→Blocked: new section |
→Notification: new section |
||
Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
Resuming the edit war as soon as your block expired was an incredibly unhelpful thing to do. Since you seem determined to force this change through this block is indeterminate/indefinite as in you won't be unblocked until you agree to play by the rules. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 17:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
Resuming the edit war as soon as your block expired was an incredibly unhelpful thing to do. Since you seem determined to force this change through this block is indeterminate/indefinite as in you won't be unblocked until you agree to play by the rules. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 17:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Notification == |
|||
As a result of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles|an arbitration case]], the [[WP:AC|Arbitration Committee]] has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Area of conflict|Palestinian-Israeli conflict]], broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|editing restrictions]], described [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions|here]] and below. |
|||
*Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. |
|||
*The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. |
|||
*Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. |
|||
*Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently [[WP:AE]]), or the Committee. |
|||
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions. |
|||
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary. |
|||
This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_notifications|here]]. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 17:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:11, 16 October 2010
denier
Certes, mais en français on dirait alors, l'hommedenier et non le denierhomme. Et encore faudrait-il expliquer le sens d'associer "homme" et "denier".
Attention que la répression vendéenne n'était pas motivée par le fait que ces gens étaient catholiques mais par le fait qu'ils étaient royalistes. La révolution française n'est pas une révolution athée ou laique mais une révolution républicaine avant tout, dans la continuité de la révolution américaine.
Les comparaisons avec Le Pen sont tout à fait incongrues et ne sont pas justifiées. (undue:weight)
Cordialemnet, Alithien 10:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it was of course primarily a Royalist uprising, but these things intersect and I think it is worth mentioning the highly religious nature of most of the Vendee rebels. And I wasn't so much comparing Secher to La Pen, as pointing out that he mixes in the same circles. An "intelligent lay person" would I think be interested and influenced by this fact. Ledenierhomme 03:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Violation of 3RR
You are massively in violation of 3RR at Genocides in history, having reverted the work of other editors no less than nine times in the last 24 hours. I regard violations of 3RR as disrespectful to other editors.
I'm going to give you an opportunity to amend your violation by self reverting. If you remove your edit on the United States alleged genocide - clearly in violation of WP:POINT - I will not report your violation to the admin's noticeboard. Otherwise, I will feel obliged to do so. Regards, Gatoclass 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you understand the 3RR. If I was in violation, you would be too. I see from your Talk Page you are no stranger to edit warring. At any rate, please feel to "report" my "violation". I want as much attention as possible to be directed towards the article - which is grossly disingenuous and unethical. - Ledenierhomme 17:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, have it your way. I'm reporting your violation now. Gatoclass 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ledenierhomme understands the 3RR rule, he just likes to remove the warning messages. diff--Bryson 17:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Play the ball, not the man". Engage in talk page to try and come to a consensus, if you have a problem with my edits. So far, I have been supported by two neutrals when I requested for comment. Neither PBS, nor Gatoclass, have been editing by consensus. Ledenierhomme 17:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Request for mediation not accepted
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
AfD nomination of List of massacres
Hi Ledenierhomme, I see you have nominated List of massacres for deletion. Unfortunately you have not completed the process. Currently the notice on the article points to the old AfD nomination which closed in December. You need to create a second AfD nomination and repoint the notice on the article to the second one. Thanks, Gwernol 16:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have commented out (but not removed) the AfD nomination, since until it points to an active debate it isn't useful. Feel free to uncomment once you have fixed it. Best, Gwernol 17:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You need to call it "List of massacres (2nd nomination)" and follow the steps at Wikipedia:Afd#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. I don't agree with nominating it, as the article is now stabilising, but that is up to you. See also Talk:List_of_massacres#Article_for_deletion. -- Tyrenius (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I finished the Afd nomination for you; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I was getting there! Ledenierhomme (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ledenierhomme If you confirm that you agree with my reasons and would like them placed at the top I will do so. But only if you confirm inunequivocal terms that you want them placed there. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject France newsletter
Thank you for your contributions to the project, Jordan Contribs 14:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Jasenovac
We are having new discussion about "Jasenovac Holocaust Extermination camp". Because of your comments [1] in last discussion (2007) with which we have created consensus you are called to new discussion. All editors from last RFC are called to discussion on Template talk:The Holocaust. --Rjecina (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Cease ignorant reverts
Now. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please adhere to WP:CIVIL. Facts regarding the number of Maltese-Australians are listed in the article. Ledenierhomme (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Apologies. A renewed attempt at civility should be a New Year's resolution :) the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
British Mandate of Palestine
Your edits to the article are non-constructive. The UNSCOP committee recognized the Syrian Congress of 1919 as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. See UN Doc. A/364, paragraph 178. The French military overthrow of the Syrian government predated the Treaty of Lausanne settlement with the former sovereign (Turkey), as well as the League of Nations approval for the proposed French Mandate of Syria.
At the 'Council of Four' Conference Held in the Prime Minister's Flat at 23 Rue Nitot, Paris, on Thursday, March 20, 1919, at 3 p.m., it was agreed that the French could not occupy Damascus, Homs, Homa, and Aleppo, and that they could not use the League of Nations Mandate as an excuse to violate the treaties with the Arabs, but that is exactly what they did. See pages 1-8 starting here: Foreign Relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919 Volume V harlan (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hehe. You seem to be missing my point. It's not the information that I'm disputing, it's that the particular sentence doesn't follow from the preceding sentence, and doesn't belong in an introduction. It reads as just a random piece of data tacked onto the end. It belongs in the article body. Ledenierhomme (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Londonistan
We cannot delete this article whilst simultaneously keeping Islamism in London. The GFDL does not permit it. Read the AFD discussion for the position that a bad decision in 2007 has put us in. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Chomsky and the German-American beer parties.
Sorry, but I zapped your edit. I only checked your other contribs after the fact. I should have asked for a citation instead. It sounds credible. Do you have a source?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- whoops, forgot to add the source! Comes from "Conversations with History, UC Berkeley" Harry Kreisler interviewing Chomsky. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ghoXQxdk6s&feature=related - Ledenierhomme (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
July 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rights of Englishmen. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Seems you're continuing to revert. Instead of this, why don't you Google some sources on the topic? You can probably get one source for the specific rights, and maybe another one for history. The rest of the edit looks like it removes POV. Nevertheless, it's not okay to keep reverting. N419BH 12:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just for reference, 88.106.xxx.xxx doesn't have any right to be editing the page because his registered account has been blocked for sockpuppetry and edit-warring per this SPI case. I'd recommend just taking it up at ANI, the article's talk page or a project page. Vedant (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. But, umm..... how? Ledenierhomme (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well you can bring it up on the talk page, on one of the project pages or if it's serious enough; on the Administrator Incidents noticeboards. Vedant (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. But, umm..... how? Ledenierhomme (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just for reference, 88.106.xxx.xxx doesn't have any right to be editing the page because his registered account has been blocked for sockpuppetry and edit-warring per this SPI case. I'd recommend just taking it up at ANI, the article's talk page or a project page. Vedant (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
This is a poorly-cited stub, but a clearly notable topic, a concept learned by all children in schools in the United States. Please, before prodding an article, search for it at Google and Bing. I removed your prod. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Final warning
This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I tagged you because, even if you did not go to middle school in the United States , you should have searched online before nominating this article. See, e.g., 125,000 Ghits here or 88,000 Ghits here, or over 4,000 hits at Google books, or 1,600 hits on Google scholar. Your past practices show vandal-like behavior, and this is the final straw. Everybody knows Rights of Englishmen is inherently notable, so do not play stupid with me. Tagging notable articles repeatedly is vandalism and trolling, so do not do it again, or I shall block you indefinitety. Goodbye. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please adhere to WP:CIVIL. And please do not fausely accuse me of "vandalising" the page. I'm merely demanding a higher standard. I don't know what "going to Middle School in the United STates" has to do with anything. I believe they teach creationism in some Middle Schools in the US, and racism in some schools in the Arabian peninsula. Google hits? That's how Wikipedia establishes notability? The phrase "Eat shit motherfucker" also comes up with 174,000 results. Until you can find a reputable source establishing the viability of this concept as an important one in political science, then it either deserves to be substantially reduced in scope, or deleted entirely. As it stands now, it's approximately equivalent to an article entitled "The Fighting Irish" that would attempt to describe the inherent martial supremacy of Irish culture. It's silly. And forget Middle School, I have a postgraduate degree in History from one of the world's most prestigious universities. I know rubbish pop history when I see it. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- And I have a doctorate in law from the oldest nonsectarian university in North America. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- The operatative words there being "law" and "Oldest" - as opposed to History, and Prestigious. Al-Ahzar is the oldest university in the world and it's not even ranked. I notice, more importantly, you neglected to address the substance of my comment. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- And I have a doctorate in law from the oldest nonsectarian university in North America. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please adhere to WP:CIVIL. And please do not fausely accuse me of "vandalising" the page. I'm merely demanding a higher standard. I don't know what "going to Middle School in the United STates" has to do with anything. I believe they teach creationism in some Middle Schools in the US, and racism in some schools in the Arabian peninsula. Google hits? That's how Wikipedia establishes notability? The phrase "Eat shit motherfucker" also comes up with 174,000 results. Until you can find a reputable source establishing the viability of this concept as an important one in political science, then it either deserves to be substantially reduced in scope, or deleted entirely. As it stands now, it's approximately equivalent to an article entitled "The Fighting Irish" that would attempt to describe the inherent martial supremacy of Irish culture. It's silly. And forget Middle School, I have a postgraduate degree in History from one of the world's most prestigious universities. I know rubbish pop history when I see it. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Even if this is considered garbage by post-modern scholarly standards, it does not matter. Wikipedia is a popular encyclopedia and does not publish cutting-edge research. Every school child has been taught this concept, and given a few days, I will prove it to you. By the way, I note that you have been blocked four times in three years; this seems to be a pattern of intentional behavior of repeated edit warring on your part. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- "post-modern scholarly standards" - huh? And "Every school child has been taught this concept"? I thought we addressed this. "Every school child" is taught all kinds of rubbish, usually including the fact that their own country is the greatest in the world. In centuries past continental European school-children had their heads filled with the concept of hyper-imperial, cruel "Perfidious Albion" (that is, England). The "Rights of Englishman" is a lazy, vague, laypersons concept. That much needs to be made clear. - Ledenierhomme (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Rights of Englishmen
Members of the WP:EAR team have commented on this article and/or the pattern of editiing of its contributors. Please see: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Rights of Englishmen. --Kudpung (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
August 2010
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Rights of Englishmen has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the article talk page for any further comments you may want to make. Thank you. Kudpung (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Jewish tribes of Arabia
You recently posted an NPOV on this page; [perhaps you can provide references to support your assertions? The references contained therein exress a combination of Jewish texts and the research of somewhat contemporary non-muslim scholarship. Without references and a a coherent argument to support your claims I will remove the NPOV you posted on, or before, October 1, 2010. --Jimharlow99 (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
October 2010
I won't template you, but I will point out that you were just blocked for a week for making exactly the same un-discussed edits to the article Expédition d'Irlande (I'm afraid that merely deleting those sections on your talk page doesn't change anything). Repeating exactly the same behaviour therefore has a pretty obvious conclusion wouldn't you agree? I'm not particularly opinionated on the article content at present, but if you want to make changes to it that other editors disagree with, you have no option but to discuss them on the talkpage before making them. This is the way wiki works, so please try to work with it and not against everyone else. Some of your changes might be valid, but the way you are going about this is more than likely to ensure that they never find a place in the article. Ranger Steve Talk 16:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have also just reverted your changes. Though a few additions seem to be good, the majority are loaded with POV. They need to be discussed on the talkpage first to ensure that they are agreed with via consensus; you have been reverted by multiple editors and asked to discuss this on the article talkpage first. I would strongly suggest you do so and not make any more edits to the article itself. Skinny87 (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
ANI
Your recent behavior has been reported to AN/I. See here. nableezy - 16:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
Resuming the edit war as soon as your block expired was an incredibly unhelpful thing to do. Since you seem determined to force this change through this block is indeterminate/indefinite as in you won't be unblocked until you agree to play by the rules. Spartaz Humbug! 17:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Notification
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
- Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
- The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
- Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
- Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. CIreland (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)