Image placement discussion

edit

I would appreciate your feedback here Talk:Circumcision#Image of circumcised penis location. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Edit warring

edit

Hi. You are new here, so I should let you know that your actions may be seen as edit warring on circumcision, which is not allowed on wikipedia; you may want to review the policy. In general, we try and use the talk page to iron things out; although that sometimes takes longer than we would like. For the record, if there is evidence of edit warring, sysops can take actions such as locking the page or even restricting edit privileges, as described on the link above. Thank you for understanding. -- Avi (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

And why haven't you deigned to paste this nonsense on Blackworm's profile, I wonder? After all, Blackworm's the one making baseless edits; Blackworm is woefully ignorant. --ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi. Firstly, as an established user, Blackworm knows full well about this, and does not need to be informed before administrative action may be taken. Secondly, Blackworm and I have a long history of disagreements going back years, so I am not the best person to be warning him unless there is no other choice. No implication that you were more at fault than he was meant, and my apologies if you took it that way. -- Avi (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough; you should include such qualifications the next time you feel compelled to do this. --ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Point taken; thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hi, I regularly edit the Circumcision page, too. The above is standard information from a template, that I thought you might find useful. Welcome. Coppertwig (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

User pages, warnings, and personal attacks

edit

Regarding this edit, first, please do not edit other users' user pages. If you wish to communicate, the correct thing to do is to edit the user talk page: that is, User talk:Jakew, not User:Jakew.

Second, as I am an established user it is generally considered inappropriate to use a template (in this case {{uw-npa}}). A polite message regarding the personal attack in question would have been more appropriate. Please see WP:DTTR which, although not policy, is a good guide.

Finally, I am mystified as to why you are warning me about personal attacks at all. Who did I attack, and when? The warning I gave you, which you later deleted, was in response to your edit summary here, in which you referred to me as a "fool". Although I have searched through our interactions, I have been unable to find anything comparable; if I have attacked you I apologise, but I would be grateful if you would specify how I have done so. Thanks. Jakew (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

You attacked my character in the edit summary here, in which you imply my contribution is a meritless, self-serving untruth (when in fact I was correct and you were not). Then you proceeded to ignore my explanation and enter into an edit war (throwing your weight around as 'an established user'). Nevertheless, your apology is accepted. --ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
 
You have new messages
Hello, ActuallyRationalThinker. You have new messages at Jakew's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Jakew (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Revert to neutral in Circumcision

edit

Click on view history and select a version you agree with ([[1]]) and then click undo and click save to maintain the honest neutral concensus text. Just don't do it more than twice per 24 hrs. Trying to discuss anything with Jakew, Coppertwin, jayg, and Avi is a huge waste of time. They are a cabal, and discussion a sham designed to waste time with false statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.234.191 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Edit warring

edit

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jakew (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

December 2010

edit

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jayjg (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Warning to Jayjg

edit

Regarding this comment, Jay hasn't edit warred at all. He hasn't reverted you at all. You however, are very clearly over WP:3RR. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why would you know or care if I made such a mistake? One conclusion is that you regularly collude with 'Jay'; perhaps you are Jay. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
This is beyond the pale. Stop with the personal attacks. Corvus cornixtalk 00:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Jay's talk page is on my watchlist. Note that even if it hadn't been on my watchlist there are many easy ways to notice edits, such as if someone looked at your contribution list or looked at Jay's list. In general, making unsubstantiated attacks rather than discussing issues is not helpful. (Incidentally, your page is on my watchlist so you don't need to duplicate replies. Putting them just here is fine). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Talk:Circumcision#Netherlands_section

edit

WP:CIVIL. Corvus cornixtalk 22:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

 
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing, as you did at Circumcision. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
 
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).

ActuallyRationalThinker (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I recognize that I was engaging in edit warring, which I recognize is against the policy of Wikipedia; I apologize, and I recognize that such behavior is not fruitful.

Please consider the fact that the material I was introducing is properly cited, quoted, formatted, and relevant; it is not the stuff of petty vandalism. Also, please note that I felt I was being cornered by a clique of biased editors who I considered to have no intention of building consensus and every intention of wasting time. My reaction was thus born of exasperation rather than any kind of malice that could truly disrupt Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I must contest the disgusting accusation of "race baiting"; cultural practices have nothing to do with race, and I ask that such an accusation be completely expunged from any record that may be kept regarding this situation.

ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 11:14 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)

Decline reason:

I take one look at your edits and I see antisemitism, accusations of a "cabal", both templating and accusing a long standing member of this community of being a sockuppet and clear edit warring. I'm sorry, but you've shown a pattern of behavior that has no place on Wikipedia. Brandon (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply


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.

 
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).

ActuallyRationalThinker (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I have demonstrated that I recognize the disruptive nature of my remarks and edits, and I have made an explicit commitment not to engage in further such disruption (see the discussion above).

The block has served its purpose and should be removed as per the blocking policy:

  • "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia; they are not intended as a punishment"
  • "Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems."
  • "The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior."
  • "Incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations." [I am now around 92 hours into my first ever block, which was made indefinite.]
  • "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy... It is designed as a "time out" to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and to stop problematic conduct in future."
  • "Note - deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, even though it might have been justifiable to block someone a short time ago when they made inappropriate edits, it may no longer be justifiable to block them right now"
  • "administrators should avoid imposing blocks that are unlikely to be preventative in the reviewable circumstances."

ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

I'm willing to be persuaded, but I'm not convinced at the moment that you do fully understand and accept why you were blocked. You say above, for example, that you don't consider "Jew" to be pejorative, but regardless of whether it is or not or whether the editor is or isn't a Jew (or a member of a cabal for that matter), it has nothing whatever to do with building an encyclopaedia and so to employ the term like that will inevitably be seen as pejorative by the other party. Add to that the edit warring and the appeals of the block based on technicalities of the blocking policy/the behaviour of other editors/attempts to justify your actions, and I'm afraid I need a little more convincing that you can work collaboratively with other editors and work within the current consensus while attempting to establish consensus in favour of your own proposal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply


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.

 
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).

ActuallyRationalThinker (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

The previous discussion covers everything; please read all of it. This block (447 hours and counting) has become abusive. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 1:24 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this block has suddenly become "abusive". Furthermore, you still don't seem to grasp that using the term "Jew" in the fashion you did is unacceptable. Period. You keep trying to pass it off as a minor occurrence when it absolutely is not. TNXMan 19:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply


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.

 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

ActuallyRationalThinker (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

The previous discussion covers everything; please read all of it. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

With all respect for the other admins involved and after taking the night to consider this, I am unblocking on the basis that the length of the block is excessive. Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Clearly, the previous discussion did not cover everything, or else you would be unblocked by now. My first response is for you to contact WP:ARBCOM, however, I will post this unblock request to WP:ANI on your behalf. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Comment from uninvolved editor

edit

It seems to me that the way you're being treated is disgraceful. Egg Centric (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

The above account, Egg Centric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), was created today. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
bloody hell, it continues! Egg Centric (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sockpuppetry case

edit
 

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ActuallyRationalThinker for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Note that Magog cancelled this SPI request after a clerk pointed out that there appeared to be no evidence of any wrongdoing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

SPI Investigation

edit

I've started an SPI investigation involving you. Sincere apologies if I got this wrong. NickCT (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unblocked

edit

I have unblocked you as the SPI has not revealed any confirmed socks. This is not an open invitation to get stuck in to edit warring again, so please edit carefully. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply