Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:43, 30 July 2006

3RR vio at Norman Finkelstein

Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Norman Finkelstein. I have disabled your editing permissions for 2 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Feel free to return after your block expires, but please take your differences to the talk page and refrain from edit warring in the future. (Note that I in no way endorse or distance myself from the changes made by you or the person who reported you, I merely apply Misplaced Pages's policy against revert warring.) Cheers, —Ruud 16:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The same four as Ragout listed on the talk page. I initailly did not see #1 as a reverts (#3 and #4 were rahter obvious, #2 less so) but Ragout gave me the following reasons for #1 and #2:

1. In the previous consecutive series of edits I changed 'his supporters claim that it technically does not amount to "plagiarism,"' to "neither of these sources call it "plagiarism,"' Deuterium then reverted it to "Some claim the practice to not be plagiarism."
2. Deuterium's second revert is a series betwee 10:22 and 11:37. By the end, he's removed 'neither of these sources call this practice "plagiarism,"' entirely, and not replaced it with anything resembling the original statement..

I personally found this some lame quibbling over semantics, although technically a 3RR violation and more importantly no less of 3RR vio than Ragout had committed, which is why I blocked you both for 123 minutes. Cheers, —Ruud 15:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Arabism

I have tried my best to conform to the wishes of those complaining the Anti-Arabism article is POV and unsourced. But despite my sources (Amnesty, Washington Times, etc) and despite my attempts to show all angles of the debate in the Iranians section, I am still told what I write is rubbish. I have given up. In truth, a user who has continually complained about my edits and reverted them elsewhere has followed me onto this article and challenging me there. I will never be able to get a compromise with him, so I am giving up Misplaced Pages. This was my last try and my last attempt to get away from him and it failed.--Ahwaz 20:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

AIPAC

Hi Deuterium, you're right about that passage, so I restored your version, though I deleted the "perceived" dangers of terrorism and extremism. The reason I reverted is I was getting increasingly confused about the reverting back and forth, so I reverted back to a version that I recall was okay, but I apologize for not checking it more closely. SlimVirgin 02:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

talk

Do you understand idea of talk page? --tasc 08:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth are starting edits war? --tasc 08:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

monobook.js

Where is that said, that you can use my own monobook.js script? --tasc 08:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Israeli settlement

Spamming talk pages of other users to drum up support for your cause is usually very ill-regarded. Pecher 13:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Your reversions at Al-Aqsa Intifada

Deuterium, you have now reverted the Al-Aqsa Intifada page 4 times in 24 hours, which, as you know, is a violation of WP:3RR. Please revert yourself before you are blocked again for this. Thanks. Jayjg 15:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 16:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

islamophobia

Do you find it difficult to find my comments on the talkpage? Well, here is a hint for you: They are at the bottom of the page, just below your rant regardig the intro section. -- Karl Meier 12:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please cease edit warring on the Islamophobia article. Additionally, please see this section of WP:NOR. Your edits will not be reverted by myself if your include citations from verifiable reliable sources to the definition you're trying to make in the article. I'm reverting your last edit until you do this. (→Netscott) 09:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edit is illogical as it actually narrows down the definition of what Islamophobia is to one definition... there are a number of examples of definitions. Please try and do further research on this topic (including the talk page and archives) as you wade into editing on this article. (→Netscott) 10:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your subpage

Deuterium, would you mind if I deleted your user subpage with the list of editors? This kind of thing is widely seen as an attack page, and they often cause unnecessary bad feeling. I can't see that it has any legitimate purpose. Let me know what you think. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 06:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)