User talk:Wikifan12345

Messages will be answered within 48 hours.

Bat Ayin

I have looked at your evidence. And it will remain as an attack on Palestinian Authority, Palestine and will only change if Israel gets the land and Bat Ayin in any impending land deal between itself and the Palestinian Authority in any two-state agreement or if Israeli annexs the territory unilaterally. (Tuesday2009 (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Attacks in Gaza

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." Wikifan12345, it's ok to trash my work but alright for anonymous people to write diatribes full of lies about my work. Are you a Wikifan or a fan to paid Congressional hacks and or certain lobbies that try to stifle debate in this country. Whippersnapper1 11:48, 22 March 2009

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whippersnapper1" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whippersnapper1 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop inserting grammatical errors and awkward phrasing into a lead that is already quite fine and well-phrased. Also, I'd appreciate it if you could explain to me how preventing people from reaching a hospital constitutes an attack. That information, while important, does not seem relevant. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)\

Well, how is wounded Palestinians fleeing to Hospital's in Israel not related to the attacks in Gaza?? Also, I fixed the awkward phrasing but the motivation behind my quick rewrites was because your edits were loaded with whitewashing and simply false information. As I stated in the talk, If you plan on removing ENTIRE paragraphs and inserting weasel words, go to discussion. Thank you.Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

These are not weasel words. This is trying to maintain some NPOV and appreciating the knowledge we currently have about what's happened. Please, stop altering the phrasing. With your every revert, you keep inserting syntax errors. I honestly don't understand how are phrasings are so different - other than the grammatical and formatting errors you keep introducing. Please, see reason. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your original phrasing was not NPOV, it was wrong. Please re-read the sources provided in the reference section. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What part of it was wrong? Explain your objection. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I just compared the diff. From what I can see, our phrasings were almost the same. I mention how people have been killed - so do you in just a different way. I mention that Hamas may be involved - you just say it in a different way. I mean, please. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I said they were executed, and many were wounded, as the source clearly states. I also said that Hamas claimed at least partial responsibility for the attacks, simply because a leader of the organization highlighted its involvement to "reassert its control of Gaza." Your version didn't even mentioned this, it just said Hamas is suspected of being involved. It's more than a different way, so stop unnecessary reverts. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your failure to appreciate neutrality, especially in the lead, is becoming a detriment to this article. The evidence against Haamas is present in the main body of content, but in the lead a summation is needed, not detailed accusations. We know Hamas is suspected; my phrasing makes a point of articulating that in the initial paragraph. Discussing Hamas' actions and motives is not what the lead should be about. If you read the article, you'll see that plenty of information about Hamas' suspected involvement is given. My phrasing isn't much different to yours; it just uses proper syntax and gives a better overview of the situation. In fact, you just pretty much interchange "killings" with 'execution", which are not fundamentally different and the latter smells of COI or POV. In addition to that, it is entirely unecessary to mention that people were injured; the article is "attacks in gaza"; ever heard of an attack not causing injury? It's obvious and implied. Your claims of "censorship" are quite bogus as I, the creator of the article, was the one to author the information about Hamas' actions and discuss how they might be behind the killings. I have no investment and not interest in censoring material because I have no ties with anything but the good writing standard of the text. For all these reasons, I am going to ask you to stop reverting me, and to not template my talk page again. You are not the owner of the article, and neitehr am I, despite having started it. You seem to have some conflict of interest here, judging by your edit summaries, and I have observed your reversion of other contributors to the article as well. You're attempted monopoly over the content is not appreciated and cannot go on. I ask you to stop. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing neutrality with fallacy. The evidence against Hamas was woefully understated, which I gladly improved. Syntax is a non-issue here; grammar is hardly an excuse for misinformation. I changed killing to execution because Hamas orchestrated a systematic execution of Fatah and its supporters. As in, they lined them up on a wall and shot them in the face. They weren't simply casualties of war, they were executed as individuals. Get it? You being the creator of the article is irrelevant, and in no way gives you ownership of articles - per Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. You say you are not the owner of the article, but seem to be infatuated with the fact that you started it, and that somehow gives you the right to tell me and everyone how it should be written. If syntax is your concern, go ahead and edit the article according to your standards of English. But if that conflicts with my concern for facts and truth, then I will most certainly edit it. I offered a very lengthy explanation for my edits in the talk section. Also, I didn't mean to edit your user page template. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In lieu of our dispute, the phrasing of your edit summaries, and your general manner, I have made a post at WP:COI/N. Feel free to comment. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your frustration

I fully understand your frustration at what's going on at the Gaza conflict article. The swarm of nasty pov-pushers butchering the article in the name of a consensus are really out of control. I generally avoid the article because I don't want to find myself in a situation where I would lose my control and tell these pov-pushers where to go. If I would lose control I would find myself facing a pretty good block. Hopefully, one day the pov pushers will go back to their porn habit, leave Wikipedia alone, and we'll be able to get back to editing neutral articles instead of propaganda pieces. I encourage you to try to edit the article and try to interact civilly on the talkpage, but when things get too crazy just move on to another article that is of interest to you. There have been greater injustices in the world then some hit-piece disguised as a Wikipedia article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

carriage return

Hello, instead of pressing enter when posting your comments it would be easier to read if you instead used break, like this: "this is one part<br>this is the second" will end up like this:
this is one part
this is the second.
The thing with doing it this way is it keeps your previous indent so it doesnt look like it is separate comments. Nableezy (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I always forget to do that. I'll keep it in mind thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arb enforcement

Thanks for your comment there. Funny how we landed there at the same time. Be civil at talk pages!Ferrylodge (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

re Lol

Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. Savlanoot. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting in Katyusha

Hi, Wikifan. Please don't just revert and wipe out an edit when someone has added information, as you did. Take it to talk instead.

In this case it's not “nitpicky”, because the article entitled “Katyusha” is about a rocket launcher. When you quote a news source which uses the term for a different thing altogether, you have to make this clear. —Michael Z. 2009-02-09 01:15 z

Also, there's already a paragraph about Arab–Israeli conflict covering 1967–2006 in the article. Why on earth would you put the 2003 US invasion of Iraq in the middle of this? —Michael Z. 2009-02-09 01:22 z

Hi. Pay more attention to the diffs. What you wrote wasn't removed, only edited, by me. I restored that version, and now you've put it into the article twice. Need a coffee :-) ? —Michael Z. 2009-02-09 01:59 z

Here's a diff from before you started editing, so you can clearly see the net result highlighted. —Michael Z. 2009-02-09 02:01 z

No, man, my first revert moved the information about Hamas up by one paragraph, and also edited it. —Michael Z. 2009-02-09 02:12 z

Hey

Did you ever think about enabling your email? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Click the "my preferences" section, which is at the top of each page. At the bottom of the page you'll see an E-mail section. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much, wikifan. It is my first one, and you know how important that first one is! I seriously appreciate it.  :)

Yes

I think it is excellent. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I responded on the article talk page and found another recent report reported by YNET UNRWA pays terrorists Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for what you said on the Gaza war page. On the actual content, I think the tag thing counts as lame, but your suggestion is spot on. I truly think it is redundant. --Cerejota (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

antisemitism and Gaza conflict article

Hi. Perhaps a moot point re how to summarise the incidents. The figures, eg CST figures, present the objective facts and it's best they go in imo. Really should be a breakdown of the nature of the incidents. Anyhow, the point I'd like to make concerns the edit comment. "False neutrality" is rather strong: I don't think being logical is "false" neutrality.

But my concern is actually re "Understating firebomings is..." Perhaps your comment was longer and intended to be factual and no insinuation was intended, but the comment as I could read it troubles me.

- Ddawkins73 (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay

Would you mind waiting for Cerejota's answer before you remove a tag when the debate is still ongoing. [1]. You use exactly the same arguments on the other side in another article. Please, try also to improve WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and more of everything : have in mind this is a collaborative project based on consensus (100% agreement) and discussion. Ceedjee (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I answered his question. He isn't an admin, so while I value his opinion, it isn't worth anymore than yours. The question posed was secondary sources, I provided information to respond to that statement. Unless you have any evidence that I can respond to, I'm pretty sure it's expected that I remove the tag. The tag shouldn't be used as a badge of shame. I wasn't uncivil or mean so there was no need to include those links. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

His opinion and mine have no more value than yours.

It doesn't mean you lead the debate.

I kindly ask you to have in mind this is a collaborative project, based on disucssion and consensus and the use of force is not acceptable.

So, wait for his answer or ask on his talk page his agreement.Ceedjee (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

reply

Not hostile to her, but you are exhausting her with your unwillingness to listen to rules, logic, and common sense like you have with other users before her. She knows Wikipedia guidelines (she is especially familiar with copyright policies) and you can tell she examined the case thoroughly and she gave you a very clear explanation, and she answered all your subsequent questions. But still you continue to rationalize and make excuses, just stop it. I know where it is heading. Also, I told you to not to use Fal when referring to me, so I know you are trying your best to turn this into a hostile situation.

I brought in Moonriddengirl to comment because I knew she was better at explaining copyright infringement than I could. I should have reported you to the admins if I really wanted to do you in. Though now I really don't care if you don't assume good faith--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that even if God Himself were to explain to you what I mean, you still won't comprehend. BTW can you stop with the "I find it odd that other users think it is plagiarism." It is, hello! As for the second set of changes you made, I said it was a violation of the policy regarding the quotation of copyrighted text. Moonriddengirl agrees that it was a violation and she says that you didn't even attribute one of the quotations properly by passing off a Jpost statement as one of Cotler's (which was the problem to begin with!). She told you as it is. What more do you want? I didn't say you were being hostile to Moonriddengirl, so please stop using that argument now. I think the version we have now is okay, if you plan to add back the paragraph consisting of quotations, then we will have to go straight to the admin board. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

title change on OCL article

Why oppose? I though you had agreed with it in the past, based on RS evidence. My apologies if I am mistaken.--Cerejota (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

the half barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		For dealing with source verification along with Sean.hoyland in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article. This is necessary work, and you guys reached across previous and current differences to make the encyclopedia better. You get the left half ;) --Cerejota (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

pchr

is not Hamas. They are not affiliated with Hamas in any way. You should know that, you use them as a source talking about Hamas executions of Fatah members. Also, read this, I know you will likely disagree with me, but please do not continue to equate the PCHR with Hamas. Nableezy (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Wikifan12345. You have new messages at Nableezy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Wikifan12345. You have new messages at Nableezy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Perception

Wikifan, it might be time to ask yourself if you aren't misunderstanding Ceedjee's comments. He has already said that he was misunderstanding yours, and it really seems like you guys are on the same page (both of you want a section which is a balanced representation of academic consensus) but got off on the wrong foot. Assume for a moment that Ceedjee is an expert (as he says) and that you are not (as you say). In such a situation, I can see how the two of you could get very frustrated over a misunderstanding, and start to believe that you are at odds with each other. Why not let him (the expert) write the section in question, and then see what you think. If you are still unsure, you can show it to an expert you know. I can also show it to an Israeli history professor I know for their opinion.

As for your comments on the talk page, you really really really need to tone them down. You are constantly repeating accusations against Ceedjee which are clearly against editing policy (wp:CIVIL and wp:AGF). This method of approaching discussion with both guns blazin' (so to speak) is not only not allowed, it is also harmful to the process of creating neutral articles. If you're unsure of what I'm talking about, I can point out some specific passages, but I think it best that you read the policy/guideline pages I listed here first. NJGW (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed in your last edit. You start by saying that you like the text (after all, didn't I tell you the two of you were on the same side), then call the discussion a battle. Please try to revise this attitide, as not a battleground. This is official policy because the project is a constructive effort. Believing otherwise will hurt the perception other editors have of you, and will affect the way they respond to your edits. NJGW (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The line is called wp:AGF. Also, you should not ever try to be pushing your POV into the article. You should be after what is verifiably expert consensus. As for people rejecting your suggestions, this is why I'm trying to give you advise... I think your suggestions are getting rejected because you come in with a POV before you are completely familiar with the literature on the subject (as you stated in this case several times on the talk page). If you approach a topic with humility and genuine curiosity (as you saw me do) rather than with prickly accusations and demands, you will find that it is much easier to get your way or a compromise. You lure more flies with sweetness... NJGW (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Re [2]: when you use a word like "retarded" in this way. some editors might think you're referring to them. I'm also putting a message at User talk:Nableezy#Comment. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re [3]: LOL! If everybody's happy, that's fine. But, sometimes in written communication it can be hard to tell whether someone is taking something as a joke or not, so it's good to be careful. I'll keep my eye out for comments such as you mentioned. If I'm spoiling a joke, I hereby give you permission to laugh at me for that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Work together on List of Terrorist incidents

You are extremely intelligent and collect excellent sources that update casualties figures and perpretrators of terrorist attacks well after the fact. I believe you and I can work together in fixing list of terrorist incidents, from now on. All incidents from March 15 to Jan are good and I believe should stay. I think from now on before either of us posts a terrorist incident we send each other and e-mail and link to source. My e-mail is lover_man_86@hotmail.com

Also the February 11 source is from a February 23rd incident . No suicide bombing occured targeting AU peacekeepers on the 11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersay (talk • contribs) 03:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

images

a general sanity test for myself, but i cannot possibly see this as appropriate for an article about kindergarten. tell me i am wrong somehow. Nableezy (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

i meant to ask you if i am wrong for saying that it does not belong in that article. i cant imagine all this bullshit spilling into articles on kindergarten, seriously wtf? do you think i am actually wrong? you disagree with nearly everything with me wanted to see how far that would actually go Nableezy (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

i think i can safely delete the 'dipshit' right? i was actually meaning you as in asking you if i am wrong. Nableezy (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding - User:Yamanam

I just wanted to let you know, I will be on the lookout for User:Yamanam edits and I already Reverted some of User:Yamanam work. I have taken the time to crosscheck yamanam's edits and i think a administrator needs to reverse all of his edits. Keep me posted. --Michael (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

3rr

I have reported you to the edit warring noticeboard, you can see this here Nableezy (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Mohamed ElBaradei editing

Please do not delete templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mohamed ElBaradei, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Please refrain from removing cited content. Thanks,--69.208.130.188 (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections are discouraged in Wikipedia because criticism is most commonly taken to mean negative evaluation. Wikipedia is built on a neutral point of view which means that no viewpoint is taken to be correct and that multiple viewpoints are presented.--69.208.130.188 (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, Please stop deleting portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia. The template serves a notice to readers and editors that there is an on-going discussion on the talk page. Thanks, --69.208.130.188 (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

His view on the Iraq conflict would be a direct reply to her, and the fact that it isn't included is why this section has its POV disputed (apart from the tendentious naming).--69.208.130.188 (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly are you warning me of?--69.208.130.188 (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Mullah" is a potentially pejorative term, so it would be better if you attributed it when you used it.--69.208.130.188 (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep giving me "last warnings". Last is defined as "occurring or coming after all others, as in time, order, or place", so you would typically only say this one time (the final time). And you can warn me not to use reliable sources, but Wikipedia is built on them.--69.208.130.188 (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that your edits are completely baseless propaganda and the removals I made were based on the fact that you are quoting selective articles and nonsence, for every "reference" you have used in the gaza israel conflict I can come with a counter article as well. So please keep it un biased since you are obviously pro israeli. I will continue to remove jibberish and nonsence that is not factual or deems pro israeli propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.128.253.88 (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan, it may be a good idea for you to take some time away from this article. Your frustration is evident, and I think that your recent participation on the talkpage hasn't been as constructive as you probably would like. The IP editor makes good points on the talkpage (I haven't yet reviewed the editing history in detail) and if it is difficult to engage in good faith discussion, it would be better to disengage entirely. Avruch ^T 15:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he makes great points. Except an admin recently deleted almost 100% of his "editing" because it violated BLP rules and was blatant fluff. Accusing me of promoting Israeli propaganda is extremely inflammatory so I encourage you to report me to the noticeboards. Just because you interpret facts as "propaganda" is not my fault. Those sources were selected based on their importance and relevance to ME. If you want to balance the article with praise I don't care. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have no intention of arguing this with you here, but I didn't accuse you of anything nor did I interpret any facts as propaganda or vice versa as far as I'm aware. Avruch ^T 18:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that was the editor above. I don't want to argue, I can't go to your page because I've been blocked for the dubious claim of edit warring. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair. 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. Nableezy (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

you have been reported to the edit warring noticeboard, you can view this here. Nableezy (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at 2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair. 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) 15:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Jersay Notice - Admin's eyes requested

It seems a new user, User:Tuesday2009, has strikling similar editing habits as user User:Jersay, who was blocked for sock puppeteering documented here. He most recently removed 2 cited terrorist attacks, one without a talk rationale and the other came with a short, casual, dubious consensus resulting in "I do not think so.". He is also editing the Somalia war articles, which was the staple of Jersay and his sock puppets. Can a non-blocked user or admin ship this off to the appropriate board? I was recently blocked for "edit warring" (emphasize on the quotes) at 2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair.

Edit Warring

Please note that it appears you are engaged in edit warring on List of terrorist incidents, 2009 if you continue to revert without proper discussion you will be blocked. Also, please be respectful of other editors and do not tell them to "go away". Icestorm815 • Talk 04:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware that vandalism is an exception to the 3RR rule. However, it appears to me that the edits Tuesday2009 is making are not vandalism. He has tried to initiate conversation on the talk page [4] about the content. Both of you have made comments in your edit summaries as to why you have both made your reverts [5] [6], yet you both continue to revert each other's edits after that. Therefore I have to conclude that this is a content dispute that needs to be sorted out on the talk page. As for the sockpuppet investigation, if a checkuser finds him to be avoiding a block his account will be blocked indefinitely. Until a decision is made on Tuesday2009, please assume good faith and treat him like any other user. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 06:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well you did continue, and no it isn't vandalism as defined by the 3RR exemptions, and yes you have form, so: 72h. Please learn the rules William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You neglected to include a block template for the second time. Probably did this wrong.

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).

Wikifan12345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You neglected to include a block template so I did it myself. Second time William. My case: I was reverting a sock's edits. Edits that removed CITED material. (A.k.a, vandalism.) Vandalism that has gone routinely ignored. To be honest, I'd like a different admin, one that has been involved in former disputes, like me endorsing your removal of administrator privileges when you deleted an article after an AFD resulted in keep. In regards to the block, even assuming all his edits were in good faith and I was disrespecting the rules and reverting his edits without going to talk, from the history I don't think I violate the 3rr rule. If you combine the various vandalism committed by Tuesday that I reverted in the last 24 years, then yes it might be more than 3 but it wasn't a single edit. However, I still don't think it was 3. Wait, Eh, it's late. Math could be wrong. Edit: NVM, revert rule isn't limited to one edit. My mistake. The 4th revert wasn't a revert, it was an actual edit. Tuesday believes Bethlehem is located in Israel, seriously. Do I really get blocked for that? I even went to talk.

Decline reason:

You were told by several editors before you were blocked that the edits you were reverting were not considered an exception to the rules at WP:EDITWAR and yet you kept right on reverting them. Additionally, there does not appear to be any support for your assertion that these edits were made by the sock of a blocked user. Given that, and most importantly, since you have given no assurances you intend to stop making the same sorts of edits over and over I am declining this unblock request. In the future, please realize that use of the talk page is done instead of and not in addition to, editing the main article. It does not excuse edit warring.

Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:44, 7 April 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.

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).

Wikifan12345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Lol. The one admin in question was obviously confused regarding the article and failed to check the diffs. The other user who "warned" me was none other than Tuesday. Please tell me how my reverts qualified as edit warring. Please, look at the diffs I provided and tell me. Tuesday removed cited material, I put it back in. Period. Does that not qualify as appropriate editing? Also, my final edit (the one following the admins warning) was not a revert. I was correcting a geographical error. I even when into talk. My accusation of Tuesday being a sock of Jersay is pretty cut and dry. He admitted he uses the same IP as Jersay. Also, it is suspect that I'm being blocked (for reverting vandalism), while Tuesday is not: vandalism revert #1, vandalism revert #2. not vandalism but still a revert, another vandalized edit. I would like a 3rd opinion, as stupid as that sounds. Someone who actually looks at the diffs and the facts. If you can prove Tuesday's edits were not vandalism (or in the least, removing cited material that justified any and all reverts in spite of continued warnings), I will never, ever, ever edit wikipedia again. Seriously. I won't. In case no wants to read all that crap: A) I consider Tuesday's edits vandalism. P.S Tuesday is a suspected Sock of User:Jersay. See case here. B) I reverted said vandalism and warned him via rationale. C) Admin did not consider edits vandalism. D) I explained why, no response. E) I get blocked for a 4th edit, which wasn't a revert. (see above for more). F) Block denied, accusation of sock dismissed and Tuesday's edits not considered vandalism. So again, hypothetically, even under the assumption that all my edits violated AGF and Tuesday's editing was spot-on, I still didn't violate the rule. I stopped the reverting following the admins warning. Right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given your apparent perennial reliance on WP:VANDALISM to get you out of 3rr blocks, I'd have thought you might have given the thing a read by now. Read particularly carefully Wikipedia:VAND#NOT. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:10, 9 April 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.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems Tuesday has been blocked for 24hours. Too bad he'll have 48hr to fuck up the article before I'm unblocked, assuming this request fails. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice save admin. Please, tell HOW the diffs I provided are not vandalism? He removed CITED, SOURCED, and REFERENCED material, over a dozen times. And I get blocked for reverting/removing/fixing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit, wait, it's supposed to be a different admin. You can't rule twice, that's a COI. I'm going to paste and copy again. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:52, 9 April 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).

Wikifan12345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Lol. The one admin in question was obviously confused regarding the article and failed to check the diffs. The other user who "warned" me was none other than Tuesday. Please tell me how my reverts qualified as edit warring. Please, look at the diffs I provided and tell me. Tuesday removed cited material, I put it back in. Period. Does that not qualify as appropriate editing? Also, my final edit (the one following the admins warning) was not a revert. I was correcting a geographical error. I even when into talk. My accusation of Tuesday being a sock of Jersay is pretty cut and dry. He admitted he uses the same IP as Jersay. Also, it is suspect that I'm being blocked (for reverting vandalism), while Tuesday is not: vandalism revert #1, vandalism revert #2. not vandalism but still a revert, another vandalized edit.

I would like a 3rd opinion, as stupid as that sounds. Someone who actually looks at the diffs and the facts. If you can prove Tuesday's edits were not vandalism (or in the least, removing cited material that justified any and all reverts in spite of continued warnings), I will never, ever, ever edit wikipedia again. Seriously. I won't.

In case no wants to read all that crap:

A) I consider Tuesday's edits vandalism. P.S Tuesday is a suspected Sock of User:Jersay. See case here. B) I reverted said vandalism and warned him via rationale. C) Admin did not consider edits vandalism. D) I explained why, no response. E) I get blocked for a 4th edit, which wasn't a revert. (see above for more). F) Block denied, accusation of sock dismissed and Tuesday's edits not considered vandalism.

So again, hypothetically, even under the assumption that all my edits violated AGF and Tuesday's editing was spot-on, I still didn't violate the rule. I stopped the reverting following the admins warning. Right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree with my admin colleagues. While the edits you reverted may have been ones you (1) disagreed with, (2) against consensus, and (3) made by a user you suspect is evading a block, that does not give you license to revert arbitrarily. The WP:3RR exceptions are quite clear that only "blatant, obvious" vandalism reverts are considered allowable. This is some kind of factual dispute. The proper response to the edits, after reverting once or twice, is to report the user for blocking and/or sockpuppetry and wait for that to be resolved. Frankly, I feel like you are wasting my time here, because you've been told as much by several other admins and have quite a number of 3RR blocks; you are apparently well aware of the exemption, so there's no excuse for not having read it. Further requests for review on this same issue, especially with a cut & pasted reason, will lead to you losing the privilege to use this talk page during the block. Mangojuice^talk 14:07, 9 April 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.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. At this point I found it to be highly unlikely a block would be reversed, especially when that would put 3 admins in the cross-hairs. However, you failed to address two important points, which I made explicitly clear: A) How is this a content dispute? The diffs I provided, like this one ta-da, show Tuesday removing cited material. This became habitual, he removed over 9 edits of cited material in spite of warnings. If I go to an article you've been collaborating on and remove a paragraph of cited information 9 times, is that a "content dispute", or vandalism? Would you block yourself for reverting the edits? :D I'd like to know. Tuesday never went to talk, well, except for this: Lolz. I'm making things as simple as they came and it baffles me how such information can be ignored willingly. I will be forwarding this off to the appropriate noticeboard if one exists when my block runs up.

I can appreciate the concept that I should have gone through a more formal process instead of removing false and biased information as quickly as possible, but at the same time it is suspect an admin would not even notice Tuesday's editing or his sockpuppetry report. Wouldn't be appropriate for you admins to AGF since I believed I was reverting blatant vandalism? And according to the rule books which you provided, the edits clearly qualify. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Posted for uninvolved/impartial admin. Can't rule twice. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, this is straight from the link you suggested I read (which I have done days ago): Some material - sometimes even factually correct material - does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism.

Seeing as how I was reverting material that fit the above qualities, whatever excessive reverts I may have made were just and appropriate. Also, you failed to recognize something very, very important: My 4th revert was NOT a revert. I stopped the reverting (even though it was justified) after Ice's warning, yet I was still blocked with William saying "I did it again." Even under the assumption that what changes I made warranted a friggin block (lol), I still shouldn't have been blocked. At this point I don't care too much about the block, I would like for it to be released purely out of principal but to be honest I'd prefer you would simply accept the facts, or in the least, respond to them. I'm sick and tired of short-sighted blocks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I find this very troubling. Look, the point is, no matter how right you are about the edits there comes a point when edit warring just has to stop and take a back seat to discussion. If other users won't engage and you feel their actions are inappropriate, report them and wait. That's why the 3RR exists, to protect Wikipedia against disruptive edit-warring. The 3RR contains a very limited exception so that users don't get penalized for reverting Goatse images during a period of intense editing. That is the kind of thing the vandalism exception of the 3RR refers to: obvious vandalism that all good-faith users would immediately agree needs instant reverting. Your reverts do not qualify as that: the fact that you've had to try so hard to explain why they do is prima facie evidence that they do not (even you see that it's not obvious!). If you are unable to understand this about the rule as it is written, you could at least trust me that this is how admins interpret and enforce that rule, and even if you won't do that you can at least take my advice that you ought to interpret rules conservatively if you don't like being blocked. And, point of fact, your last revert [7] was after Ice's warning and was certainly a revert in part, which is also explicitly covered by the 3RR. Mangojuice^talk 20:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finally recognizing the last part. Are you telling me I should have left in a blatant geographical error for 24hours or risk *gasp* being blocked? I went to talk to provide (lol) evidence as to how fucking stupid that is. Really, someone with such a lack of understanding of basic geography and political governance should go edit Pokemon. I'm sick and tired of Tuesday's sockpuppetry and when he gets blocked I'll be forwarding you the link. Apologies for being blunt, but cordiality doesn't seem to work around here. What a joke. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring update

I think I've informed most of the admins/users involved, but for those who don't know, User Tuesday2009 has been blocked indefinitely for....sockpuppetry. An IP sock was discovered immediately after Tuesday's ban and was blocked for 1 week. Good job admins. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Continued vandalism at List of terrorist incidents, 2009

User talk:Tuesday2009 continues to replace the West Bank as Israeli territory, and has threatened to report me.

According to his userpage, he was given a 24hr block by admin User:William M. Connolley for edit warring, but that seems to not have taken effect. I'm truly surprised none of the admins involved, including William, have recognized Tuesday's sockpuppetry]. Perhaps they have a good reason. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The block was from yesterday and it has expired. –xeno (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh right. Just expired like an hour ago lol. My bad. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you're here, does his edits concern you? LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Haven't reviewed them at this time... Not sure why I'm here, to be honest. (Ah, I see I previously declined an unblock request for one of your prior blocks...as such I should probably just let a fresh admin review this) –xeno (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WMC

Hello again Wikifan. Just saw you having some misunderstandings at WMC's talk page, and I hoped to clear them up. A block template is never required when there is a block. You can always put the unblock template on your page, even without the block template. Second, when someone deletes something (other than an active block notice) from their page, you shouldn't replace it as this can be seen as harassment (see wp:TALK). Finally, you were blocked for a 3rr violation. That's standard and automatic, so the question of impartiality doesn't really come into play very much. See wp:3rr for more information on that. WMC just said that since you now have a demonstrated history of editwarring, you'd better stick to 1rr and discussion from now on, at least until you get the hang of consensus building through wp:BRD. Hope this clears things up. NJGW (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, 3rr is automatic. It is not possible by definition for a regular editor to be a vandal. They can be wrong, mean, or ignorant, but they are not vandals until there is consensus that they are vandals. Under certain circumstances it is obvious to everyone, and then consensus is obvious too, but this obviously wasn't such a case. A sock is not a sock until there is consensus of such. Take this as friendly advice to help you from getting permanently banned. I offer this because I know you've had misunderstandings of policy in the past. Read wp:3rr and WP:VAND#NOT very closely so that you understand without the need for warnings. NJGW (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you want 3rd parties to be aware of the conversation WMC is not having with you, the place to do so is at one of the noticeboards, not WMC's talk page. Continued similar behaviour would be called "wikihounding" by any neutral observer. NJGW (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

For sock puppet investigations, you need to be short and sweet. "A did this [dif], B did the same thing [dif]. A did this [dif], B did the same thing [dif]. A talks like this[dif], B talks the same way [dif]." Simply linking to their contributions will almost never get any attention, though there may be a backlog of cases, as I have a case in que that has also not been looked at. Until there is evidence that a person is a sock, it is not vandalism. Very simple, sad but true. You revert someone that is not a proven sock/vandal, you are violating 3rr. A 3rd party observer has to be able to be shown "Here is where we have agreed that Such-and-such is a sock/vandal[dif]." If you keep pushing as hard as you push, you will end up being asked or even told not to edit anymore. Learn to work with the community, because without the community there is no encyclopedia, just as without all of society there is no volume of human knowledge. NJGW (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: T-shirt affair

I think it's too early, but the article is already clearly non-notable. For a start, all the links pointing to it that aren't relevant need to be removed (which were usually added as a result of recentism). The article should be AfDd when it's completely clear that it was based on one non-notable event. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We aren't working to a deadline ;) -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalemcenter

Hey wikifan, I noticed that a new user intriguingly called Jerusalemcenter has started making updates to the Dore Gold article. I contacted them to ask for a ref because that page is hopelessly lacking in refs given that it's 'biographical material about a living person' but they didn't respond. I thought you might be interested/want to adopt them. Some people might argue that the user name implies a conflict of interest. Not me, I hope it is the Jerusalem center as they're well placed to add a lot of well sourced information to that article. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how the adoption-system works and to be honest I doubt I'd make an appropriate handler. I do see the COI and I could imagine editors using JC as ammo in future-battles. I'll message him and see what's up. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Charities accused of ties to terrorism‎. 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. Nableezy (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an RFC ongoing, let that finish before you keep trying to war the info out. An RFC is part of 'dispute resolution' let it run its course. If you want to reply do it here. Nableezy (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've played nice. You obviously want to leave the source in as long as possible. An edit war is a nice distraction, eh? Many users have listed quality reasons why it should be removed. Your argument that we should simply sit on it and wait for the dispute to be magically resolved is rather silly if you fail to respond. I could report you for edit warring (you're at 3) but I don't plan on doing that. I don't I've ever reported you for edit warring LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

many? really, just as many said it should stay. wait until the rfc is finished, that is all i am saying. and also, learn how to tell time, your diffs below are 48 hours apart, not 'just over 24' Nableezy (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, correct. Yet your persistent reverting exceeds my own (check the diff.) Should have warned yourself. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How could it possibly exceed your own, they are all reverts of your reverts. Nableezy (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As in, you have more reverts in a shorter amount of time. All my reverts, as well as several other users, have also removed your edits. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Several other users have also restored the edit (and it is not mine, been there for a long time). But you again miss the main point. There is an RFC ongoing about this very issue. Just stop fucking with it while the RFC is ongoing, give others a chance to look at it. The user that originally disputed the edit opened an RFC to get a wider audience to weigh in. Just wait and see what happens with that. You doing all this by yourself is both pointless and useless. Pointless because of the RFC which should help decide the issue, and useless because it will not stick. Nableezy (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is this RFC?Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is the thread you have been responding to this whole time. Look at the top of the section. And the edit was added in 2006, well before my time here. Nableezy (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And it is listed here Nableezy (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The RFC has brought several users into the circle. You can't simply say "wait for RFC" indefinitely or until people get bored and move on. You are the one saying no and you refuse to respond. Also, don't spam my page with edit warring crap. Cut and dry COI and probably qualifies for Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The RFC ends at a certain time, and my counting is 2 users who categorically say it should not be there (you and the user who initiated it), 3 who say it is fine (me and 2 others) and 2 (tundra and the ip) who actually responded about inclusion criteria. Nableezy (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And the warning is needed if I were to report you for edit warring, so sorry, but if you keep edit-warring I will keep placing the warnings. You certainly can delete whatever you want from the your talk, but the warning is a formality that is needed. Nableezy (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And you should have consensus for removing long standing (3 years) cited text. Nableezy (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because an edit sits for 3 years does not mean it is somehow more valid. There is a rule for that somewhere on here. An editor obviously couched it in before the article became relatively heated, as the talk has no rationale or discussion for its original inclusion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

[od]Plus Wikifan is right about the burden of evidence being on he who wants to include it. Nableezy should not be putting this in until he gets consensus and certainly not edit-warring or being disruptive over it and then accusing someone else. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The burden has been met, and edit warring over it during an RFC is not proper behavior. Nableezy (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You were edit warring. Burden has not been met, Tundra and I explained why. Continuing to say "No, I disagree, No I disagree, NO..." is not persuasive nor an effective contribution to RFC. I'm about to send this off to a higher authority and end this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

feel free, im done here Nableezy (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy Archive

Just an archive of my responses to his frequent edit warnings and general spammage, most of which have been removed:

"Stop baiting me. It's a COI, since you are the principal character who is evading talk discussions. I've had 2 reverts in the last 24 hours, all of which have been your dubious edits. You, on the other hand, have managed 3 reverts in a little over 24 hours. 1, 2, 3. Please spam my userpage again. It's good evidence. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)"

source.

Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another cautionary warning that was *shock here, brace yourself* removed: I commented on your AFD. I believe your behavior has bordered wikihounding... Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Another removed post:

While I'm pretty sure you'll end up removing this, I believe your editing at Charities accused of ties to terrorism has developed potential for tag-teaming. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

More:

Your continued stalking, hounding, whatever you call it, in combination with your uncontrollable POV-pushing and punishing editors for reverting your disruption by gaming the system... Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of James G. Lindsay

I have nominated James G. Lindsay, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James G. Lindsay. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Nableezy (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

WF, I don't think further argument is going to move this one along the right path. If I were you I would put a copy of it in your user space and work on it in your spare time; making sure that as many salient points get into the UNWRA article as possible. It looks like it may be a delete or a merge. Put it in your user space for now and continue expanding as you can, then put it up again later when there might be fewer objections. Don't argue so much, it will get you into hot water. (I should have to tell you!) As for using my arguments, you are more than welcome to. My ideas are your ideas. Mi casa, su casa. Best, TB

Ok thank you. It can be discouraging at times. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

proper place

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Will try to work on it today. Also the AfD below may be seen as "harassment" in my view. It hardly seems good faith, especially coming on the heels of this. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course it isn't canvassing. For one thing, both your talk page and that article is automatically on my watch page since I have edited both. Since the article is of interest to both I/P people, I asked Coppertwig to put it up in that area [8] so we can get more input. Hopefully more input is better. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actaully, a better place would be WP:BLPN. This is a serious BLP issue, and it is surprising to see an admin on the side of the BLP violators. NoCal100 (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, do you think Lindsay should be deleted? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're referring to the charity bit. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the Charities page should be protected. NoCal, will you put it up, then? This edit-warring, tag-teaming will continue indefinitely. Nableezy has had good results by using this method of edit-warring to the line and then reporting and/or warning others! Can we get an admin to put a lock on the article until this can be resolved? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your interest in my home page; at least someone liked it. Itzse (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

ad hominem attacks

If you continue questioning the motives of every user that disagrees with you I will make a complaint. Nableezy (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Make a complaint. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

do it again and I will Nableezy (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I question the motivates of any user who demonstrates editing in a POV and non-neutral matter. This includes: removing cited material and bitterly reverting even after a talk, creating AFDs following a pathetic personal feud with a fellow editor, using logical fallacies to support arguments continuously in spite of recognition, and not assuming good faith for single edits (regardless of prior history.) I also question the motivates of anyone who follows me around, spams my pages with warnings, and threatens me with reports. So please, file a complaint. I'll respond when I have time. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wikifan12345 Nableezy (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I tried to re-collapse your response and subsequent discussion to a user's AFD post as a distraction not relevant to the substance of AFD; a slow page load screwed me so that instead of clicking Undo, it became a click on Wikipedia:Twinkle's Rollback Vandalism button, which isn't cancellable. Oops, sorry. Anyway, please leave it collapsed, the issue has been resolved andisn't relevant to the AFD, and the AFD is extremely long already - which I'm sure is one reason why there hasn't been more involvement by people not previously interested in the topic. Rd232 ^talk 11:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wikifan, just in case, I suggest you keep a copy of the article on your computer. Even it the article is deleted, it may be possible to re-use some of the most important material in a different article later. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Malcolm, great minds think alike. I just put the same suggestion above and saw you had already done so. Or one could put it in one's user space as an article ie User:Wikifan/James G. Lindsay. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I copied and pasted but made the mistake of using that link. I'm wikifan12345, that's wikifan. A different user...lol. Did I do it right? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

remove the categories, they dont belong in userspace Nableezy (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Even though you have not asked my opinion, I have two suggestions:

1. Be careful about WP:BAIT, because in that sort of situation you are fighting in the conditions others have chosen as being to their advantage.
2. Edit some articles other than Israel/Palestine conflict. It is too intense for anyone normal to do all the time, and you will be branded a single purpose account to boot. Even non-conflict articles about Israel would give a break from the stuff that goes on in the other articles.

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've edited a wide-range of articles. Most of my edits tend to be in talks and those that aren't are relatively minor IMO. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

hi

I commented on the tshirt page. Please email me by clicking the link on the left side of my page. --Shuki (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding where you found your information

In fact, all material on Wikipedia must be verifiable. This means there is a ref tag referring editors and readers to the source of the information.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read what you linked. The source is verifiable. It is an editorial written by notable authors. They assert x, they cite x US government document as evidence. Whatever holes you identify is irrelevant. Again I said, it is an editorial published by a reliable source. Something this article seriously lacks. A ref tag is not necessary for an already referenced edit. Just as you listed some unknown Iranian doctor who promotes ME, none of what he said can be verified. It is however referenced, though by a non-RS. I've used talk extensively, listed vast amounts of guidelines to support my edits. I wish you would do the same. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually it can be verified at the given link. To attribute something, you at least add a ref tag with the name of the document and the author(s). It is also nice to include the date the work was published or other information if possible. The source isn't disputed, just add a ref saying Wall Street Journal, the authors, and try to get the name of the article. It shouldn't be a big deal.--76.214.104.121 (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I did. The reference is the New York Times. What is the issue? In an editorial, 2 notable journalists assert x. That fits well with BLP guidelines. You're right, it shouldn't be that big of deal...because it isn't. See talk for further elaboration or review the guidelines I listed. That should clear things up, though I have my doubts. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Freedom House edits

Could you tell me how you got on to the Freedom House article so that I don't have to feel that you are following me? Thanks,--76.214.104.121 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)