Family Feline Fun'Family Feline Fun'Family Feline Fun'Family Feline Fun
Thanks for your encouragement. I've taken a first stab at editing it, so you can let me know what you think. You could improve the article by adding specific citations from your references, in addition to listing them below.-- Parkwells ( talk) 21:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Any help you can offer to make this article compliant with WP:NPOV is greatly appreciated. Thank you, 76.87.47.110 ( talk) 11:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
If you take the time to look at the main Ralph Nader article's editing history, you can see that the Atlantic quote in question, which was originally there, was moved here by compromise. I have been involved with these articles for over six months. What gives you the right to violate this compromise that was reached after a whole lot of haggling? Please respect other editors' wishes and let this comment stay. Otherwise, I will have to insert it back in the main article and revisit the compromise arguments there. Moreover, as to the Ralph Nader article itself, where is the POV in this: "Nader's greatest impact was in Florida in the 2000 election, where George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes and Nader's 97,421 votes tilted the election in Bush's favor." You can't disagree that his campaign in 2000 had more of an impact than his other campaigns, right? And if you agree with that statement, then you have to explain why it had an impact. I don't know how much more carefully I can tread without stepping on hypersensitive toes. Griot ( talk) 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm a reporter working on an article about Wikipedia and I would love to speak with you. May I send you an email to try to set up an interview? Thanks for your time. Marynega ( talk) 16:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ralph Nader. 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. Gwernol 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, I'm a reporter with SF Weekly newspaper. My email address is Mary.Spicuzza@sfweekly.com May I give you a call to interview you for the article I'm writing about Wikipedia? Thanks for your time, Mary 71.5.63.2 ( talk) 00:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry--I forgot to sign that last one. I'm a reporter with SF Weekly newspaper. My email address is Mary.Spicuzza@sfweekly.com Thanks for your time, Mary Marynega ( talk) 02:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Now you've followed me to the Matt Gonzalez article. C'mon man, gimme a break. You don't know the City or its politics. Your editing there was strictly personal. Griot ( talk) 16:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Matt Gonzalez. 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. Gwernol 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Gwernol 20:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please review my edits and talk pages on Matt Gonzalez and the WP:BLP/N I posted for that article; Ralph Nader; and Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns. My edits and those of half a dozen others on the Nader pages have been plagued by incessant edit warring and multiple reverts without explanation and flagrant policy disregard by Griot, an editor with a self professed personal grudge against Ralph Nader.
Decline reason:
Complaining about the conduct of another editor is not a reason why you should be unblocked. — Sandstein ( talk) 22:22, 31 January 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.
In reply to your e-mail: You are blocked because of your own actions. Each editor is judged on his or her own merits. Enumerating the bad things that the other editor has allegedly done is not an argument that addresses the only pertinent question here: how, specifically, did your block violate our blocking policy and should therefore be lifted? Sandstein ( talk) 06:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm basically in agreement with Ralph Nader's views. I'm trying hard to make the article accurate and NPOV. If you and I should disagree, it's probably over minor matters of rhetoric. -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess I stand corrected as to whether the presidential articles are biographical. Nevertheless, whether his supporters can handle it, I think our man Nader is a big boy with a good strong backbone, and he can handle criticism in person or on Wikipedia. These criticisms are not malicious or gratuitous--but let's let others decide, eh? I think you and I have been around this subject once too often. BTW, you put your comment on my User page, not my Talk page. If you want to address me in future, please do so on my Talk page. User pages are meant only for their owners. Feedler ( talk) 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You as well as anybody knows that it took a long time to reach the compromise that made up the opening paragraphy of this article. Yet you delete it wholesale. Why? And then you accuse me of being a sockpuppet merely because I disagree with you. Why do you do this? And Moonriddengirl is not an authority on which quote should be in an article. Please respect the editors there as well. People are going to disagree with you on Wiki, and that's okay. You have to realize that. Griot ( talk) 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's where compromises were reached on this passage. Please click the links and observe how other editors rejected your edit:
Please respect other editors. Griot ( talk) 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The Evola article states: Evola further held that Jewish people denigrated lofty "Aryan" ideals (of faith, loyalty, courage, devotion, and constancy) through a "corrosive irony" that ascribed every human activity to economic or sexual motives (à la Marx and Freud). — Do you perhaps know where this is from and able to cite it? Because that's quite a controversial statement and needs to be sourced. — EliasAlucard ( Discussion · contribs) 11:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Boodles, I added User:Griot persistent violations to ANI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. He has deleted content on article talk pages and reverted inappropriate comments my talk page as well. 76.87.47.110 ( talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Telogen
I must say, with all the evidence against User:Griot, and the many incivility warnings I've noted with this new User:Calton, there is something not right about this. 76.87.47.110 ( talk) 01:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You really need stronger evidence than "Because I said so," guy. -- Calton | Talk 14:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Griots #RR evading sock puppet has been confirmed here. Guess he was confused when he denied it here? It's not because I said so, its because checkuser said so. So why don't you go and abuse them instead of me, "guy?" Boodlesthecat ( talk) 21:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Boodles. There seems to be some confusion or suspicion that you and I are actually the same user. If anybody should want to reach me to clarify that we are not the same person, I can be reached via email at Mary.Spicuzza@sfweekly.com Marynega ( talk) 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This is just FYI as it might not exactly address the discussion at Talk:Ralph_Nader#Naders_.22very_controversial.22_campaigns, but I see that Wikipedia:WTA#Scandal.2C_controversy.2C_affair lists "scandal" as a deprecated term and suggests "controversial episode" or "controversy" instead -- apparently the sense of editors of this style guideline is that "controversy" and "controversial" should not be considered pejorative. Have a good one. -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 13:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks and civility policies. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users, and even if you feel an editor has taken an action or actions which you disagree with or believe are wrong, acting as you have on User talk:Griot is completely unacceptable. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Orderinchaos 06:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. AGK ( talk) 22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC), checkuser clerk.
Which is not allowed on Wikipedia talk pages, so all I did was revert it back to the original conversation. This can be seen here along with my comments on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Griot&action=history
AGAIN
Ok, that's what I did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Griot_deliberately_misrepresenting_me_on_his_talk_page<br\> Thanks for the advice! -- BillyTFried ( talk) 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. You might find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=prev&oldid=190675197<br\> BillyTFried ( talk) 23:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the rib tickler. Dlabtot ( talk) 22:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Frackin' brilliant! I like the way you communicate BtC..:) While you're at it, I'd like a side of spam with my quantum mystical pseudoscientific bleepin' dead parrot, eh, squire? Dreadstar † 23:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | ||
For your Heroically Humorous efforts to get the message across...! Keep up the good humor! Dreadstar † 23:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
Likely by now you are aware that once again your suspicions have been confirmed and once again Griot has been indefinitely blocked. Whatever may come of this now, I'd just like to let you know that I appreciate your sleuthing and persistence. Not all disruption to Wikipedia takes the form of blatant vandalism, and we need people who are willing to doggedly pursue less obvious instances as well. As I mentioned when you first approached me on my talk page about this, I had (and still have) very little familiarity with sock puppetry and the pursuit thereof, but my observation of your experience suggests that it can be a challenging task. Thanks for being willing to take it on anyway. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Griot, aren't you banned indefinitely? Found another sock in the drawer?
I will continue to remove poor grammar and unencycopedic language. Ask for help if you can't figure out how to say something properly. Rracecarr ( talk) 18:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Boodlesthecat, I have had a terrible time with Rracecarr reverting, undoing and deleting my work at several different articles; most notable the foot-pound force article. I have for the last 9 months tried to communicate with Rracecarr in a civil manner. However Rracecarr's responses are off topic or non-sequitur's with sarcastic language (that puts it nicely). Rracecarr's posts read like this is some kind of competition. I find it weird. The edit warring that Rracecarr is engaged in borders on juvenile behavior. I would report his/her behavior to admin but one, I don't know how and two, that is an extreme measure. Do you have any suggetions for me? Thank you, Greg Glover ( talk) 22:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Boodles, comments [ like this] really don't do anyone any favours. Please watch for civility, Jefffire ( talk) 17:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Personal attacks, such as calling others Nazi's, is strongly discouraged and flat-out inappropriate despite the context. seicer | talk | contribs 00:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, stop your bickering. It's getting tiring. Will ( talk) 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I can understand and somewhat relate to your feelings, but if you continue, you will be blocked, I'm sorry to say. Having an opinion about something doesn't get your blocked from here; attacking others about their opinions will. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that you are upset at his strange views regarding Jews and Judaism, but calling someone a Nazi is never acceptable. Nazis are something entirely different from bizarrely anti-Semitic contributors at Wikipedia and Stormfront. The best policy in a situation like this is to ignore anti-Semites, keep a watch on your articles to make sure they aren't dumped down the Looking Glass and report specific policy violations (like 3RR, etc.) when you see them. (And before you accuse me of having an agenda towards ignoring this sort of complaint, have a look at my userpage). Avruch T 01:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the WP:ANI board indicates that the matter is closed, I put a note at the Wikiquette page about the archive. It is not productive to have the archive remain on the talk page (along with most of the other sections) and your diffs still work (which are much better than links to the current version anyway). If the Wikiquette board gives you the same result, I would strongly suggest you simply leave it alone. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Julian Barbour indeed! Have you checked out Jacob Bekenstein, John Archibald Wheeler and/or Holographic Principle? See especially the last. Bleep discussions get old...but remain important because new users come in, start identifying with the cult of "pathological disbelief" and (as innocent bystanders) get sucked in to this garbage. Very tiresome, but it's an unfortunately pervasive problem on Wikipedia. WNDL42 ( talk) 16:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please report abuse to WP:ANI. Thanks, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand you may be angry but do you really think your current posts on AN/I are helping your case? In fact, you carry on this way and it's likely you'll get blocked too. You should either calm a bit or expect uninvolved users to take your comments with less weight. David D. (Talk) 06:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Boodles, I appreciate your acceptance and concerns about my posts to the talk page, and in thinking about how to reply decided that repeating your post, and my reply here, was appropriate. Active discussion seems to have slowed considerably over the week end.
Please allow me a re-write of it, to illustrate how I believe it should fit into the article, and to some extent, how it fits my bias.
These excerpts illustrate the strength and some of the complexities of this critical pre-state era, with both Zionist and Jewish lobbying power beginning to exercise its strength by taking head-on a gentile political establishment that was indifferent to Jews as it should be (domestically) in a proportional democracy. This all is in the context of the aftermath and guilt of the tragic and unconscionable failures of the wartime and postwar administration to act on behalf of Jews in the Hitler era. [This should go in the article, as appropriately worded and re-worded, as the article is edited. The specific lobbying role of some Jews and Zionists to save European Jews during this period is also appropriate.]
That American society includes a not so subtle but limited anti-Semitic current, largely the result of other previous unrelated historical facts and misconceptions, is a fact. The anti-Semitic and newer New anti-Semitism and self hating Jew undercurrent continues to the present, peaking following the 1967 and 1973 wars, in the 1978 and 1982 Lebanon invasions, 1987 first intifada, 2000 second intifada, and the 2006 Lebanon invasion. Currently the lobby is flexing its muscle and coming head to head with post-Cold War realpolitic, where more (M&W) point out that this is not good for America. The Jew hater Nixon, I believe, can be shown to be another example of lobby power and domestic political expediency overruling his personal feelings and American interests. [How this is worked into the article, requires considerably more discussion, I believe.]
As seen in those now famous Truman quotes, there is legitimate moral concern that “The action of some of our United States Zionists [and now also, the post-77 Likud-dominated governments] will prejudice everyone against what they are trying to get done.”
This is certainly my bias. If you are concerned how I might use these, please see this dif [1] as to how I incorporated the first Lenczowski excerpt into an appropriate existing article. I do understand that different articles require different quotes; I hope it is acceptable. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 06:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 24 hours for harassment and disruption. Specifically, for continuing to insinuate that the admins and editors discussing this issue at AN/I are challenging you out of some latent or patent antisemitism, even after being asked, by multiple parties, to stop. The next block for this sort of behavior will be longer. Regards, Nandesuka ( talk) 15:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
see below
Decline reason:
No comment on your reasons. At this point there's less than an hour left on the block. In general, {{ unblock}} is meant for review of longer-term blocks. Mango juice talk 15:07, 27 February 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.
I was blocked for harrassment and disruption
I'd support an unblock based on the unproductive comments from Will. Given that kind of provocation it would be hard for anyone to remain calm. This would be subject to this being a lesson to proceed with such complaints in a rationale and productive way despite users like Will. When uninvolved users ask questions for clarification assume things might not be clear. A measured calm debate will also be more successful than getting frustrated. David D. (Talk) 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone perhaps help clarify what this comment and this not very clarifying clarification might possibly mean, since I cannot currently inquire directly? I certainly don;t want to make any assumptions, and would definitely like some second opinions/interpretations. Thanks! Boodlesthecat ( talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
While it may be that I have missed some particularly inflammatory post you made, I consider your block well out of bounds. The nearest practical effect I could see it having would be to discourage users from reporting bias, and further discourage users from criticising admin comments. This block is just depressing. That's all I can think to say. IronDuke 23:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
How long will WebHamster be allowed to continue his vicious anti-Semitic tirade against me (as he is doing right now) before someone threatens to block him, blocks him, or tells him (as i was told for protesting anti-Semitism) "shut the hell up?" Boodlesthecat ( talk) 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Since you're so fond of links, here's one for you: You've been treating Wikipedia as if were your personal Fight Club to carry on your off-wiki political warfare, enforce your own specific politics, and to harass anyone you perceive as an "enemy" -- the last even to the point of condoning and aiding a long-banned and abusive sockpuppeteer so you can proclaim your own fight against a sockpuppeteer, one who seems to have been driven to it, in part, by your abusive behavior. "Hypocrisy" may not be strong enough a word for it.
As for your paranoid and authoritarian "warning" on my page: 1) I read and comment on WP:AN/I and WP:AN all the time -- the last time I checked, I had 505 edits to WP:AN/I and 299 to WP:AN -- so the part about "following" is pure nonsense. In fact, given that you've gone and commented about comments left by others on my Talk Page, I'd say any "following" is going on in a different direction. 2) Having you reach for WP:NPA -- that handy, all-purpose shield against criticism -- in the SAME posting as "your personal, irrational, and childish grudge" [2] shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the policy you're claiming to cite. 3) You're in no position -- legal, assigned, managerial, ethical, or even moral -- to be giving out warnings -- first or final -- on other users's behavior. None. Going by the block above, perhaps the opposite.
Given all the contradictions between your strident claims and your actual behavior, I'd say that this page might be helpful reading for you. -- Calton | Talk 00:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
i'm still blocked for being such a mean mean meanie to this lovable fella. Hehe hehe, zat's a hoot! Boodlesthecat ( talk) 01:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I'm not going to be around much for the next few days, but I'll help out when I have some time.
In the meantime, you might get some support at WP:BLP/N. The editors there have stepped into a couple of edit wars over BLPs and cut out WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and other slanted material. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 05:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 48 hours for this edit, in the context of your being repeatedly warned -- and blocked -- for insinuating antisemitic motives to other editors simply because they disagree with you. Your comments are a slur on Cla68. If you immediately apologize to him, I will consider unblocking you.
If you instead decide to continue a campaign of incivility on this talk page, I will protect it. Your behavior is unacceptable. You will moderate it. Nandesuka ( talk) 05:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
egregious double standard--see below
Decline reason:
Declined. Other editor's behaviour does not excuse your own. Your inability to refrain from defining those who disagree with you as anti-Semetic is completely tendentious. — Black Kite 11:51, 28 February 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.
In case you wouldn't see my response above:: Glad to help and glad you thought I did help. I need to take another look at the article, too. It's understandable that some material would be hard to find - it may be better to look for coverage of the topic in books or journals, as I'm sure the case has been reviewed, both near the time and later, for what it seemed to represent about race issues - opinions of which also changed over time with the investigation and conclusions of the grand jury, etc.-- Parkwells ( talk) 14:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well Boodles .... thanks for your input on the Bleep article . I also am wondering why I continue to try and make things work over there. Thanks for you great sense of humour and steady awareness of policy.I've tried everything to bring some kind of focus so that we can at least move on but today all I got was insulted so have to think seriously about continuing. Anyway love your sense of humour, and a picture is worth ....( olive ( talk) 19:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC))
I'm sorry to see that you are leaving Bleep . We really need as many people as possible who know and understand policy over there. I'm not sure how the article can ever progress. Anyway your light was big and I'm sorry it will be "out" on Bleep.( olive ( talk) 23:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC))
Can you come back to here if you have the time or interest please. I need to get some more views on what I think continues to be a complex case of conflict of interest by this editor - and whether this should just got to the Wikipedia Foundation now rather than us trying to deliberate it further. Thank you.-- VS talk 10:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that Calton has been harassing you, along with a number of other users. I would like to file a joint complaint with the arbitration committee against him, as he is clearly abusing other users and repeatedly violating the rule against personal attacks. Please join me in this important effort to help clean up wikipedia. Lirath Q. Pynnor ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand how the system works, or rather, how it doesn't work; what I'm suggesting is that we file a joint-complaint, with both of our names on it, and perhaps the names of some other people we can find since Calton seems to have been harassing quite a few people. It'll be harder for them to simply ignore a request with multiple complaintants. I also suggest you join the review which is a good [censored] forum for discussion of Wikipedia's inherent flaws. Lirath Q. Pynnor ( talk)
I noticed that your user page has been vandalized and blanked; with your permission, I would like to revert it to your previous edit, as you do not deserve to be victimized by such unwarranted censorship. Lirath Q. Pynnor ( talk)
I'm amazed at how 'special' some of these darling little admins are; its like they have nothing better to do with their life than try to decide whether putting booooooooooooooodles on your user page is appropriate or not. I suggested to Calton that he might be more productive if he started a collection of lint. Lirath Q. Pynnor ( talk)
Duke once wore a Nazi suit when he was a teenager and has never been part of a Neo-Nazi organization. That hardly warrants mentioning him in the opening paragraph as if he were a major proponent of the ideology. Also, he has renounced Nazism several times, including in his book -My awakening- and has compared Israel to Nazi Germany when he has strong feelings of antipathy for Israel which suggests antipathy for Nazi Germany as well. -- Spitzer19 ( talk) 21:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've tagged the various puupes with my suspicions. If you want to include it in the checkuser or anything else that should be fine. I'm not going to keep an eye on the page tiself ( Neo-Nazism) but I will be watching the various talk and user pages. BigHairRef | Talk 05:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
For edit warring on on New Force (Italy), you have been blocked for a period of 24 hours. After the block expires, please attempt discussion before reverting. Any further reverts after the block will result in additional blocks of increasing duration. - auburnpilot talk 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The three revert rule always applies unless you are one of the people who gets to apply "ignore all rules". At that point, you can denounce "wikilawyering" and just ban anyone you want while endlessly reverting them. Sorry you didn't get the memo on that. Sometimes, in fact, you can get banned for violating the three-revert rule when it wasn't actually a revert; life is curious like that when you live in a [censored] society. Lirath Q. Pynnor ( talk)
Good catch. I missed that one. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 22:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Boodlesthecat. I have been looking at the complaint about Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America that you filed at WP:COIN. Since I saw that this concerned the Middle East (a notorious venue of trouble and disputes that are impossible to resolve) I have been dreading having to analyze this one seriously. However, if there is going to be a serious discussion at COIN, probably you should try to add some diffs about the promotional edits. Otherwise people will just go ahead and regard this a 'political' issue about which nothing can be done. We need very specific evidence of violations if we expect to get admins to take it seriously. One option is to designate a specific set of COI-affected editors who we request not to touch the CAMERA article. That would certainly take a lot of evidence, since it most cases we don't have proof of COI, we just have the record of past edits that may be considered promotional in nature. Someone has to go and dig up those edits, if you expect the COIN report to get any traction with administrators. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Boodles, I went to the trouble to write some thing at AN/I, but when I went back to check something, it was gone. Here is my post that will never get there (not yet fully ref'd/checked).
That he was able to start and finish that case's life on the page without one colon in his last post, seems very well designed, quite unfathomable, almost unbelievable. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 09:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I know you haven't violated any policies and did the right thing bringing the issue to COIN. But this Gni fellow seems to have identified you as his enemy in this matter. Granted he hasn't been forthcoming in the matter, but I figure I'll give him some rope and see what he does with it. We all know precisly what an RFCU will come back as, and rather than it be a you v. him situation, I'd like to move it to several people (me, Ed, some Jewish-expert editors, and you) all upholding our principles and trying to show him its not a random feline (pardon pun, couldn't resist) who wants him to alter his style, but rather that the entire project insists on it. MBisanz talk 06:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Though
Gni's identity has been fairly confirmed in a COIN report, more probably isn't needed. Nonetheless,
here he said he would look for founding CAMERA documents and then
five days later they were posted on the CAMERA site. It becomes hard to believe that someone who has
sockpuppted around a 3RR ban from the CAMERA office for edits on the CAMERA article would claim to know
nothing about e-mails from the group. It is also worth noting the timing of the events. --
68.72.34.126 (
talk) 14:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
With this and this? BillyTFried ( talk) 04:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks it also seems I will have more ridiculous behavior to deal with from our plebian-hating friend Calton with him trying to remove the quite notable fact that Nader has called for impeachment from Nader's article. BillyTFried ( talk) 04:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes he did. That's why I wrote that Nader's the only current candidate who did. BillyTFried ( talk) 01:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right. I'll just leave it for now and see how things develop. BillyTFried ( talk) 02:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Racism in the United States. 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. Uncle Milty ( talk) 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
J Street
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7349371.stm
BillyTFried (
talk) 00:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign for the conclusions of an administrative review concerning the recent controversy over a mailing list run by CAMERA, in which your editing was discussed. -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
After reading Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Statement_re_Wikilobby_campaign I'm sorry I suggested going easy on Gni last month at COIN. You were 100% right and a block for him was the right answer then, and now. MBisanz talk 23:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
All I want to do is give this name in the lead paragraph, indicating that that's the name under which Marx's writing(s) were popularly know in the United States or English-speaking world. I am not making any claim as to their scholarly value. This is the only book form of the text. It must be the cause of the view during the on and after 1959 that Marx was an antisemite. Now you found what appears to be an obscure 1958 imprint, with no showing of the exact title, .... You can complete the list of identification deficiencies. I certainly would want to examine this book (for my personal scholarly evaluation). I thank you for this great find. However, not that it goes against your position, I'm sure you know what I mean.
I figured out what you meant. Please look more carefully at what I'm doing. I think you were recless at best at removing my Distinctions & probably did not check everything out. Please look before you leap. Cheers. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 20:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You probably are unaware of the discussion currently going on at the above. Feel free to express your views there anyway you wish. But I think your probably unaware, fully, of what's going on. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has not Disambiguate this term. But it has a scholarly, non-pejorative, usage, which just means all the legal restrictions which Jews inherited from the middle ages. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 14:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You got me on that one, I think. I didn't realize it was a "historical even" Article. But that's Wikipedia's fault for not Disambiguation. It's still an ugly title, though: 18 Brumaire. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 02:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Just created this! Will you help me out on it? Cheers. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 02:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the online library card catalog listing of Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion
Why don't you want the page DAB ed? -- Ludvikus ( talk) 12:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly Ludvikus! Boodles is claiming Jap sex slavery is some undeniable historical fact, but there are plenty of cultural POV assumptions in his argument. - WikiSkeptic ( talk) 18:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
On The Jewish Question -> On the Jewish Question It has been proposed that
On The Jewish Question be renamed and moved to
On the Jewish Question. As an editor previously involved in a similar discussion, you are invited to weigh in
here. Thanks.
JPG-GR (
talk) 23:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC) |
That was very productive. But you got me into trouble when you wrote that I should write to the publisher. I picked up on that and said I would write to the Library of Congress inquiring about that Subject classification. And Mr. Shabazz picked up on that. So please don't be sarcastic with me - it can be counter-productive. You are a reasonable person with whom I can have a conversation. But that other person just generalizes and provokes. What I would like to ask you is if you can find in books the earliest usage of the phrase Revisionist Zionism. Thanks for your consideration. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 09:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ghetto benches. 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. -- Poeticbent talk 18:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Please remove the "onanistic spree" comment. Truth isn't always helpful in these situations. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, you are aware that if you want to file a user conduct RfC, you first need to actually write up the page for it, right? That would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ludvikus. There used to be a page there, but it was a very old and apparently aborted attempt at an RfC that was apparently never filled out and filed properly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
While I'll readily agree that User:Ludvikus has been problematic, please remain civil. Your tone here is clearly impolite and may only get you in trouble. To answer your question, Ludvikus probably means edits such as this one. I agree with you that the revert was warranted, but posting those lines in the first place wasn't nice, either. Huon ( talk) 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
With regards to User:Ludvikus I suggest that you refrain from editing his/her talk page until such time as his/her editing status changes. If you have concerns about sockpuppets etc then either notify WP:ANI, or let one of the administrators who have recently commented on the Ludvikus's talk page know about you concerns. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Because as Poeticbent wrote earlier, it is hardly neutral. Please respect NPOV Alden or talk with Alden 21:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You have started a harassment campaign against Greg, hiding behind BLP (even though it was not violated), and than you started to disrupt the Fear article, now including a 3RR violation. If you continue such a disruptive behavior, as I told you earlier, it is you who will find yourself in trouble.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
3RR on Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, per a complaint at WP:AN/3RR. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
unblock|1. There is no 3RR violation--these are different edits to entirely different sections of the article, not the reversion of the same material. I have avoided reverting violating 3RR on any section of the article, despite the obvious attempts by a team of editors to provoke a 3RR violation. And as the history shows, while editors were showing up out of nowhere to join the gang blind reverting provocations, I was urging discussion on the talk page. 2. The editor who brought the complaint is an admin who is heavily involved in a content dispute on that article, who has made questionable use of admin authority to issue bullying thrats and to restore clearly problematic BLP material. see
here for the ongoing discussion and the article talk page
here 3. The admin bringing the 3RR complaint has been reverting clearly reliably sourced material (representaitve quote from a book in an article ABOUT that book) while pushing poorly sourced, negative material about the book. See the article history and talk page for this admin's involvement in this article. 4. refer to the article's recent history and the talk page, for examples of the hostilities and threats I've encountered trying to address basic POV and BLP issues in the article, eg [
here].}}
I haven't looked very deeply into this, but from the 3RR report, only two of the four cited diffs contain the same content. The other two are totally unrelated. -- Ned Scott 03:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The edit history clearly shows an orchestrated edit war being conducted, with no action taken against one side, while I have been blocked twice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, who is deeply involved in this dispute, has been misusing admin powers in a dispute he is involved in by filing two 3RR's against me, while ignoring the violations (including 3RR) of those who support him. His 3RR complaints are faulty as well, pretty much randomly listing any edit I make to the article as part of an RR series. I request this block be lifted AND that admins give attention to the concerted gang edit warring that Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus is leading
Decline reason:
This request does not contain any reason why your block violates our blocking policy and should therefore be lifted. Misconduct by Piotrus, if any, is not such a reason, because he did not block you. Misconduct by other users, if any, is similarly not a reason to unblock you. — Sandstein 22:08, 21 May 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.
Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
No 3RR warning was given. For my part, while a gang of editors were blindly reverting and deleting material they didnt like, I had filed 2 RfC's and have actively been trying to enourage talk page discussion of their edits, asking repeatedly for justifications for their reversions and deletions per Wiki guidelines and policies, commenting on their talk pages but have largely been met with stonewalling and abuse by these editors, while Piotrus continues to misuse his admin authority by unblocking the page, even though he is the main instigator of the edit warring and reversions.
Decline reason:
I'm not sure you need a warning at this point. You are certainly aware of the existence of that policy. Furthermore, though you have been pursuing dispute resolution procedures, doing so does not exempt you from 3RR. Its not an either-or thing. You should pursue dispute resolution, while not reverting the article. This is true even if you believe you believe your version of the article is the right one. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 02:52, 22 May 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.
Hi again. Since you added that quote from the Engel article, I thought you might have it. Could be useful as a scholarly, and (I'm guessing) positive assessment of the book, and I thought it could be very constructive if you told everyone a bit about what it says when you get back. There's some discussion of it on the talk page, mainly a discussion of its (obvious) reliability. John Z ( talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"Gross may be on the mark when he argues that what made Jews unwelcome in postwar Poland was neither their facile identification with the hated communist regime nor their reputation for using the blood of Christian children for ritual purposes."
"Some of Gross’s critics have detected in this thesis a collective indictment of Polish society no less severe and unwarranted than the one they sensed in Neighbors.13 His argument might, however, be seen just as well as mitigating the force of the harsh judgments that the 2000 book invited in some quarters."
"For scholars, of course, the question is not (or ought not to be) what Gross’s work implies about the merits of Polish culture or the ostensible moral character of the Polish nation. Believing that it (or any other piece of historical writing) can tell anything at all about such matters (or about the character of any other human group) requires postulating the existence of some transcendent, eternal essence that shapes all individuals constituting a group at any given moment"
"Instead, readers would do better to ask whether Gross has proven his thesis sufficiently to compel acceptance. Clearly he has not; indeed, in the framework of a relatively brief “essay in historical interpretation,” intended no doubt from the outset to be less exhaustive than suggestive, he could not have done so. On the other hand, the thesis cannot be dismissed a priori, for historians’ understanding of the issues Gross has raised in his book is still far too crude to warrant any immediate determination. Indeed, Gross may yet prove his case."
"In other words, Gross may be on the mark when he argues that what made Jews unwelcome in postwar Poland was neither their facile identification with the hated communist regime nor their reputation for using the blood of Christian children for ritual purposes. But if ethnocracy was the principle that guided many Poles’ thinking about the place of others in their society, fear of losing wartime material gain or of exposure of collusion with the Nazis appear similarly tangential considerations. The main problem with Jews may well have been that they were simply not Poles. Anticommunism, religious prejudice, avarice, or aggressive feelings toward victims may have exacerbated tendencies toward social ostracism, but so far there does not seem to be any compelling reason to believe that any of these supplied their most fundamental motives."
"On the contrary, interpreting the reception of Jewish Holocaust survivors in postwar Poland largely as a manifestation of ethnocratic convictions extending back in time several decades before the Second World War helps clarify why—as Gross has established convincingly—significant elements of both the postwar regime and its most vehement opponents found the thought of a continued Jewish “civic presence” in Poland intolerable, why they expressed their abhorrence in the quite different ways that they did, and why at least some of what they did appears to demonstrate a measure of continuity with earlier episodes in the history of Polish-Jewish relations." Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please refer to the 3RR notice. There is no 3RR violation. The report clearly chows that the last 2 edits were completely disfferent, and were in fact to remove offensive antisemitic conspiracy theorizing being inserted into the article. Note as well that this is the second time that Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, an admin heavily involved in edit warring on the article in questiopn, has filed a fabricated 3RR report against me as a tool for his edit wars.
Decline reason:
You are under a misapprehension about the 3RR: you do not get to revert any article more than 3 times in a day, regardless of whether the reverts are the same or not. Just because your reverts were different from each other doesn't mean that you didn't break the 3RR. Given your long history of 3RR blocks, you ought to have known this. Mango juice talk 13:45, 28 May 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.
Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Again--there is no 3RR violation. The last two edits listed on the 3RR report, namely this edit and this edit were to remove fringe antisemitic conspiracy theorizing from the article that was offensive. It is ridiculous to be penalized for removing Jew baiting garbage from an article. refer to [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Ghetto_benches&curid=13611367&diff=215509747&oldid=215477148 this explanation for the antisemtic insertion in to the article, where the Jew bating editor claims the edit is valid because "it shows Jewish stance against Poland." Is this the sort of antisemtic claptrap editing one gets penalized for removing?
Decline reason:
The only exemptions to the 3RR rule are for BLP violations; removing undisputed vandalism and posts from banned users. You have only just come off a 3RR block and there go again... Honestly, you need to learn to leave well alone. If you can't your next edit warring block will be your last. Please take this seriously. — Spartaz Humbug! 16:12, 28 May 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.
Tired of fighting with antisemitic keyboard warrior putzes. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
My advice is not to get into an edit war over that one sentence that is not of much importance in the article. I saw it before, but did not revert it because I decided it is not worth the fight. You can always return to it later. But please do not risk another (longer) block over something not of central inportance to the article. Savlanoot. Please. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(You wrote)
Rather than edit war and rather than
falsely claim you didnt remove reliable sourced material discuss your issues on the talk page.
Boodlesthecat
Meow? 18:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why you think this link is not necessary. Żydokomuna is an article about antisemitic phrase, used mainly by antisemites, explains the roots of the phrase, why and where it was used. I don't know why you think it should be removed. Do you think blood libel link should be removed too (it's also describes antisemitic phenomenon) ? I invite to discussion on talk page. Szopen ( talk) 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=pedialyte&fulltext=Search
Instead of redirecting to Oral rehydration therapy where it is not even mentioned by name?
Gatorade has its own page. BillyTFried ( talk) 06:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
| |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) on 04:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have not revert it but edited it according to a new reliable source that I have found. http://www.mondotimes.com/1/world/il/235/4739/12153 I find it after our discussion and it was different that the orevious. Checked it. Please this is not the three edit rule since I have found a new source. Oren.tal ( talk) 17:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. --neon white talk 16:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
And writing on the talk page also makes no sense, because you don't read it. Xx236 ( talk) 12:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not insert POVed, disputed, contradictory and likely incorrect information, as you did here, simply because you like it. Please discuss on talk why you think that information is appropriate there. Please do not accuse others of ethical misconduct as you have done on my talk page. As an Wikipedia admin, and a college employee, I assume good faith towards others, even towards anonymous editors with no known qualifications, and expect at least as much courtesy from them.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't care if you have a source for moon made out of green cheese. Gazeta Polska was not an organ of the Polish government, it was a newspaper supportive of the government. There is a clear difference, and if Celia Stopnicka Heller is mistaken in her book [7] it is no reason for us to reproduce her error.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to remind you to be careful about WP:3RR. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I've spent some time looking through the book and trying to find this conclusion but failed. Can someone please provide exact citation and page number of where he writes it ? In the epilogue, Gross accuses the Poles of their indifference in the face of the Holocaust but I couldn't find a statement that they "participated in the Nazi effort to annihilate the Jews". I expect this is a misinterpretation. -- Lysy talk 20:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Boodles, I've blocked you for 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule on History of the Jews in Poland. If there are persistent issues with that article and/or with other editors on that article, might I suggest that you ask the Mediation Cabal for assistance, rather than edit-warring? -- ChrisO ( talk) 21:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For going to the mat against a cabal of POV-pushing Polish chauvinists. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 19:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC) |
Mediation Request Notification Hi Boodlesthecat , A request for mediation was filed in regards to the article History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland. You have been listed as an involved party and I would like it if you would participate in our discussion. The goal of Mediation is to find a way to resolve issues such as content disputes. You can find the mediation page here. If you would like to participate please go to that page and state your acceptance and you views about the request. Thanks «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) |
Hi, I have organised for full protection to be applied to that article for three days due to the intense edit warring and content disputes. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I was actually waiting for you to bring that up, in short, I am impartial and I was merely being friendly and positive to get an objective out the way (Piotrus wont edit the page). Piotrus could probably argue that im favouring your side by organising the full page protection you thought would be usefull. So as you can see Mediation is about getting people to come to the table, however this may require playing both sides from time to time. I hope you understand :-) «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The Judaism Newsletter
| |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.
The Polish death camp issue is someone's original theory?? Excuse me but why didn't you read the sources in the article especially this Adelaide Now article before you vote delete. This is a serious issue with Poles and I can't blame them when someone calls Aushwitz a 'Polish death camp' when it was built and run by the Nazis who came from Germany. Artene50 ( talk) 09:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Permanently banned sockpuppeteer and POV-pushing hostile online stalker FOC Griot has returned to making dubious edits to Matt Gonzalez, Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns, Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2004, User talk:Griot and other pages.
From admin Moonriddengirl "Seems like a matter for Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, though I don't know what, if anything, would be done about it. I suppose checkuser might confirm if Griot edited from those ranges before (or might have already done; I'm not reviewing the last checkuser). But I don't think a rangeblock would be forthcoming, as it would quite probably affect a good many more users than Griot. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)"
I told her those are his ranges, and I'd let you know. Thanks, 76.87.47.110 ( talk) 21:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought you may be interested in this; see here (removal of the second para). Perhaps this time we can work together? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) And his report is huge, hundreds of pages.Since you have been involved in editing the New antisemitism article, I would be interested in having you view of the current discussion concerning Tariq Ali [10], if you agree with me or not. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, I would like to find a way to improve the article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you are following the discussion, but I thought you might be interested in reading the Tariq Ali article that the disputed paragraph comes from [11]. I can't understand how such crap ever got into the article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 18:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen the conversation with Slrubenstein [12] on my talk page? I had offered to compromise previously, but did not even get a reply. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Also read [13], in which csloat claims "consensus". Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Before putting it on the article talk page, I will wait to see how Slrubenstein replies. I consider him to be very reasonable, not to mention experience with WP; and I hope to avoid the unnecessary stumbling around that could follow if he has significant objections. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 18:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree that my update was too wordy, but it's vital to make clear where Nazi accounts of the conduct of Eastern Europeans is taken as factual. There is extensive evidence those accounts are not true--with cases documented where "official" reports are directly contradicted in other Nazi official correspondence by individuals not involved in directly managing the Holocaust in Eastern Europe. Cheers! — PētersV ( talk) 14:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You wrote several times that "anti-semitism is intrinsic to the history of Jews in Poland", but that does not equal to the statement that "all Poles are antisemites". Yet the first statement is a problematic generalization, akin to "history of mankind is history of war" for example. Of course there was anti-semitism in Poland. But at the same time, Poland was for centuries known as paradisus Iudaeorum. We cannot reconcile that in one statement. Consider:
This is no different from żydokomuna phenomena: only a minority of Jews in a tiny part of their history were responsible for that meme, but it became generalized to majority of them, lasting long after the communism has waned from the global scene. Bottom line is: generalizations are logical fallacies and should be avoided. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, by an additional historical paradox, the Polish Jews, accused by antisemites of secretly hoarding wealth for dishonorable purposes, were actually the poorest of all Jewish continental communities, and many were literally subsisting below the poverty level. This process was accelerated in the 1930s by government economic measures (aimed at transferring most enterprises into Polish hands) which amounted to economic strangulation of broad sections of the Jewish population, and was also exacerbated by other discriminatory measures, such as the restriction of Jewish students in universities (the infamous "numerous clausus"), random violence on streets and schools, and open adulation of Nazi anti-Jewish measures across the border. The powerful Catholic Church failed to take a stand against the official antisemitic policies of the ruling class (some even condoned it, accusing theJews, as in Cardinal Hlond's 1936 pastoral letter, of corroding the morals of the youth).
Just provide the requested cites, and expand on the statements in need of clarification. What's difficult about that? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your edit of this article. I have posted my comments to the talk page. Please respond. Thanks, -- Ravpapa ( talk) 05:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
You will be most pleased to know that it has been un-protected. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested in Piłsudski, I am sure you can take time and read the discussion on his talk page. You don't have to bother wit old archives.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Although this may come as a surprise, I have always supported expanding content related to history of Polish Jews, up to and including the interwar antisemitism. Perhaps you'd like to contribute to article on Stanisław Grabski I've started long time ago (probably one of the most virulent Polish nationalists/antisemites of all times), or about the antisemitic endecja movement? I am all for expansion of such topics, within due weight (Grabski - as unpleasant person as he was - should not be seen as an average Pole or mentioned in every article about Polish interwar history...). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you remove the "meow" from your future postings? It's more appropriate to personal emails than to Wiki discussion pages. Besides, it's obvious from your user name that you're fond of cats.-- Dking ( talk) 17:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The Judaism Newsletter
| |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from
this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month.
L'Aquatique
approves|
this|
message 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you tried asking him about it? In any case, I also have an advice for you: accusing people of antisemitism should not be done lightly. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
So you do not think that all Poles are antisemites? You do not think that history of the Jews in Poland is one long history of Polish antisemitism? This is great news, given the fact that thousands of Jews somehow settled in Poland, not in Sweden, France or Ireland, it was weird to claim that antisemitism has always been part of Polish-Jewish history.
Hi Boodles. Could you do me a favor and keep an eye on Human shield. A pair of sockpuppets are trying to insert a strong POV paragraph, and I've reverted it 3 times. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 21:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
please stop deleting sourced information, this is vandalism. Tymek ( talk) 17:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not kidding. Try assuming some good faith, and please provide refs to that article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I had time just now only for a brief look at the background, and left a comment n the talk page that seems to be in question. I have to tell you that right now is not the best time for me to take decisive steps ... if you look at the two or three sections above your comment on my talk page, you will see that I have spent the evening engaged in a little conflict that led to calls for my immediate de-sysoping on the AN/I page. (If you have the free time you can reconstruct the whole story).
But I want to help. Can you provide me with more background? hat started the conflict? What are the core issues - in terms of article contents and specific personal behaviors? Can you provide me with more blatant examples of anti-Semitic remarks or editing?
Also, I suggest you police your own behavior very carefully - I say this as a friend. i see you deleted comments by another editor on talk pages. As y9ou know we never do this. i see the user was banned - was he banned before or after you removed his comments from talk pages? i know how hurtful and frustrating this is but now more than ever you need to have the high ground; be civil, patient, scrupulously adhere to all policies.
Let m lknow what you think of the comment I wrote, and provide me with whatever additional background including edit differences you think I need and I will do more tomorrow. best, Slrubenstein | Talk 06:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay. It is hard for me to comment on past behavior. What I need is for you to alert me any time he makes an inappropriate edit or comment and I will see if I can respond immediateloy.
In the meantime there are other steps you should take.
First, keep scrupulous and separate records of two things: all edit deifs for edits to articles that you think illustrate a pattern of POV pushing that violates on of our core content policy; a list of edit diffs will hep you if you eventually take this to AN?I. Second, all edit diffs of explicitly anti-Semitic comments on talk pages, in case you ever take him to ArbCom. It has to be explicit anti-Semitic comments, not edits that you think suggest a general anti-Semitic bias.
Second, do an RFC first for historians, then leave messages at the Holocaust, Anti-Semitism, and Jewish History talk pages. The RFC cannot be on personal behavior i.e. his anti-Semitism. it has to be on a specific edit conflict, or set of closely related edit conflicts, concerning the contents of one or a couple of related articles. The point is you need to distinguish between edits to articles and edits to talk pages; edits to articles are governed by content polciies not personal behavior policies; and you need to get more people involved in the discussion. If he is not an anti-Semite, more community scrutiny and rigorous use of core content policies will eventually lead him to give up (if he is indeed wrong). If he is realy an anti-Semite, th insistence that he comply with content policies will frustrate him and provoke a blatant anti-Semitic comment on a talk page. Bottom line: you need to act on two fronts The two fronts are related but you have to deal with the separately.
I hope none of this is patronizing, maybe this is what you have already done. Bu right now it seems too complicated for a newcomer to figure out. Now is the time to start keeping the orderly records that will help anyone see the problem immediately.
Finally, be temperate. Yes, edit summaries calling someone a troll or POV pusher are inflammatory but this happens all the time and are NOT central to your real concerns. Don't mix in accusations against generically hostile edit summaries with this stuff. Focus on the truly unacceptable, not the irritating. I hope this helps. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I chuckle. I left another comment for him - I want to see how he responds. In these cases my philosophy is: "Give 'em enough rope." Let out the leash on him. If he is not an anti-Semite, his behavior will improve (and to be honest with you I think many non-Jews are very insensitive without being out and out anti-Semites, I think this is true for many cases of apparent racism ... in some cases one just needs to explain - with care and without anger - how a remark the person made was, regardless of his intentions, hurtful. Let's face it, lots of people have never seen Merchant of Venice! Some people will take that to heart. But when dealing with a real anti-Semite, the more they talk, the clearer it becomes. So, let's see. In the meantime you really have to be as pure as Caeser's wife in case this escalates. let's see. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying not to get involved. I hope you can understand. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 04:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, have you looked into the response of the Catholic church? Organizing Rescue Scroll down to page 285.-- Stor stark7 Speak 19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You may need an RfC. Also, if you are not already, familiarize yourself with this discussion. You need to frame issues very clearly and then get LOTS of uninvolved editors to comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Promethean changed your comment and argues that you didn't mind, while I doubt you even know about it. I, for one, am not going to take further attacks of him - just look at this (and there are even more attacks of him against User:AuburnPilot just because I filled him in on it). Sciurinæ ( talk) 00:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw that earlier.
I wonder why I would leave my sock a message asking myself to watch an article, instead of changing identity and evading 3RR. Logic isn't his strong suit. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have not implied anywhere that the article lost the FA status because of you, as this indeed would be a lie. I've implied that in the past, it gained it without you, and my impression is that your current edits have not helped it to regain it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
[15] For your information. You and Piotrus are discussed here. Risker ( talk) 01:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Boodlesthecat, this message is being sent to inform you that after a discussion on ANI, you are here by restricted to no more than one revert when dealing with Piotrus (generally speaking). Any violation of said restriction will result in a block. Tiptoety talk 13:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I have inserted your suggested items - thanks. However, within the 1,000-word limit (not currently being enforced), there isn't room for much more. I'm kind of a color-inside-the-lines person, with due respect for civil disobedience, which doesn't however seem called for here, since all the members of the current committee seem honest and fair. If you think this is a good direction, and find more examples, could you put them in your section? Regards, Novickas ( talk) 20:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Boodles. Based on the format used by others, I think you're supposed to give titles to your proposed findings of fact and proposed remedies and make them sub-headers. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, Piotrus and I seem to be having a civil and perhaps productive conversation. So what purpose is served by your intervening in our conversation right now? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point. But I think the best way you can serve your cause is to draw others into the discussion. I have expressed myself pretty fully and I don't think it would help for me to continue commenting - many will conclude it is just something personaly between me and Greg or P. Please consider the possibility that this may be the case for you, too. If you are right and you are not just pushing a Jewish POV, and others are instead making anti-Semitic comments, then other editors who review these discussions will reach the same conclusion and they will comment. I suggest you would be better off getting a larger circle of editors to comment, than for you to continue engaging with them personally. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
We did discuss specific problems on Talk. Did you read Talk? We said the sources are the most biased imaginable; Churchill isn't even reliable. I'll mention this on talk before reverting to replace the tag (later)... Please, let's not engage in an edit war.... Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 02:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure it's self published and not just a small press? What are you basing it on? radek ( talk) 04:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked you for 10 days for violating your 1RR restriction on
Żydokomuna (the first revert was
[17] to
[18]; the second was
[19] to
[20]). Please remember that just the presence of an RFC that you're participating in doesn't give you a license to edit war absent a consensus with regards to content. If you believe this block to be unjustified, you can appeal by placing {{
unblock|your reason here...}}
on your talkpage.
east718 //
talk //
email // 03:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The instructions to me were to not revert Piotrus or a "neutral editor" maikng the same edits as Piotrus. These are decidedly not neutral editors. In fact, Piotrus has actively been shopping for edit warriors to support him on this article for days, see here, and here, for just two examples easily found. This evidence that Piotrus has for days actively trying to subvert his own 1RR restriction by recruiting editt warriors indicates at a minimum that Piotrus should receive equal penalties as I do. Although to my understandinjg, having been instructed not to revert Piotrus and "neutral editors" (rather than edit warriors he recruited) I do not feel I have violated the 1RR (at least as I understand the instructions)
Decline reason:
You knew your restrictions, you knew that your edits were edit-warring. Everything else is wikilawyering semantics, Piotrus did not actively recruit "edit-warriors" in an underhand manner. I see no reason to unblock — Woody ( talk) 10:38, 8 October 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.
While it is true Piotrus provided a pointer to the article in question, it is entirely inappropriate to characterize me as an edit warrior somehow doing Piotrus' bidding. I have had a personal interest in the topic for a rather long time. In fact, I met and discussed Polish anti-semitism and perceptions thereof with one of the authors cited in the article (Cherry) long before Boodlesthecat and I became aware of each other. I have decided to participate in the article on its own merits and on the basis of my own research on the topic, that research long predating my edit (or, indeed, Piotrus having any awareness that I might even have an interest in the topic). That I preserved Boodlesthecat's reference but in NPOV wording indicating that there is some controversy (what is portrayed is not universally accepted) confirms my participation as a netural editor. A rationale for my edit (and subsequent clarifications) are available on the article talk page.
As Piotrus' pointer cited by Boodlesthecat is completely public, I fail to see the grounds for collusion and especially as my interest in the specific topic, to the point of attending university seminars, et al.--far predates any current warring. Any editor who has dealt with me for any length of time will confirm that I am not in the habit of being another editor's lackey. I resent and repudiate Boodlesthecat's accusation of bad faith. —
PētersV (
talk) 04:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus wants to let readers know that the commonplace scholarly consensus that there was a "strong tradition of anti-Semitism" in Poland from which the antisemitic Zydokomuna found its support is in fact a view of "Jewish historiography" rather than general history of the region. Piotrus wants to make sure you know that certain Polish communists were Jewish, despite the fact that it has been pointed out to him more than once that the Manual of Style for Bios instructs that "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." This has been pointed out to Piotrus in the past, yet he continues to feel that readers should know that some disreputable people were indeed JEWS. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. "Jewish historiography is given undue weight in one version of this article," he sez. (hmmm, how many versions are there?) And then he doctors the page to make it look like prexisting comments are rebuttals to his statement! I guess one has to use whatever tactic it takes when those Jews are trying to take over articles. the article is currently copiously sourced with reliable sources. Yet Piotrus thinks there is problem that needs a solution: "Solution: the article should be written from the neutral POV, not any particular (Jewish or otherwise) POV." Well, there ya go. Never thought I'd see admins on Wikipedia arguing for a solution to a Jewish problem here! And what a thoughtful, senstive time to ask for input on an article about antisemitism--in the middle of Yom Kippur! Well hey, that tactic almost worked once before. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. I can't believe I'm actually in a conflict over this... let's stick with person. Anyway, what kind of citations were you looking for? Would Google books be enough? I'm certainly not trying to legitimize his works, but it seems a glaring omission to leave them out of his article (if it's kept). A ni Mate 05:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Acknowledged.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
In an audit of current featured articles, I noticed that the above named article was missing its featured article star. It appears that you removed it while deleting a duplicate external link nearly a month ago. I have re-added the featured article star; please be careful. Maralia ( talk) 04:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
[21] Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 22:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Look, cross out from my words whatever you want to croos out. I wish I would have never interacted with you in the first place. You have such a accute sence how to hurt people. :( Think of the feelings you inflict on others around you. :( For what it is worth, I shared a personal oppinion. I did not claim to hold the truth. Have a nice day. Dc76\ talk 19:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Listen, Boodlesthecat (can I call you Boodles, or Boo, or Mr. Cat?) -- I have to go lay wires for a couple of hours and I won't be online. If you want to work with me in fixing that thorny article, here's what I will ask: Go through the draft of the article (and, yes, it is a draft) and point out every problem you find. I will then take your list, return to the draft, and correct every error that is cited. How does that sound? Thanks! Ecoleetage ( talk) 18:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
You have been
blocked for a period of 2 weeks for violation of your
editing restrictions. As seen
here you
remove Piotrus’s
addition of a tag, then later
restore the whole paragraph in question after
Poeticbent removed it. To contest this block, as always place {{
unblock|your reason here}}
below.
Tiptoety
talk 22:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I am unblocking you per my comments on AN/I and Tiptoety's talk page, but please be very careful regarding edit warring in the future. Thanks, Khoi khoi 02:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The second sentence was stated in a neutral way, advancing a characteristic that this person is most recognized for, by multiple secondary sources. Beyond that, the edit you removed was not by me, it was by a different user. There are long Talk Page discussions on the issue. Please discuss it there before addressing that particular change, or at least find someone else to make those edits because its turning into a long-term edit war back and forth over the same point in the article. ♠♥ Trickrick1985 ♦♣ +2¢ :: log 06:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Give the dreadful "Rescue ..." article a miss for a bit. Left to their own devices, the believers will produce a travesty. Which is good on the give 'em enough rope theory. So, please, take a deep breath and nice walk in the park. Come back to it in a week or two and see what's what. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#1RR violation report
Somebody can't subtract 00:20 from 10:54. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 04:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Have any thoughts on this? [22] My own view is that WP guidelines on this makes sense in some cases, but that behind it is an effort to re-engineer human nature that is futile; and, frequently, the interjection of a niceness offensive itself becomes disruptive to the editing process. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 19:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat, I started this thread [23], in the hope of generating some interest in solving the difficulties of editing disputed articles, often against the resistance of opposing editors claiming "consensus". If you think the effort is of any interest your participation would be appreciated. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Boodlestecat, I made small adjustments to your recent addition combining two sentence into one and changing "700" to "several hundreds": Sounds like this now: "Estimates of the number of Poles who were killed for aiding Jews range from several hundreds to tens of thousands with 704 of whom are recognized as the Righteous" Hope it is o.k. with you. Thanks-- Jacurek ( talk) 00:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I did not look into the source, I thought that 704 of 6066 Polish Righteous where killed for helping and recognized after. Please adjust.-- Jacurek ( talk) 00:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
... oh I know what you mean now... maybe you or somebody can adjust that. Thanks-- Jacurek ( talk) 00:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
What counts as a reliable source for the Steve Sailer article? Is anything that he writes on his blog allowable? Can we put in things like "Steve Sailer says on his blog that ..." followed by whatever? Because there is a lot of info that could go here, including the fact that he's adopted, which was on this page until recently, but although I think it's highly unlikely he'd lie about that, I don't know if his blog would be considered a trusted source. Soap Talk/ Contributions 16:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Slavery is in the Jewish scriptures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 ( talk) 17:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;
Please see the above link to read the full case.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
All the Best.
«l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»
(talk)
Welcome back. I hope you're well-rested from your Wikibreak.
Editing at the articles concerning Jewish-Polish history has been collegial during your absence, and we'd like to keep it that way. Please try to avoid edit-warring. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 19:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Boodlesthecat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 21:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I have been noticing recently that your signatures have been modified recently. The modification you have done has removed the timestamp portion making it very hard for people to date your comments/replies on talk pages. Could you possibly fix that? ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 22:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Haven't been on WP for a long time and a bit rusty. Will make sure there are timestamps. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Boodlesthecat. Thank you. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 03:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Boodlesthecat, I hope you're doing well. Our discussions at Talk:Wi Spa controversy seem to be devolving. Your past few responses make it seem like you have a conduct concern about me. If you'd like to talk that out here or at my talk page, I'd be happy to, while keeping our content discussion at the article talk page. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we should be able to talk through the issues without assumptions of bad faith. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 04:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I feel you are avoiding answering what seems to be pretty direct concerns about deleting sourced, relevant material. I think my explanations on the article talk page are pretty clear, and repeated a number of times. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk) 16:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Block is completely one sided.
I refer anyone to the talk pages, and every one of my edits, which are all well sourced factual, salient edits to the article and in some instances correcting clear attempts to "spin" the article by providing neutral tones. I refer anyone to the extensive discussions I've initiated on the talk page, where I have made similarly fact based arguments for any changes, and have never forced through changes. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The block is valid as you clearly edit warred and violated 3RR. What others do is not relevant to your block, see WP:NOTTHEM. I am declining your request. 331dot ( talk) 20:24, 13 September 2021 (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.
For the ease of any reviewing admin, these were the edits that led me to decide to block:
Four reverts within 24-hours is a violation of WP:3RR, a bright-line rule on edit warring. Your bad-faith accusations that other editors were trying to "bait" you into edit warring (which at least one editor has explained quite reasonably: [24]) hold no water—no one forced you to make edits to the page rather than discussing on the talk page to achieve consensus. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
indefinite topic ban from all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, broadly construed.
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
all edits about, and all pages related tomeans all. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have closed your appeal of your arbitration enforcement sanction as declined. This has been logged at the AE log. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Family Feline Fun'Family Feline Fun'Family Feline Fun'Family Feline Fun
Thanks for your encouragement. I've taken a first stab at editing it, so you can let me know what you think. You could improve the article by adding specific citations from your references, in addition to listing them below.-- Parkwells ( talk) 21:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Any help you can offer to make this article compliant with WP:NPOV is greatly appreciated. Thank you, 76.87.47.110 ( talk) 11:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
If you take the time to look at the main Ralph Nader article's editing history, you can see that the Atlantic quote in question, which was originally there, was moved here by compromise. I have been involved with these articles for over six months. What gives you the right to violate this compromise that was reached after a whole lot of haggling? Please respect other editors' wishes and let this comment stay. Otherwise, I will have to insert it back in the main article and revisit the compromise arguments there. Moreover, as to the Ralph Nader article itself, where is the POV in this: "Nader's greatest impact was in Florida in the 2000 election, where George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes and Nader's 97,421 votes tilted the election in Bush's favor." You can't disagree that his campaign in 2000 had more of an impact than his other campaigns, right? And if you agree with that statement, then you have to explain why it had an impact. I don't know how much more carefully I can tread without stepping on hypersensitive toes. Griot ( talk) 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm a reporter working on an article about Wikipedia and I would love to speak with you. May I send you an email to try to set up an interview? Thanks for your time. Marynega ( talk) 16:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ralph Nader. 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. Gwernol 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, I'm a reporter with SF Weekly newspaper. My email address is Mary.Spicuzza@sfweekly.com May I give you a call to interview you for the article I'm writing about Wikipedia? Thanks for your time, Mary 71.5.63.2 ( talk) 00:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry--I forgot to sign that last one. I'm a reporter with SF Weekly newspaper. My email address is Mary.Spicuzza@sfweekly.com Thanks for your time, Mary Marynega ( talk) 02:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Now you've followed me to the Matt Gonzalez article. C'mon man, gimme a break. You don't know the City or its politics. Your editing there was strictly personal. Griot ( talk) 16:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Matt Gonzalez. 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. Gwernol 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Gwernol 20:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please review my edits and talk pages on Matt Gonzalez and the WP:BLP/N I posted for that article; Ralph Nader; and Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns. My edits and those of half a dozen others on the Nader pages have been plagued by incessant edit warring and multiple reverts without explanation and flagrant policy disregard by Griot, an editor with a self professed personal grudge against Ralph Nader.
Decline reason:
Complaining about the conduct of another editor is not a reason why you should be unblocked. — Sandstein ( talk) 22:22, 31 January 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.
In reply to your e-mail: You are blocked because of your own actions. Each editor is judged on his or her own merits. Enumerating the bad things that the other editor has allegedly done is not an argument that addresses the only pertinent question here: how, specifically, did your block violate our blocking policy and should therefore be lifted? Sandstein ( talk) 06:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm basically in agreement with Ralph Nader's views. I'm trying hard to make the article accurate and NPOV. If you and I should disagree, it's probably over minor matters of rhetoric. -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess I stand corrected as to whether the presidential articles are biographical. Nevertheless, whether his supporters can handle it, I think our man Nader is a big boy with a good strong backbone, and he can handle criticism in person or on Wikipedia. These criticisms are not malicious or gratuitous--but let's let others decide, eh? I think you and I have been around this subject once too often. BTW, you put your comment on my User page, not my Talk page. If you want to address me in future, please do so on my Talk page. User pages are meant only for their owners. Feedler ( talk) 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You as well as anybody knows that it took a long time to reach the compromise that made up the opening paragraphy of this article. Yet you delete it wholesale. Why? And then you accuse me of being a sockpuppet merely because I disagree with you. Why do you do this? And Moonriddengirl is not an authority on which quote should be in an article. Please respect the editors there as well. People are going to disagree with you on Wiki, and that's okay. You have to realize that. Griot ( talk) 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's where compromises were reached on this passage. Please click the links and observe how other editors rejected your edit:
Please respect other editors. Griot ( talk) 17:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The Evola article states: Evola further held that Jewish people denigrated lofty "Aryan" ideals (of faith, loyalty, courage, devotion, and constancy) through a "corrosive irony" that ascribed every human activity to economic or sexual motives (à la Marx and Freud). — Do you perhaps know where this is from and able to cite it? Because that's quite a controversial statement and needs to be sourced. — EliasAlucard ( Discussion · contribs) 11:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Boodles, I added User:Griot persistent violations to ANI, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. He has deleted content on article talk pages and reverted inappropriate comments my talk page as well. 76.87.47.110 ( talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Telogen
I must say, with all the evidence against User:Griot, and the many incivility warnings I've noted with this new User:Calton, there is something not right about this. 76.87.47.110 ( talk) 01:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You really need stronger evidence than "Because I said so," guy. -- Calton | Talk 14:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Griots #RR evading sock puppet has been confirmed here. Guess he was confused when he denied it here? It's not because I said so, its because checkuser said so. So why don't you go and abuse them instead of me, "guy?" Boodlesthecat ( talk) 21:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Boodles. There seems to be some confusion or suspicion that you and I are actually the same user. If anybody should want to reach me to clarify that we are not the same person, I can be reached via email at Mary.Spicuzza@sfweekly.com Marynega ( talk) 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This is just FYI as it might not exactly address the discussion at Talk:Ralph_Nader#Naders_.22very_controversial.22_campaigns, but I see that Wikipedia:WTA#Scandal.2C_controversy.2C_affair lists "scandal" as a deprecated term and suggests "controversial episode" or "controversy" instead -- apparently the sense of editors of this style guideline is that "controversy" and "controversial" should not be considered pejorative. Have a good one. -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 13:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks and civility policies. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users, and even if you feel an editor has taken an action or actions which you disagree with or believe are wrong, acting as you have on User talk:Griot is completely unacceptable. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Orderinchaos 06:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You recently compiled and listed a case at request for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the request for checkuser page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. AGK ( talk) 22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC), checkuser clerk.
Which is not allowed on Wikipedia talk pages, so all I did was revert it back to the original conversation. This can be seen here along with my comments on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Griot&action=history
AGAIN
Ok, that's what I did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Griot_deliberately_misrepresenting_me_on_his_talk_page<br\> Thanks for the advice! -- BillyTFried ( talk) 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. You might find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=prev&oldid=190675197<br\> BillyTFried ( talk) 23:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the rib tickler. Dlabtot ( talk) 22:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Frackin' brilliant! I like the way you communicate BtC..:) While you're at it, I'd like a side of spam with my quantum mystical pseudoscientific bleepin' dead parrot, eh, squire? Dreadstar † 23:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | ||
For your Heroically Humorous efforts to get the message across...! Keep up the good humor! Dreadstar † 23:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC) |
Likely by now you are aware that once again your suspicions have been confirmed and once again Griot has been indefinitely blocked. Whatever may come of this now, I'd just like to let you know that I appreciate your sleuthing and persistence. Not all disruption to Wikipedia takes the form of blatant vandalism, and we need people who are willing to doggedly pursue less obvious instances as well. As I mentioned when you first approached me on my talk page about this, I had (and still have) very little familiarity with sock puppetry and the pursuit thereof, but my observation of your experience suggests that it can be a challenging task. Thanks for being willing to take it on anyway. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Griot, aren't you banned indefinitely? Found another sock in the drawer?
I will continue to remove poor grammar and unencycopedic language. Ask for help if you can't figure out how to say something properly. Rracecarr ( talk) 18:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Boodlesthecat, I have had a terrible time with Rracecarr reverting, undoing and deleting my work at several different articles; most notable the foot-pound force article. I have for the last 9 months tried to communicate with Rracecarr in a civil manner. However Rracecarr's responses are off topic or non-sequitur's with sarcastic language (that puts it nicely). Rracecarr's posts read like this is some kind of competition. I find it weird. The edit warring that Rracecarr is engaged in borders on juvenile behavior. I would report his/her behavior to admin but one, I don't know how and two, that is an extreme measure. Do you have any suggetions for me? Thank you, Greg Glover ( talk) 22:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Boodles, comments [ like this] really don't do anyone any favours. Please watch for civility, Jefffire ( talk) 17:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Personal attacks, such as calling others Nazi's, is strongly discouraged and flat-out inappropriate despite the context. seicer | talk | contribs 00:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, stop your bickering. It's getting tiring. Will ( talk) 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I can understand and somewhat relate to your feelings, but if you continue, you will be blocked, I'm sorry to say. Having an opinion about something doesn't get your blocked from here; attacking others about their opinions will. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that you are upset at his strange views regarding Jews and Judaism, but calling someone a Nazi is never acceptable. Nazis are something entirely different from bizarrely anti-Semitic contributors at Wikipedia and Stormfront. The best policy in a situation like this is to ignore anti-Semites, keep a watch on your articles to make sure they aren't dumped down the Looking Glass and report specific policy violations (like 3RR, etc.) when you see them. (And before you accuse me of having an agenda towards ignoring this sort of complaint, have a look at my userpage). Avruch T 01:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the WP:ANI board indicates that the matter is closed, I put a note at the Wikiquette page about the archive. It is not productive to have the archive remain on the talk page (along with most of the other sections) and your diffs still work (which are much better than links to the current version anyway). If the Wikiquette board gives you the same result, I would strongly suggest you simply leave it alone. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Julian Barbour indeed! Have you checked out Jacob Bekenstein, John Archibald Wheeler and/or Holographic Principle? See especially the last. Bleep discussions get old...but remain important because new users come in, start identifying with the cult of "pathological disbelief" and (as innocent bystanders) get sucked in to this garbage. Very tiresome, but it's an unfortunately pervasive problem on Wikipedia. WNDL42 ( talk) 16:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please report abuse to WP:ANI. Thanks, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand you may be angry but do you really think your current posts on AN/I are helping your case? In fact, you carry on this way and it's likely you'll get blocked too. You should either calm a bit or expect uninvolved users to take your comments with less weight. David D. (Talk) 06:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Boodles, I appreciate your acceptance and concerns about my posts to the talk page, and in thinking about how to reply decided that repeating your post, and my reply here, was appropriate. Active discussion seems to have slowed considerably over the week end.
Please allow me a re-write of it, to illustrate how I believe it should fit into the article, and to some extent, how it fits my bias.
These excerpts illustrate the strength and some of the complexities of this critical pre-state era, with both Zionist and Jewish lobbying power beginning to exercise its strength by taking head-on a gentile political establishment that was indifferent to Jews as it should be (domestically) in a proportional democracy. This all is in the context of the aftermath and guilt of the tragic and unconscionable failures of the wartime and postwar administration to act on behalf of Jews in the Hitler era. [This should go in the article, as appropriately worded and re-worded, as the article is edited. The specific lobbying role of some Jews and Zionists to save European Jews during this period is also appropriate.]
That American society includes a not so subtle but limited anti-Semitic current, largely the result of other previous unrelated historical facts and misconceptions, is a fact. The anti-Semitic and newer New anti-Semitism and self hating Jew undercurrent continues to the present, peaking following the 1967 and 1973 wars, in the 1978 and 1982 Lebanon invasions, 1987 first intifada, 2000 second intifada, and the 2006 Lebanon invasion. Currently the lobby is flexing its muscle and coming head to head with post-Cold War realpolitic, where more (M&W) point out that this is not good for America. The Jew hater Nixon, I believe, can be shown to be another example of lobby power and domestic political expediency overruling his personal feelings and American interests. [How this is worked into the article, requires considerably more discussion, I believe.]
As seen in those now famous Truman quotes, there is legitimate moral concern that “The action of some of our United States Zionists [and now also, the post-77 Likud-dominated governments] will prejudice everyone against what they are trying to get done.”
This is certainly my bias. If you are concerned how I might use these, please see this dif [1] as to how I incorporated the first Lenczowski excerpt into an appropriate existing article. I do understand that different articles require different quotes; I hope it is acceptable. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 06:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 24 hours for harassment and disruption. Specifically, for continuing to insinuate that the admins and editors discussing this issue at AN/I are challenging you out of some latent or patent antisemitism, even after being asked, by multiple parties, to stop. The next block for this sort of behavior will be longer. Regards, Nandesuka ( talk) 15:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
see below
Decline reason:
No comment on your reasons. At this point there's less than an hour left on the block. In general, {{ unblock}} is meant for review of longer-term blocks. Mango juice talk 15:07, 27 February 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.
I was blocked for harrassment and disruption
I'd support an unblock based on the unproductive comments from Will. Given that kind of provocation it would be hard for anyone to remain calm. This would be subject to this being a lesson to proceed with such complaints in a rationale and productive way despite users like Will. When uninvolved users ask questions for clarification assume things might not be clear. A measured calm debate will also be more successful than getting frustrated. David D. (Talk) 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Can someone perhaps help clarify what this comment and this not very clarifying clarification might possibly mean, since I cannot currently inquire directly? I certainly don;t want to make any assumptions, and would definitely like some second opinions/interpretations. Thanks! Boodlesthecat ( talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
While it may be that I have missed some particularly inflammatory post you made, I consider your block well out of bounds. The nearest practical effect I could see it having would be to discourage users from reporting bias, and further discourage users from criticising admin comments. This block is just depressing. That's all I can think to say. IronDuke 23:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
How long will WebHamster be allowed to continue his vicious anti-Semitic tirade against me (as he is doing right now) before someone threatens to block him, blocks him, or tells him (as i was told for protesting anti-Semitism) "shut the hell up?" Boodlesthecat ( talk) 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Since you're so fond of links, here's one for you: You've been treating Wikipedia as if were your personal Fight Club to carry on your off-wiki political warfare, enforce your own specific politics, and to harass anyone you perceive as an "enemy" -- the last even to the point of condoning and aiding a long-banned and abusive sockpuppeteer so you can proclaim your own fight against a sockpuppeteer, one who seems to have been driven to it, in part, by your abusive behavior. "Hypocrisy" may not be strong enough a word for it.
As for your paranoid and authoritarian "warning" on my page: 1) I read and comment on WP:AN/I and WP:AN all the time -- the last time I checked, I had 505 edits to WP:AN/I and 299 to WP:AN -- so the part about "following" is pure nonsense. In fact, given that you've gone and commented about comments left by others on my Talk Page, I'd say any "following" is going on in a different direction. 2) Having you reach for WP:NPA -- that handy, all-purpose shield against criticism -- in the SAME posting as "your personal, irrational, and childish grudge" [2] shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the policy you're claiming to cite. 3) You're in no position -- legal, assigned, managerial, ethical, or even moral -- to be giving out warnings -- first or final -- on other users's behavior. None. Going by the block above, perhaps the opposite.
Given all the contradictions between your strident claims and your actual behavior, I'd say that this page might be helpful reading for you. -- Calton | Talk 00:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
i'm still blocked for being such a mean mean meanie to this lovable fella. Hehe hehe, zat's a hoot! Boodlesthecat ( talk) 01:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I'm not going to be around much for the next few days, but I'll help out when I have some time.
In the meantime, you might get some support at WP:BLP/N. The editors there have stepped into a couple of edit wars over BLPs and cut out WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and other slanted material. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 05:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 48 hours for this edit, in the context of your being repeatedly warned -- and blocked -- for insinuating antisemitic motives to other editors simply because they disagree with you. Your comments are a slur on Cla68. If you immediately apologize to him, I will consider unblocking you.
If you instead decide to continue a campaign of incivility on this talk page, I will protect it. Your behavior is unacceptable. You will moderate it. Nandesuka ( talk) 05:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
egregious double standard--see below
Decline reason:
Declined. Other editor's behaviour does not excuse your own. Your inability to refrain from defining those who disagree with you as anti-Semetic is completely tendentious. — Black Kite 11:51, 28 February 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.
In case you wouldn't see my response above:: Glad to help and glad you thought I did help. I need to take another look at the article, too. It's understandable that some material would be hard to find - it may be better to look for coverage of the topic in books or journals, as I'm sure the case has been reviewed, both near the time and later, for what it seemed to represent about race issues - opinions of which also changed over time with the investigation and conclusions of the grand jury, etc.-- Parkwells ( talk) 14:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well Boodles .... thanks for your input on the Bleep article . I also am wondering why I continue to try and make things work over there. Thanks for you great sense of humour and steady awareness of policy.I've tried everything to bring some kind of focus so that we can at least move on but today all I got was insulted so have to think seriously about continuing. Anyway love your sense of humour, and a picture is worth ....( olive ( talk) 19:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC))
I'm sorry to see that you are leaving Bleep . We really need as many people as possible who know and understand policy over there. I'm not sure how the article can ever progress. Anyway your light was big and I'm sorry it will be "out" on Bleep.( olive ( talk) 23:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC))
Can you come back to here if you have the time or interest please. I need to get some more views on what I think continues to be a complex case of conflict of interest by this editor - and whether this should just got to the Wikipedia Foundation now rather than us trying to deliberate it further. Thank you.-- VS talk 10:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that Calton has been harassing you, along with a number of other users. I would like to file a joint complaint with the arbitration committee against him, as he is clearly abusing other users and repeatedly violating the rule against personal attacks. Please join me in this important effort to help clean up wikipedia. Lirath Q. Pynnor ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand how the system works, or rather, how it doesn't work; what I'm suggesting is that we file a joint-complaint, with both of our names on it, and perhaps the names of some other people we can find since Calton seems to have been harassing quite a few people. It'll be harder for them to simply ignore a request with multiple complaintants. I also suggest you join the review which is a good [censored] forum for discussion of Wikipedia's inherent flaws. Lirath Q. Pynnor ( talk)
I noticed that your user page has been vandalized and blanked; with your permission, I would like to revert it to your previous edit, as you do not deserve to be victimized by such unwarranted censorship. Lirath Q. Pynnor ( talk)
I'm amazed at how 'special' some of these darling little admins are; its like they have nothing better to do with their life than try to decide whether putting booooooooooooooodles on your user page is appropriate or not. I suggested to Calton that he might be more productive if he started a collection of lint. Lirath Q. Pynnor ( talk)
Duke once wore a Nazi suit when he was a teenager and has never been part of a Neo-Nazi organization. That hardly warrants mentioning him in the opening paragraph as if he were a major proponent of the ideology. Also, he has renounced Nazism several times, including in his book -My awakening- and has compared Israel to Nazi Germany when he has strong feelings of antipathy for Israel which suggests antipathy for Nazi Germany as well. -- Spitzer19 ( talk) 21:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've tagged the various puupes with my suspicions. If you want to include it in the checkuser or anything else that should be fine. I'm not going to keep an eye on the page tiself ( Neo-Nazism) but I will be watching the various talk and user pages. BigHairRef | Talk 05:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
For edit warring on on New Force (Italy), you have been blocked for a period of 24 hours. After the block expires, please attempt discussion before reverting. Any further reverts after the block will result in additional blocks of increasing duration. - auburnpilot talk 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The three revert rule always applies unless you are one of the people who gets to apply "ignore all rules". At that point, you can denounce "wikilawyering" and just ban anyone you want while endlessly reverting them. Sorry you didn't get the memo on that. Sometimes, in fact, you can get banned for violating the three-revert rule when it wasn't actually a revert; life is curious like that when you live in a [censored] society. Lirath Q. Pynnor ( talk)
Good catch. I missed that one. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 22:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Boodlesthecat. I have been looking at the complaint about Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America that you filed at WP:COIN. Since I saw that this concerned the Middle East (a notorious venue of trouble and disputes that are impossible to resolve) I have been dreading having to analyze this one seriously. However, if there is going to be a serious discussion at COIN, probably you should try to add some diffs about the promotional edits. Otherwise people will just go ahead and regard this a 'political' issue about which nothing can be done. We need very specific evidence of violations if we expect to get admins to take it seriously. One option is to designate a specific set of COI-affected editors who we request not to touch the CAMERA article. That would certainly take a lot of evidence, since it most cases we don't have proof of COI, we just have the record of past edits that may be considered promotional in nature. Someone has to go and dig up those edits, if you expect the COIN report to get any traction with administrators. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Boodles, I went to the trouble to write some thing at AN/I, but when I went back to check something, it was gone. Here is my post that will never get there (not yet fully ref'd/checked).
That he was able to start and finish that case's life on the page without one colon in his last post, seems very well designed, quite unfathomable, almost unbelievable. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 09:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I know you haven't violated any policies and did the right thing bringing the issue to COIN. But this Gni fellow seems to have identified you as his enemy in this matter. Granted he hasn't been forthcoming in the matter, but I figure I'll give him some rope and see what he does with it. We all know precisly what an RFCU will come back as, and rather than it be a you v. him situation, I'd like to move it to several people (me, Ed, some Jewish-expert editors, and you) all upholding our principles and trying to show him its not a random feline (pardon pun, couldn't resist) who wants him to alter his style, but rather that the entire project insists on it. MBisanz talk 06:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Though
Gni's identity has been fairly confirmed in a COIN report, more probably isn't needed. Nonetheless,
here he said he would look for founding CAMERA documents and then
five days later they were posted on the CAMERA site. It becomes hard to believe that someone who has
sockpuppted around a 3RR ban from the CAMERA office for edits on the CAMERA article would claim to know
nothing about e-mails from the group. It is also worth noting the timing of the events. --
68.72.34.126 (
talk) 14:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
With this and this? BillyTFried ( talk) 04:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks it also seems I will have more ridiculous behavior to deal with from our plebian-hating friend Calton with him trying to remove the quite notable fact that Nader has called for impeachment from Nader's article. BillyTFried ( talk) 04:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes he did. That's why I wrote that Nader's the only current candidate who did. BillyTFried ( talk) 01:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right. I'll just leave it for now and see how things develop. BillyTFried ( talk) 02:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Racism in the United States. 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. Uncle Milty ( talk) 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
J Street
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7349371.stm
BillyTFried (
talk) 00:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign for the conclusions of an administrative review concerning the recent controversy over a mailing list run by CAMERA, in which your editing was discussed. -- ChrisO ( talk) 22:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
After reading Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Statement_re_Wikilobby_campaign I'm sorry I suggested going easy on Gni last month at COIN. You were 100% right and a block for him was the right answer then, and now. MBisanz talk 23:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
All I want to do is give this name in the lead paragraph, indicating that that's the name under which Marx's writing(s) were popularly know in the United States or English-speaking world. I am not making any claim as to their scholarly value. This is the only book form of the text. It must be the cause of the view during the on and after 1959 that Marx was an antisemite. Now you found what appears to be an obscure 1958 imprint, with no showing of the exact title, .... You can complete the list of identification deficiencies. I certainly would want to examine this book (for my personal scholarly evaluation). I thank you for this great find. However, not that it goes against your position, I'm sure you know what I mean.
I figured out what you meant. Please look more carefully at what I'm doing. I think you were recless at best at removing my Distinctions & probably did not check everything out. Please look before you leap. Cheers. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 20:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You probably are unaware of the discussion currently going on at the above. Feel free to express your views there anyway you wish. But I think your probably unaware, fully, of what's going on. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has not Disambiguate this term. But it has a scholarly, non-pejorative, usage, which just means all the legal restrictions which Jews inherited from the middle ages. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 14:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You got me on that one, I think. I didn't realize it was a "historical even" Article. But that's Wikipedia's fault for not Disambiguation. It's still an ugly title, though: 18 Brumaire. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 02:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Just created this! Will you help me out on it? Cheers. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 02:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the online library card catalog listing of Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion
Why don't you want the page DAB ed? -- Ludvikus ( talk) 12:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly Ludvikus! Boodles is claiming Jap sex slavery is some undeniable historical fact, but there are plenty of cultural POV assumptions in his argument. - WikiSkeptic ( talk) 18:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
On The Jewish Question -> On the Jewish Question It has been proposed that
On The Jewish Question be renamed and moved to
On the Jewish Question. As an editor previously involved in a similar discussion, you are invited to weigh in
here. Thanks.
JPG-GR (
talk) 23:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC) |
That was very productive. But you got me into trouble when you wrote that I should write to the publisher. I picked up on that and said I would write to the Library of Congress inquiring about that Subject classification. And Mr. Shabazz picked up on that. So please don't be sarcastic with me - it can be counter-productive. You are a reasonable person with whom I can have a conversation. But that other person just generalizes and provokes. What I would like to ask you is if you can find in books the earliest usage of the phrase Revisionist Zionism. Thanks for your consideration. -- Ludvikus ( talk) 09:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ghetto benches. 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. -- Poeticbent talk 18:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Please remove the "onanistic spree" comment. Truth isn't always helpful in these situations. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, you are aware that if you want to file a user conduct RfC, you first need to actually write up the page for it, right? That would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ludvikus. There used to be a page there, but it was a very old and apparently aborted attempt at an RfC that was apparently never filled out and filed properly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
While I'll readily agree that User:Ludvikus has been problematic, please remain civil. Your tone here is clearly impolite and may only get you in trouble. To answer your question, Ludvikus probably means edits such as this one. I agree with you that the revert was warranted, but posting those lines in the first place wasn't nice, either. Huon ( talk) 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
With regards to User:Ludvikus I suggest that you refrain from editing his/her talk page until such time as his/her editing status changes. If you have concerns about sockpuppets etc then either notify WP:ANI, or let one of the administrators who have recently commented on the Ludvikus's talk page know about you concerns. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Because as Poeticbent wrote earlier, it is hardly neutral. Please respect NPOV Alden or talk with Alden 21:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You have started a harassment campaign against Greg, hiding behind BLP (even though it was not violated), and than you started to disrupt the Fear article, now including a 3RR violation. If you continue such a disruptive behavior, as I told you earlier, it is you who will find yourself in trouble.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
3RR on Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz, per a complaint at WP:AN/3RR. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
unblock|1. There is no 3RR violation--these are different edits to entirely different sections of the article, not the reversion of the same material. I have avoided reverting violating 3RR on any section of the article, despite the obvious attempts by a team of editors to provoke a 3RR violation. And as the history shows, while editors were showing up out of nowhere to join the gang blind reverting provocations, I was urging discussion on the talk page. 2. The editor who brought the complaint is an admin who is heavily involved in a content dispute on that article, who has made questionable use of admin authority to issue bullying thrats and to restore clearly problematic BLP material. see
here for the ongoing discussion and the article talk page
here 3. The admin bringing the 3RR complaint has been reverting clearly reliably sourced material (representaitve quote from a book in an article ABOUT that book) while pushing poorly sourced, negative material about the book. See the article history and talk page for this admin's involvement in this article. 4. refer to the article's recent history and the talk page, for examples of the hostilities and threats I've encountered trying to address basic POV and BLP issues in the article, eg [
here].}}
I haven't looked very deeply into this, but from the 3RR report, only two of the four cited diffs contain the same content. The other two are totally unrelated. -- Ned Scott 03:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The edit history clearly shows an orchestrated edit war being conducted, with no action taken against one side, while I have been blocked twice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, who is deeply involved in this dispute, has been misusing admin powers in a dispute he is involved in by filing two 3RR's against me, while ignoring the violations (including 3RR) of those who support him. His 3RR complaints are faulty as well, pretty much randomly listing any edit I make to the article as part of an RR series. I request this block be lifted AND that admins give attention to the concerted gang edit warring that Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus is leading
Decline reason:
This request does not contain any reason why your block violates our blocking policy and should therefore be lifted. Misconduct by Piotrus, if any, is not such a reason, because he did not block you. Misconduct by other users, if any, is similarly not a reason to unblock you. — Sandstein 22:08, 21 May 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.
Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
No 3RR warning was given. For my part, while a gang of editors were blindly reverting and deleting material they didnt like, I had filed 2 RfC's and have actively been trying to enourage talk page discussion of their edits, asking repeatedly for justifications for their reversions and deletions per Wiki guidelines and policies, commenting on their talk pages but have largely been met with stonewalling and abuse by these editors, while Piotrus continues to misuse his admin authority by unblocking the page, even though he is the main instigator of the edit warring and reversions.
Decline reason:
I'm not sure you need a warning at this point. You are certainly aware of the existence of that policy. Furthermore, though you have been pursuing dispute resolution procedures, doing so does not exempt you from 3RR. Its not an either-or thing. You should pursue dispute resolution, while not reverting the article. This is true even if you believe you believe your version of the article is the right one. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 02:52, 22 May 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.
Hi again. Since you added that quote from the Engel article, I thought you might have it. Could be useful as a scholarly, and (I'm guessing) positive assessment of the book, and I thought it could be very constructive if you told everyone a bit about what it says when you get back. There's some discussion of it on the talk page, mainly a discussion of its (obvious) reliability. John Z ( talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"Gross may be on the mark when he argues that what made Jews unwelcome in postwar Poland was neither their facile identification with the hated communist regime nor their reputation for using the blood of Christian children for ritual purposes."
"Some of Gross’s critics have detected in this thesis a collective indictment of Polish society no less severe and unwarranted than the one they sensed in Neighbors.13 His argument might, however, be seen just as well as mitigating the force of the harsh judgments that the 2000 book invited in some quarters."
"For scholars, of course, the question is not (or ought not to be) what Gross’s work implies about the merits of Polish culture or the ostensible moral character of the Polish nation. Believing that it (or any other piece of historical writing) can tell anything at all about such matters (or about the character of any other human group) requires postulating the existence of some transcendent, eternal essence that shapes all individuals constituting a group at any given moment"
"Instead, readers would do better to ask whether Gross has proven his thesis sufficiently to compel acceptance. Clearly he has not; indeed, in the framework of a relatively brief “essay in historical interpretation,” intended no doubt from the outset to be less exhaustive than suggestive, he could not have done so. On the other hand, the thesis cannot be dismissed a priori, for historians’ understanding of the issues Gross has raised in his book is still far too crude to warrant any immediate determination. Indeed, Gross may yet prove his case."
"In other words, Gross may be on the mark when he argues that what made Jews unwelcome in postwar Poland was neither their facile identification with the hated communist regime nor their reputation for using the blood of Christian children for ritual purposes. But if ethnocracy was the principle that guided many Poles’ thinking about the place of others in their society, fear of losing wartime material gain or of exposure of collusion with the Nazis appear similarly tangential considerations. The main problem with Jews may well have been that they were simply not Poles. Anticommunism, religious prejudice, avarice, or aggressive feelings toward victims may have exacerbated tendencies toward social ostracism, but so far there does not seem to be any compelling reason to believe that any of these supplied their most fundamental motives."
"On the contrary, interpreting the reception of Jewish Holocaust survivors in postwar Poland largely as a manifestation of ethnocratic convictions extending back in time several decades before the Second World War helps clarify why—as Gross has established convincingly—significant elements of both the postwar regime and its most vehement opponents found the thought of a continued Jewish “civic presence” in Poland intolerable, why they expressed their abhorrence in the quite different ways that they did, and why at least some of what they did appears to demonstrate a measure of continuity with earlier episodes in the history of Polish-Jewish relations." Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please refer to the 3RR notice. There is no 3RR violation. The report clearly chows that the last 2 edits were completely disfferent, and were in fact to remove offensive antisemitic conspiracy theorizing being inserted into the article. Note as well that this is the second time that Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, an admin heavily involved in edit warring on the article in questiopn, has filed a fabricated 3RR report against me as a tool for his edit wars.
Decline reason:
You are under a misapprehension about the 3RR: you do not get to revert any article more than 3 times in a day, regardless of whether the reverts are the same or not. Just because your reverts were different from each other doesn't mean that you didn't break the 3RR. Given your long history of 3RR blocks, you ought to have known this. Mango juice talk 13:45, 28 May 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.
Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Again--there is no 3RR violation. The last two edits listed on the 3RR report, namely this edit and this edit were to remove fringe antisemitic conspiracy theorizing from the article that was offensive. It is ridiculous to be penalized for removing Jew baiting garbage from an article. refer to [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Ghetto_benches&curid=13611367&diff=215509747&oldid=215477148 this explanation for the antisemtic insertion in to the article, where the Jew bating editor claims the edit is valid because "it shows Jewish stance against Poland." Is this the sort of antisemtic claptrap editing one gets penalized for removing?
Decline reason:
The only exemptions to the 3RR rule are for BLP violations; removing undisputed vandalism and posts from banned users. You have only just come off a 3RR block and there go again... Honestly, you need to learn to leave well alone. If you can't your next edit warring block will be your last. Please take this seriously. — Spartaz Humbug! 16:12, 28 May 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.
Tired of fighting with antisemitic keyboard warrior putzes. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
My advice is not to get into an edit war over that one sentence that is not of much importance in the article. I saw it before, but did not revert it because I decided it is not worth the fight. You can always return to it later. But please do not risk another (longer) block over something not of central inportance to the article. Savlanoot. Please. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(You wrote)
Rather than edit war and rather than
falsely claim you didnt remove reliable sourced material discuss your issues on the talk page.
Boodlesthecat
Meow? 18:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why you think this link is not necessary. Żydokomuna is an article about antisemitic phrase, used mainly by antisemites, explains the roots of the phrase, why and where it was used. I don't know why you think it should be removed. Do you think blood libel link should be removed too (it's also describes antisemitic phenomenon) ? I invite to discussion on talk page. Szopen ( talk) 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=pedialyte&fulltext=Search
Instead of redirecting to Oral rehydration therapy where it is not even mentioned by name?
Gatorade has its own page. BillyTFried ( talk) 06:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
| |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot ( Disable) on 04:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have not revert it but edited it according to a new reliable source that I have found. http://www.mondotimes.com/1/world/il/235/4739/12153 I find it after our discussion and it was different that the orevious. Checked it. Please this is not the three edit rule since I have found a new source. Oren.tal ( talk) 17:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. --neon white talk 16:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
And writing on the talk page also makes no sense, because you don't read it. Xx236 ( talk) 12:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not insert POVed, disputed, contradictory and likely incorrect information, as you did here, simply because you like it. Please discuss on talk why you think that information is appropriate there. Please do not accuse others of ethical misconduct as you have done on my talk page. As an Wikipedia admin, and a college employee, I assume good faith towards others, even towards anonymous editors with no known qualifications, and expect at least as much courtesy from them.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't care if you have a source for moon made out of green cheese. Gazeta Polska was not an organ of the Polish government, it was a newspaper supportive of the government. There is a clear difference, and if Celia Stopnicka Heller is mistaken in her book [7] it is no reason for us to reproduce her error.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to remind you to be careful about WP:3RR. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I've spent some time looking through the book and trying to find this conclusion but failed. Can someone please provide exact citation and page number of where he writes it ? In the epilogue, Gross accuses the Poles of their indifference in the face of the Holocaust but I couldn't find a statement that they "participated in the Nazi effort to annihilate the Jews". I expect this is a misinterpretation. -- Lysy talk 20:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Boodles, I've blocked you for 24 hours for violating the 3 revert rule on History of the Jews in Poland. If there are persistent issues with that article and/or with other editors on that article, might I suggest that you ask the Mediation Cabal for assistance, rather than edit-warring? -- ChrisO ( talk) 21:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For going to the mat against a cabal of POV-pushing Polish chauvinists. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 19:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC) |
Mediation Request Notification Hi Boodlesthecat , A request for mediation was filed in regards to the article History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland. You have been listed as an involved party and I would like it if you would participate in our discussion. The goal of Mediation is to find a way to resolve issues such as content disputes. You can find the mediation page here. If you would like to participate please go to that page and state your acceptance and you views about the request. Thanks «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) |
Hi, I have organised for full protection to be applied to that article for three days due to the intense edit warring and content disputes. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I was actually waiting for you to bring that up, in short, I am impartial and I was merely being friendly and positive to get an objective out the way (Piotrus wont edit the page). Piotrus could probably argue that im favouring your side by organising the full page protection you thought would be usefull. So as you can see Mediation is about getting people to come to the table, however this may require playing both sides from time to time. I hope you understand :-) «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The Judaism Newsletter
| |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.
The Polish death camp issue is someone's original theory?? Excuse me but why didn't you read the sources in the article especially this Adelaide Now article before you vote delete. This is a serious issue with Poles and I can't blame them when someone calls Aushwitz a 'Polish death camp' when it was built and run by the Nazis who came from Germany. Artene50 ( talk) 09:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Permanently banned sockpuppeteer and POV-pushing hostile online stalker FOC Griot has returned to making dubious edits to Matt Gonzalez, Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns, Ralph Nader presidential campaign, 2004, User talk:Griot and other pages.
From admin Moonriddengirl "Seems like a matter for Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, though I don't know what, if anything, would be done about it. I suppose checkuser might confirm if Griot edited from those ranges before (or might have already done; I'm not reviewing the last checkuser). But I don't think a rangeblock would be forthcoming, as it would quite probably affect a good many more users than Griot. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)"
I told her those are his ranges, and I'd let you know. Thanks, 76.87.47.110 ( talk) 21:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought you may be interested in this; see here (removal of the second para). Perhaps this time we can work together? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help) And his report is huge, hundreds of pages.Since you have been involved in editing the New antisemitism article, I would be interested in having you view of the current discussion concerning Tariq Ali [10], if you agree with me or not. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, I would like to find a way to improve the article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you are following the discussion, but I thought you might be interested in reading the Tariq Ali article that the disputed paragraph comes from [11]. I can't understand how such crap ever got into the article. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 18:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen the conversation with Slrubenstein [12] on my talk page? I had offered to compromise previously, but did not even get a reply. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Also read [13], in which csloat claims "consensus". Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 17:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Before putting it on the article talk page, I will wait to see how Slrubenstein replies. I consider him to be very reasonable, not to mention experience with WP; and I hope to avoid the unnecessary stumbling around that could follow if he has significant objections. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 18:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree that my update was too wordy, but it's vital to make clear where Nazi accounts of the conduct of Eastern Europeans is taken as factual. There is extensive evidence those accounts are not true--with cases documented where "official" reports are directly contradicted in other Nazi official correspondence by individuals not involved in directly managing the Holocaust in Eastern Europe. Cheers! — PētersV ( talk) 14:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
You wrote several times that "anti-semitism is intrinsic to the history of Jews in Poland", but that does not equal to the statement that "all Poles are antisemites". Yet the first statement is a problematic generalization, akin to "history of mankind is history of war" for example. Of course there was anti-semitism in Poland. But at the same time, Poland was for centuries known as paradisus Iudaeorum. We cannot reconcile that in one statement. Consider:
This is no different from żydokomuna phenomena: only a minority of Jews in a tiny part of their history were responsible for that meme, but it became generalized to majority of them, lasting long after the communism has waned from the global scene. Bottom line is: generalizations are logical fallacies and should be avoided. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, by an additional historical paradox, the Polish Jews, accused by antisemites of secretly hoarding wealth for dishonorable purposes, were actually the poorest of all Jewish continental communities, and many were literally subsisting below the poverty level. This process was accelerated in the 1930s by government economic measures (aimed at transferring most enterprises into Polish hands) which amounted to economic strangulation of broad sections of the Jewish population, and was also exacerbated by other discriminatory measures, such as the restriction of Jewish students in universities (the infamous "numerous clausus"), random violence on streets and schools, and open adulation of Nazi anti-Jewish measures across the border. The powerful Catholic Church failed to take a stand against the official antisemitic policies of the ruling class (some even condoned it, accusing theJews, as in Cardinal Hlond's 1936 pastoral letter, of corroding the morals of the youth).
Just provide the requested cites, and expand on the statements in need of clarification. What's difficult about that? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your edit of this article. I have posted my comments to the talk page. Please respond. Thanks, -- Ravpapa ( talk) 05:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
You will be most pleased to know that it has been un-protected. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested in Piłsudski, I am sure you can take time and read the discussion on his talk page. You don't have to bother wit old archives.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Although this may come as a surprise, I have always supported expanding content related to history of Polish Jews, up to and including the interwar antisemitism. Perhaps you'd like to contribute to article on Stanisław Grabski I've started long time ago (probably one of the most virulent Polish nationalists/antisemites of all times), or about the antisemitic endecja movement? I am all for expansion of such topics, within due weight (Grabski - as unpleasant person as he was - should not be seen as an average Pole or mentioned in every article about Polish interwar history...). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you remove the "meow" from your future postings? It's more appropriate to personal emails than to Wiki discussion pages. Besides, it's obvious from your user name that you're fond of cats.-- Dking ( talk) 17:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The Judaism Newsletter
| |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from
this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month.
L'Aquatique
approves|
this|
message 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Have you tried asking him about it? In any case, I also have an advice for you: accusing people of antisemitism should not be done lightly. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
So you do not think that all Poles are antisemites? You do not think that history of the Jews in Poland is one long history of Polish antisemitism? This is great news, given the fact that thousands of Jews somehow settled in Poland, not in Sweden, France or Ireland, it was weird to claim that antisemitism has always been part of Polish-Jewish history.
Hi Boodles. Could you do me a favor and keep an eye on Human shield. A pair of sockpuppets are trying to insert a strong POV paragraph, and I've reverted it 3 times. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 21:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
please stop deleting sourced information, this is vandalism. Tymek ( talk) 17:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not kidding. Try assuming some good faith, and please provide refs to that article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I had time just now only for a brief look at the background, and left a comment n the talk page that seems to be in question. I have to tell you that right now is not the best time for me to take decisive steps ... if you look at the two or three sections above your comment on my talk page, you will see that I have spent the evening engaged in a little conflict that led to calls for my immediate de-sysoping on the AN/I page. (If you have the free time you can reconstruct the whole story).
But I want to help. Can you provide me with more background? hat started the conflict? What are the core issues - in terms of article contents and specific personal behaviors? Can you provide me with more blatant examples of anti-Semitic remarks or editing?
Also, I suggest you police your own behavior very carefully - I say this as a friend. i see you deleted comments by another editor on talk pages. As y9ou know we never do this. i see the user was banned - was he banned before or after you removed his comments from talk pages? i know how hurtful and frustrating this is but now more than ever you need to have the high ground; be civil, patient, scrupulously adhere to all policies.
Let m lknow what you think of the comment I wrote, and provide me with whatever additional background including edit differences you think I need and I will do more tomorrow. best, Slrubenstein | Talk 06:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay. It is hard for me to comment on past behavior. What I need is for you to alert me any time he makes an inappropriate edit or comment and I will see if I can respond immediateloy.
In the meantime there are other steps you should take.
First, keep scrupulous and separate records of two things: all edit deifs for edits to articles that you think illustrate a pattern of POV pushing that violates on of our core content policy; a list of edit diffs will hep you if you eventually take this to AN?I. Second, all edit diffs of explicitly anti-Semitic comments on talk pages, in case you ever take him to ArbCom. It has to be explicit anti-Semitic comments, not edits that you think suggest a general anti-Semitic bias.
Second, do an RFC first for historians, then leave messages at the Holocaust, Anti-Semitism, and Jewish History talk pages. The RFC cannot be on personal behavior i.e. his anti-Semitism. it has to be on a specific edit conflict, or set of closely related edit conflicts, concerning the contents of one or a couple of related articles. The point is you need to distinguish between edits to articles and edits to talk pages; edits to articles are governed by content polciies not personal behavior policies; and you need to get more people involved in the discussion. If he is not an anti-Semite, more community scrutiny and rigorous use of core content policies will eventually lead him to give up (if he is indeed wrong). If he is realy an anti-Semite, th insistence that he comply with content policies will frustrate him and provoke a blatant anti-Semitic comment on a talk page. Bottom line: you need to act on two fronts The two fronts are related but you have to deal with the separately.
I hope none of this is patronizing, maybe this is what you have already done. Bu right now it seems too complicated for a newcomer to figure out. Now is the time to start keeping the orderly records that will help anyone see the problem immediately.
Finally, be temperate. Yes, edit summaries calling someone a troll or POV pusher are inflammatory but this happens all the time and are NOT central to your real concerns. Don't mix in accusations against generically hostile edit summaries with this stuff. Focus on the truly unacceptable, not the irritating. I hope this helps. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I chuckle. I left another comment for him - I want to see how he responds. In these cases my philosophy is: "Give 'em enough rope." Let out the leash on him. If he is not an anti-Semite, his behavior will improve (and to be honest with you I think many non-Jews are very insensitive without being out and out anti-Semites, I think this is true for many cases of apparent racism ... in some cases one just needs to explain - with care and without anger - how a remark the person made was, regardless of his intentions, hurtful. Let's face it, lots of people have never seen Merchant of Venice! Some people will take that to heart. But when dealing with a real anti-Semite, the more they talk, the clearer it becomes. So, let's see. In the meantime you really have to be as pure as Caeser's wife in case this escalates. let's see. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying not to get involved. I hope you can understand. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 04:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, have you looked into the response of the Catholic church? Organizing Rescue Scroll down to page 285.-- Stor stark7 Speak 19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You may need an RfC. Also, if you are not already, familiarize yourself with this discussion. You need to frame issues very clearly and then get LOTS of uninvolved editors to comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Promethean changed your comment and argues that you didn't mind, while I doubt you even know about it. I, for one, am not going to take further attacks of him - just look at this (and there are even more attacks of him against User:AuburnPilot just because I filled him in on it). Sciurinæ ( talk) 00:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw that earlier.
I wonder why I would leave my sock a message asking myself to watch an article, instead of changing identity and evading 3RR. Logic isn't his strong suit. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have not implied anywhere that the article lost the FA status because of you, as this indeed would be a lie. I've implied that in the past, it gained it without you, and my impression is that your current edits have not helped it to regain it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
[15] For your information. You and Piotrus are discussed here. Risker ( talk) 01:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Boodlesthecat, this message is being sent to inform you that after a discussion on ANI, you are here by restricted to no more than one revert when dealing with Piotrus (generally speaking). Any violation of said restriction will result in a block. Tiptoety talk 13:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I have inserted your suggested items - thanks. However, within the 1,000-word limit (not currently being enforced), there isn't room for much more. I'm kind of a color-inside-the-lines person, with due respect for civil disobedience, which doesn't however seem called for here, since all the members of the current committee seem honest and fair. If you think this is a good direction, and find more examples, could you put them in your section? Regards, Novickas ( talk) 20:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Boodles. Based on the format used by others, I think you're supposed to give titles to your proposed findings of fact and proposed remedies and make them sub-headers. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, Piotrus and I seem to be having a civil and perhaps productive conversation. So what purpose is served by your intervening in our conversation right now? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point. But I think the best way you can serve your cause is to draw others into the discussion. I have expressed myself pretty fully and I don't think it would help for me to continue commenting - many will conclude it is just something personaly between me and Greg or P. Please consider the possibility that this may be the case for you, too. If you are right and you are not just pushing a Jewish POV, and others are instead making anti-Semitic comments, then other editors who review these discussions will reach the same conclusion and they will comment. I suggest you would be better off getting a larger circle of editors to comment, than for you to continue engaging with them personally. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
We did discuss specific problems on Talk. Did you read Talk? We said the sources are the most biased imaginable; Churchill isn't even reliable. I'll mention this on talk before reverting to replace the tag (later)... Please, let's not engage in an edit war.... Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 02:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure it's self published and not just a small press? What are you basing it on? radek ( talk) 04:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked you for 10 days for violating your 1RR restriction on
Żydokomuna (the first revert was
[17] to
[18]; the second was
[19] to
[20]). Please remember that just the presence of an RFC that you're participating in doesn't give you a license to edit war absent a consensus with regards to content. If you believe this block to be unjustified, you can appeal by placing {{
unblock|your reason here...}}
on your talkpage.
east718 //
talk //
email // 03:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The instructions to me were to not revert Piotrus or a "neutral editor" maikng the same edits as Piotrus. These are decidedly not neutral editors. In fact, Piotrus has actively been shopping for edit warriors to support him on this article for days, see here, and here, for just two examples easily found. This evidence that Piotrus has for days actively trying to subvert his own 1RR restriction by recruiting editt warriors indicates at a minimum that Piotrus should receive equal penalties as I do. Although to my understandinjg, having been instructed not to revert Piotrus and "neutral editors" (rather than edit warriors he recruited) I do not feel I have violated the 1RR (at least as I understand the instructions)
Decline reason:
You knew your restrictions, you knew that your edits were edit-warring. Everything else is wikilawyering semantics, Piotrus did not actively recruit "edit-warriors" in an underhand manner. I see no reason to unblock — Woody ( talk) 10:38, 8 October 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.
While it is true Piotrus provided a pointer to the article in question, it is entirely inappropriate to characterize me as an edit warrior somehow doing Piotrus' bidding. I have had a personal interest in the topic for a rather long time. In fact, I met and discussed Polish anti-semitism and perceptions thereof with one of the authors cited in the article (Cherry) long before Boodlesthecat and I became aware of each other. I have decided to participate in the article on its own merits and on the basis of my own research on the topic, that research long predating my edit (or, indeed, Piotrus having any awareness that I might even have an interest in the topic). That I preserved Boodlesthecat's reference but in NPOV wording indicating that there is some controversy (what is portrayed is not universally accepted) confirms my participation as a netural editor. A rationale for my edit (and subsequent clarifications) are available on the article talk page.
As Piotrus' pointer cited by Boodlesthecat is completely public, I fail to see the grounds for collusion and especially as my interest in the specific topic, to the point of attending university seminars, et al.--far predates any current warring. Any editor who has dealt with me for any length of time will confirm that I am not in the habit of being another editor's lackey. I resent and repudiate Boodlesthecat's accusation of bad faith. —
PētersV (
talk) 04:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus wants to let readers know that the commonplace scholarly consensus that there was a "strong tradition of anti-Semitism" in Poland from which the antisemitic Zydokomuna found its support is in fact a view of "Jewish historiography" rather than general history of the region. Piotrus wants to make sure you know that certain Polish communists were Jewish, despite the fact that it has been pointed out to him more than once that the Manual of Style for Bios instructs that "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." This has been pointed out to Piotrus in the past, yet he continues to feel that readers should know that some disreputable people were indeed JEWS. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. "Jewish historiography is given undue weight in one version of this article," he sez. (hmmm, how many versions are there?) And then he doctors the page to make it look like prexisting comments are rebuttals to his statement! I guess one has to use whatever tactic it takes when those Jews are trying to take over articles. the article is currently copiously sourced with reliable sources. Yet Piotrus thinks there is problem that needs a solution: "Solution: the article should be written from the neutral POV, not any particular (Jewish or otherwise) POV." Well, there ya go. Never thought I'd see admins on Wikipedia arguing for a solution to a Jewish problem here! And what a thoughtful, senstive time to ask for input on an article about antisemitism--in the middle of Yom Kippur! Well hey, that tactic almost worked once before. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. I can't believe I'm actually in a conflict over this... let's stick with person. Anyway, what kind of citations were you looking for? Would Google books be enough? I'm certainly not trying to legitimize his works, but it seems a glaring omission to leave them out of his article (if it's kept). A ni Mate 05:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Acknowledged.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
In an audit of current featured articles, I noticed that the above named article was missing its featured article star. It appears that you removed it while deleting a duplicate external link nearly a month ago. I have re-added the featured article star; please be careful. Maralia ( talk) 04:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
[21] Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 22:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Look, cross out from my words whatever you want to croos out. I wish I would have never interacted with you in the first place. You have such a accute sence how to hurt people. :( Think of the feelings you inflict on others around you. :( For what it is worth, I shared a personal oppinion. I did not claim to hold the truth. Have a nice day. Dc76\ talk 19:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Listen, Boodlesthecat (can I call you Boodles, or Boo, or Mr. Cat?) -- I have to go lay wires for a couple of hours and I won't be online. If you want to work with me in fixing that thorny article, here's what I will ask: Go through the draft of the article (and, yes, it is a draft) and point out every problem you find. I will then take your list, return to the draft, and correct every error that is cited. How does that sound? Thanks! Ecoleetage ( talk) 18:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
You have been
blocked for a period of 2 weeks for violation of your
editing restrictions. As seen
here you
remove Piotrus’s
addition of a tag, then later
restore the whole paragraph in question after
Poeticbent removed it. To contest this block, as always place {{
unblock|your reason here}}
below.
Tiptoety
talk 22:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I am unblocking you per my comments on AN/I and Tiptoety's talk page, but please be very careful regarding edit warring in the future. Thanks, Khoi khoi 02:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The second sentence was stated in a neutral way, advancing a characteristic that this person is most recognized for, by multiple secondary sources. Beyond that, the edit you removed was not by me, it was by a different user. There are long Talk Page discussions on the issue. Please discuss it there before addressing that particular change, or at least find someone else to make those edits because its turning into a long-term edit war back and forth over the same point in the article. ♠♥ Trickrick1985 ♦♣ +2¢ :: log 06:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Give the dreadful "Rescue ..." article a miss for a bit. Left to their own devices, the believers will produce a travesty. Which is good on the give 'em enough rope theory. So, please, take a deep breath and nice walk in the park. Come back to it in a week or two and see what's what. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#1RR violation report
Somebody can't subtract 00:20 from 10:54. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 04:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Have any thoughts on this? [22] My own view is that WP guidelines on this makes sense in some cases, but that behind it is an effort to re-engineer human nature that is futile; and, frequently, the interjection of a niceness offensive itself becomes disruptive to the editing process. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 19:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat, I started this thread [23], in the hope of generating some interest in solving the difficulties of editing disputed articles, often against the resistance of opposing editors claiming "consensus". If you think the effort is of any interest your participation would be appreciated. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Boodlestecat, I made small adjustments to your recent addition combining two sentence into one and changing "700" to "several hundreds": Sounds like this now: "Estimates of the number of Poles who were killed for aiding Jews range from several hundreds to tens of thousands with 704 of whom are recognized as the Righteous" Hope it is o.k. with you. Thanks-- Jacurek ( talk) 00:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I did not look into the source, I thought that 704 of 6066 Polish Righteous where killed for helping and recognized after. Please adjust.-- Jacurek ( talk) 00:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
... oh I know what you mean now... maybe you or somebody can adjust that. Thanks-- Jacurek ( talk) 00:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
What counts as a reliable source for the Steve Sailer article? Is anything that he writes on his blog allowable? Can we put in things like "Steve Sailer says on his blog that ..." followed by whatever? Because there is a lot of info that could go here, including the fact that he's adopted, which was on this page until recently, but although I think it's highly unlikely he'd lie about that, I don't know if his blog would be considered a trusted source. Soap Talk/ Contributions 16:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Slavery is in the Jewish scriptures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 ( talk) 17:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;
Please see the above link to read the full case.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
All the Best.
«l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»
(talk)
Welcome back. I hope you're well-rested from your Wikibreak.
Editing at the articles concerning Jewish-Polish history has been collegial during your absence, and we'd like to keep it that way. Please try to avoid edit-warring. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 19:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Boodlesthecat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
AntiCompositeNumber ( talk) 21:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I have been noticing recently that your signatures have been modified recently. The modification you have done has removed the timestamp portion making it very hard for people to date your comments/replies on talk pages. Could you possibly fix that? ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 22:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Haven't been on WP for a long time and a bit rusty. Will make sure there are timestamps. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Boodlesthecat. Thank you. ~Gwennie🐈⦅ 💬 📋⦆ 03:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Boodlesthecat, I hope you're doing well. Our discussions at Talk:Wi Spa controversy seem to be devolving. Your past few responses make it seem like you have a conduct concern about me. If you'd like to talk that out here or at my talk page, I'd be happy to, while keeping our content discussion at the article talk page. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we should be able to talk through the issues without assumptions of bad faith. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 04:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I feel you are avoiding answering what seems to be pretty direct concerns about deleting sourced, relevant material. I think my explanations on the article talk page are pretty clear, and repeated a number of times. Boodlesthecat Meow? 05:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
GorillaWarfare (she/her •
talk) 16:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Boodlesthecat ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Block is completely one sided.
I refer anyone to the talk pages, and every one of my edits, which are all well sourced factual, salient edits to the article and in some instances correcting clear attempts to "spin" the article by providing neutral tones. I refer anyone to the extensive discussions I've initiated on the talk page, where I have made similarly fact based arguments for any changes, and have never forced through changes. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The block is valid as you clearly edit warred and violated 3RR. What others do is not relevant to your block, see WP:NOTTHEM. I am declining your request. 331dot ( talk) 20:24, 13 September 2021 (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.
For the ease of any reviewing admin, these were the edits that led me to decide to block:
Four reverts within 24-hours is a violation of WP:3RR, a bright-line rule on edit warring. Your bad-faith accusations that other editors were trying to "bait" you into edit warring (which at least one editor has explained quite reasonably: [24]) hold no water—no one forced you to make edits to the page rather than discussing on the talk page to achieve consensus. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
indefinite topic ban from all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, broadly construed.
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
all edits about, and all pages related tomeans all. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have closed your appeal of your arbitration enforcement sanction as declined. This has been logged at the AE log. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)