Misplaced Pages

User talk:NYScholar

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Notmyrealname (talk | contribs) at 23:12, 21 April 2007 (Notification of arbitration case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:12, 21 April 2007 by Notmyrealname (talk | contribs) (Notification of arbitration case)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
NYScholar is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Archiving icon
Archives

1
2
3
4


Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (Personal attack removed)

For general information about the status of current Misplaced Pages policies pertaining to copyright, fair use, and copyright infringement, please consult also Misplaced Pages: Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Fair use, and external links provided therein and below; please do the same for trademark and other various topics, issues, and controversies pertaining to intellectual property. Thank you.

(I do not have time to discuss any of these matters further in Misplaced Pages.) --NYScholar 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Some related United States Government resources

(All accessed September 3, 2006.)

For a perspective on some of the problems that academic scholars find in Misplaced Pages, see Brock Read, "Can Misplaced Pages Ever Make the Grade?" Chronicle of Higher Education 27 October 2006. For additional articles on Misplaced Pages in the Chronicle, see menu links in "Related materials."

NOTE: See the tag at the top of this page. Comments added to this page are moved if they are misdirected and/or they are archived. This is my personal talk page. I archive comments as I wish. That is my prerogative. You can find them in the archive or moved to where they should be placed. Not here. Updated. --NYScholar 05:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: See policy in WP:BLP#Public figures pertaining to the documented sources written by Jewish Telegraphic Agency Washington Bureau Chief Ron Kampeas; those articles are reliable secondary sources drawing upon primary sources, including interviews; they have been checked and verified and have been reprinted and cited by many other reliable news publications. --NYScholar 07:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

That's fine. There are errors, you say. Please discuss them on the talk page. Listen to what the other editors are saying and, if there's any veracity to what you say, the article will be changed. I will not protect the article to "the right version", as there is no right version. Page protection is not for enforcing someone's POV - Alison 00:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

After I responded to you above, I thought that the "discussion" was over. I archive (see statement above) after discussions end. Notice below: I have not made any changes to that article after your warning above. Jayjg exaggerates in stating that I made "6" reversions. I made 3-4 of the material that he was deleting (actually he and the 2 others were reverting my work and that of an earlier editor--Mar. 14, 2007--I posted a 3RR warning in the editing summary after Jayjg had already reverted my content 3 times; in response to the protection of Lewis Libby, he went to the article on the temple, ultimately reverted the reliably-sourced content (which is in keeping with WP:BLP#Public figures 4 times, enlisting the 2 others to do the same 2 other times, resulting in a total of 6 reverts of the content that another earlier ed. and I had providing between Mar. 14 and Mar. 16, 2007; the earliest ed. had provided the Libby listing; I revised the wording, updating it, and added documented reliable sources for it). This should be clear.

My other edits had to do with my tagging the article as I explained on the talk page of the article (see Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom), making typographical or diction changes to the tag and to the heading (not a reversion--in response to an earlier comment by another user--I simply added "past and present"; then "past and/or present" to be more accurate; then changed "past" to "former" and "present" to "current")--none of those changes are reversions. They are simply non-related corrections to material already still there.

I am the only one of the 4 people who actually did discuss my work on the talk page of the article today (Apr. 19/20). Please check this out. You are making a serious mistake. I should not be blocked because I made no further changes to the article after your warning. There should be some time that a person has to respond before being blocked. If the block is based on Jayjg's false claim of "6" reverts; his claim is incorrect (it fails to take account of his own 3 reverts and the 2 other people's 2 reverts, and then his subsequent 4th revert--6 reverts in all), and I am sure that he knows that. I have pointed that out, yet was blocked. Please reverse the block. As I said in response to you earlier--I have no intention of being "tempted" into violating 3RR; it is very clear to me that that is what those 3 users were attempting to make me do. But I did not do that, and you need to look at the editing history and talk page to see that. --NYScholar 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three reverts rule on Temple Rodef Shalom. You are welcome to continue editing after the block expires, but further edit warring will result in longer blocks. Kafziel 00:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

; there should be at least some reasonable amount of time when a user can respond before being blocked (I did not know before I saw the talk page message that anyone had instigated a 3RR report against me). I made no changes to the article after reading Alison's warning and stated that I had no intention of doing so and had no intention of violating Misplaced Pages:3RR; indeed, as I pointed out, I was actively trying not to do so because it was clear to me that 3 other users were attempting to draw me into doing so in order to block me (A couple of them have since posted messages in their own or article talk pages gloating about having succeeded in doing so or drawing attention to it: clearly violating both WP:NPA and Misplaced Pages:Etiquette. Their behavior is quite sickening, in my view.) Their own reverts and deletions were clearly concerted attempts to block another contributor from restoring properly- and reliably-sourced and annotated-sourced commonly-cited information about a public figure in keeping with WP:BLP#Public figures). The block against my IP address should be removed due to there being not enough time to see my response to Alison prior to Kafziel's automatic response to the blocking request by a user engaged in a long-standing editing war over reliably-sourced content that satisfies WP:BLP#Public figures: see Note above. Instead, these other 3 users should be blocked for engaging in behavior that violates Misplaced Pages:Etiquette, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:BLP#Public figures, as well as Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and Misplaced Pages:Guidelines for controversial articles, WP:POV, WP:Neutral point of view (even removing the neutrality template from Temple Rodef Shalom, which referred readers to the talk page discussion that I posted about it, just to name a few policies they are violating. The administrator engaged in the editing war and multiple reversions of reliably-sourced content that I have documented in the two articles in question has clearly been violating behavioral requirements stated in Misplaced Pages:Administrator; see WP:ANOT. Thank you. --NYScholar 08:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)]

I did not violate the 3RR rule; see the editing history again. This is a mistake. I did not make any changes to the article after the warning received above. Check it out again. I will be requesting that you remove the block immediately due to the error. There were not "6" reversions as the "administrator" Jayjg claims; many of the changes had nothing to do with the material that he was deleting. You need to look more carefully at those edits and also to keep in mind that Jayjg and the 2 other users were acting together to remove the same material. They should all be blocked. They also should be blocked for making personal attacks on me on talk pages of articles and in one of their own talk pages, violating WP:NPA, which result in blocks. You are not acting fairly here. --NYScholar 00:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what they all say. It's funny - nobody cares about "fairness" as much as a person who gets blocked for 3RR.
An edit does not need be absolutely identical to be a revert; if it puts back (or removes) the same text or reasonably similar text, it's a revert. I looked at the diffs, they are quite clearly all trying to restore Lewis Libby to the "notable members" section in one way or another. They are all reverts, you did it six times, and you are blocked. Kafziel 00:27, 20 April 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I really did not think that I had done that. Some of my changes involved the tag for neutrality, a correction to the tag, a diction change to the heading (in response to a comment about it) and so on. I don't think the six edits were all reverts of that disputed material. Please check more carefully in the editing history itself. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Obviously, nobody is buying this. Your behavior speaks for itself, so I'm declining the unblock request. Kafziel 14:04, 20 April 2007 (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.

Each and every one of those six reverts has you restoring Lewis Libby to the list of notable members. You check more carefully; I can see them fine.

Kafziel 00:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Kafziel: You have listed the same one twice:

  • 2nd revert: 21:02, 19 April 2007
  • 3rd revert: 21:02, 19 April 2007 , later revised to "former and current" and then "former and/or current"--all four of those revisions were obviously minor and some were actually only typographical corrections (adding and/or).

As for the (4) others, all I can say is that I didn't realize that there were more than 3-4 tops , as I was also trying to fix the heading and to add the neutrality tag. I'll look them over again a bit later, but I really did not intentionally want to restore the material more than 3 or 4 times. The problem I encountered was that 3 other users were making the reversions of material that I had tried to add corrections to and a source to over a month ago; the Libby listing was put there by another user on Mar. 14, 2007 (please see my discussion on the talk page: Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom. Given the other people's reversions and their personal attacks on me, I really think that they should be blocked. Please go to the talk pages of the articles in question: Talk:Lewis Libby, Talk:Temple Rodef Shalom, and the users' own talk pages. It appears to me that at least one of them (Jayjg) was trying to get me blocked because he could not get his way with the articles otherwise. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Between them, of those 6 "reverts" you list, the other users, Jayjg, notmyname, and humus sapiens (may have his name wrong) between them also engaged in at least that number of reverts of my work (over 24 hours and also over an extended period of time): Jayjg in 4 reverts at least (He has a history in Misplaced Pages of doing these reversions in consort with other POV editors in articles pertaining to Jewish subjects and particularly to Israel): if you go back earlier, he's reverted the same content many times. My changes had to do with adding "past and present"; "past and/or present"; "former and current"; "former and/or current" simply to the heading of that material in an attempt to respond to a comment by notmyrealname in the editing history for "accuracy." This is not the same thing as reverting the content. Please take another look and examine their reversions of the material as well, all of which were done with no comment on the talk page at all. Thanks. --NYScholar 00:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please ask User engaged in personal attacks against me to stop acting as if I am "harrassing" her/him when the opposite is so obviously the case. (After experiencing multiple personal attacks in a now-archived talk page of Lewis Libby, I had initially and politely posted a request for the user to desist in such personal attacks as directed by WP:NPA#Responding to personal attacks to do (on the user's talk page). That is Misplaced Pages policy. Posting such a request is hardly "harrassment", especially when the posted request is explicitly protesting that user's continual and still-ongoing harrassment of me.) I am quite tired of the personal attacks that she/he is engaging in against me. I believe the person needs to be blocked for continually engaging in them. I cannot comment on the person's talk page--I asked the person many weeks ago to cease the personal attacks, but the person acts as if I instigated them. That is not the case. He/she instigated them and then tried to make it appear as the opposite. He/she started using the word "harrassment" etc. after I complained about being harrassed. He/she is doing the same thing on his/her talk page now. I think the person has some kind of psychological fixation on focusing on contributors instead of on content and then turning it around. He/she needs help. --NYScholar 00:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  • That's enough. Being blocked is a time to think about how you plan to contribute constructively in the future, not to sit here and create little rants about how much you hate other users and how everyone is out to get you. If you can't sit out your block amicably, I will restart it and protect this page from editing. Kafziel 14:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an absurd response. I never said that I "hate other users and how everyone is out to get" me. I said that they engage in multiple reverts, do not comment on their changes of contentious and controversial articles on talk pages (as required by WP), and attempt to have other users blocked, as they have done in this case. Obviously, you are not sympathetic to those problems. I am not going to "sit out" this unfair "block amicably" when the 3 other users have clearly engaged in repeated uncivil behavior that continually violates WP and guidelines. I am going to protest their behavior, as I have done. As far as restarting my block and protecting this: that is clearly vindictive and not acceptable Misplaced Pages behavior. I see no justification in your not paying any attention to the reverting by the other editors; many users have complained about this pattern in their edits; I am not to first Misplaced Pages editor to do so. Their behavior needs to be reviewed with impartiality and neutrality. I am "sitting out" my "block" but I am not doing so happily. They have, as they intended to do, succeeded in causing me and others great distress. They are happy but they are not themselves "amicable"--they do not "welcome" the rational edits of others--and they should not be rewarded for their poor citizenship in Misplaced Pages. They are the kinds of users which give Misplaced Pages a bad name among serious academics. --NYScholar 19:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Have it your way. Block reset, talk page protected. Kafziel 19:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (Personal attack removed)

ArbCom/NYScholar

I have initiated an arbitration request here Notmyrealname 23:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)