User talk:Kwork2

Hang in there

Don't let User:Akhilleus aggressive tone and refusal to follow the WP:NPOV policy frustrate you and stop you from continuing to edit Jesus myth hypothesis, as that seems to be exactly his stategy. Some people dont seem to be able to see past their own POV and feel the need to turn articles into ways to advance that POV. That's exactly what we don't need on Wikipedia, and if you give up he'll succeed. DreamGuy (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I second that Malcom, hang in there. I will read up on the dispute and see if I can help. Stay cool Albion moonlight (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: "Christian religious nuts"

Listen, you need to tone down the rhetoric^[1] and observe civil discourse & etiquette. Hope I won't need to remind you again. Thx. Regards, El_C 12:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks. Comment on content and sources, not on other editors. If you can't learn to do this, you'll be blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I got this under control. El_C 13:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that you are issuing a warning about an item on the talk page that is over two months old. And all the more since I already said I am finished editing that article: [2]

But if you think that justifies sending me back into wiki-exile, go ahead. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought it was from today! (that's the impression I was given; that's there's an emergency) El_C 13:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I really have been trying to keep my sarcasm under control. That is not so easy for me, but I am trying. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, my apologies for the oversight. I just naturally assumed from the tone of Akhilleus' plea that it was from today. But I should not have glanced so superficially, regardless of anything, so I take full responsibility for this unexpected & unwarranted discord. El_C 13:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The editing of that article has been always difficult. I had asked Vassyana to take a look at the situation [3] because I have a lot of respect for his opinion. But He is having access problems, and this accusation may have poisoned things now anyhow. But whatever the case, I do not intend to do any editing of that article again. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not as gracious as I expected, but sure, whatever. Goodluck elsewhere. El_C 13:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I also (carelessly) thought that link was from the last day or so. No warning was needed at all and I take it back. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen to Sirubenstein

I do not really kow that much about the sources in question but the user in questions comment at the bottom of that page make a valid point about contextualizing those sources. I trust Sirubensteins opinions in general. And it certainly doen't seem worth fighting or losing sleep over. Albion moonlight (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

New anti-Semitism

You say "both sides." I thin there are more than two sides.

Tariq Ali is on the editorial board of the New left Review which makes him equivalent to an academic in that he wries and reads and regulates contributions to an important academic forum.

I think your comments may help clarify how we identify his point of view but in no way justifies removing his view. All notable views get included. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vase1r 800.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vase1r 800.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vase2r 800.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vase2r 800.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vase3r 800.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vase3r 800.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

vase images

Malcom I saw the above notices. These images look to me as though they're likely to be your own work but you should pick a license and put more information about each of these photos on their image pages and if that's not enough, may need to send verification to WP:OTRS (this last step may not be needed though). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen Gale. The three vases are my own work. I know that there is more information needed, but it is difficult for me to figure out the process and I may not have time for it today. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if or when you need any help then. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

license

First thing to do is to pick a license as soon as can be, GFDL or Creative commons. I much rather like creative commons licenses (you can pick whether or not you want attribution, if derivative works are ok and whether commercial use is ok). I think GFDL is way too heavy. Hence, since I'm biased about it, I can't say which would be more helpful for you. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added cc licenses to each page as requested (by the way, I'd forgotten that on Wikipedia one can't forbid commercial use and still upload an image as free, see strike-out above).

Please add NPOV image descriptions! These images could float about on sundry networks for centuries or longer and maybe it's at least worth trying to help folks know what they are. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I like your vases Malcolm. Kudos. Albion moonlight (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

your intentions

Hi, I am sorry if I misunderstood or misrepresented your intentions. My comment was a reaction to one specific comment you made on the talk page. All I meant to say is that we editors often add views we personally find ridiculous or a laugh or just factually wrong - if doing so is consistent with our NPOV policy. Tariq Ali has a view about the "New Antisemitism" it does not matter whether his views are supported by facts; what matters is whether they are notable. The article should include his views not as authoritative statements about Israeli or Zionist history, but as an example of a certain kind of view about Israel and Zionism. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand you position on Tariq Ali...although I do not agree. A particular difficulty is that the section of the article where that paragraph was originally located is now deleted [4]

I had suggested the deletion [5], but it was deleted without discussion of the implications, which I did not want to happen. So the problem now is that (I think) the Tariq Ali does not belong where it is now, with the more scholarly discussion, and the section where it logically fit was deleted by csloat. I think this whole long argument could have been avoided by being more cautious about that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What you say here makes a lot of sense. If you could find a new context/section for the quotes, that would be acceptable to you, you would make a big step towards ending this particular conflict. I think the context is at least as important as the quote itself (the context in which Ali wrote; the context in which we discuss the quote in the article). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The simplest solution might be to return the Political Directions section to the article -- with Tariq Ali's paragraph returned to there. It will still be a quote farm, with the disputed paragraph being a contributer to that. But, perhaps, in an article as disputed as this, large amounts of direct quoting may be unavoidable.

I do not know if other editors will agree it, but I could live with returning that section to the article as a compromise solution to the dispute. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm--FYI I replied to your query on my talk page. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend bringing your compromise suggestion to the article talk page; it seems a reasonable solution. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

New antisemitism

I'll try to get back to the article as soon as possible, but I'm a bit pressed for time right now, and fruitless discussions with rude, close-minded, and biased individuals who aren't particularly interested in policy isn't as high on my list of priorities as other things. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify. I was horrified by the behaviour of csloat - not even understandable, just against, whatever. Since he is the first to answer to my note, I wanted to tell you that.--UbUb (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Horrified why? Because I disagreed with you? I've been more than civil here so I'm not sure why you directed such an uncivil comment at me on someone else's talk page. Anyway hope you have a good day. csloat (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

welcome back!

Hi Malcolm,

Thanks for your note. I really don't know much about that topic. What would you recommend as a good starting source? Also, welcome back -- change of heart?

Best, Renee Renee (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New antisemitism. 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. RolandR (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Thank you for the warning, but you are the one who made four reverts in about 6 hours. I'm not going to report you, since I was reverting you as well, but it appears that you are the one who should be careful about violating the 3RR, since you did violate it quite blatantly. Now perhaps you will abide by the consensus? Thanks. csloat (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Four?! O shit. I never was any good a counting. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The back-and-forth of edit warring never helps. You both might want to think about keeping yourselves to 1rr for awhile. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, certainly you are right about reverts.

This situation is very frustrating. You might notice, above that csloat denies I offered a compromise. But I did. Its an offer I mentioned to Slrubenstein too, in the "your intentions section", just above here [6]. When I just looked for the compromise offer on the article talk page, I could not find it, and hope it was not deleted. It would not be the first time I have seen editors make convent changes to a talk page.

In any case, in editing situations like this, I do not get angry and I do not give up. Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

New Antisemitism

Hi Malcolm - I think you raise a very, very interesting point on my talk page. I have to preface my remarks by letting you know two things, if they aren't obvious to you already: first, I have not really worked on the New Antisemitism article; from what i have seen it is very contentious and frankly I'd rather not get involved in the arguments. Second, the only motive I have had in supporting the inclusion of material by Tariq Ali (and Yehuda Bauer) is my desire to see a wide range of diverse views represented, not just because this complies with NPOV but because in principle I think it makes for more interesting and informative encyclopedia articles.

Now, as to the point you raise, you may be right. But I can think of one counterargument. Ali, Bauer, and whomever else you and others would agree are "reliable sources" on this topic are secondary sources because they themselves are analyzing or opining on other texts - the zombie photo, for example, or graffiti in Paris, or a speech given in London, or whatever. I would suggest that these things - photographs, signs, posters, graffiti, statements, pamphlets - are the primary sources and lectures, articles, and essays that debate as to whetehr these things are evidence of a New anti-Semitism, the same old anti-Semitism, or are simply not anti-semitic (but rather anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli policy) are secondary sources. This is the view I would favor. But I do think your point is intersting and worth considering.

I would add one last point. I think that if you are right it means that there are some phenomena to which the primary/secondary source distinction simply does not apply, because they are as you point out so recent. The question is, how does our NOR policy apply? Some people think NOR means editors cannot rely on primary sources. But I would argue that if there are no secondary sources, or all secondary sources are also primary sources, then this interpretation or provision of NOR simply does not apply. I would say that WP:SYNTH becomes the crucial element of NOR that we have to apply - editors can use sources without getting bogged down in arguments as to whether they are secondary or primary as long as it is crystal clear to everyone that the editor is not synthesizing anything.

A final remark - these are just some thoughts I have I wanted to share with you since you took the time to write on my talk page. But in general and in principle I think the best-qualified people to deal with these conundra are the editors working on an article. Yes, I have posted a few comments especially recently on this article's talk page, but I never added (or deleted) any content. So I do not think I am really qualified to make any definitive comment on your question. I guess if the conflict escalated to the point where there was an RfC I would post something like what I just said, above - my views on how NOR relates to this stuff ... but I would only do that if it reached an RfC and the views of outsiders were explicitly (and generally) being sought. Short of an RfC I really think those editors who have contribued gthe most stable content to the article, or who have been active on the talk page the longest (say, over six months) are the ones who should hash this stuff out. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I was sure you would be a good person to ask.

It is not my intention to raise this question on the article's talk page because, at this point, I am not sure how much significance it has for the article, if any. There does seem to be some peculiar problem with the article, but I can not quite put my finger on it. Perhaps, with time, an intuition will flash and I will understand just what about it bothers me.

In any case, I probably will not have much to do with the article for now, and suspect that my presence will not be missed. There was a reason for my entering the discussion when I did, but at this point that reason is of no importance.

Once again, thanks for your reply.....and for your patience. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No need to thnk me for my patience, I could say the sam to you - WP is all about misunderstanding and confusion and taking time to sort things out. I never questioned that you meant well; in the end pehaps we just have a difference of opinion. Anyway, I would indeed be glad if my musings here were at all helpful. Ultimately I think most issues in Wikipedia shoud be resolved through patient (if at times contentious) negotiation between good faith editors, this includes how to interpret and apply policies as well. Good luck contributing to other articles, Slrubenstein | Talk 03:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Message left on my talk page

Discussion about what? Removing non-free images? Like how we have discussion before removing pictures of penises from featured articles? No. That's not the way it works- it's up to those who wish to include non-free media to convince everyone else that it's needed, not the other way around. Trust me, removing images contrary to our non-free content criteria is pretty standard stuff- myself and others do it every day. J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry this removal process was so rough- I guess I treated the article as I would have treated a character list, discography or article on a children's film, when the best course of action would have been something a little more conservative. I'm only human, hopefully I'll improve my methodology for next time- I'll certainly choose to contact the WikiProject (which seems to be very efficient) if I come across similar articles with the same issue. Thanks for seeing it through. J Milburn (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Stoicism

No problem and thank you for working on such nice things, I love philosophy too! Cheers. — Orion11M87 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

I have reported your disruptive activity to WP:AN/I. Hopefully administrative intervention will encourage you to follow dispute resolution rather than just lying on the talk page and pretending you aren't making the edits you are obviously making. csloat (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Malcolm

I just wanted to say hello and note that it's great to see here. I find Wikipedia frustrating at times, but i also know that, as the largest repository of information currently on the web other than raw search-engine lists, it is never a complete waste of time to edit here. I was surprised to see you show up for the AfD on the DOS -- i myself don't usually follow that debate, but this group has links to other groups that made it interestng to one such as myself. If the article goes, then those links go -- which makes understanding the way the world works a little more difficult for the next generation -- which is why i fight for the incluson of such articles. But you know that already, i suspect. Anyway, great to see your name around, and i hope we find a few more pages of common interest in times to come. Catherineyronwode a.k.a. "64" a.k.a. "Nameless Date Stamp" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

New Thought

This article in hardly complete Creative visualization is used in every branch of New Thought. Follow the link. 69.86.63.13 (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I added reference.69.86.159.34 (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi the comparison of how many external links the Catholic article has no bearing on and the New Thought page wiki does not have any set number of external links. I will revert those which have a bearing on NT. Thanks66.108.92.43 (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

DOS AfD

Catherineyronwode has removed upon request the offending remarks from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daylight Origins Society. I doubt that we can get through this without some degree of rancor, but I would at least like to get the worst of the sniping off the AfD page. Would you be willing to strike or remove your off-topic comments? I am making the same request of Orangemarlin. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If OrangeMarlin removes the sentence that is insulting to Catherineyronwode, my comment upon it would would become pointless, and I would be very happy to remove that edit also. (But please note that, in my view, points on uncivil edits are not ever "off topic". In fact, I added my comment after Catherine remove the source of your own complaint.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, the discussion is closed now. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Esoteric Astrology

Hi Malcolm, What do you think of this? I don't quite understand what s/he's saying (other than that the signs were reversed?)? Thanks, Renee (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I never read AAB's Esoteric Astrology; and, although I know it presents a different approach to astrology, I do not know anything about the differences. The statement could be correct, but it certainly is not helpful as an explanation, so that alone makes it problematic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Barry Long

I have responded to your comments on the Talk:Barry Long page. Thank you. 78.151.255.93 (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I replied on the article talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

I certainly didn't add the quotes, I just highlighted what was already there. I thought you were planning on doing something with them, otherwise I would have removed them myself. By all means, feel free to remove them. NJGW (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

This edit is a personal attack. Stick with the topic and not with the editor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop complaining. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I know plenty of Italian, thanks. "Capice" when used in an English forum is typically used as a put-down. Also, not a good idea to talk back to the user above ... pick your battles properly BMW(drive) 23:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BMW, I know nothing about pop culture uses for that, or any other word, but I did live in Italy for seven years.

I say what I think is needed, not what will win me popularity points.

For when Vespasian sent for Priscus Helvidius and commanded him not to go into the senate, he replied, "It is in your power not to allow me to be a member of the senate, but so long as I am, I must go in." "Well, go in then," says the emperor, "but say nothing." "Do not ask my opinion, and I will be silent." "But I must ask your opinion." "And I must say what I think right." "But if you do, I shall put you to death." "When then did I tell you that I am immortal? You will do your part, and I will do mine: it is your part to kill; it is mine to die, but not in fear: yours to banish me; mine to depart without sorrow."

I should put this on my user page. I have been sent into permanent wiki-exile twice, and if it should be necessary to leave again, then that is what I must accept. So if you think I have done something to send me into wiki-exile, go ahead. Let me know if what I have said is not clear. Understand? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this ..."don't bite the hand that [helps] you"?? BMW(drive) 23:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about giving you a hard time. (But please remember, I was not the user who made the complaint. I was the object of the complaint. In that regard, if you think I am in violation of WP rules, no need to do me any favors, but do what you think is right.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agreed that this was an editing issue early on, and don't feel you were giving me a hard time (I'm reasonably thick-skinned) - but I do believe that you proved in WQA that you can be uncivil, and don't give a shyte about it when confronted ... that won't do well later on. BMW(drive) 11:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no point in my giving an expanded explanation of my reasoning. Perhaps I do not belong here, and should leave those who do in peace. Certainly, I can be abrasive in certain circumstances, and since your skin is thinner than you want to admit, you felt it; and it is natural that you would want the source of irritation removed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That would go outside of my firm, personal belief that "everyone has something to add to Wikipedia". Yes, I saw your abrasiveness. Yes, I pointed out a few spots that would obviously be thought of as insults. Other than that, meh. ɃMW(drive) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit at WP:FTN

Do you have any idea what happened with this edit to the section on Polytheistic Reconstructionism? (Note the changes to the two posts previous to yours.) I've seen you around enought to know you're not a vandal. Could it have been some kind of server or browser error? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. All I did was add my edit. I suppose it could be something I caused inadvertently, although I don't know how. (But "don't know how" pretty well characterizes my bewildered efforts here in Wikiland, where my lack of computer know-how sometimes does make problems.) If you figure it out let me know. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I've put the articles back into Category:Kabbalah. Now please get off my back (re your comment in the move discussion). Bob (QaBob) 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Negative comment

No worries. My edits certainly looked boneheaded! Wiki was displaying only old versions of the article when I was editing for most of the last hour or so. Had to clear my cache to get it to function properly. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for for edit-warring at Psychic[7][8][9][10][11]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Elonka 19:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kwork2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Only three of the edits were the same edit. At least one was reverting what turned out to be a WP computer glitch (see section above this one). And, since the issue was resolved, the block seems a little late and pointless. Additionally, I did not get a 3RR warning. Not only that, I can't believe that you would do this to an editor (i.e. myself) with such a sweet disposition and with such sensitive and easily hurt feelings. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have been an editor long enough to be aware of what edit warring means, and you should also be aware that you may be blocked for edit warring even if you don't technically revert the same exact text more than three times. You are clearly edit warring over the article, and since you have shown no signs that you intend to stop this behavior, you will not be unblocked at this time. Should you give admins assurances that you agree to stop this behavior, and that you also understand that you will be blocked again if this behavior resumes, then someone may feel better about lifting this block. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:20, 6 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.

You've already been warned about 3RR in the past, on a different article.[12] As for the reverts, they don't have to be reverts to the same text, they just have to be reverts of what other editors are doing. As for your sweet disposition,[13] erm, I could send flowers if you'd like? Or would stickers with rainbows and unicorns be better? --Elonka 19:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

O shit! That means I may actually have to to some work now to keep busy. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think much of your POV, but this was a ridiculous block by an involved, very involved, admin. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you think my POV is. I admit I can carry tenaciousness to an extreme on occasion. Other editors who have that same quality, but find themselves on the opposite side of an editing disagreement, might not enjoy that characteristic. Personally I admire editors who try hard to do what they think is right, even when I do not agree with what they think is right. However, in this particular case, I doubt if you would have opposed any of my edits.

I do think it is a mistake for an administrator to get involved in that situation, which may seem a little acrimonious, but in which the editing process is moving forward. Seeing that several editors were working on the article at that time, and that none of the editors had complained to an administrator about edit warring (a term which did not really describe that situation); then for an administrator to get involved with blocks and warning of blocks, was really disruptive with unnecessary wiki-lawering. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

However, I complained to you about your edit warring, and you ignored it, removing my warnings from your talk page. Next time, in the same circumstances, I will complain to an administrator instead, since you don't heed friendly warnings, thinking yourself to be always in the right. Bob (QaBob) 12:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your warning was on the Psychic article talk page [14], and I did not see it until after I was blocked. (You had the same number of reverts as me, or perhaps one less.) If complaining about me to administrators will keep your comments off my talk page, that will be a welcome development. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. 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 administrator and logged here. --Elonka 19:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This ruling says:

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.

Well, if not pseudoscience articles, what is the best type of article to edit for someone who can't quite manage to meet "expected standards of behavior"?Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe try for something that is listed at WP:MISSING but isn't within the scope of Wikipedia:General sanctions. Which still wouldn't be 100% safe, but it stands a better chance of putting you deep enough in the stacks, that you can work more independently. Which would mean that you could just go ahead and write, without having to worry about negotiation and consensus-building every step of the way. Personally, I enjoy filling in gaps in the topic area of medieval history, as it's very rare that I run into a conflict when trying to expand articles about a 13th century priest or a medieval Egyptian capital. :) If you enjoy scientific topics, Wikipedia:List of missing journals is a good place to help out, and could definitely use the help! --Elonka 21:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Trigger happy administrators

In her explanation of why she blocked me, Elonka gave five diffs:

1. [15], was where I moved a sentence to the talk page for discussion [16], which is (as far as I know) universally considered acceptable editing practice. (I do not know what all the red is on that edit, because all I did was remove one sentence, which went to the talk page.)
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19] were, all three, reverts of one disputed edit with Bob (QaBob).
5. [20] was intended as a revert of an edit by ScienceApologist, who had just reverted the entire article to an earlier version (the result, it turned out, of a computer glitch he had), but which may have reverted QaBobAllah's revert of the same overwrite, and made just ahead of me. When I realized the edit was a mistake, I apologized to ScienceApologist for the negative comment. This edit had nothing to do with edit warring.

Because of Elonka's apparent misunderstanding of my edits, and the following typical WP administrative trigger happy application of administrative powers, I got blocked while QaBobAllah got a warning for doing the same thing. It is not that I expect fair treatment from administrators, but it would be pleasant if I did. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair question, let me try to explain: Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR/Administrator instructions, admins are advised not to block an editor for edit-warring, unless that editor has first been clearly warned about the WP:3RR policy. Such warnings are usually issued with the {{3rr}} template. When I looked at the history of QaBobAllah's talkpage,[21] I could not locate any record of QaBobAllah (talk · contribs) receiving a 3RR warning, so I went ahead and issued one.[22] If he would have continued edit-warring after that, he probably would have been blocked. However, he wisely chose to stop voluntarily, so no block was necessary. If for some reason in the future he resumes edit-warring, he can be blocked without warning, since there will be proof on his talkpage that at least one good faith effort was already made to educate him about the policy. As for your own actions, the best way to avoid further blocks, is to only use the "revert" button when dealing with vandalism. Using revert on an established editor accomplishes little except to escalate a dispute. Some editors follow a self-imposed "1RR" rule, meaning that they will only revert once, and then take things to the talkpage if there is further disagreement. The simple fact of the matter is that revert wars are completely ineffective as a way of changing an article. Editor A reverts, Editor B reverts A, A reverts B, back and forth, but it accomplishes nothing except to disrupt the article, and to increase blood pressure and stomach acid. See WP:MASTODON. Instead, the most effective way to implement a change is either to edit the article to try and find a compromise which both editors can live with, or to discuss the matter on the talkpage: Build consensus, request comments from other editors, start a thread at a dispute resolution noticeboard, or possibly request mediation. There are many ways to deal with disputes on Wikipedia, but revert-warring is pretty much at the bottom of the list. --Elonka 18:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, the problem with your reply (as I see it) is that

1. You did not respond to my point that much of what you used as a basis for blocking me was not really a basis for blocking me.
2. What you did write is a combination of vague generalities, wiki-lawering, and platitudes about how Wikipedia editors are supposed to act which has no connection to how they actually do act.

My own general views on editorial conflicts is that there is nothing wrong with some interpersonal conflict; and since it is part of human nature, WP efforts to suppress it rather are unnecessary (not to mention futile) if there is evidence of editorial progress, and if it has not become mean spirited. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you to a point. There are a few disputes that I keep an eye on, where editors get into a bit of a tussle, but I tend to stay out of it. Because in between the pushing and shoving, the article seems to be making slow progress, and neither of the editors involved seems to be overly concerned with the tone of the discussion, and no one else on the project seems to care enough about the topic to have an opinion. Which doesn't mean that I go completely hands-off... There are still various markers I watch for, at which point I'll step in as an administrator. One is when the dispute seems to be escalating outside of a small contained area, and overflowing to other articles or editors. Another would be if I see indications that some outside editors are reluctant to step in, because of the heat on the talkpage. Another is if an article is undergoing so many back and forth reverts, that it's getting difficult to tell where the "stable" version is, and editors are approaching 3RR. The last criterion, is what was happening at the Psychic article. Multiple editors either passed 3RR, or were teetering on the edge. I could have opted to just protect the article so that no one could edit at all, and indeed, I think that many administrators looking at that situation would have opted for page protection. I, however, dislike protecting articles except as an absolute last resort. Instead, I prefer to identify the editors that are using "revert" as an editing tool, and I tell them to cut it out. As for your point about how Wikipedia editors are supposed to act, not having any connection to how they do act, well, I'm not going to argue that that happens sometimes. This is a big project, with thousands of articles flowing in every day, and disputes are inevitable. However just because sometimes editors ignore policies, does not mean that the policies are okay to ignore. --Elonka 16:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wandered in and made some changes to the article that I think were logical....and got into (what seemed to me) a small dispute. Truthfully, I did not notice until later just how contentious editing this article has been. Five archived files for the talk page in less than a year says a lot. That is an indicator that I usually look at before getting involved with editing. Considering that the article is rather low priority for me, and knowing that that it is so easy to get stung by worried administrators, you are not likely to see much of me there in the future. So administrative actions can be a reason for editors staying away too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

References

I made a revert of your edits here. The reason I did so is that the "ref name" allows one to refer to the same article in several places. Please see WP:CITET for more information. It makes for a cleaner article when the same ref is used multiple times with the ref name code. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I put in what seemed a better source, because it was directly from the Gallup site. If I was wrong about that, then it should be removed. In any case, I have decided that the Psychic article is not worth the trouble involved in editing it, and I think I would rather put my time and effort into articles on subjects that actually interest me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism

You are in violation of the three-revert rule. Please self-revert now, or you will be reported. CJCurrie (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Those were edits, not reverts. I changed a disputed sentence and tried to improve it. It was you who are engaged in edit warring. Please stop. (If you think you have a basis for your 3RR accusation, report it here [23].) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

I have blocked you for 48 hours for edit warring on the Anti-Zionism article. Despite believing that you are "editing" and not edit warring, you should have worked out the dispute on the talk page rather than constantly rewriting. Please do not think that you haven't violated 3RR, because you have. If you wish to contest this block, please use the {{unblock|Your reason here}} template. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please also see WP:GAME. "Editing" like that, as you put it, is still considered reverting. Thanks. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering our past history it seems more that a little problematic that you have blocked me. But I have no doubt that you are sure that your are doing the right thing; and I am, likewise, sure that I have done the right thing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Scarian, I feel cheated that I did not get the usual block template with this block. It looks more decorative on the page. Also I value them as ethical equivalents to a Purple Heart. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Admins don't always have to use the block template, but sure, I shall leave one. I left the above message indicating that you can request unblock using the unblock template. It's the unblock template that places this user talk page into a category which is then checked by other admins. But, sure, I shall honour your request. About "our past", I vaguely remember what went on, but, seeing as there were no problems between us (you and I), per se, I can honestly say that I bare no ill feelings towards you whatsoever. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Anti-Zionism. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If Scarian had taken a look at some of the discussion that occurred concerning the disputed sentence, such as this, from Jayjg, [24] he might understood that the editing situation was different than he assumed.

Additionally, there is a conflict of interest problem in his block. Scarion states on his user page: I am a far-left wing liberal who supports socialism and communist values[25]. Considering that the dispute involved the Anti-Zionism article, anti-Zionism being the standard leftist code word for their version of antisemitism, there is a perception of conflict of interest in his blocking me from editing the article; particularly so since his action left editors more favorable to his (perceived) POV to continue with their editing of the article. I am not saying that another administrator would have acted differently, but I do think Scarion was certainly the wrong administrator to have acted in this dispute. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it shouldn't matter. I never paid any attention to the article whatsoever (except to the check the diffs, of course). Your argument is subjective. It's strange that you think it plays any part in this, are you self-admitting that your edits were biased to one side? What would a right-winger admin have done? Let you go scott-free? Actually, I don't really understand your argument at all. I leave my POV at the door and I have never edited any politically charged article (except removing vandalism, of course) and I have never taken any administrative action against anyone because of a politically charged article. If you wish to be unblocked, please use the unblock template above, otherwise please could you stop leaving messages here. Thank you. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The perception is bad. I do not claim that an administrator with different views would have acted differently, I said that the perception of neutrality is lacking. It is not an issue of left politics, but the simple fact that the political left has shifted to an Anti-Zionist stance. (I would be surprised to find that, in other respects, your political views are different -- or more to the left -- than my own.) This was not intended as a personal criticism of your good intentions. Meaning well is one thing, insensitivity to the issue involved is another. I am sorry if this has hurt your feelings, because that is certainly not my intention.

I will make an unblock request soon. As far as I know I have a right to use this page, which is for now my only means of communicating on this web site. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, now that I have tried, I can't get the unblock template to work. With my lack of computer know-how it would probably be better if I was not editing WP anyhow. I suppose that is the only permanent solution to my many annoyances with WP. Non fare pasta. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kwork2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Since I have not been able to get the unblock request template to work for me, I am putting it here (see below) under a separate heading:

Decline reason:

Good faith edits are not considered vandalism, but may well be reversions (where the only question is whether you are substantially returning an article to a previous version). In this particular case, you have reverted other editors' edits repeatedly, which is specifically forbidden. Please discuss disputed changes on the article talk page instead of repeatedly redoing the same edits when your block is over. — Coren ^(talk) 23:19, 28 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.

Coren, thanks for reviewing the block. I appreciate that things have progressed to the point of conceding that the edits might have been made in good faith. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have come to think that, in many cases, the administrative blocks of users for "edit warring" (which is really nothing but some editorial dissonance, that is in a wider sense integral to human nature), is far more disruptive to the editing process than the problem it is intended to cure. Also, unfortunately, many WP editors have become adapt at manipulating these badly thought out rules to gain their own editing goals, thereby forcing their POVs into countless articles. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcom, please keep in mind that as a terciary reference source, Wikipedia is not truth (TM). Hence, its rules may now and then seem nettlesome to you, moreover when they do indeed spin out systemic bias which can show up as blatant PoV in some core, high traffic articles. We do what we can. Speaking only for myself, when I want to tell folks about my own sometimes outspoken takes on truth, I write a book, or talk about it somewhere other than on en.Wikipedia. Meanwhile, you were edit warring, which always hurts the project, whether or not the edit warring is in good faith or supports the reliable sources on a topic. You can try carrying on breaking the rules but be careful, because blocks for this kind of thing tend to get much longer, quick. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, I appreciate your kindness and helpfulness, but disagree with you. Not about WP:Reliable sources, which is not an issue for me, and which played no part in this block. The problem is WP attempting to impose a reign of good human relations, which is well intentioned but misguided because a certain amount of friction and disagreement to a integral to human nature, and so is unavoidable.

As for your accusation that I was edit warring, that is a WP term which, as far as I know, has no place in philosophical ethics. I do not think I did anything ethically wrong. Moreover, if you examine the context of what occurred on the talk page [26], you will see that the disputed content had the support of another (highly experienced) editor who was not participating at the time (perhaps in disgust over the incivility of some other editors), and that the content had so many reliable sources to support it that it was almost ridiculous. In my view the administrator who blocked me for 3RR, by that, did far more to disrupt the editing process than I had done by my edits.

Once again, Gwen Gale, I appreciate your kindness, helpfulness, and good intentions. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Once one becomes aware of this private website's rules, if one knowingly and steadfastly breaches them, one will indeed be ethically wrong, because in so doing, one would be trying to usurp someone else's private property as their own. The owners of Wikipedia (WmF) give community consensus sway on their website, this website, in most areas: The rules grow from this community consensus and hence are the rules of the private owners of this private property, this website. If you don't abide by the rules of this private website, not only would it be a strong hint that you have strayed from Anglo-Saxon notions of ethics having to do with private property, but sooner or later you'll be blocked altogether from editing here. There are many interactive websites and otherwise editable ways of doing stuff on the Internet. Maybe this one isn't for you. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I get blocked permanently, then I will stop editing. The owners of WP have a right to impose their rules for participating, but they do not have a right to impose a reign of thought control, and I do worry that Wiki-speak is starting to develop into a sort of Newspeak. Since I am willing to live with the consequences of my editing (as in the present case), since I do not ever make edits that are not made in good faith, and since my edits are always based on the foundational WP concept of WP:reliable sources; I am willing the leave the rest for others to decide. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it is my observation that it is a natural tendency for groups such as WP to want eliminate members who are critical, believing that it is disruptive of (the hoped for) smooth flow. That is always a mistake because it reduces the possibility to correcting many problems, but the inclination to remove the irritants usually wins out. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing on this private website is wholly voluntary and truth be told, they do have a right to impose thought control or any other lawful activity they please: They could even ask that everyone wear pink panties whilst editing. If they did these things, I'd find something else to do with the time I volunteer, is all. I'd rather wear white ones, although pale pink tights can be ok, I'd have to think about that one. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gwen Gale, I think I have made my views on this pretty clear. That is the part that is up to me. All the rest can be decided by those with wiki-authority to do as they choose in matters concerning the web site. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but they likely will and you'll likely wind up blocked indef. Meanwhile, here's a handy cheat sheet (you might want to make your own copy before it gets deleted). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's something you might truly find helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, there is one point in the previous discussion that I did not mention, because I assumed it is obvious, but perhaps it was not. The explanation I gave for my edits [27] represents what I thought was true. If I was wrong, that is what is known as a mistake. I do not consider getting blocked an effective editing strategy, and would not intentionally violate 3RR.

My explanations above are my views on WP efforts to legislate good human relations, which I consider well meaning but ineffective. But my disagreeing with WP rules is not to say I ever break the rules intentionally. I assumed that it was obvious to you that I value rational behavior, but -- as I now think back over your replies -- perhaps the was not your assumption. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcom, no worries, I've always thought you're rational. However, it has seemed to me that you have, with clear foresight and thoughtfulness, been heading yourself towards an indefinite block, rather than acknowledge and follow rules you don't agree with. There is no need to do this. Either way, sooner or later you may indeed come to understand that edit warring (making lots of reverts other than to tamp down straightforward vandalism) always hurts the project, even when the reverts themselves seem editorially ok, which is why edit warring isn't allowed. You'll find that the same techniques used for skirting edit wars (discussion, thorough citation of reliable sources and NPoV wording along with steadfast civility) also tend to stabilize articles. Meanwhile some articles will indeed take months or even years to grow and stabilize into truly NPoV tertiary references and getting there is often messier than most of us would like. More or less, sooner or later, Wikipedia builds helpful articles. The process is often not time-efficient but the work is done by unpaid volunteers so it carries forth anyway, the goals are worthy and very long term (so rare these days) and the outcome speaks for itself, Wikipedia articles in dozens of languages are noted among the most widely consulted general reference content in the world. The pith is, if you want to help out, you're very welcome here. Do what you can: Find reliable sources, cite them, write helpful content supported by them, talk about it with other editors when the need comes up. If you do this, you'll sway article content more towards where you think it should be, not always as much and sometimes, hardly at all, but you'll leave behind a helpful wake of edits from which readers can learn and upon which later editors can build. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen Gale. You always do such a nice job explaining the WP party line .

It is not that I disagree, it is just that I frequently have to deal with editors who see nothing wrong with writing edit summaries such as this [28], in which edit G-Dett is reverting Jayjg 's inclusion of the same disputed sentence over which I got blocked. I have often wondered if it is that many administrators don't understand the crap that is going in here, or if they know but just choose to ignore it.

My point above (yesterday) was that it is useless and silly for administrators to jump on one editor for 3RR in an editing situation that was previously made toxic, and in fact made toxic by intention, by other editors who are pushing their own POV into an article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett didn't stray outside the bounds of the three revert rule, you did. Yes, calling Jayjg's edit "vandalism" was untowards and warnable but most experienced admins learn to ignore this kind of endless, low-level noise at articles with lots of religious/nationalistic back and forth. 3rr, however, is another tale. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That is too mechanical an approach because there are other factors (some far more intangible) that have a much bigger effect on the editing dynamics of an article than 3RR. The one time I got someone blocked for 3RR, I regretted it because there was added disturbance, and no benefit. Since then, even when I could have filed 3RR complaints, I have passed on it, and I think editing has gone better without it. But I have no further expectation of changing your thinking, so (from my perspective) this discussion is just one more failed experiment.

In any case, as I have already represented to you, my getting blocked was a result of my misunderstanding of the ground rules of 3RR. If you believe that, or not, is of no particular concern to me, and it is just water under the bridge. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you won't violate 3rr or edit war again? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I said that I consider this discussion to be a failed experiment. Your question proves that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion was meant to talk about your block for 3rr. If you violate 3rr again, you'll likely be blocked for much longer. If you want to try and change Wikipedia policy, WP:VPP is >>>>>> that way. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I have no interest in the block. Its water under the bridge. If you, or any other administrator, should think it will do some good by expanding the block from two days, to two months, or two years, I can live with that. (Although, for some reason, the block seems to be expired. You might want to check, because that is probably a mistake.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You were blocked for 48 hours and the block has now automatically lifted. Happy editing! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your message. I was not offended at all, so no worries here. I have never paid much attention to Anti-Zionism. And I do apologise if you felt that I was in the wrong position to block. Right now, more than ever, politics is a very heated debate and it can always lead to clouded judgement. As you said above, this is just water under the bridge and I hold no ill feelings towards you at all in any of our previous discussions. If you want to work on any articles at all together just drop me an e-mail (As long as they don't concern politics, of course ;-). Cheerio! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Scarian, I appreciate your very pleasant and kind reply. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

SPAM or not spam?

I undid a revert today, I would like to explain. It is the first time (unless I have forgotten) that I have ever un-done a revert of a change that I made. In fact, this is the only time I know of -- other than when I myself did an (undo) of one of "my own" edits -- when any change I have made, has been un-done.

The reasons why I made (and UN-reverted) that change

(the change that got undone) (by you) First, I knew that there is a book with the exact same title as the wikipedia article that I was editing. I am not sure whether that book is "notable" enough to have its own wikipedia article, but maybe it is. In any event, I wanted to avoid the risk that readers would think that the book and the wikipedia article (the one that I was editing) were both about the same thing (in the sense of being, both about magic). If the Practical_Kabbalah(book) article did exist, then there could be a disambiguation page. But, I am not sure how to do that. I considered starting an article about the book, but I hesitated.

Previous time when I tried to write (start) a WP article

I have only written a "new" article before once, and it was sorta ill-fated. It was due to a red link that SOMEONE ELSE had created -- (so I thought I was repairing a "red link" situation that was in need of some repair). It later turned out (light years later), that the red link was due to some kind of mis-spelling, or typo. But of course I did not know that; and I put some quantity of work, in to creating the new article. (Probably it was not "completely" wasted work; the part that did not duplicate the old article, probably did get "merged" (saved) to the old article, before the new article went away. [-- and, the spelling difference -- the one that had caused the red link -- I think it was one that involved a capitalized initial letter of a word, something like that -- what a chicken feed "typo"!...] But anyway, it was a strange experience.

What should be done now?

I do not want to get in trouble, or anything like that. The article Practical_Kabbalah seems to be pretty sure that the phrase "Practical_Kabbalah" always refers to something that involves magic. I am not sure how well known (or, "notable") the book Practical_Kabbalah(book) is, but any reader who has seen it (seen the cover) but has not read the book, might be at risk of being misled. This risk of mis-understanding is a concern to me, even if, ("in the opinion of certain experts"), the author of the book was wrong to choose the title that he chose. ((actually, maybe it is possible that the book contains some explanation of why the title was chosen, and maybe the author knew that it would be ironic or something, and would be at odds with some common use of that phrase; but if so, I am not familiar enough with the book, to know that.))
I am open to hear what you would suggest, in order to try to avoid mis-understanding, while at the same time trying to live by the rules, like, that stuff has to be notable, or whatever.
I [think I] understand, that you can just do your (undo) "again", since it would only be the second time. However, I would ask, that we could try to reach some kind of agreement first, in the talk pages, before proceeding. Sorry if I am getting the wiki etiquette wrong.
I do not dispute that, when you thought you were removing "SPAM" (the first time), that you really thought that there was no possible justification for it. Now I would claim that, the justification might not be good enough, but -- in my opinion -- it is not "SPAM". It was perhaps, a misguided effort (in some way) by me, but well meaning.
I hope we can make some progress in reaching some kind of agreement. Should we maybe bring in some other person to help?
I am going to be out of town (from my home, where I live) Nov. 6 --> 13, 2008. (I live in Glendale Arizona, and I plan to be in Texas). I will probably have my laptop PC with me, which has wifi, and I might be able to get on the internet occasionally. But, in case I am away from the net, (e.g. if 48 hours passes and I have not replied yet, to something) then please feel free to phone me. My user page on WP has a link to my Facebook page, which shows my cell phone number. If you can't get to that, then

Can the phrase "Practical Kabbalah" actually be used in different ways?

PS: There is an entry in the "Visitor Comments", (with an answer to the question), that can be seen at "http://www.kabbalaonline.org/Safedteachings/otherkab/Keys_to_True_Prophecy.asp". If you read that, maybe you will understand the meaning better than I do. (if you do, then, good!)
In any event, I think it might help to shed some light on, the nature of the possible "mis-understanding" that I was originally concerned about (and, motivated by). Maybe the article Practical Kabbalah actually should have a more complete explanation, of the extent to which it is possible to use that phrase in more than one way. [that is, if it is (possible)]. Your advice "if any" would be appreciated. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Censorship" edit

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It's just someone trolling, and I believe they've been blocked now. More disturbing was when User:Liftarn removed comments protesting the IP editor's personal attacks, but left the original attacks there. Disturbing, as I said, but completely unsurprising. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

this might be of interest to you

check out my addition to the Red Army Faction article (section on antisemitism).

Telaviv1 (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeh. When I was first studying in Florence back in 1967, another student (who was florentine) told me that when WW2 was over most of the fascists became communists. At first I thought that could not be true; but, when I looked into it, it turned out to be so in many instances. Thanks for the link. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD of European Jews for a Just Peace

Hi Malcolm

Just to remind you that you should have let me know about the AfD. Someone else alerted me, but I neglected to watch the page I created, therefore I wouldn't have known. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I tend to assume that editors have the articles they have created on their watch list. I have not exactly tried to keep the AfD a secret, and there is even related discussion I took to the Village Pump[29], which you are also welcome to comment upon. (RolandR voted on the nomination yesterday, so I don't know what he is kvetching about.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

why I didn't comment

This is not a personal attack, it's a claim, which is why I made no comment on it. Please keep in mind, no other admin has yet to deem it as a personal attack, either. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? I consider this very much a personal attack:

Admins reading this should be aware that Malcolm is committed to the view that anti-Zionism implies anti-Semitism, and virtually all his editing at anti-Zionism is aimed at pushing that point of view, against the consensus of other editors. The thread here is just the latest of several attempts to game the system in order to overcome consensus. looie496 (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And my actual name is involved also. I will take the subject up again. Hopefully it will not take too long before I get to it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI

I'm ready to discuss your issue but not in that thread. It's just too complicated to deal with two things at once. Start a new thread if you would like, and I'll respond to it as quickly as I can. Looie496 (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

(responding to message on my talk page) Fine, let's do it here. I'm going to be out for the next few hours, (it's 11 AM on Saturday here), but when I get back to the keyboard, I'll outline my reasons for saying that. I'll watch your talk page, so we can keep the discussion in one place. Looie496 (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, a quick question before I go though -- do you claim that you are not a proponent of the view that anti-Zionism implies anti-Semitism, or only that you have not been trying to push that point of view in the article? Looie496 (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is often an intended antisemitism, and almost always some element of unconscious antisemitism. But you need to understand that, in my view, even many supporters of Zionism are to some extent antisemitic. Although I am not at all religious, in this I tend to the traditional Jewish belief that thoughts not acted upon carry no burden of responsibility. I was told of a man in Poland who viciously insulted the Jews of the village at every opportunity, but when the Nazis invaded Poland he risked his own life by hiding Jews in his house. Go figure. As far as the article is concerned, this [30] explains how I see its problems. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Looie496, just to make it clear, what I want to resolve, in discussion between us, is this [31]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that. It's been hard to find the energy for this because I don't think you'll take the result seriously in any case, but here's my evidence (expressed in the third person, which is not intended as an insult):

First I note a bunch of prior editing to New antisemitism, which is basically a code word for anti-Zionism viewed as antisemitism. This is not strictly relevant to the anti-Zionism article but it is noteworthy that the thrust of the edits is to support the validity of the term "New antisemitism" and diminish or disparage criticism.

Concerning anti-Zionism, which was the article I refered to directly, Malcolm has made about 80 edits since Oct 27. Here is an assessment of them. I'm not going to claim that everything here is perfectly accurate, because many of the diffs are very complicated, but I believe that this captures the thrust:

• Oct 27: First edit changes "The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is debated." to "The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism -- and if is an example of,[2] cover for,[3] or overlaps with[4][5] antisemitism -- has been much debated.[6][7][8]" violated 3rr by repeatedly inserting variations of this against opposition. This leads to block.
• Nov 1: Two edits, one backing up the relationship between the two things, the other a copy-edit.
• Nov 2: Repeats same change after reversion, and makes other edits that replace account of Jews against Anti-Zionism with a more disparaging account. Later same day repeats this after part was reverted, and also does some copy-editing that goes mildly in direction of supporting same message.
• Nov 3: Removes new section on socialist opposition that contains no hint of anti-Semitism. Later same day, long series of edits that add section on "new antisemitism", reduce material on Jewish opposition to Zionis, and copy-edit a few things
• Nov 6: Restore some of this material that had been removed by other editors. Later same day, some reorganization of Jewish opposition section that is hard to understand.
• Nov 7: Opposes edits to anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism section that attempted to trim it down. Later same day, completely remove section on International Anti-Zionism.
• Nov 12: Replace long and detailed section on History of anti-Zionism with short section on "History and Context of anti-Zionism", where "context" is code-word for anti-Semitism. Then edit-wars over this.
• Nov 14: Reverts again to maintain his version.
• Nov 17: Adds new section starting with quote: "It is a historical fact that since the year 1921 there has been an antisemitic anti-Zionism in existence."
• Nov 18: Copy-edits apparently
• Nov 20: Supports another editor in removing material on secular Jewish opposition to Zionism. Later same day, reverts edits that lengthened this material.
• Nov 25: Removes section on European Jews for a Just Peace, then thinks better of it and reverts self, with edit summary, "leave for now, even if only a halfwit would consider it reliable"
• Nov 26: reverts to restore category:anti-Semitism
• Nov 27: repeats this reversion, and reverts to put back Jaschka Fischer quote equating anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism, then edit-wars over this, and finally takes it to ANI.

In summary, the consistent pattern here is edits that either enhance the message that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, or reduce or disparage accounts of anti-Zionism that cannot be interpreted as anti-Semitic, mostly Jewish anti-Semitism. Mixed in with this is a modest amount of copy-editing and reformatting. Looie496 (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, you seem to think this is going to be a trial, in which you press charges against me. If you think I am in violation of WP standards, and want to press charges against me, then you should take this to AN/I and we can continue there. If, on the other hand, you want to have a reasonable discussion, then we can discuss things here.

But, just to reply to the Jaschka Fischer issue, that material was WP:verifiable and WP: reliable source. It was another editor who added it, and all I did was defend it as reliably sourced. If you think that reliably sourced material, that is relevant to the article, can be removed just because some editors do not like what it says, it would seem that you do not much care for WP:NPOV. You need to think about that.

What I referred to when you first made your accusation against me -- and I do not recall that you ever had any complaints on the few occasions when we actually edited articles together -- I referred to this list of characteristics of POV pushing [32]. I do not think that describes my editing, and even in the cases involving reverting, it always involved reliably sourced material that others wanted to remove, or attempts to add material that was not reliably sourced. It is assumed that editors will have differing views of a subject, and if that is put into an article has reliable sources, that is not POV pushing, that is normal editing. If you think that an article should represent only the views you like, you should not be editing WP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I thought it was a trial in which you press charges against me -- of falsely representing your style of editing, and this was my defense against that charge. Everybody has motives for their editing, and there is nothing wrong with that. One of my goals is to establish a principle that people's objectives should be transparent, and I made that statement in ANI because I thought in that thread that you were trying to promote a certain goal without revealing the nature of that goal. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, when I filed the AN/I over the deleted material, I just described the problem, and asked for a solution. I did not even name the editors I think acted incorrectly (although there were diffs), and I did not call them POV pushers who were gaming the system -- even though that is pretty much the case -- because I understand that they are acting according to what they think is right; although the rule they are applying to the situation is a fallacy. Up until now I had a much better opinion of you than I did of them, but after seeing those two cheap shots in one day, and followed by a lot of self justification, I trust you less than any of them. It was most of all, I suppose, disappointing. I think we can consider this discussion closed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Italic text

Have you seen this tool yet?

[View statistics for WP Anti-Zionism article]. It's a nifty statistics tool, just enter the name of a WP article and the month and it returns the number of views for the days of a month. I only mention this because we sometimes forget that while Wikipedia is a top ten website, that doesn't mean that each of its articles gets many views. For Anti-Zionism there are maybe 300 views on average daily. That isn't such a high number.

I'm still learning the ropes of WP, but one thing I discovered is that on high-traffic, high-importance articles with many thousands of views per day, there are a number of safeguards to to prevent tendentious editing. Many editors watchlist these articles and respond within minutes to vandalism or tendentious edits. Also, it isn't in WP policy, but you will often find one or two admins supervising these articles as wardens, and they are quick to step in with corrective action. Instead of allowing interminable discussions to grow, they will cut to the chase: revert and block.

In the backwaters of WP, articles do not have such "wardens". So when there is a conflict, you often get a clueless admin stepping in with a rote application of the WP rule book, and the results are often unsatisfying. This gets exploited by creeps and weirdos, some of whom enjoy picking on Jewish people. They will try every trick in the book to provoke you into some technical violation such as 3RR or to get you to break civility rules. Some of their devices are:

• BOUNCING BALL: start with "There was no Holocaust" -- when proven false, immediately bounce to "Ashkenazi Jews are Kazakhs" -- when proven false, immediately bounce to "The Israelis murdered the USS Liberty crew" -- when proven false, immediately bounce to "The Jewish Lobby as secret U.S. government" -- when proven false…
• PLAYING STUPID: after a dozen of posts, ask you to start again from the beginning as if nothing you said has made an impact, or replay your comments to you in a distorted form, hoping to provoke you into losing your temper
• MOVING THE GOALPOSTS: a variation on BOUNCING BALL, but staying within a topic: as soon as you prove them wrong on one point, without acknowledgement they immediately drag in one other source, one other aspect, indefinitely postponing a concession
• INJURED INNOCENCE: when you call them on their tactics, decorate them with a few choice epithets or identify their bad faith, run to Mommy and ask for an admin to punish you.

Their task is made easier when several of them band together or when they are unwittingly being helped by unsuspecting editors or admins. There is no quick fix. You can do things by the letter, slowly working your way up the Dispute Resolution ladder and soliciting increasingly wider Community input; I have seen that work, but not always. You can step away from a particular situation, in light of the knowledge that a particular Article does not get many page views on the Internet. You can leave Wikipedia altogether and enjoy the extra time gained to be with your loved ones, focus on work or a hobby. I think all of these are reasonable responses.

(Just so there is no confusion because of proximity to the thread above, the above comments specifically do not apply to Looie496.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Goodmorningworld, my daughter is home today, so it is uncertain how much time I will have on the computer, and I will have to read this later....no matter how much it interests me. You might be interested in this discussion [33] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on the statistics tool. (I wonder if those numbers include the viewing of the editors. Sometimes I suspect that no one is reading some of these articles but the editors.) I am starting to think that it might be better to merge some of the articles. For instance, anything of value in Anti-Zionism and New Antisemitism (both of which are in bad shape) could be merged with Zionism and Antisemitism, respectively. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

GDB on ANI

Hi, could you tell me if you think my comment came off as an ad. hom. in your opinion? It is asking for strong measures but justifies them with reference to Guido's actions. I'll try to address any concerns you have, thanks Verbal chat 21:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. My only objection is to dismissing a user because he/she obviously has "problems". Anyhow, even someone who is a problem can be right on occasion. I don't actually know anything about the case, but there is nothing wrong with blocks base on editing content.

I worry that I came down too hard on this point. I don't want to make myself WP Commissar of Sensitivity....and I would hardly be the right person if there was such a thing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

refactoring comments

Malcolm, please don't re-factor the comments of other editors as you did here. It is misleading and disruptive. Although you claim a personal attack was made, what you refactored was someone's outlook on how you have edited project pages. You've been warned before about refactoring comments, if you do this again, you will likely be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, I did not remove a single word. Yesterday I asked Jpgordon if there was a rule against such refactoring [34], and he did not seem to know of one, so just what are you planing to block me for?

I suggest that you back off and let another administrator handle this, because I have come to think that you have developed a bias against me. At minimum, I wish you would figure out how to spell my name. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You indeed removed much more than a single word, you removed at least a whole paragraph starting with, Nobody would guess you've been warned (3 times?) for re-factoring TalkPages and then reminded again when you've carried on doing it...

Whether this was a careless mistake (removing a large swath of content without knowing you had done) or a way of trying to further mislead editors (by saying "I did not remove a single word" when this is clearly not true), your behaviour, either heedless or intended, has become disruptive and I have blocked you 72 hours for disruption. As for bias, since that first time you emailed me for help in trying to re-establish your user account, I have overlooked edit warring, incivility and tendentious editing by you. Meanwhile, your ever-growing block log speaks for itself. However, I'm sorry for mis-spelling your first name. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale wrote: I have overlooked edit warring, incivility and tendentious editing by you. Meanwhile, your ever-growing block log speaks for itself.

Really? I do not recall having asked you to overlook anything. Moreover, you seem to be trying to present it as though I am some sort of weird page vandal, stalker, or troll. In fact my edits are rational. But, although what you wrote above, makes it clear that you dislike me, why did you not give a reason for going from a warning to a block without my having done anything? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruption. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Kwork2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Following Gwen Gale's warning she went ahead and blocked me for 72 hours. I do not see what the cause was for going from a warning, to a 72hour block, without anything having changed. It is not as though I reverted what she restored to the page, I did not do that.

Also, to the best of my knowledge I did not change or remove a single word of text. If there actually was any text that I inadvertently removed, all she need to do was point out the problem, and I would have restored it. In fact, the way it is now on the Village Pump is exactly what my change was, because all I did was change two words that formed a separate heading back to text under the heading for my thread. as can be seen here I changed "===Arbitary Break===" to <-- "Arbitary Break" -- which I outdented [35]. If Gwen Gale had explained that there was text missing, I would have gone back and corrected that.

But even putting that misunderstanding aside, I do not see how it is possible to go from a warning, to a 72hour block, without anything having changed. It is not as though I reverted what she restored to the page, I did not do that. Let me just repeat that: I do not understand how, or why, Gwen Gale went from a warning to a 72 hr block without my taken any action to justify that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding: see diffs below that prove PalestineRemembered, not me, deleted the content

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.

Administrator use only:

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=Following Gwen Gale's warning she went ahead and blocked me for 72 hours. I do not see what the cause was for going from a warning, to a 72hour block, without anything having changed. It is not as though I reverted what she restored to the page, I did not do that. Also, to the best of my knowledge I did not change or remove a single word of text. If there actually was any text that I inadvertently removed, all she need to do was point out the problem, and I would have restored it. In fact, the way it is now on the Village Pump is exactly what my change was, because all I did was change two words that formed a separate heading back to text under the heading for my thread. as can be seen here I changed "===Arbitary Break===" to <-- "Arbitary Break" -- which I outdented [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=255625427]. If Gwen Gale had explained that there was text missing, I would have gone back and corrected that. But even putting that misunderstanding aside, I do not see how it is possible to go from a warning, to a 72hour block, without anything having changed. It is not as though I reverted what she restored to the page, I did not do that. Let me just repeat that: I do not understand how, or why, Gwen Gale went from a warning to a 72 hr block without my taken any action to justify that. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha#top|talk]]) 12:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC) '''Adding: see diffs below that prove PalestineRemembered, not me, deleted the content''' |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=Following Gwen Gale's warning she went ahead and blocked me for 72 hours. I do not see what the cause was for going from a warning, to a 72hour block, without anything having changed. It is not as though I reverted what she restored to the page, I did not do that. Also, to the best of my knowledge I did not change or remove a single word of text. If there actually was any text that I inadvertently removed, all she need to do was point out the problem, and I would have restored it. In fact, the way it is now on the Village Pump is exactly what my change was, because all I did was change two words that formed a separate heading back to text under the heading for my thread. as can be seen here I changed "===Arbitary Break===" to <-- "Arbitary Break" -- which I outdented [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=255625427]. If Gwen Gale had explained that there was text missing, I would have gone back and corrected that. But even putting that misunderstanding aside, I do not see how it is possible to go from a warning, to a 72hour block, without anything having changed. It is not as though I reverted what she restored to the page, I did not do that. Let me just repeat that: I do not understand how, or why, Gwen Gale went from a warning to a 72 hr block without my taken any action to justify that. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha#top|talk]]) 12:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC) '''Adding: see diffs below that prove PalestineRemembered, not me, deleted the content''' |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=Following Gwen Gale's warning she went ahead and blocked me for 72 hours. I do not see what the cause was for going from a warning, to a 72hour block, without anything having changed. It is not as though I reverted what she restored to the page, I did not do that. Also, to the best of my knowledge I did not change or remove a single word of text. If there actually was any text that I inadvertently removed, all she need to do was point out the problem, and I would have restored it. In fact, the way it is now on the Village Pump is exactly what my change was, because all I did was change two words that formed a separate heading back to text under the heading for my thread. as can be seen here I changed "===Arbitary Break===" to <-- "Arbitary Break" -- which I outdented [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=255625427]. If Gwen Gale had explained that there was text missing, I would have gone back and corrected that. But even putting that misunderstanding aside, I do not see how it is possible to go from a warning, to a 72hour block, without anything having changed. It is not as though I reverted what she restored to the page, I did not do that. Let me just repeat that: I do not understand how, or why, Gwen Gale went from a warning to a 72 hr block without my taken any action to justify that. [[User:Malcolm Schosha|Malcolm Schosha]] ([[User talk:Malcolm Schosha#top|talk]]) 12:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC) '''Adding: see diffs below that prove PalestineRemembered, not me, deleted the content''' |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

{{helpme}} I can not get the appeal request to work. You can see the text above. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --Amalthea 13:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem was the with the equal signs in the parameters, which throw MediaWiki's template parser off. It helps to name the first parameter explicitly then, with "1=". Cheers, Amalthea 13:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if you will be back to see this, but thanks for the help. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. ;) --Amalthea 17:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The so-called refactoring

I am including diffs related to the so-called refactoring, up to the point that PalestineRemembered, not me deleted content:

1. this is PalestineRemembered's original edit [36]
2. this is my following edit. As far as I can see everything in PalestineRemembered's original edit is still there [37] All I did was change two words from subheading to outdented regular text.
3. this is PalestineRemembered's revert. NB: he seems to have lost some text in the revert:[38]
4. I reverted PalestineRemembered without noticing that he had lost some text [39]
5. PalestineRemembered reverted again, did not notice that text was missing[40]

I think this enough to establish that I did nothing wrong, but that the change was made by PalestineRemembered -- if intentional (intending to get me blocked), or an accident , I do not know. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

He didn't "lose the text," it's still there after his edit, you're the one who removed it. Your list above misleads, because the edit you cite in item 5 happened before (18:18) the edit you cite in item 4 (18:21), not after. This is all part of the time-wasting muddle, worry and disruption caused by refactoring talk page comments. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a paragraph gone from his original edit (aside from what this dispute is about). As for the bull shit PalestineRemembered added to the very bottom, I did not see it, and as far as I knew I retained all his edit. Moreover, when I said I had not removed anything, why did you assume bad faith, instead of explaining and seeing if I would correct it? Why would I say something intentionally wrong if it was provable I had done it. As far as I knew the only change I made was a subtitle to an outdent. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that refactoring others' comments is at best unnecessary and can be disruptive. But I don't understand this block. You warned him to stop and he didn't continue. He seems to have, in good faith, reverted PalestineRemembered's re-promotion of the section heading without realizing that he had made other comments in the same edit. (BTW, #3 and #5 above are the same edit.) That's careless... but he only did it once. Mangojuice^talk 17:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale has edited against me on pages that involved Israel/Palestine issues, and I do not think it is appropriate that she should be acting as a blocking administrator in this case. Even it it was not intentional harm, she has become predisposed against me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way,Mangojuice, I am sorry if I duplicated a diff. I have said more that once that in a more perfect world someone as computer incompetent as I am would not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. The editing programs are not that user friendly, and I do get confused by diffs. (My areas of expertise are elsewhere.) I think I have had about enough anyhow, because in my view WP has become a virtual police state. If I accidentally removed some of PalestineRemembered's bullshit edit, just restore it. It had no business on the VillagePump anyhow. This block is insane. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If I accidentally removed some of PalestineRemembered's bullshit edit? Malcolm, you're not helping yourself here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, You are trying to present me as "out of control" when I am actually just "ticked off." Anyone who thinks I am out of control can read the whole VillagePump thread in question, and decide for themselves [41], as well as improvements I made to Stoicism, Kabbalah, Celtic knot, Jose de Creeft (that I created), Islamic interlace patterns (that I created), and other articles that I have improved without controversy, edit wars, or refactoring. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging that you removed content. If you agree to never refactor talk pages (other than your own) anymore, I'll unblock you. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You are asking me to make this promise to hide that you have blocked me improperly. I have not violated any WP rule that you can name, and saying that I am "disruptive", in this case, amounts to nothing more than you do not like it, and do not like me. I did not refactor anything, and if something got accidentally deleted, all that was necessary was to restore it. Moreover, while I edit under my own name you are making these accusations, that make me sound no better than a common pick-pocket, while hiding behind a Wikipedia alias. Anyone who does a Google search under my name, will see these misrepresentations and lies.

Disruptive? If what I did bothered PalestineRemembered, I have no regrets; and anyone who reads the thread [42] can decide for themselves if I was disruptive, or if the disruptive editor was PalestineRemembered. In my view, I have done nothing that was unethical, or vicious, nor have I even broken a WP rule (for what little they are worth when compared with the value of ethical issues), but rather it is you and PalestineRemembered who have acted viciously while hidden behind your WP aliases. This accusation is disgusting, really, and I have no expectation that things will get better. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him after the warning because he claimed he hadn't removed any content, although he had. Hence, I saw a risk of ongoing disruption to the project. So far, he hasn't acknowledged that he removed content, either meaning to or not. If he agrees not to refactor talk page comments anymore, ever, I'll happily unblock him now. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

a short philosophy lesson (for anyone who has an interest in such things)

"Has someone made the house smoky? If the smoke is moderate, I will stay; if it is excessive, I go out: for you must always remember this and hold it fast, that the door is open. Well, but you say to me, "Do not live in Nicopolis." I will not live there. "Nor in Athens." I will not live in Athens. "Nor in Rome." I will not live in Rome. "Live in Gyarus." I will live in Gyarus, but it seems like a great smoke to live in Gyarus; and I depart to the place where no man will hinder me from living, for that dwelling-place is open to all; and as to the last garment, that is the poor body, no one has any power over me beyond this. This was the reason why Demetrius said to Nero, "You threaten me with death, but nature threatens you." If I set my admiration on the poor body, I have given myself up to be a slave: if on my little possessions, I also make myself a slave: for I immediately make it plain with what I may be caught; as if the snake draws in his head, I tell you to strike that part of him which he guards; and do you he assured that whatever part you choose to guard, that part your master will attack. Remembering this, whom will you still flatter or fear?" Epictetus, Discourses, 1.25.18-25

Epictetus was born a slave, studied Stoic philosophy while still a slave, founded his own school to teach Stoicism after being freed, was exiled by the tyrant Domitian, founded a new school in Nicopolis, and lived to became one of the most famous Stoic teachers. Remarkable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)