User talk:Red and black partisan
Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot
[edit]
|
Hi Red and black partisan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
September 2013
[edit]
Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Anti-partisan operations in World War II, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —MelbourneStar☆talk 15:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Red and black partisan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! - David Biddulph (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Minor edits
[edit]In two respects a minor point, but I guess that you haven't read Wikipedia's definition of a minor edit? Some of your recent edits marked as minor don't seem to comply with that. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
[edit]
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by LukeSurl t c 15:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
[edit]Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by -- t numbermaniac c 08:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
[edit]Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by -- t numbermaniac c 08:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
October 2013
[edit] Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Green Resistance. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 1
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Green Resistance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zawiya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 9
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Green Resistance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Brak
- Post-civil war violence in Libya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Brak
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Red and black partisan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I should be unblocked because I have improved a number of Wikipedia articles as you can see in my history. I was blocked because of edit warring, but I was re editing pages that had been vandalised. I say vandalism because the deletions done by user ElseworthSK only served to damage the pages. For example, the Brak article, in which I said government forces had been ambushed by the Green Resistance and gave a news source, was removed, and no reason given, merely a note that I should guess the reason. I tried to compromise on that article by adding in Gaddafi loyalists, and removed the link to the Green Resistance page, but he did not consider a fair compromise. Other sources of contention include the page currently known as Gaddafi loyalists after the Libyan civil war, formerly known as Green Resistance. The record of that page shows that I put time and effort into improving it. A reading of the page and its edits shows that Elsworth, acting out of narrow minded bigotry, vandalised the page. All he has done to the page has been to tell one side of the story, the side of the present Libyan authorities. From the beginning, I accepted critisism of my work and often withdrew or modified statements I had made, in light of objections, and when I did not accept the criticism, I explained my reasons’ as shown in my exchanges with MrPenguin 20. No such flexibility was shown by my attackers. He constantly made abusive comments, accusing me of the same, but the allegations are wrong because the record shows my edits have added more texts and sources as well as critisising the rebellion for various things. For example, I added text recording the torture of Omran Shaban. His edits have only taken away sources and text.
I intend to edit the Gaddafi loyalism after the Libyan civil war page back to the Green Resistance page because, as my edits show, there is more than enough evidence of some kind of pro Gaddafi insurgency, and my edits have generally improved the page, whereas my opponents have only damaged it. I will edit various articles relating to that. I intend to edit the Kammis Brigade page, given that my edits were removed for no justifiable reason. I will add in links to the Green Resistance page that have been taken out based on nothing more than Ellsworth's harassment and his obsession that any information that is not Libyan government propaganda must be censored. I will edit the FOCO page to talk about various guerrilla groups that use FOCO, including FARC, the National Liberation Army of Columbia and Green Resistance. When I first added to the page, it was very brief and had few citations. I vastly expanded it and added scores of citations, far more than my attackers. I was the target of a sustained campaign of accusations, abuse, threats, stereotyping.
The block is in error for a number of reasons. First, my edit warring was in response to vandalism. Second, I was in the middle of formulating a response before I was unfairly blocked. Third, the edits were unjustified from the beginning, because there was no defensible reason to remove a number of my edits. Many of the hostile edits removed sources that in no way damaged the articles. In fact, they improved them. I did not report the vandalism because he had already attempted to ban me, for far less than what he has done, and his needing to use abuse and threats rather than reasoned argument made me feel sorry for him, especially when he had to use a collaborator to do his dirty work for him. Once his threats fail, he clearly lacks the courage to fight his own battles. I believe it was ellsworthSKs intention from the beginning that I would either accept his blatant nonsense and allow all pages to go the same way or be drawn into an edit war in which for some reason he remains unpunished while I am blocked indefinately. The sequence of events , to summarise, was as follows:
I began editing a page of x pages and y references. I was immediately stereotyped as someone whose approach to the subject was distorted by a left wing perspective, and as a Gaddafi partisan, and changes were made to my work. I accepted some of the changes and debated others. I persevered, despite being accused of being a conspiracy theorist. I was then abused and attacked by Ellseworth SK, whose attacks became ever more confused, with ravings about helicopters and bombers shot down, Latin American and other contributors who were not sufficiently submissive to the EllsworthSK propaganda line, and edits of the page that were not by me. He demanded unquestioning acceptance of his claims, on the grounds that he is a member of the x Committee. When his threats did not make me conform to his single view of truth, but keep presenting other information, he apparently did not feel able to put in the effort to try to support his version in on line debate, and instead lodged a complaint. Note that other editors stated their doubts about the appropriatness of his case, and his complaint failed. Another editor suggested on line that he seek help against me; I mistakenly believed he would have the confidence to fight his own battles. He then said he would not edit the page or debate with me any more, but that claim proved not to be true. The entire page was then, with no hint to me, removed and extensively edited, with a lengthy quotation from a Gaddafi opponent removed, together with claims made by, among others, the BBC and Amnesty International. EllswortSK returned to the attack removing all the links I had made to other pages, and making edits, sometimes with no reason given, sometimes with a reason I believe to be inadequate, sometimes with abuse, or childishness, such as the justification for removing the material on the Brak ambush, which says I should guess the reason. Like his criticism of the page before his collabrator changed it, that it was “total shit”, I do not find that very sophisticated, and it does not help me in my quest to become a better editor. When I made a few edits, with references, R wote he would have nothing more to do with me, but, like his collaborator EllsworthSK, he did not mean what he said, and instead complained about me. The complaint was nopt upheld, but Reeves then warned I was engaging in an edit war and could be blocked for editing 3 times in one day. The editor x then suggested those involved try to reach agreement, but Reeves comment was unfavourable to me. Both EllsworthSK and Richtofen had already refused to debate me further, and both continued to change my edits, and exchange insulting claims about me on the talk page.with EllsworthSK making 3 edits in one day, though no one critisised him for it. I avoided controversy, merely making one edit, non controversial, and already available and referenced on another page. For that 1 edit, John Reeves then blocked me indefinitely, after EllsworthSK had edit warred 3 times in 1 day, and had consistently been abusive and threatening to me, and had, with his collaborator Richtofen, made numerous changes to my edits, and after I had several times withdrawn or amended my edits after criticism. Note that 3 edits in 1 day could be grounds for blocking for 3 days; 1 edit in 1 day, after several days silence, gets me instantly blocked indefinitely. Note also that EllsworthSK and Richofen were delighted, as shown in the entry of x. Note also that as early as x, ellsworthSK had been collecting a dossier of all my efits and interpreting it in the worst possible light. His edit history and chat page show he is more comfortable carrying tales to higher authority than trying to impart knowledge, and Richoften has made comments approving and helping such aggression. Why are they so afraid of contrary opinions on Islamic questions? All I have done has been to improve the Green Resistance page and various others. In response,I have been insulted, threatened, my work vandalised and now I have been blocked. I should point out that EllsworthSK has been involved in far more edit wars than I have, and his attacks have been vulgar, smug,and usually obscene. I do not ask for him to be banned, though he doubtless deserves it. All I ask is for the ability to improve a page without being harassed by someone who clearly sees me as a Gaddafi loyalist because of his own far right prejudices. I ask anyone reading this to examine the areas EllsworthSK and I have disputed and compare our edits. I think you will find that my edits, though by no means perfect, are better than his edits of simply deleting anything that does conform to his dogmatic views. The idea that someone can vandalise a number of pages for no good reason but with clear effects and obvious bias, then us a friend and a biased editor to block me indefinitely when I made one non controversial edit, after he made 3 in one day, is blatantly unfair. He has shown a personal prejudice against me, as shown by his unfair, unproven and rude comment to his collaborator on the latter’s chat page. I apologise for edit warring but a ban was by no means justified and I hope you will bear in mind the context. Note also that the other editor , unlike Reeves, did not rush to condemn. Nevertheless, I will not do it again. If I am unblocked, I will re edit the pages which have improved because of my editing.
Decline reason:
Content disputes are not WP:VANDALISM, and thus are not exceptions from WP:3RR. You should also read WP:NOTTHEM before you request unblock again. You were blocked indefinitely because you have not bothered yourself to use either article talk pages or your own talk page when your attention was called to the problems with your editing. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:03, 15 January 2014 (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.
I have had your talk page on my watchlist since October 2013, when I saw that you seemed to be editing to promote "Green Resistance". You have clearly not given up, as you have now been misusing this talk page to post a long tract about them. Your talk page access will therefore be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC).