→June 2021: restoring previous declined request. You start a new one, not rewrite the old one after it is declined. No comment made or implied on the merits of either request. Tag: Reverted |
BirdValiant (talk | contribs) Response to the various claims made Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
{{unblock reviewed|decline=You're blocked for [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]]; you will need to address this, and only this, in any future unblock request. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 ]]</small></sup> 18:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)|1=My account has been blocked because a user admin has chosen to watch any pages I edit and remove my multiple, well cited additions to a couple of Wikipedia pages, and I have reverted those changes. Removing the added information without listing any reason or criticism is pure bias and ahistorical erasure. My edits have all included numerous citations, whereas the original text does not, so the pages warrant further editing. The numerous citations I've added to all of my edits, as well as the removal of a contested statement in one of my edits, demonstrates I am not writing biased information, and I have been receptive to feedback. My block is purely based on writing well sourced text that goes against the worldview of the blocking admin, but they have offered nothing to counter or discuss on the topic, so removing my additional information is factually baseless. [[User:Cogitamus Credimus|Cogitamus Credimus]] ([[User talk:Cogitamus Credimus#top|talk]]) 18:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)}} |
{{unblock reviewed|decline=You're blocked for [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]]; you will need to address this, and only this, in any future unblock request. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 ]]</small></sup> 18:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)|1=My account has been blocked because a user admin has chosen to watch any pages I edit and remove my multiple, well cited additions to a couple of Wikipedia pages, and I have reverted those changes. Removing the added information without listing any reason or criticism is pure bias and ahistorical erasure. My edits have all included numerous citations, whereas the original text does not, so the pages warrant further editing. The numerous citations I've added to all of my edits, as well as the removal of a contested statement in one of my edits, demonstrates I am not writing biased information, and I have been receptive to feedback. My block is purely based on writing well sourced text that goes against the worldview of the blocking admin, but they have offered nothing to counter or discuss on the topic, so removing my additional information is factually baseless. [[User:Cogitamus Credimus|Cogitamus Credimus]] ([[User talk:Cogitamus Credimus#top|talk]]) 18:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)}} |
||
{{unblock | The Atlantic slave trade passage of Antisemitic Canard was poorly sourced, inaccurate, and biased. I improved it by adding additional information and citations. My edit was reverted by an admin without any discussion or conflict mediation. I tried again to correct the page by adding even more citations and information, and the admin expressed, via their revert edit comment, that they did not like one sentence of my passage. Thus, on my final edit, I removed the offending sentence and added additional clarification to resolve any perceived issue. I was then blocked. I understand the use of the talk pages, and I simply had not used it because the complaining user reverted by changes without any feedback, discussion, or justification. I am happy to move the edit war to the talk page as outlined in Wiki's rules. [[User:Cogitamus Credimus|Cogitamus Credimus]] ([[User talk:Cogitamus Credimus#top|talk]]) 18:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)}} |
{{unblock | The Atlantic slave trade passage of Antisemitic Canard was poorly sourced, inaccurate, and biased. I improved it by adding additional information and citations. My edit was reverted by an admin without any discussion or conflict mediation. I tried again to correct the page by adding even more citations and information, and the admin expressed, via their revert edit comment, that they did not like one sentence of my passage. Thus, on my final edit, I removed the offending sentence and added additional clarification to resolve any perceived issue. I was then blocked. I understand the use of the talk pages, and I simply had not used it because the complaining user reverted by changes without any feedback, discussion, or justification. I am happy to move the edit war to the talk page as outlined in Wiki's rules. [[User:Cogitamus Credimus|Cogitamus Credimus]] ([[User talk:Cogitamus Credimus#top|talk]]) 18:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)}} |
||
:I suppose I'll reply to your various claims and statements. |
|||
:''"The Atlantic slave trade passage of Antisemitic Canard was poorly sourced, inaccurate, and biased."'' -- I disagree on all three of those claims. |
|||
:''"I improved it by adding additional information and citations."'' -- You did not add, you replaced the whole section; you replaced the existing sources with your own, with the exception of the Friedman source, where you used it to push a POV assessment of the book's findings, writing ''"the findings of Jewish involvement in the slave trade are similar between the two books"'' without any citation. For anyone else looking, here is the before [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_canard#Controlling_the_Atlantic_slave_trade] and after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitic_canard&oldid=1025555398#Controlling_the_Atlantic_slave_trade] to see that the changes were not an addition, but a wholesale replacement. |
|||
:From your original appeal, you wrote: ''"Removing the added information without listing any reason or criticism is pure bias and ahistorical erasure."'' -- Surely you can notice the hypocrisy, given that you removed the existing material without first providing reasoning on the Talk page. |
|||
:''"My edit was reverted by an admin without any discussion or conflict mediation."'' -- I reverted your edits, but I am not an admin. I explained the rationale behind my reverts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitic_canard&type=revision&diff=1025668296&oldid=1025663705&diffmode=source] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitic_canard&type=revision&diff=1026301011&oldid=1026265533&diffmode=source] and, each time, invited you to discuss your sweeping changes on the Talk page, which you did not do. |
|||
:''"the admin expressed, via their revert edit comment, that they did not like one sentence of my passage"'' -- Again, I am not an admin. I did not express that I disliked "one sentence" of your passage. Actually, I think that the entire section as you have written is unsuitable for the article. Of course, you could've found out my opinion, and that of others, on [[Talk:Antisemitic_canard|the article's Talk page]]. |
|||
:I'm struggling to figure out where you could've gotten the idea that I only objected to one sentence. In my first edit summary, I wrote, ''"Please seek approval for your contentious edit, which rests primarily on an opinion piece on a newspaper, on the Talk page."'' It seems to me that your thesis in re-writing the section is that, despite the assessment of historians that the Nation of Islam and others have exaggerated the role of Jews in the Atlantic slave trade, you believe that it ''actually was'' "significant" rather than "minimal" based on some unknown metric and, therefore, that the Jewish participation in the Atlantic slave trade has not been exaggerated. Not only is that a non-sequitur, but you provided the following citation for your thesis: [https://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20120826/cleisure/cleisure3.html]. As you can see, the piece's author is responding to the word "minimal" ''in a review on Amazon on a book'' '''which the author did not even bother to read.''' |
|||
{{talk quote block|I'm quite sure there are Jamaican Jews who are prepared to admit the truth about their history of participation in the slave trade. I got an email from one of them. He sent me looking for Eli Faber's book Jews, Slaves, and the Slave Trade: Setting the Record Straight', which was published in 2000 by the New York University Press. I haven't read the book as yet. But I've seen a most intriguing summary of its thesis posted on Amazon: |
|||
"Focusing on the British empire, Faber assesses the extent to which Jews participated in the institution of slavery through investment in slave-trading companies, ownership of slave ships, commercial activity as merchants who sold slaves upon their arrival from Africa, and direct ownership of slaves. His unprecedented original research utilising shipping and tax records, stock-transfer ledgers, censuses, slave registers, and synagogue records reveals, once and for all, the minimal nature of Jews' involvement in the subjugation of Africans in the Americas." |
|||
How, in Jehovah's name, could the word 'minimal' be appropriate in this context? Having sold their human 'cargo' and counted the profit, Jewish traders simply washed their hands of the whole sordid affair, just like Pontius Pilate. And then there were those Jews who did own slave plantations.}} |
|||
:In your original appeal, you wrote, ''"The numerous citations I've added to all of my edits, as well as the removal of a contested statement in one of my edits, demonstrates I am not writing biased information, and I have been receptive to feedback."'' -- I would argue that you have not demonstrated anything approaching an unbiased, neutral point of view; and I would argue that merely adding citations does not constitute proof that one is writing in an unbiased manner. [[User:BirdValiant|BirdValiant]] ([[User talk:BirdValiant|talk]]) 20:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:34, 1 June 2021
Welcome!
Hi Cogitamus Credimus! I noticed your contributions to Union raid and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Shushugah (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
Hi Cogitamus Credimus! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.
Template:Z33--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- The Arbitration committee prohibited new users (specifically, users who are not Extended confirmed) to edit articles related to Arab-Israeli conflicts. please do not, your edits, even when they look good, will likely be reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
June 2021
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Antisemitic canard. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Chuka Chieftalk 16:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. User:Ymblanter (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)- Given that your total contribution is less than 50 edits. and a significant fraction of these are not good, the next block can be of indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Cogitamus Credimus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My account has been blocked because a user admin has chosen to watch any pages I edit and remove my multiple, well cited additions to a couple of Wikipedia pages, and I have reverted those changes. Removing the added information without listing any reason or criticism is pure bias and ahistorical erasure. My edits have all included numerous citations, whereas the original text does not, so the pages warrant further editing. The numerous citations I've added to all of my edits, as well as the removal of a contested statement in one of my edits, demonstrates I am not writing biased information, and I have been receptive to feedback. My block is purely based on writing well sourced text that goes against the worldview of the blocking admin, but they have offered nothing to counter or discuss on the topic, so removing my additional information is factually baseless. Cogitamus Credimus (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You're blocked for edit warring; you will need to address this, and only this, in any future unblock request. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:07, 1 June 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.
Cogitamus Credimus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= The Atlantic slave trade passage of Antisemitic Canard was poorly sourced, inaccurate, and biased. I improved it by adding additional information and citations. My edit was reverted by an admin without any discussion or conflict mediation. I tried again to correct the page by adding even more citations and information, and the admin expressed, via their revert edit comment, that they did not like one sentence of my passage. Thus, on my final edit, I removed the offending sentence and added additional clarification to resolve any perceived issue. I was then blocked. I understand the use of the talk pages, and I simply had not used it because the complaining user reverted by changes without any feedback, discussion, or justification. I am happy to move the edit war to the talk page as outlined in Wiki's rules. [[User:Cogitamus Credimus|Cogitamus Credimus]] ([[User talk:Cogitamus Credimus#top|talk]]) 18:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1= The Atlantic slave trade passage of Antisemitic Canard was poorly sourced, inaccurate, and biased. I improved it by adding additional information and citations. My edit was reverted by an admin without any discussion or conflict mediation. I tried again to correct the page by adding even more citations and information, and the admin expressed, via their revert edit comment, that they did not like one sentence of my passage. Thus, on my final edit, I removed the offending sentence and added additional clarification to resolve any perceived issue. I was then blocked. I understand the use of the talk pages, and I simply had not used it because the complaining user reverted by changes without any feedback, discussion, or justification. I am happy to move the edit war to the talk page as outlined in Wiki's rules. [[User:Cogitamus Credimus|Cogitamus Credimus]] ([[User talk:Cogitamus Credimus#top|talk]]) 18:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1= The Atlantic slave trade passage of Antisemitic Canard was poorly sourced, inaccurate, and biased. I improved it by adding additional information and citations. My edit was reverted by an admin without any discussion or conflict mediation. I tried again to correct the page by adding even more citations and information, and the admin expressed, via their revert edit comment, that they did not like one sentence of my passage. Thus, on my final edit, I removed the offending sentence and added additional clarification to resolve any perceived issue. I was then blocked. I understand the use of the talk pages, and I simply had not used it because the complaining user reverted by changes without any feedback, discussion, or justification. I am happy to move the edit war to the talk page as outlined in Wiki's rules. [[User:Cogitamus Credimus|Cogitamus Credimus]] ([[User talk:Cogitamus Credimus#top|talk]]) 18:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- I suppose I'll reply to your various claims and statements.
- "The Atlantic slave trade passage of Antisemitic Canard was poorly sourced, inaccurate, and biased." -- I disagree on all three of those claims.
- "I improved it by adding additional information and citations." -- You did not add, you replaced the whole section; you replaced the existing sources with your own, with the exception of the Friedman source, where you used it to push a POV assessment of the book's findings, writing "the findings of Jewish involvement in the slave trade are similar between the two books" without any citation. For anyone else looking, here is the before [1] and after [2] to see that the changes were not an addition, but a wholesale replacement.
- From your original appeal, you wrote: "Removing the added information without listing any reason or criticism is pure bias and ahistorical erasure." -- Surely you can notice the hypocrisy, given that you removed the existing material without first providing reasoning on the Talk page.
- "My edit was reverted by an admin without any discussion or conflict mediation." -- I reverted your edits, but I am not an admin. I explained the rationale behind my reverts [3] [4] and, each time, invited you to discuss your sweeping changes on the Talk page, which you did not do.
- "the admin expressed, via their revert edit comment, that they did not like one sentence of my passage" -- Again, I am not an admin. I did not express that I disliked "one sentence" of your passage. Actually, I think that the entire section as you have written is unsuitable for the article. Of course, you could've found out my opinion, and that of others, on the article's Talk page.
- I'm struggling to figure out where you could've gotten the idea that I only objected to one sentence. In my first edit summary, I wrote, "Please seek approval for your contentious edit, which rests primarily on an opinion piece on a newspaper, on the Talk page." It seems to me that your thesis in re-writing the section is that, despite the assessment of historians that the Nation of Islam and others have exaggerated the role of Jews in the Atlantic slave trade, you believe that it actually was "significant" rather than "minimal" based on some unknown metric and, therefore, that the Jewish participation in the Atlantic slave trade has not been exaggerated. Not only is that a non-sequitur, but you provided the following citation for your thesis: [5]. As you can see, the piece's author is responding to the word "minimal" in a review on Amazon on a book which the author did not even bother to read.
I'm quite sure there are Jamaican Jews who are prepared to admit the truth about their history of participation in the slave trade. I got an email from one of them. He sent me looking for Eli Faber's book Jews, Slaves, and the Slave Trade: Setting the Record Straight', which was published in 2000 by the New York University Press. I haven't read the book as yet. But I've seen a most intriguing summary of its thesis posted on Amazon:
"Focusing on the British empire, Faber assesses the extent to which Jews participated in the institution of slavery through investment in slave-trading companies, ownership of slave ships, commercial activity as merchants who sold slaves upon their arrival from Africa, and direct ownership of slaves. His unprecedented original research utilising shipping and tax records, stock-transfer ledgers, censuses, slave registers, and synagogue records reveals, once and for all, the minimal nature of Jews' involvement in the subjugation of Africans in the Americas."
How, in Jehovah's name, could the word 'minimal' be appropriate in this context? Having sold their human 'cargo' and counted the profit, Jewish traders simply washed their hands of the whole sordid affair, just like Pontius Pilate. And then there were those Jews who did own slave plantations.
- In your original appeal, you wrote, "The numerous citations I've added to all of my edits, as well as the removal of a contested statement in one of my edits, demonstrates I am not writing biased information, and I have been receptive to feedback." -- I would argue that you have not demonstrated anything approaching an unbiased, neutral point of view; and I would argue that merely adding citations does not constitute proof that one is writing in an unbiased manner. BirdValiant (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)