Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::Your edit history indicates that you posted from CAMERA's office. ] (]) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
::Your edit history indicates that you posted from CAMERA's office. ] (]) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
== Warning: ] ==
] Please note that falsely accusing other editors of "harassment" and "defamation," as you did go against the ] policy. Please review the policy and make an effort to follow it in the future. ] (]) 21:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:32, 17 March 2008
Hi, I noticed some of your edits.
Welcome!
Hello, Gni, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
Article on Jimmy Carter's Palestine Peace not Apartheid
You wrote:
I was hoping you might weigh in on a dispute between myself and NYScholar on the Palestine Peace not Apartheid discussion page. The dispute is summarized under discussion section 19, "Criticism vs. Carter's response." Up until now the discussion has been a back and forth between me and NYScholar, so it would probably help if a few other people weighed in. Your thoughts are appreciated. Gni 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not currently interested in wading into more controversial articles in areas where I am moderately knowledgable but not expert. I suggest that you post notes on the talk pages of any appropriate WikiProjects. At least one relevant project would be Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Jewish History, but I imagine that if you look through the list there will be others. - Jmabel | Talk17:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleting sourced info and pushing the CAMERA POV
Please don't delete reliably sourced balance with edit summaries such as ""This section isn't for comments about CAMERA." If CAMERA is making a claim, that section is the appropriate place for reliably sourced balance.
You also seem intent on inserting the CAMERA POV throughout this encyclopedia article, and others. While CAMERA may certainly wish to portray themselves a certain way, for tax purposes or for whatever reason, an encyclopedia describes an organization based on what reliable sources say. Eg, it is valid to describe CAMERA as pro-Israel, based upon overwhelming sources using that description, and it is valid to describe CAMERA as supporting a boycott--in both these instances, you seem intent on inserting repeatedly CAMERA's own, somewhat self serving formulations, rather than what is in reliable sources. Please try and familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV and other guidelines regarding these issues. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Articles should be a)fair and accurate, and b)well written. Moreover, wikipedia articles should be bound by one standard. The changes that you have been pushing move the article farther and farther from these goals.
Unfortunately, there are little to no serious responses to these and other points I've raised and elaborated on in the discussion section to that article. Gni (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and on the Dvorkin thing -- aside from the fact that ad hominem comment doesn't relate to the specific charge, and so doesn't really belong in the article as a response to that specific charge -- it seems you're misrepresenting what Dvorkin said. It's not quite true, as you claimed, that Dvorkin "described the pressure from CAMERA and other organizations as 'a form of journalistic McCarthyism.' His comment was more qualified: "In my opinion, the pressure on NPR from these groups can constitute a form of journalistic McCarthyism."
OK, you are out of control with your single purpose POV pushing, hijacking of the article, and complete ignoring of Misplaced Pages guidelines. This has been posted elsewhere for help. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2008 (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).
I'm arguing my points on the CAMERA discussion pages as much as, if not more than, those who are constantly reverting my changes. Yet these editors are seemingly not blocked. There is a dispute being argued out on the here, and it seems unbelievable that only one party to the dispute is being blocked. After all, if there is a "revert war," does this not imply multiple actors? Moreover, my change attempt was to put the story back to its status quo language -- before a user unilaterally injected the POV pro-Israel language--until this is resolved by the parties; or since it doesn't seem like discussion was helping since everyone -- everyone -- was entrenched in their point of view, until its resolved by mediation. Please unblock me and allow me to participate in the process in the same way that those who disagree with me are participating. Thanks.
Decline reason:
Arguing your points on the CAMERA discussion pages is good but does not entitle you to violate WP:3RR. And while other people are reverting your changes, you are the only one violating WP:3RR. In the future, rather than edit warring, please stop editing until you have built a consensus on the discussion page. — Yamla (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2008 (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).
Please help me to understand the guidelines. Are you saying that the reason the other editors involved in the revert war were not similarly blocked was because, rather than hitting the undo button, they reverted manually by clicking on the edit button and then deleting my change? If so, this doesn't seem fair. My part in this revert war is equal to, if not less than, the part played by the other editors, except for the technicality that they apparently knew of a loophole I was yet unfamiliar with. I would think, then, that I should be treated the same way the others are -- please either unblock me or block those who played a major role in the revert war. Thanks again for the reply.
Decline reason:
Actually, having looked over the whole of the changes to the article, it is you who proprose the major changes while several other editors seem to independently ALL disagree with your changes, and wish to maintain the article's status quo. The proper course of action, after the first time that the change you instituted was reverted, is to explain your proposed changes on the talk page and to build consensus for your proposed changes. You could also bring in uninvolved editors via requests for comment or requests for third opinions to seek a neutral opinion on the matter. The big issue is that you were merely announcing your changes on the talk page, and other users STILL reasonably disagreed with them. Announcing your changes is not the same as achieving consensus to make them again. You should leave the changes out, and instead engage in a civil discussion to try to reach a compromise or consensus on how to proceed. You may also want to read The Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle and especially focus on the "discuss" aspect, which you seem to have missed.The issue is not that there is some loophole, the issue is that you are the only one proposing that the article be changed, and you attempt to repeatedly force your changes by adding them to the article over and over. When this block expires, instead try to build consensus or seek outside help as I have explained above. — Jayron32.talk.contribs16:41, 13 March 2008 (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.
(edit conflicted decline): It has nothing to do with how the button was clicked or done manually - no other user reverted more than three times, whereas you did. As you now know the rules, your block will expire in 4 or 5 hours. Please return and follow the proper procedures by using the talk page more, and, failing that, filing an WP:RFC and then abiding by consensus. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It is clear that you used this IP address to edit while under your block. Your block started at 12:27, 13 March, and this IP edited at 14:14, 13 March. Other evidence, such as this edit: , show that this is your IP address. I have reset the block for another 8 hours from now. Please do NOT return to edit until after the block has expired. --Jayron32.talk.contribs17:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No, do you work for Joseph Massad or receive Saudi funding? Your behavior is starting to come across as aggressive and vexatious -- you attacking me as being "out of control" because you disagree with my edits, you prying about my career, and you automatically reverting any contributions I make on any wikipedia page with complete disregard for the spirit and guidelines of wikipedia. Gni (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
