Thank you. [[User:JohnHistory|JohnHistory]] ([[User talk:JohnHistory#top|talk]]) 21:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
Thank you. [[User:JohnHistory|JohnHistory]] ([[User talk:JohnHistory#top|talk]]) 21:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
==accidental delete==
Hey, my apologies - it was pointed out to me that I accidentally wiped a big part of your talk page and I really don't know how that happened. I thought I just went in and put a <s>strike</s> through the "commie" comment because I was admonished by yet another editor. Do Wikipedia editors ever get laid? ;-p [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 02:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Revision as of 02:03, 7 September 2009
Welcome!
Hello, JohnHistory, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
Deletion of segment "land action" on "Bay of Pigs Invasion" page
John, one could not help but note that you erase the whole "land action" section in the Bay of Pigs Invasion page. Since you offered no explanation, one wonders if you knew that Carlos Franqui is a newspaper reporter and author of several books on these and related matters. At the time of the Bay of Pigs Invasion he was an inconditional of Castro (he later defected), and a first hand witness of these events. Could you be so kind as to offer a rational for your actions in this regard. The section you deleted was:
"The land action was very bloody. Carlos Franqui writes: “We lost a lot of men. This frontal attack of men against machines (the enemy tanks) had nothing to do with guerrilla war; in fact it was a Russian tactic, probably the idea of the two Soviet generals, both of Spanish origin (they fought for the Republic in the Spanish Civil War and fled to the Soviet Union to later fight in World War II. One of them was a veteran, a fox named Ciutah. He (Ciutah) was sent by the Red Army and the Party as an advisor and was the father of the new Cuban army. He was the only person who could have taken charge of the Girón campaign. The other Hispano-Russian general was an expert in antiguerrilla war who ran the Escambray cleanup. But the real factor in our favor at Girón was the militias: Almejeira’s column embarked on a suicide mission, they were massacred but they reached the beach.”"
When someone talks about an unknown "fox" general of hispanic/russian origin who was in the red army, I tend to be skeptical. and it seems to be slanted to the Cuban side. JohnHistory22:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Herb Parsons, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no one has been attacked - please stop with your false red hearings - they are silly and do you no good. Please stand up for your points and you won't need to whine so much. thank you. JohnHistory (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Please stop ranting about other editors on the Obama talk page.[1][2][3] Please review WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:SOAP, WP:NPA, and some of the other policies, guidelines, and essays about proper use of Wikipedia article talk pages. The talk page is not the place to complain about other editors, or what is wrong with Wikipedia. Further, you should know that the Obama-related articles are under article probation - I am attaching a routine notice below. Wikidemon (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
You were blocked because you were being disruptive at the Obama article. Returning to the same kind of behaviour right off your block is less than optimal behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously are the one violating the rules. I am being perfectly within the bounds and if you can't take truth to power then I suggest you get out of the way. JohnHistory (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Seriously - my last comment wasn't meant as a joke. The Obama talk page isn't the place for appealing your block. Reposting it over and over in the wrong place just makes things worse. Guettarda (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, JohnHistory. You have new messages at SineBot's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Let me be blunt here. Not only are you barking up the wrong tree asking User:Tvoz for help fighting your supposed "abuse",[4] but you are barking somethig that is not a tree (Tvoz is not an administrator) on a website that is not about barking at trees. As an inexperienced editor on Wikipedia - and probably wider, as a person using a collaborative website - you should pay some serious attention when most everyone you encounter tells you are doing it the wrong way, and blocks you when you continue. You were just released from a two-week block for causing trouble, and your first substantive post is a ridiculous request[5] to "stop the Obama Admin from literally running" the Obama page. You are not going to get any sympathy complaining that you have been abused, that you want the people who dealt with you to be punished, and that it's all unfair. Quite the opposite, this is going to turn everyone off and they will not want to deal with you at all. Based on edits like this one[6] where you ask a bot for a referral to an "honest high level moderator" it is hard to escape the conclusion that you have no idea what you are doing. If you want things to get better slow down, stop complaining, and try to learn how things work. There are some patient people around here but you have to be willing to listen, or else it is pointless. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I have a right to request an honest higher up moderator (in other words one who is known for not having an agenda) because I have been abused by the very people you say I should submit to. Why would I do that? There are a lot of people on here who have agendas in their use of censoring and blocking. that is a fact and just because there are many of them does not mean that they are correct to do this. By the way, my "ridiculous" post recently (BTW, I have been banned for doing less then using a word as provocative as ridiculous) is not at all. You in fact missed the point of the two or so sentence comment. I was saying why do all of the photos with him posing with a fellow politician exclusively include Republicans. that is a very reasonable thing to point out. Also, if you think it is ridiculous that the Obama Admin would not be active on that page then I suggest kindly that you think again. It would in fact be ridiculous to think otherwise given that it is the first non - Obama Admin page one get when they look up his name and it is the most visited page on Wikipedia and the Obama admin is well known for heavy use of the internet. If I don't seem like an expert here its because I'm not - hence me asking for HELP in doing the right thing. I don't want an opinion poll I want people to look at what happened to me and see the abuse. Under your logic, I should just shut up and let myself be abused even to the excessive point of blocking me from writing on my own talk page.
Now that you have signed your post Wikidemon I am not surprised that you would say i was blocked for "causing trouble" What trouble did I cause? especially on my own talk page which resulted in my final block??? I love that. "causing trouble" hmmm you mean bringing up points of contention? I guess that is trouble for some. Seriously though, you are proving my point to some degree. I think I used the word "juvenile" but that was about it. Is "juvenile" "ridiculous" ???? I have no intention of even giving the excuse to block me now because I know that the language police (who primarily target people they don't agree with) constantly demean others in their responses and yet suffer no consequences. Good Ole boys network perhaps? I tried to explain how the terms are used to control and abuse the tools even on the talk page but of course I was blocked for doing that too. I guess it was not relevant to the discussion page to point out, in detail, the pitfalls in it and the systemic problems that were occuring. Blocked again for that. I couldn't illustrate the problems better then what has happened to me. JohnHistory (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
←John, Wikidemon is right that I'm not a tree or an admin - and I don't want to get involved in this - but since you wrote to me I will give some honest advice that I think is in your best interests and that of the project overall: it appears you were blocked at least in part because of the nature of your response to earlier blocks, and the way you addressed other editors, and your continuing to argue points after it was productive, so pursuing this may not be your best strategy for success. I truly recommend you try a lower profile and get back to actual editing - maybe on less stress-inducing, controversial topics than Barack Obama - and put this behind you. Listen to what other editors say, especially more experienced ones, about how to work here with less aggravation all around. It's a big encyclopedia, and there are much more constructive ways for you to spend your time than by fighting. Good luck. Tvoz/talk21:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is my goal but I want someone to at least look at my last block which prevented me from contesting the block and writing on my talk page. Please tell me how that was justified and if not please tell what to do to help at least put one or more of these guys on the radar in the future so mabye someone else won't be abused as easily. I would be doing a great disservice if I simply let that fly. I know the deck is stacked against me, that is why I just want someone to say "that was wrong". "we talked to him". "we let him know" . that is all. Abuses of wikipedia should not be so unimportant. what could be more important? JohnHistory (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
I'm not an admin, but I am an experieinced editor. Looking at your history, you were blocked for disruptive edits, came back with a personal attack less than 24 hours later, and were reblocked. Then you used your talk page as a soapbox for your opinions on wikipedia, which also included more personal attacks in your manifesto. Sorry, but I really don't see that any grave injustice was done to you. A big part of wikipedia is learning to get along with others, and for that stretch of time it didn't seem to be high on your list. Now that you're unblocked, hopefully you can put your block behind you and be a productive editor. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under your definition I can't tell people about who or what is happening to me? I did not personally attack anyone in my "manifesto" and like I said someone who was being really uptight with me I called juvenile and that was the "personal attack". Listen, I get the language police thing, even though I have been called practically every name in the book yet I have never tried to block people for saying, as wikidemon just did, that I "am ridiculous (which is tame compared to other comments) That comment, would have got me blocked if I had said it to wikidemon. But, I get that now and I understand they are waiting for me to react so that they can block me for calling their actions "juvenile" or what have you. However, I was not using my talk page to attack people I was explaining my situation and i was blocked not for personal attacks but for a "rant". Also, look at my current photo agenda discussion section at Obama. that was just closed off and labeled a rant. I can't very well move on when it is still occurring. JohnHistory (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Re: rant
You brought up an obscure point that made no sense, you then took comments as to the point you were raising personally, and then you accuse me of collusion. I'm not sure how to respond other than to say I can't really see why the point you bring up is relevant or why you were so forceful about. Soxwon (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you called my comments "stupid'. You should know better then that! Number two, if all of the photos show him with Rep senators that is noteworthy to discuss and it makes sense to question that choice. You say I am "forceful" but if I don't persist then you just delete my comments and call me stupid. If i wasn't a little persistent I wouldn't waste my time because you would just delete it and make sure wikipedians could not discuss what I found and what is strange. I don't understand why you can get away with calling people stupid and closing discussions that are relevant. It is weird that he is only pictured with Republican senators. you think that is totally normal. It isn't! JohnHistory (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
It doesn't matter, I'm not responding anymore, I'm moving on and so should you. I will just revert any and all future messages on the subject so plz just drop it. Soxwon (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a free image like you are asking about, feel free to upload it. Until then, please stop attacking and insulting other editors. It's not their fault that such images are not available. Grsz1100:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please show where I attacked and insulted an editor today? I have gone out of my way not to even when called mean names and having my discussions deleted. I really resent that you would accuse me of that when I have gone so far to not personally insult anyone. JohnHistory (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
You accused editors of bias and having an agenda when they have no bearing on what images are available to use on Wikipedia. Please don't flat out lie to me when you know exactly what you said. Grsz1100:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me sir, did you read what you referenced? I never accused any person of bias, I said the photos are baised (biased towards showing Obama with Republicans) That is in no way shape or form a personal insult sir! I don't know how you could make such an error? JohnHistory (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Who do you think edits the article? If you claim the article is biased, you are accusing those who edit it of bias. Grsz1100:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, you calling me a "liar" is a personal insult and I'm getting quite amazed at this process. Please do not call me a "liar". Saying the photos have a bias is not a personal insult to an editor. I never blamed any person for putting them there in fact so I don't know why you are accusing me of this and even your cited passage showed no personal insulting. Please sir, do not call me a liar and in fact if there is lying going on right now it's not me as I have proven. JohnHistory (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
I'm fairly certain you aren't understanding what I am saying or the processes here. You claim the images are biased. Why? How? Why bring it up? If it has nothing to do with the editors, how can they solve the problem? You claiming that anything on Wikipedia, text, images, etc., is the same as directly saying "You are biased." Editors write the articles and post the images. If you say one is biased, then you are implying that you mean the other as well. Grsz1101:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight you are accusing me of PERSONALLY insulting the....ARTICLE???? That takes the cake! I guess in your view one simply cannot criticize anything. interesting. JohnHistory (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Are you reading what I'm saying! I'm saying, you are accusing the editors of bias and agendas, which is an attack. The images available for use on the article are not up to them, and you are fighting with them over nothing, so drop it. Grsz1101:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, the photos present a biased image. I don't know who uploaded them (or how many people did) and I don't even care. The reason I brought it up was to make it more accurate and less strangely (100% Rep Senators) absent of Democrats. that was all. To say me pointing this out is "attacking and personally insulting" Editors is just not reasonable. BTW, don't create these fake charges and call me a liar and then say "drop it'. How about just don't start it next time guy. JohnHistory (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Then next time, if that really was your intention, rather than coming in guns blazing with accusations that the article is written by Obama people, say simply "I think the article should have images of Obama with Democrats." Grsz1101:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious. Have you gone and accused the two guys who did personally insult me in the section you came at me over? because those guys really did personally insult and attack. So if you came after little old me for nothing, God I hope you did something with them too. Otherwise, Height of Hypocrisy. JohnHistory (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
I haven't. They know better, and if an admin sees fit to deal with it, they will. Believe it or not, I came here in attempt to help you better express what it was you wanted to see in the article. Grsz1101:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, my "guns blazing" was just me saying that we have to be mindful that politicians (especially internet savvy Obama Admin) have a vested interest in these articles. Do you deny that? What is even controversial about that? JohnHistory (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Here you go again. I never accused any specific person of working for Obama. I simply pointed out that the chances of no interference from them would be unlikely. Do you believe that no one connected with the Obama Admin has ever edited (or monitored) the article? Doesn't that seem hard to believe given the article prominence. Either way, I was simply pointing out that we must be aware of that at least possibility. I guess you would counter that we shouldn't be aware of it, and it has never and will never occur. I disagree with sir. But again, I never accused anyone of working for the Obama Admin and you really need to stop making my general comment somehow user specific and insulting. I'm just trying to warn everybody because it seems that some people think this idea is absurd. I think thinking this idea is absurd, is absurd. JohnHistory (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
If you truly wanted to help (How can they know better if no one tells them they messed up?) then you will now be my ally in the civil fight for what's right. We shall give no scally wags quarter. The truth is our bible and we are devoted adherents! JohnHistory (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
But I must warn you son. They are many and we are but few. Though they possess the numbers we possess and unshakeable reality. The reality of our convictions as men who seek The Balance. JohnHistory (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Those on the Right fall by it's extreme -Those on the Left likewise fall into their own abyss. In the Middle we seek The Balance. Sometimes The Balance may present itself as Right in the face of the Left. However, it will also present itself as the Left in the face of the Right. Like the little dots on a yin yang the center seeks The Balance. To Balance something, the Left and the Right must lose for they cannot survive the Middle. JohnHistory (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Regarding this note, I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't blocked you in the past. If you believe that other editors have been uncivil to you, why not try WP:WQA. Guettarda (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
question
I am having some troubles with user Dayewalker. I have asked several questions concerning william Monahan's entry and he erased my comments every time. This has happened about a dozen times. How can I stop him from bugging me? ( 82.195.149.119 (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC) )[reply]
As is probably evident here I myself am trying to deal with the giant Wiki bureaucratic nightmare world. I think it is best to view wikipedia and your interactions with it as that of basically an anthropological study as opposed to anything else. That is not to say that you can not change things. Hell, I changed The Red Baron from a Jew into a Protestant. I'll get back to this later when I am in a more "lucid" mindset. JohnHistory (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
BTW, you wouldn't believe the war I had to fight to change the afore mentioned Baron from being Jewish. It was just one of those things. You read it and right there in the intro it says the Manfred is Jewish and I thought, wait a second I saw an entire documentary and I read his book and I never read or heard that. But it's right there in your face. So I looked at the sources. I ended up actually buying the main source, there was one other one but it was even more esoteric in quotation, turns out not only was the page number wrong (it didn't in fact even exist) but absolutely no evidence was put forth. I am a little foggy now it would be back in the archives, but anyway it went on forever. I ended up getting several people who seemed bent on just thwarting my basic attempt to just rectify it. Wikipedia is personal. A lot of these guys probably all think a like. Anyway, eventually cooler heads prevailed and it was taken out of the article. The funny thing was that there ended up even being a big debate, as I just remembered, over the me quoting the first sentence of the book which stated "This book is a book of propaganda" as to whether that didn't matter or not. The point is, if you are persistent and honest then you may succeed but some of these people are basically full time wiki power trippers (to put it nicely) and if you want to have a life you can't really compete at such a low level. Wikipedia desperately needs better Administration and stricter enforcement of the Jimbo guidelines which are fair and balanced. Learn the Jimbo Guidelines and even though they are often thrown in the trash, especially where strong group-think persists, they will be your best ammunition against the wiki lords and some of the zombies to use the vernacular of our times. Of course finding allies of The Balance, however few, is also a good strategy. I'm sure the Obama Administration could help you with how to dominate an article but again it would be difficult to get their input, yet alone match their output. Time and numbers. Lack of life(lack of perspective) and group think. Motivation = Money / Allegiance / Zombie
Basically, the best thing is to do something because even when, and in fact especially when they censor you and they abuse their tools and they attack you personally or whatever the abuse if you point out these problems people start to realize that the article is not honest. When that happens, when enough people get it, then the article is defeated at its corps. Wikipedia doesn't give out medals to people like us. But they do give out medals. Wikipedia is being defeated everyday and they don't even know it because they live in a wiki cave zone. More and more people are realizing the inherent problems, and again that is why this is an anthropological experience, in Wikipedia. These people like Dayewalker as you pointed out are actually a cancer within wikipedia. We aren't going to lose. Only wikipedia can lose. People can be cowed with bad info but wikipedia is being cowed with a bad name and that soon will override it's ability to cow people (in isolated Wiki group think zones) It is sad because I have been here for many years and I know first hand that wiki is worse then ever. People are even more entrenched and biased group think mindset coordination is the law of the day. JohnHistory (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
"Be the Giant Buddha on the Page and in the light of your honest transparency their idiosyncratic falsehoods will be illuminated." -Me JohnHistory (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
John, please be aware that this user who you are communicating with is a banned user, please check the ANI thread concerning him, found on a link on this IP sock's talk page. Banned users are not allowed to edit, per WP:BAN.— DædαlusContribs08:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Van Jones
Hi there. Listen, we've got a real problem with "the lorax". I can't even think of adding anything more just yet. Help me keep this commie vandal guy under control and we may get somewhere. Anything verifiable that's not a blog, should be valid for inclusion. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
John History: I have another "mainstream" source which tries to pin all of the "outrage" on Conservatives, CBS News: [8] Now this is interesting, because if the mainstream media is finally reporting it, even if they spin it that only "Conservatives" are outraged, I think the remaining CNN and CBS viewers who aren't dyed-in-the-wool commies are going to wake up and say, "Yo. CNN and CBS. Do you HONESTLY think any right-thinking sane Democrat can support what this dude is saying??" And then, due credit must be given to the Conservatives who exposed this disaster in the WH. I just think we need to SLOW DOWN a bit and wait for the facts to unfold. Being on the 2002 Committee is just the nail in his coffin. This guy is clearly a pathological liar and shouldn't be allowed within 50 miles of the White House. I am sure Glenn Beck's people are watching the Talk page. ObserverNY (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
Go check out my update in the political/reception section, I just posted it. You and I are writing history, my friend. I just added updates from ABC and WAPO. This guy is GOING DOWN BIGTIME!!!! ObserverNY (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
You are mistaken regarding the definition of vandalism. An edit by a user who disagrees with you is not vandalism. Vandalism is an edit that has the obvious intention of disrupting the encyclopedia - like this. Even when you are sure another user is wrong, being wrong does not make anyone a vandal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)20:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think deliberately reverting something and ignoring the consensus early in the morning with no new argument is if not technically under Wiki guidelines a "vandalism" it is in fact a form of vandalism in the real world. I'm glad to see that after I had an honest frank discussion with you on the talk page and pointed our you errors in logic, that I was blocked from something 12 hours prior that was not considered worthy of block at the time. I guess when you can't argue with someone intelligently, it is best to just try to shut them up. I call that weakness JohnHistory (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
{{unblock|The editor was not following the consensus as I showed it. I didn't realize reverting it 3 times was block worth. And this occurred over 12 hours ago, and I did no reverting after that. All I have done is discuss things on the discussion page and then suddenly I was blocked 12 hours after said event. I was the one who originally introduced the "blog" and it was deemed irrelevant, inappropriate, and misleading in it's partiality. Thus, at the late hour I tried to maintain it and asked for a general consensus before including it again. Wasn't the person adding it after it had been taken out by consensus the one editing it incorrectly, and again this was over 12 hours ago. Thanks.}}
{{tlx|unblock|Again,this is not the end of the world, but I wouldn't have done it if I had known I could be blocked, and it was in absolute good faith because I was just maintaining the consensus, while the other editor was trying to ignore it, and that consensus and my editing has since been upheld, and most importantly my block was instituted 12 or more hours after the event while I was just discussing things with other editors on the talk page which seems vindictive}
I'm not really interested in your views of the other editors; indeed, all that rather suggests you're trying to justify excess reversions, which really isn't a good idea. To get unblocked, you need to promise to avoid edit warring and WP:3RR - have you now read and understood that? - and avoid the accusations of vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know the 3 revert rule, or I wouldn't have done it. So yes I can promise to not do that. Listen, I'm not used to all of the "wiki speak" , okay so yes I will avoid the word "vandalism" and "edit wars". I really didn't know that 3 and you can be blocked even 12 hours later. I have no reason to do it again, because even though I never report anyone I 100% get reported so it would not be in my own interest. JohnHistory (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Hey, my apologies - it was pointed out to me that I accidentally wiped a big part of your talk page and I really don't know how that happened. I thought I just went in and put a strike through the "commie" comment because I was admonished by yet another editor. Do Wikipedia editors ever get laid? ;-p ObserverNY (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Bob Marley. Please see Help:Edit summary, thanks ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
