would just like to make clear on my talk page that contrary to what Bonewah says, I am not Juan Cole. I have never met man, much less taken a class of his at the University of Michigan. Yes I am from Michigan, but Michigan is a big state an pointing that out proves nothing. I am just a fan of his blog and feel his expert commentary should not be deleted from wikipedia simply because he writes it on a blog. Wikipedia guidelines allow blogs if the person writing them is an expert in the particular field. annoynmous 21:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with that, as long as you attribute his opinions to him then there really is no problem with sourcing them from his blog, which is pretty well known and would very likely be 'peer reviewed'. You deon't really have to look very hard to find him billed and cited as a renowned leading expert. --neon white talk 11:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Blogs as sources, rs Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties

Please see the discussion section re your use of blogs as a source. wp:sps is very clear, complete with its own (pre-existing) bolding to emphasize the parts you are breaking:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Do you see the bold part that says the information must have been previous published in a reliable third party source? That means that you can only cite blogs if the information have previously appeared in a reliable source. Bonewah (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that it says that the subject, in this case Juan Cole, has to have his material published by a third party. Your completely misenterpreting the guideline by saying the blog entry itself has to be published by a third party source. annoynmous 19:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You might be right that the blog info itself does not have to have appeared in a reliable source, but you have in no way established that Juan Cole is a reliable source for this type of information. Further, you are wholly ignoring the part that says use caution when using such sources. Frankly, if you want to end this debate now all you have to do is find a decent corroborating source that says the same thing.

This gets back to my problem with Juan Cole generally, the propensity of editors to rely on his opinion and his opinion alone for claims in Wikipedia that are clearly out of his field of expertise. Quote him all you like on topics of middle eastern history, but he is not an expert on modern politics of any kind. Bonewah (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

CAoTtT Mediation

You participated in a dispute about an entry on Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Would you agree to participate in requesting Wikipedia:Mediation - or at least agree to abide by the outcome? Please comment at Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism#Mediation. --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Business Plot

moved from user ikip.

I'm sorry I didn't respond months ago when you asked for help on this. I was involved in another dispute at the time and ignored your request, I shouldn't have because sense then the article has been gutted by those wishing to whitewash history.

The editor Capitalismojo has been making bizarre statements like this:

Today the lede has been changed. Although it is a fact that General Butler alleged the plot, that key fact has been eliminated. Instead it has been changed to assert that " according to a US Congressional Committee report" there was a political conspiracy. That is untrue. The committee found no such thing. I have now read the entire HUAC report three times. It says nothing of the sort

Even though this is at the the bottom:

In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist government in this country...There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient. This committee received evidence from Maj. Gen Smedley D. Butler (retired), twice decorated by the Congress of the United States. He testified before the committee as to conversations with one Gerald C. MacGuire in which the latter is alleged to have suggested the formation of a fascist army under the leadership of General Butler.[36] MacGuire denied these allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made by General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principal, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various forms of veterans organizations of Fascist character.[37]

I suspect this is because the entire committe report has not yet been scanned into the wikisource article. I hope you can help me on this. All I'm concerned about is keeping the fact that the committe confirmed what Butler said and not allowing certain editors to call it the "alleged plot". annoynmous 02:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your work on the article. I am kind of busy right now with some other issues. Ikip (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, two quick things: It is appropriate to use "alleged", for goodness sakes it apppears in your qoute above" the latter is alleged to have suggested the formation of a fascist army under the leadership of General Butler" That is the core of the discussion. Also, I have just this hour looked at the original pdf of the hearing. I did not see the quote above. I am willing, even eager to read the original. Gosh, if you could give the link and page of the pdf that would be great. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you made up any quotes. I believe, however, in verifiability. I think that the main finding of the committee would be in the report. I just think we would all like to see the section. It shouldn't be hard; you stated unequivocally it was "at the bottom". Great, what bottom? What page. Where can we read it? Wikipedia is about verifiability.Capitalismojo (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Committee Report pdf. HUAC one HUAC two HUAC three Enjoy, my eyes are getting tired reading it.Capitalismojo (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the complete report. Your quote may be somewhere but I can't find it.Capitalismojo (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring and another violation of WP:3RR. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason}} below. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is likely that any further edit warring and/or 3RR violations will lead to lengthy blocks, if not indefinitely. You may wish to adopt a WP:1RR rule to avoid this from happening. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:04, 10 May 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been falsely accused of Violating the 3rr on the Business Plot article

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring; the one-hour technicality stopping it from being 3RR doesn't make it any less edit warring. You should have learned this by now; this is your fifth edit warring block. The next one will be months, not hours. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 10 May 2009 (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.

Will go my own path

I have erased the lengthy talk from my page in regards to the block above because it was cluttering up the page with pointless back in forth between me and several administrators. I am writing from a place of frustration and I realize that it serves no purpose other than to engage in a futual struggle against pointless wiki bureaucracy.

I manitain that I have the right to edit whatever article I please and revert factaully incorrect edits so long as I make my case at the talk page and engage in good faith efforts to reach consensus which I feel I have. I feel that certain administrators are basing there Judgement solely on the amount of editing I did to the article and are completely ignoring the substance of those edits.

I have not decided what yet what my first cource of action will be when the block ends, but rest assured it will be my decision and I will not allow it to be based on intimidation tactics of other editors.

Please stop posting messages on my talk page in regards to this issue for I will quickly erase them. I know you feel you have to teach me some sorta lesson, but you will find me most unsympathetic.

This is another case where wikipedia has left me completely demoralized and I intend on taking a break form this nonsense to decide whether or not I want to continue.annoynmous 21:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sense this is the only place I can respond to Ryan Delaney I will say that I find it odd that he posts only part of a sentence on my talk page and leaves out this part "so long as I make my case at the talk page and engage in good faith efforts to reach consensus which I feel I have". He also seems to have missed the part where I said I haven't decided what I'm going to do when the block ends.

So let me be clear, I have no intention of edit warring when the block ends. I intend to edit wikipedia by making my case on talk pages and make good faith efforts to reach consensus, as I feel that is what I was doing all along.

I am honestly demoralized with this whole issue so you know what, don't worry about me. I'll return to the Business Plot article somewhere down the road, but's its going to be a while. Episodes like this make me wonder why I bother at all.

I object to the reasons why I was blocked on my talk page and the message I get is "stop being so uppity or will punish you even worse" which means I'm forced to accept conditions that handicap my ability to effectively edit at wikipedia. It's not like I'm some crazy vandal who added swear words in between sentences or that I deleted large amounts of sourced information. Yet that's how I'm being treated when in this particular case all I did was change the structure of an article slightly.

So there, I promise not edit war, now please leave me alone and stop with with this paternalistic crusade to teach me a lesson because as I said above I will automatically delete them from my talk page.annoynmous 22:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry

Alright I realize that this attitude isn't helping me at all. I realize that my tone above sounded harsh and I apologize if anyone was offended. I realize that you all are trying to help me and that my frustration can appear extremely arrogant. This is fault of mine that I acknowledge and in the heat of argument I sometimes lose all sense of reason and give in to childish paranoia and cast everyone else as my enemies. Deep down I know your all just trying to make me a better editor.

So heres a compromise offer.

I will agree to a topic ban in regards to the Business Plot article for 2 months

I will also agree to adhere to the 1RR rule for 2 months.

If I violate either of these conditions in the next 2 months that I will happily submit to a 1 month ban.

I will also in the future make a concerted effort to resolve disputes with discussion and attempts to reach a consensus.

If these terms seem acceptable than I would like to request an early lift of the ban, although I understand if you would rather just let it play out to it's end.annoynmous 23:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• All right, I'll unblock you, and we look forward to having you as a productive editor again. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still blocked from editing. My block log says you unblocked me, but I still can't edit anything. Do I still have to wait for the block to expire? If so that's okay, but I'm just wondering if you actually removed the block.annoynmous 03:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the software you are not blocked. If you're still unable to edit, I'm not sure what to say. Try logging out and then back in, but failing that, I've done what I can. The 55 hour block should be expiring soon anyway. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it still doesn't work, but it doesn't really matter. I can wait till the block ends like you said. annoynmous 06:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note that the topic ban and 1RR were in place regardless, but I'm glad you are willing to take them on. Also note there's no limit to the length of a block an admin may decide to place on you for further contravention of policy. Obviously I hope that doesn't happen and it all works out, but I wished to make it clear. Happy editing, Nja²⁴⁷ 07:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Business Plot

Hi Annoynmous, I am sorry that you are so frustrated on the Business Plot talk page. I really hope we can work to improve the article. I understand the frustration but I have a suggestion.

One of the arguments that other editors have made is that HUAC is unreliable/badly run/evil entity and that therefore its conclusions shouldn't be given undue weight.

You disagree and believe that the committee's conclusions are dispositive, i.e. the key factor proving the conspiracy.

I get it. My suggestion is that going around to related pages and changing other articles to lessen the apparent HUAC connections to the Business Plot doesn't help your argument.

In fact, given that you are operating under a "topic ban broadly construed" some might say you are violating the terms. I don't really care that much, and I'm not going to revert you at HUAC and McCormick or wherever. I just think its not going to help you with the discussion.

Anyway, for what its worth, I'm glad you haven't given up on Wikipedia and enjoy your strong opinions.Capitalismojo (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Hi Annoynmous, Would it be possible to be more comprehensive or inclusive with edit summaries? Even a one word entry would help. I find it difficult to get a sense of the changes without the summaries and end up going diff by diff through the changes. I suspect I am not alone. It would be a great favor if you could. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Van Jones. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Nja²⁴⁷ 22:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've left this note on the article's talk page, but I thought it'd be helpful for you to note: To assist in resolving this dispute, you both may wish to consider dispute resolution. Hopefully by now you both realise that edit warring is completely pointless as it only leads to blocks. I'd consider starting with WP:3O, or take it to a relevant noticeboard (e.g. reliable sources board or the content board. Best of luck. Nja²⁴⁷ 05:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Batman Begins Edit

Please support [this edit] on the talk page. It's a common name, and the paper was written by him in some capacity as a member of the UF community, be it student or professor. We should get some serious clarification on this, because citing a blogger is frowned upon. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Capital Athletic Foundation

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Capital Athletic Foundation. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital Athletic Foundation. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Gilisa complaint

Since he has not seen fit to notify you himself, I am writing to let you know that Gilisa has made a complaint about you at Long Term Abuse! RolandR (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert your last editing please

Please revert you last edit on the invention of the Jewish people talk page. It was made against WP dispute resolution process. As for the comment above-It was not a complainet. I just posted a question on the board talk page. It still doesn't count as complaint.--Gilisa (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Institute for Policy Studies

Hi, I can see it was indeed a 3RR violation, so I've reverted to the version before that happened. I'm reluctant to block the other editor, particularly as he seems quite new, so I've left him a warning. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 07:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How to add links to reverts when filing a 3RR report

Please see Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide or Help:Diffs. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Institute for Policy Studies

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Institute for Policy Studies. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Brad 18:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sami Al-Arian‎

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how, no 3rr violations, and he has been quite forthcoming in discussion. He has hardly edited the article except for the tag, which I also support. Ism, please stop making gigantic changes without consensus. Like declaring disputes over unilaterally, that is not normal procedure. I strongly oppose the changes. Epee is neutral, and annoynmous hasn't weighed in.John Z (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Steven Emerson

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Steven Emerson‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. You are tag-bombing the article, and edit warring. It is not sufficient to say "I don't like" this book by MacMillan, but I like and will shove in this non-RS piece. That's not even consistent. And your tag needs legitimate reasons behind it -- you aren't supplying any. You are forcing in wildly non-RS material, while deleting RS material. Please stop. Conversation on the talk page seems not to affect your editing. Epeefleche (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As it has continued, I've now raised the issue of your behavior here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Annoynmous (& epee) sorry, can't really respond til the weekend, very busy now and tomorrow. John Z (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

Hello, Annoynmous. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 08:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Steven Emerson. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. John, Stellar, George, and I have all edited the Steven Emerson article the past few days without any of us restoring the baseless deletions/etc. you keep on restoring. I've patiently discussed at the talk page and at the RSN ad nauseum why your edits are not appropriate. You also have turned a tin ear to the RSN discussion of the Sugg source. Your edits are disruptive, and after all this discussion continue to be disruptive. Please note as well that the wikipedia definition of vandalism can include disruptive deletions. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I hope we work on the article collaboratively. Epeefleche (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hello, Annoy. This is to inform you that there currently is a discussion here regarding the issues of edit warring, canvassing, vote-stacking, and BLP/defamation at the Emerson article, with which you have been involved.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Yes, there pretty much is an exemption for Jimbo, as he has been the court of last resort, though I think the dispute wasn't so serious as all that. I added a citation to the CJR and restored the deleted material. If you would like, I can mail you the sources I have received. Those plus the others cited in the MPAC report are more than enough criticism for anyone's article. Slowly adding carefully written and sourced material usually works quicker than arguing over particular versions, in the end. Ciao,John Z (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; definitely unwarranted, I replied at RSN. I think David Goodman, User:DGG, who I nearly always agree with, expresses best what policy and consensus indicate in the Emerson / Sugg matter.John Z (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Response

I've not idea what the situation is under SA law, but under US law unwarranted gross defamation of this sort is not a light matter.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry -- I mistakenly thought you were familiar w/MidEast law.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Broun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Global warming consensus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Public Enemies (2009 film), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Godzilla Screenplay Writer

I reverted your edit because even though you are right that Darabont is not officially publicized as the screenplay writer, I believe if there is evidence for Darabont doing the rewrite, he should be credited. Wikipedia is about amassing all knowledge and if there is knowledge we can provide that exceeds that which is publicized to the general media, then we should do so. Augbog (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

New Israeli figure

The 2,140 figure is not an ITIC figure as you suggested. It was only cited by the ITIC. The main source for the figure as stated is an Israeli security source and the IDF is part of the Israeli security forces. However, even if the source did not come from the IDF section of the security forces (although we know they were the ones who started the investigation on the figures) its still the most up-to-date official estimate. So I am curious why you removed both the figure and the source altogether? The figure should replace the IDF figure (last known official estimate) which is highly out-of-date and as a compromise we could note the Israeli security as a source if not the IDF. EkoGraf (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I put the percentages that way because that's how I saw other editors putting it in these past months. In any case, I'm glad you are satisfied now and that we could resolve the situation. Cheers! :) EkoGraf (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Aslan

You put it under "terrorism" header, so yes you said something about terrorism. Being fond of other's sympathy is a form of sympathy. That is how sympathy works.Big-Endians (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI

WP:ARBPIA3 is now open and evidence can be submitted until September 8. 62.90.5.221 (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Annoynmous. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Annoynmous. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Annoynmous. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Annoynmous. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)