User talk:93.96.148.42

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		This makes the first barnstar that I can recall giving to an IP contributor in three years. Good job keeping a level head and working toward a compromise when someone (I guess that would be me) immediately assumed you were attempting to push a POV on Jewish Terrorism. I don't know if you have registered an account with Wikipedia, but if you haven't... I hope you do. Trusilver 08:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2,000+

This user has made more than 2,000 contributions to Wikipedia.

This user doesn't like Nazis.

This user thinks nationalism is outdated.

This user believes in the power of nonviolence.

		The Special Barnstar
		For resilience, for remaining bold Alistair Stevenson (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Silvio Berlusconi. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Work permit (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right to Exist

This link should be added only to articles that are directly related to the subject matter. It's not clear how Republic of Ireland and Catalan language are connected to the existence of Israel. ... discospinster _talk 20:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote to me when I edited this page last fall, haven't been back to Wikipedia since. My question is, I thought there were advantages to having a name. But you don't have one and you seem to edit a lot. Is there some advantage to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMelian (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A number is more neutral than a word. PRtalk, for example, makes me think of Public Relations, and doubt his sincerity.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist political violence

Your help would be much appreciated at this article which could be much expanded and improved. However, some of what you're doing is pointlessly partisan. Details of Lehi's motivation doesn't belong in the lead - whereas there is much that does belong there.
Can I ask that you log-in rather than editting as an IP? PR^talk 16:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		This makes the first barnstar that I can recall giving to an IP contributor in three years. Good job keeping a level head and working toward a compromise when someone (I guess that would be me) immediately assumed you were attempting to push a POV on Jewish Terrorism. I don't know if you have registered an account with Wikipedia, but if you haven't... I hope you do. Trusilver 08:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish terrorism - Please explain your point of view

Please do not delete carefully composed referenced sections, composed in collaboration with other editors to further your point of view. Please read the discussions on the talk page before making destructive edits. If you must remove text, it should be placed on the talk page. Please explain how terrorism peformed by Jews in support of a Jewish homeland, such as the stern gang, is not Jewish terrorism. Please refrain from making personal attacks. Together we can build a great encyclopaedia.93.96.148.42 (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish terrorism is terrorism performed in the name of Judaism.

Provide wp:rs sources for Lehi.

I follow your advice and copy material on talk page. Ceedjee (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

you left on my talk page the here above message, that makes you look like a constructive editor.

But, on the other side, you wrote :

"There is a small group of pro-Israeli who consistently make destructive edits to promote their agenda cf Jewish terrorism They delete relevant sourced material they disagree with. Is there anything that can be done to stop this?93.96.148.42 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

Who was you referring to ?

Ceedjee (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about religious terrorism, much like Christian terrorism. The fact that the term has been used by an Haaretz editorial to refer to Israeli settlers does not make it the definition of the term. -- Nudve (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please give some other source. Haaretz carries more weight than you do to me!93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Palestinian political violence has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Daniel 1992 (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Jewish terrorism. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Trusilver 07:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Jewish terrorism has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \babout\.com\b (links: http://terrorism.about.com/od/politicalislamterrorism/tp/religious-terrorism.htm).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

I am sorry - it was a link added by another editor I reused.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:The "Palestinian political violence" message on my talkpage

I'm a little confused here as I did not revert your edit nor did I warn you about your edit so I don't know why your asking for my reasoning for the mesaage/revert when I had nothing to do with it. You really should contact Daniel 1992 to discuss this as, by the looks of it, he warned/reverted you. AngelOfSadness talk 21:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring - you have violated 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jewish terrorism. 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. - Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Canadian Monkey, please provide some sources to support your claim that Jewish Terrorism is religiously motivated, stop deleting my referenced additions to the article without replacing them, and please don't be rude.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure. I think I must have made an error. Sorry. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Thanks for the swift retraction!93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting on my page

If you want to discuss an article, do it on the article Talk: page. Don't post that on my Talk: page again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not wish to discuss an article, but your use of emotive language on the talk page for Palestinian political violence. As it was not concerned with the article, but your language, I thought your page an appropriate place to communicate.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use "emotive language" on the article talk page. If you wish to post to me, do so here. Please don't post on my Talk: page again, per item #4 of the Big Yellow Box. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This lengthy apologia for terrorist actions" is emotive language. when used to describe

"Since 1947 the political aim of the violence has been the creation of an independent Palestinian State, either in accordance with Resolution 181 of the United Nations of 29 November 1947, or including all of historic Palestine. A Palestinian State was declared on November 15, 1988. It has achieved Diplomatic recognition by 96 countries.[2][3], exactly half the members of the United Nations"

I've been quite clear. Don't post on my Talk: page again, particularly commands to participate in a discussion in which I'm already participating. If that's not clear, let me make it even clearer: don't post to my Talk: page again. Save it for the article Talk: pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have a talk page then?93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (93.96.148.42) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! ~user:orngjce223 ☺ how am I typing? 14:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durban_Review_Conference

Greetings. Out of interest, why did you think I'd be interested to see that? In fact, I am, but I wondered why you knew, and why did you mention jalapenos do exist...are you an editor from the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict page??Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Durban Review Conference has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Ono (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the edit, it didnt appear to be constructive (through huggle.) My apologies for reverting it. May I suggest you take it to the talk page? Thanks, Ono (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take it to the talk page, as that information, while not confirmed in that source, may be proven in another one. If you read my first post, I already apologized for reverting it so quickly, but I believe it was the correct choice. Thanks, Ono (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Durban Review Conference. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Ono (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that your edits are in good faith, however, the way that you are wording it, by adding vague phrases w/ weasel words "has been accused", doesn't help the article. If you read the section over the him denying the holocaust, you would have seen that it says that he "formerly" said that.

Your edit: Ahmadinejad had previously called for Israel to be ""the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time", and been accused of referring to the Holocaust as a myth. Note how it doesnt make sense. I went ahead and added a source that said that he denied the holocaust before, per what the article says. Thanks, Ono (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Durban Review Conference, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ono (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies again, i highlighted the wrong template I believe. I was referring to this edit "and accused the West of using the Holocaust as a "pretext" for aggression against Palestinians." It is uncited, or at least it was when you added it, and seems to be almost at the point of violating NPOV. If you can find a reference for it, I have no qualms with you readding it. Thanks, Ono (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add that source to the sentence you added. The reader shouldnt have to go hunting for a source from possibly inflammatory information. Thanks, Ono (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I opened the edit with huggle, the source didnt appear next to the information (as it doesnt open the page as it appears to the reader, but how it appears when being edited.) When i went back and searched, I found the source below the statement. My apologies for not looking harder. Thanks, Ono (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do know how to use huggle. And i stand by my revert, as it appeared to be unsourced. My apology was solely for not looking closely enough when reverting. Thanks, Ono (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in the fact that I blamed my reverting it on Huggle.

I did not see that it was sourced, and that is why it was reverted.
That being said, I stand by my intentions for reverting it, as it appeared to be unsourced.

Sorry if you were confused, or if it is still confusing. Thanks, Ono (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda GDP

In your recent edit to the article Bermuda, you changed the line saying that Bermuda had the highest GDP per capita in 2005 to it having the fourth highest; you appear to have misread the source, which describes the 2004 GDP estimate for Bermuda as being lower than 2007/2008 estimates for other countries. I have reverted the edit. 16:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.210.13 (talk)

The Sergeants Affair

I believe you are the one who flagged this article for disputed neutrality. If so I would be happy if you'd take another look at it, as (after endless problems) I believe it is now close to NPOV. Thanks. FergusM1970 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:BNP

Hi, archiving a page is slightly different, I and another user removed from initial view (they can be seen by clicking the 'show' link) comments that were not discussing the article content but the topic more broadly, while a it was point worthy of discussion the article talk page in not the place for it you may wish to try on of these or these. --Nate 14 81 08:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my, & other editors who hid the comment view, the disscusion was about the topic not how to put the topic into the article. If the core of the discussion had been "this has been said, how should we phrase it fine, but the content of the discussion was material that would have been Original research --Nate 14 81 07:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page War on Terrorism has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 01:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to War on Terrorism. Thank you. Rmosler | ● 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you mean. Irgun and Lehi were Zionist organisations. How is it Npov to say that. They are already described as Jews in the previous sentence. Racism is not Npov.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with your edit. Oftentimes, persons editing under IP addresses have more scrutiny of their edits due to the higher prevalence of non-productive edits under IP addresses. Looking through your past edits it does appear that you have made numerous productive edits. Once again, I apologize if you felt insulted. I would welcome you to start an account with Wikipedia. Rmosler | ● 04:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your desire to change the original heading on my talk page. I changed it to something neutral that references the page that was in conflict. Best regards. Rmosler | ● 04:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 93.96.148.42. You have new messages at Vicenarian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 02:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Username

A way to help get yourself off the vandal radar would be to create an account. You are a welcome, constructive contributor, and I'd like to have a name to call you by. :) You are, of course, welcome to remain editing as an IP, but it's IPs that get the most scrutiny from vandal fighters, as most (but by no means all) vandalism comes from IP users. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 02:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BNP

Please see this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=299680527&oldid=299676570 Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Oak Tree

Looks good, but I will examine more closely. As it happens, I saw the work at Tate Liverpool a few years ago. Marshall46 (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (93.96.148.42) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Irbisgreif (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 93.96.148.42. You have new messages at Pontificalibus's talk page.
Message added 22:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Pontificalibus (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Thank you for notifying us. Next time do some WP:CIVIL, do WP:AGF and just cool down. Nobody has slandered you - it was a standard notification template placed in error by an automated tag. It's been removed - like your inflammatory statement on my talk page. If you want to work together with people, try adopting a different tone. --Kudpung (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rude? Standard Wiki software message my friend. Placed automatically following an edit action that does such things. Editing Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, but there are some rules to be observed. The only combative messages that have been archived were your own. Is there any particular reason for that? We desperately need new editors and I don't mind explaining stuff to newcomers, but you'll have to ask nicely - we are a community here that tries to get along wit each other.--Kudpung (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent it because if I hadn't sent it, someone else would have. As long as you choose not to register with Wikipedia, which of course is entirely your prerogative, you will find occasional semi automated messages placed on your talk page. You will also not have the features, such as warnings and taggings, available to registered users, and that may explain why you do not understand some of these functions. It's all designed to help build a better encyclopedia, As I've said a couple of times already, we are a community here where most of us choose to work together, and that's why we avoid using aggressive tones wherever possible. Templated messsages are not impolite - they have beed designed and worded by a joint effort. They might be short and to the point, bout that's what they a e supposed to be. It's nothing to get unduly upset about.--Kudpung (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some need rewording. To claim collective reponsibility is no excuse. Why treat me worse for editing as IP?

With all due respect, you are avoiding responsibility by not wishing to follow Wikipedia guidelines, and etiquette. Please also remember to sign your messages. I can't see why anyone is treatiing you worse for being an IP either. How you prefer to edeit here is your choice.---Kudpung (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which "Wikipedia guidelines, and etiquette"?

All the rules, regulations, and recommendations that you haven't looked up yet before complaining why you receive so many warning messages on your talk page. Here are a few for you to start with, and here is a dictionary definition of etiquette:

etiquette |ˈetikit; -ˌket| noun - the customary code of polite behavior in society or among members of a particular profession or group.

(Courtesy of Oxford American Dictionary) Etiquette also means signing your messages, especially after having been reminded several times.--Kudpung (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

The Five Pillars Conduct policies Civility Consensus Edit warring Editing policy No personal attacks Ownership of articles

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." suggest you concentrate on the principles of the enterprise!

Your recent edits

Hi 93.96.148.42! Thanks for your recent contributions. When editing an article on Wikipedia you probably noticed there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written in the field will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. Thank you. Kudpung (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I think you re just being difficult, as otherwise you would have pointed to the edit you wished to complain about!93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to complete an edit summary for each edit and to sign your talk page comments. I am generally a helpful editor and I think I have adequately and politely requested you to refrain from incivility. Please check out the links I have given you. I really think you should gain a little more experience before criticising the work and help of experienced editors. I am not one to WP:BITE, but I cannot see me really wanting to help you more if you are not prepared to look up some of the rules. --Kudpung (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Work of art appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Unsourced claims, possibly editor's own point of view (WP:POV) or original research (WP:OR) Kudpung (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please explain how my edit differed from a neutral point of view. You have stated this no-where, and I am unsure whether you are an iconoclast of situationalist, or indeed how you suggest that the article develops.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be discouraged

		The Special Barnstar
		For resilience, for remaining bold Alistair Stevenson (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please don't feel you're alone if you're ever being persistently attacked by one particular editor, or if an editor reacts to legitimate criticism with unfounded accusations, defensiveness or harassment. As I'm sure you know Wikipedia has established procedures (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution) for dealing with personal attacks or instances of persistent targetted attention from a particular contributor. Where you raise a legitimate concern with another editor and they react by criticising you personally or repeatedly finding fault this is against WP:AOBF and can lead to the editor concerned being blocked. Especially if you think an editor is more often commenting on you as a contributor than on the content you're adding, I'd be keen to support you in taking the next step in resolving the matter. In the meantime, all due respect for your commitment to the cause of the anonymous IP editor, congratulations on your work and happy editing. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Hi. With regard to the Targeted killing article, a few comments. First, as I have already communicated to you in an edit summary, which did not apparently stop you from reverting me, your merge suggestion has been considered and roundly rejected already. Please don't edit war over that, but rather please respect consensus. Second, the lede is supposed to summarize the body. Please do not rewrite the lede by reflecting a minority view that does not reflect what is in the body as though it is the case. And please do not edit war over that either. Third, as to editing, I note that you have put some material in the wrong sections, and also re-linked some people who were already linked ... I've corrected both of those types of errors where I've seen them.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work! With regards to the lede, you will see that the scholarly material I cited showed that the view was a majority one - if you take the time to read the source, you might perhaps endevour to improve the article in line with international legal opinion. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a "view". Which is at direct odds with the majority view of others reflected in the article. The lede is to reflect what is in the article -- not a cherry-picked fringe view as to what the majority view is. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read it. It is an authoratitive source, by Kenneth Anderson which argues in favour of the views currently expressed in the article. Balance and NPOV are about inclusion, not wikilawering. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1415070 is the source I mean.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. The lede as it was reflects divergent views exist. Your source is a minority view, no more authoritative than those disagreeing with it, and in a distinct minority. NPOV does not mean inflating a POV to treat it as though it is a "correct" view, when it is in a distinct minority, per the article refs, and inflate its importance in the lede. Please don't edit war.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not edit warring, I am attempting to have a discussion. You wrote the article to reflect your bias. It is not your baby, but for the world - if you escape your provincial ignorance, you will realise that the reason assassination is avoided as a term is because it is forbidden by presidential order, hence the recource to euphemism. This is in the sources, if you look properly.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you have been edit warring. You put a merge tag on the assassination article and noticed it on the talk page, despite an immediately preceding discussion that was the only other discussion on the page that reflected that the merge proposal had been soundly rejected. You also edit warred over the existence of the merge tag on the targeted killing article. And you took what was clearly a minority statement from the statements in the article, and edit warred over inserting it in the lede to make it appear as FACT -- rather than the minority view. All of that together is edit warring, and the fact that you repeated such edit warring after I had communicated with you is disruptive, in my view. The article reflects the sources I've found, and reflects them fairly and in accord with the weight of the statements. Your effort to introduce a distinct minority view as though it is FACT is not you being NPOV, it is you editing in a prohibited POV fashion. Please do not accuse me of provincial ignorance -- I find that a personal attack. With regard to the substance of your comment, I find just the opposite -- the sources largely indicate differences between the two, and detail what the differences are. Please do not edit war, edit disruptively, or make personal attacks. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem is that you believe "The article reflects the sources I've found, and reflects them fairly and in accord with the weight of the statements." - not to the best of your abillities, but as fact. If you, as a biased (and we are all biased) patriotic American look for information to reinforce your predjudices you will find it. Unfortunately this encyclopedia is meant for humanity, not America. As regards edit warring, I find the accusations offensive, and unjustified. I repeat, you do not own Targeted killing, and just because you like it does not mean it is OK.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't revise text that reflects what the source says, to instead reflect your personal view, as you did just now in removing "unlawful combatant" from the first line of the article. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please use colons. The first line of an article should not be a direct quote from one source.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this as a final warning for your edit warring, and removal of referenced text, at Targeted killing and Assassination.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re your message

Hello IP,

Regarding your message; this topic is really so silly and is really representative of the kind of stupid shenanigans that surround any I/P related dispute.

Unfortunately, I really have to point at Epeefleche as being the primary culprit in this particular debate. Epeefleche has pushed this "it's not assassination, it's targeted killing" in many different places, and with varying degrees of success (see this edit war on this page).

This debate is obviously a "war-of-words" and pretty obviously a more egregious example of using WP to push a particular POV.

Frankly, though I hate hate hate resorting to arbitration, this problem has come up in the same context several times now, and talking to Epeefleche has all the appeal of trying to reason with a brick wall. It may be time consider ANI, or perhaps a less radical step would be to address this to the NPOV noticeboard to try to seek outside opinion.

Let me know your thoughts.

P.S. I'm a little hesitant to join the debate at Targeted killing b/c I'm pretty sure your message could be considered WP:CANVAS. NickCT (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

93.96.148.42, I'll try to help. Saw your message when about to go to sleep.John Z (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Copyright violation at page Nils Melzer

Your addition to Nils Melzer has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- Cirt (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I have asked him to explain what he means, as I couldn't find it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is in Special:DeletedContributions/93.96.148.42. -- Cirt (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

kindly copy it here - from that link I get "Unauthorized from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Researchers. Return to Main Page" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk • contribs)

That is just it - it was deleted because it was copyvio. -- Cirt (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be disingenuous. It was a direct, word-for-word copy of the text here]! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it wasn't, but the arrogant Cirt editor above changed the page to a redirect, and was to lazy to point that out, so there was no way of finding out what he was talking about.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

contribution focus

Hi - your contribution focus appears to be repeating this insulting slur as much as you can at multiple articles and talkpages, I suggest you please take your time and read some WP:Policies and guidelines - WP;BLP is very important here and users violating it in articles and on talkpages are regularly blocked. Please also stop vocalizing in talkpage headers. WP:TPG is a good read. Also - randomly opening RFCs is to be undertaken cautiously - we have discussed this to death and there is little appetite to hash it out at multiple articles again. Thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have read those pages that you refer me to, but I suggest that you re-read them. The 'dead' discussion you mention is an active dispute between those who claim that including Savage's redefinition of Santorum as "The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex." violates WP;BLP , and those who feel its exclusion violates WP;BLP. I would like to point you towards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TPG#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable , specifically " Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means:

Be precise in quoting others. When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. The advantage of diffs in referring to a comment is that it will always remain the same, even when a talk page gets archived or a comment gets changed. Generally, do not alter others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section." 93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just pack it in with the lengthy soapboxing headers, they won't change anything, the discussion is clear enough. Youreallycan (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPG "Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant. In order to ensure links to the previous section heading (including automatically generated links in watchlists and histories) continue to work, one should use one of the following templates to anchor the old title:

Thread retitled from "{{{1}}}"., {{{1}}}, ."

WP;BRD

That lede has been discussed to death - please read WP:BRD and we are in the discuss stage - I suggest you seek consensus on the talkpage, thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please can you include a description here of what you refer to.93.96.148.42 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring - Santorium

Your recent editing history at Campaign for "santorum" neologism shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. - I am giving oyu this in case you are unaware about reverting and edit warring. I suggest you back off a bit and discuss on the talkpage prior to making changes on this article and in regard to R Santorium in general. Youreallycan (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have twice reverted my editing without discussion. Kindly engage with the relevant talk page.93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message to Δρ.Κ.

You left the following message on my talkpage:

==Un informative, and Threatening Edit summary== You reverted my recent edit with the explanation "(Reverted 1 edit by 93.96.148.42 (talk): WP:3RR report will be filed if this continues. (TW★TW)) (undo)". I had explained my edit with "Please join discussion on talk page. Provide source to justify the claim of "association" - source cited uses "turn")". Please explain your action here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism#associate_.2Fredefine_.22santorum.22 thanks! 93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing of the kind. It was just a helpful reminder that you are in danger of breaking the 3 revert rule. Please see WP:3RR. Just trying to be helpful. I would hate to see you blocked for violating it. Best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my referenced and explained edit with the non-explanation above. I started a discussion on the relevant talk page, and instead of joining in as requested you write the above. Reverting my referenced edit, and refusing to explain why seems like edit warring to me- please explain, with reference to reliable sources, your reversion of my edit @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism#associate_.2Fredefine_.22santorum.22 93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you because I happen to agree with the rest of the editors you were edit-warring with that this is a BLP-violation. I also took the opportunity to say that a 3RR report would be filed if the edit-war continued. This was not a threat. It was simply a statement of fact for anyone engaged in the edit-war not to go over the 3 revert limit. It was not addressed specifically to you, so it was not directed to you but to everyone. The 3 revert rule applies to everyone. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must have got confused! The edit you reversed had not had any comments made on it about BLP - have a look, and please discuss where asked! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism&action=history 93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get confused. I thought Youreallycan's wording was more gentle and I preferred it because it was more compatible with BLP. However I do not wish to be further involved in this controversy. I explained my opinion to you and I expect you to stop trying to get me involved in something that I do not want to take part in. Also please do not edit-war on my talk any longer. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please will you discuss the edit where asked! If you are not prepared to do so, would please provide an edit summary such as "I thought Youreallycan's wording was more gentle and I preferred it because it was more compatible with BLP." next time you revert my edits.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to participate in that discussion. Thanks for asking. As for the edit summary I was more preoccupied with preventing the continuation of the edit-war and clarifying my edit further escaped my attention. Hopefully I won't have to revert your edits again but if I do I will make sure to tackle as many of the issues present as possible in the short field of the edit summary. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that assurance. I suggest you do follow it with other editors as well! I would like to draw your attention to the notice on you talk page that says "Please note: If your message is related to a disputed edit, the best thing to do is open a discussion on the talkpage of the article instead of leaving a message here. This way we may involve as many editors as possible instead of confining the discussion here. Wikipedia is a community effort. Let's use this community component. Thank you" - but you keep writing on my wall! Maybe you should remove it from your page. Please do not accuse me repeatedly of edit warring, I am trying to sort out an article, and unexplained reversions, coupled with accusations of edit warring, are not helpful! Sorry to be a pain, but I do take wikipedia quite seriously! 93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but I don't need suggestions as to what I do with other editors. Your situation presented unique challenges and it it was one of a kind. Generalising is useless. Further, while I appreciate your analysis of the notice on my talk, I hope you realise that it does not guarantee that I will get involved in a debate 100% of the time every time there is a disputed edit, especially given that the disagreement is not between me and you but between many editors and since the discussion is long and mature I didn't feel as compelled as I would have if the dispute was between us alone. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you do not wish to disagree, just make unexplained reverts, with remarks about edit wars, and you plan to do this in the future. I don't think that is what wikipedia should be about.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't understand me at all. But this is ok. You are entitled to your own opinion as much as others, reading my comments here, can form their own opinion about what I meant. But I will leave it at that. This is my last comment on your talk. It would be counterproductive to discuss anything further. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wp:edit summaries

Hi, WP:Edit summaries - can you place stop cut and copy pasting your comments into the edit summaries - a short concise summary is what is required, it is simply obtrusive and in edit watchlists - thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-"Talk pages. When editing talk pages, consider copying your comment to the edit summary, if it is brief; this allows users to check Recent changes, Page history and User contributions (see below) very efficiently. It also reduces the load on the servers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_summaries#How_to_summarise 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief? Carry on then. Youreallycan (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Try using them yourself - it's fun & helpful to other editors! :)93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can only give you advice, you can ignore it. Youreallycan (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one ignoring the guidance - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:93.96.148.42&action=history shows no summaries of your edits, as suggested by the policy you invoked! Suggest you read and reflect!93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look through the edit summaries of others, no one is cut and copypasting like you. You have been acting like a disruptive troll all day, good riddance to you. Youreallycan (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are not bothering to make any edit summary, just like you - but you referred me to WP:Edit summaries - have you read it?93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Baume et Mercier, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sumanch (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please explain what was unconstructive about deleting a section that had been flagged as lacking sources in 2008, and still contained none.93.96.148.42 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had reverted the edit and tagged it as vandalism because the section was blanked without a descriptive edit summary. Section blanking is not a proper edit summary. The summary you wrote when you reverted my edit is a good and proper edit summary. Had you done that previously most likely I wouldn't even have reverted the edit. So, it is always a good practice to leave a good edit summary to avert any misunderstanding. Also, IP editors are targeted more often than others because proportionally they cause more vandalism. So, it was a cascade of errors and lesson learned. No apologies warranted. Sumanch (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sumanch,

Thank you for your explanation. I would like to request an apology for the text on my page, which refers to edits, not edit summaries. If you looked at the edit, saw that the text had been unsourced for 4 years, but decided it needed to stay, I withdraw my request.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken 1RR

This article is under WP:ARBPIA sanctions you have broken WP:1RR.Please revert yourself thank you.--Shrike (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a diff and explain what you are talking about!93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted two times in [[1]],[[2]].--Shrike (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted a number of my edits with a misleading description, including removing a pov tag without comment or discussion, and then made a further edit with a blank edit summary. It was necessary to revert the one to revert the other edit. I do not believe that this breaks the spirit of 1rr- and I seem to be blocked from editing in any case.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Rachel's Tomb with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Clarince63 (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I was going through edits on Huggle. I saw yours that appeared to be a "removal of content" edit. Although on closer inspection I saw that you in fact made the article better. So I went to your talk page and removed my warning. I though by removing my warning I would have sent you the message that I made a mistake and you were in fact correct. Feel free to remove the warning after you read this. Cheers, --Clarince63 (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation Clarince63!93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1rr

again. i see your talk page is littered with these notifications. kindly self-revert.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be polite and accurate - 1 notification does not make a litter- and provide a diff explaining what you mean. Thank you.93.96.148.42 (talk)

Four out of the last nine sections on your talkpage concern allegations of edit-warring. I suppose I can go back further but don't think the percentage will get any better. If I am not polite this may be a result of the frustrations of your apparent refusal to play by the rules. The most recent 1rr violation is clear right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionist_political_violence&action=history I strongly suspect you violated 1rr as well at Rachel's Tomb but I'm unfortunately too lazy to check. I do know that you go in there almost every day and make a whole bunch of the same reverts.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If 1rr apples to Zionist_political_violence please add the relevant codes to that page. At present they are not there. I object to your personal attack on me, and would like an apology.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the crap. You were told already about the 1RR restrictions for Arab-Israel related articles (again below) . You also saw the notice at the Rachel's Tomb article that specifically announced that the rule applied to all article relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid the personal abuse. The page in question does not relate to Arab-Israeli conflict, but Arab-Zionist conflict. I don't know if that makes any difference or not, but would be most grateful if you would add such a warning to the article, if such sanctions apply.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.

Dear (yada, yada), you are not an uninvolved administrator, but an editor who seems to be in dispute with me. I mean adding the 1rr warning to the article you are concerned with. Thank you!93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you are right. you know the rules pretty well when they are convenient to you. go ahead and continue edit-warring and continue with the excuses, "what article", what 1rr rule", "what notice", etc. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal abuse.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction on the page Zionist political violence. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. --Chris (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Talkback

Hello, 93.96.148.42. You have new messages at Crazycomputers's talk page.
Message added 05:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

--Chris (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McCarthy

I notice that nearly all your edits to Tom McCarthy are negative, often underlining failure and rejection. Have a look at your edit summaries from the past few months. I would advise you to be careful as you go that your changes are not pointy or coming from a place of bias rather than making the article as good as it can be. This is not about promotion or condemnation. A blog is the place that kind of partisan content. Go gently. Span (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think have been pointy. I was trying to balance out the article, which seems to have been largely written by Tom McCarthy, and presents a overly positive view in my opinion. Failure and rejection - or "stone walling by mainstream publishers" are important to the article, and are mentioned by most sources.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello, 93.96.148.42. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Urination. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Got frustrated by an editor who repeatedly reverted, but wouldn't join the discussion on the talk page:(

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. May I point out that you started that discussion, and that ANI says "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please come on over to AN/I and help us get this issue solved. We'd like your input. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

thank you for the comment, would you like me to put it into one section or another ?

If it is a question, I can explain. Penyulap ☏ 08:50, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer you to leave it where it is, as it represents my opinion on the subject, if that is ok with you.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that is awesome, and actually I was thinking the same, but didn't really know, so thought it best to ask.

can I help with the problems that you've been having lately ? I'm rather unusual and may be able to help. Penyulap ☏ 08:58, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)

If you agree with my edits, feel free to help improve the encylopedia.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't want to look at the recent edits, because of the content, however I already looked at some of the other, older edits you've done, and I must say I'm impressed, you do seem to take on some tough subjects and make some good improvements to them. Not many people are willing to speak out and edit some of those subjects, including me. I do most of my editing on spaceflight, so I admire your guts and bravery. Penyulap ☏ 09:05, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking to add a third category to the template, justified/unjustified/unclear, would it be acceptable to you if I were to include your comment in such a category ? Penyulap ☏ 04:45, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.