User talk:Kiyosaki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Kiyosaki, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Deodar 20:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning, Wikipedia politics is brutal

Just a warning, Wikipedia politics is brutal, especially with regards to the article you've been editing. In essence, your playing with fire, so be careful. For an example of how bad it gets and how many people get involved have a look through these two attempts to delete the article: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_apartheid_(phrase) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid. Notice how many votes were for deletion and the various accusations being thrown around -- you can tell emotions where running extremely high. The fighting continued for months and eventually ended up in a Wikipedia "court proceeding" (its called ArbCom here), which is about as serious as conflicts can get -- the court case is all documented here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid. At least two people left Wikipedia as a result of these fights. --Deodar 03:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is be somewhat sensitive to the concerns of people who take this personally and resist the urge to bully people because there may be more editors of one persuasion editing today -- because such a move could result in starting off a cycle of ever increasing retaliations. --Deodar 03:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have felt bullied already. I'll look through the reasons why some people wanted this article deleted, but with so many South Africans themselves seeing the similarities, it seems odd someone would try to "delete" it. I guess it's similar to the fellow who deleted an entire paragraph, rather than attempting to help contribute to it.Kiyosaki 04:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Email

You should set up your email address in your account at some point. --Deodar 17:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits

Kiyosaki, in the interests of clarity, could you say which other accounts you edit or have edited with? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Kyosaki also, but I no longer use it becasue I forgot the password.Kiyosaki 20:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you have never edited as anything else? What brought you to that particular article? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No and reading about Jimmy Carter's book. I was very suprised also to see no quotes from Desmond Tutu. They are totally relevant. I don't understand why they are being reverted.Kiyosaki 20:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but won't say which quotes; this is the fourth time I've asked you. All you have to do is add them; there is no need for wholesale reverting. It is becoming very hard to assume good faith. Can you please say how you discovered this particular article and how, as a new user, you were aware of 3RR? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You violated the 3RR rule and won't admit it, you are exhibiting the lack of good faith.Kiyosaki 22:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

You have violated the 3RR rule, of which you are obviously aware, since you have warned others of it. Please revert yourself before you are blocked for this. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. I adding information, not reverting it out. Can you explain?Kiyosaki 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You re-inserted information that had been removed. That counts as a revert. You are currently up to 5 reverts. Please revert your latest edits, before you are reported and blocked for a 3RR violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

may I please review the rule somehow? thanks. Kiyosaki 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The rule is here WP:3RR. The trick is to take the edits to the talk page of the article and be patience. What usually happens is that two editors will revert your changes such that you have to revert more than 3 times while each of the editors you are revert waring against will only have to revert twice or so. It's standard practice on Wikipedia. --Deodar 21:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As WP:3RR makes clear

Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention.

If someone deletes a section about Desmond Tutu, and you re-insert it, you are reverting. Please revert your latest edits as soon as possible; the clock is ticking. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain what edit you are referring to? Exactly? Because there seems to be serious confusion. --Deodar 21:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no confusion at all Ben, as you well know. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] The edit summaries alone make it clear these are all reverts. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is serious confusion going on here. SlimVirgin said on the talk page that people should not undo her copy edits and instead build upon it. That is actually what people were doing, or at least what I was doing. I understand that she reverted all of my changes to a previous version of the article earlier today while I was busy. That's simply wrong -- my edits are as worthy as her edits. I view the reverting back to the current version, which was derived from her version as fixing what could be considered vandalism if one didn't AGF and take into account her misunderstanding about the situation. --Deodar 21:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not so. The entire structure of the article was reverted to before my copy edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That isn't true, at least not by the time I finished my changes this morning -- you must be misunderstanding. Maybe we should revert back to that point -- my last edit after your changes. I missed exactly what happened afterwards since I was "busy." I put in a lot of time on the article this morning and on the talk pages describing the changes I was making. I have requested page protection of the article -- it seems in order. We need to work out these misconceptions since they are leading to an increase in strife unnecessarily. --Deodar 22:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove any info that anyone else contributed. How does that mean I reverted someone? let alone 5 times? Can you explain how it is that "I" am the one being accused of reverting and not the other way around? All I know is, is that the Tutu information (sourced and quoted) has been reverted out of the article.

What exactly do you want me to do? Remove the Desomond Tutu text?! Seriously, Jayjg is that what I have to do? Why isn't that considered relevant information for the article? How much time do I have?Kiyosaki 21:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Re-adding something that someone has deleted is also a revert. That includes the Tutu information. You may consider it to be important, others may not. Work it out on the Talk: page. Please restore the deleted Lee Bollinger and Fred Taub information. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No thanks, go ahead and revert me on that. They are less notable than Desmond Tutu, so if Tutu isn't referenced and directly quoted then why these guys? Jayjg, based on the rules I believe SlimVirgin violated the 3 revert rule, can you help me with investigating that? Kiyosaki 21:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Kiyosaki, the unwritten rules of Wikipedia do not allow for counter accusations no matter how valid they may be. Basically, the best strategy is to just be patient and let emotions calm down. I am extremely serious and I have your best interests at sake. Let's let the situation calm down. --Deodar 21:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, all I know is that I spent good time compliling great info for the article, with sources etc. but it's no longer there? How do you feel about the subject? Don't you think Tutu's comments are relevant to the subject? I don't get really. I was the one who got reverted, not the other way around.Kiyosaki 21:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is another unwritten rule that if someone get's angry then they do rash things that serve to discredit their contributions. Thus if you let yourself get angry, you lose. I have found that patience is the key to editing Wikipedia because one needs to achieve consensus especially on controversial articles such as this one. Patience is key. --Deodar 21:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of Ben's advice is good; please use the Talk: page. However, the part about "unwritten rules do not allow for counter accusations etc." is just bad faith nonsense, which you should ignore. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, FYI SlimVirgin came to the page, made reverts and undid work by others, and he didn't use the Talk page first. I think you have the events backwards. Please review the history, you'll see.Kiyosaki 18:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's 4 Reverts and Rule Violation started everything: [6], [7], [8], [9]

On the first revert he says in the edit summary: "removed some problematic writing; tidied lead section" but this is false and misleading , it involved reverting and deleting information about anti-apartheid activist Desmond Tutu. The next three reverts are the same, they take out Tutu, and they threw the page into chaos. That counts as 4 reverts does it not? This is what started all the chaos. Kiyosaki 03:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding tabs on a talk page

FYI, if you want to add a section to someone's talk page, you may use the "+" tab at the top to add a new sections. -- Kendrick7 16:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's talk page doesn't allow this. Why? Am I wrong?Kiyosaki 16:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you first tabbed to the discussion page? here, then clicking "+" to get here works for me -- Kendrick7 20:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably, SV had her Talk page semi-protected and your account was too new to edit semi-protected pages. Kla'quot 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice to have someone back

... working in the sandbox. So many editors seem to just want to debate arcana on the talk page without actually doing anything. I'm still hoping we can get the article unlocked in time for Carter's book release. -- Kendrick7 03:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't respond to problematic statements

Regarding recent Allegations of Israeli apartheid talk page comments: Don't dignify problematic statements with with attention, because it will only cause problematic statements to proliferate. Trust that things will be taken care of by others with significant authority and who are close to Jimbo Wales, for example [10]. --Deodar 16:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here 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.

dang it

Will you please stop going Leeroy Jenkins on Allegations of Israeli apartheid. It's not really not productive. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Request

I asked this before but didn't get a straightforward response. Would you please say which other accounts you've edited Wikipedia as? It's very obvious you're not a new user, and the some of the pages you're editing have been plagued by sockpuppetry. If you have privacy concerns, you're welcome to e-mail the accounts instead, but I'm requesting that you declare youself as a gesture of your good faith. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I edited as Kyosaki, but forgot the password for that user and no longer use it.Kiyosaki 01:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked you this before but didn't get a straighforward response. Would you please explain why you broke the 3 revert rule within 11 hours, before I did and corrected myself as per the above?

1) [11], 2) [12], 3) [13], 4) [14]

I would also like to know why you made massive changes and called it a "copy edit" when it was clear that the edit was more than mere copyediting.Kiyosaki 01:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The first edit wasn't a revert.

Please answer the question fully. Which other accounts have you edited as? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It WAS A REVERT. You undid information about Desmond Tutu 4 times. As WP:3RR makes clear

Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention.

Why did you call that edit a "copyedit", when it was clear you were changing and reverting mass amounts of content? Explain yourself.Kiyosaki 01:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have the same question and would appreciate a clear answer. Which other accounts have you edited as? Kla'quot 08:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I already answered it twice. Now I would like to know why the edit that started all the problems was marked/masked as a mere "copyedit"? That was dishonest. Also, I would like to know why SlimVirgin removed sourced and relevant info about Desmond Tutu FOUR times and violated the revert rule? Thank you. I have reviewed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_copy-edit and it says: Copy-editing involves the improvement of grammar and punctuation, and the correction of misspellings. It does not involve making mass changes and reverting others' work. Reverting Desmond Tutu is not a "copyedit". Sorry. Kiyosaki 18:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

A primary source is "a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs". Ian Buruma is a "person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs". Isarig 22:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary and preview are your friends

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

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, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Also, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Star

Thanks. CJCurrie 04:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

please put comments on the changes

It makes it easier for me to go back and clean up after the edit war. The people who dislike your edits are going to check them anyway. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My edits are based on reliable sources. Thanks.Kiyosaki 05:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Per WP:STALK: "Wikistalking has been a subject in at least two Arbitration Committee proceedings (and a peripheral matter in a third)." Unless you want to be another one, stop following me around. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You are not a serious editor. Please stop harassing Wikipedia editors. Kindly review WP:NPA. Thanks. Kiyosaki 06:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So you are attacking me while knowing that it is wrong? Good job. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA, WP:STALK, WP:RS, WP:POINT. Wikipedia prohibits personal attacks. Thanks.Kiyosaki 06:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Kiyosaki, you are making personal ttacks, such as the above and this one: [15]. Please try to be civil. Kla'quot 06:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Kla'quot, please try to be civil and not stir up trouble of any kind here. That is not an attack. Humus Sapiens is harassing Wikipedia editors and has not contributed to the article Israeli Apartheid except for reverts of others' work and sourced contributions. You have it backwards, and please review and let me know. Thanks.Kiyosaki 07:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You can criticize the nature of someone's recent contributions to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid without labelling the person as "not a serious editor." If you think "not a serious editor" is an acceptable comment, I would be happy to report it on WP:PAIN for a third opinion. Kla'quot 07:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Israeli Apartheid

Why did you remove dup descritions? Do we need to say the "Jewish" Irgun? I think it's duplicate in the same way. Do you disagree? Thanks.Kiyosaki 07:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not remove any duplicate descriptions. Please specify what you are referring to. Kla'quot 07:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It is unnecessary to try to discredit the whole article, and allegations of "Israeli Apartheid", made by honest people including Nobel Peace Prize winners etc. by highlighting "Jewwatch" or "white supremacists". It it totally dishonest and POV. It is unnecessary to list "white supremacist" in front of David Duke, gee isn't a link enough? Listing Jewwatch in the same paragraph as Desmond Tutu is bad faith and obvious POV. I would appreciate if you would revert yourself. Thanks.Kiyosaki 07:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my reversion of your edit: [16] This is the same (or less) level of detail used to describe proponents of the analogy. If a link with no description is enough for David Duke, it certainly is enough for Jimmy Carter. Kla'quot 07:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a deliberate attempt to smear the honest people that care about the issue. POV types were adamant about removing: "Nobel Peace Prize" "Camp David Accords negotiator" and "US President" and these same people make a point to make sure non-RS "jewwatch" is listed? It's not right, and it's POV. Please reconsider. Thank you.Kiyosaki 07:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my edit as common sense and neutral. Kla'quot 08:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I likwise stand by my edit as common sense and NPOV. Can we both be right? Thanks.Kiyosaki 20:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 07:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am new here. I still have trouble with firsttime "edits" to a page being called "reverts".Kiyosaki 07:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been editing for a month already, and you are warning other users of 3RR violations as you did here]. So, I would suggest you take this forced break of 24 hrs, and re-consider your editing behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 07:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossi: I don't understand how some first reverts are considered only "edits" , but then other regular edits are considered "first reverts". I'm not sure people on the 3RR noticeboard always spend the appropriate time to really look into it. It's quite tricky, and I am trying to learn it. People should not provoke users into edit wars, that it good policy for all of us on Wikipedia. Thanks!Kiyosaki 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you please stop repeatedly making tiny edits to the 3RR page? It's clogging the watchlists, and will probably just annoy the admin who gets to decide how long you're blocked. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

From Talk:Genocide#Armenian Genocide

Am I missing this? Why isn't it included? Please leave note on my Discussion page, thanks.Kiyosaki 10:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it happened before the Genocide Convention and is an alleged genocide. See the section (and the main article) Genocide in history where many other alledged genocides and genocides are listed--Philip Baird Shearer 12:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR Block

I have blocked you for twenty four hours for again breaking the three revert rule on Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Accusations of not knowing the rule or not understanding that reverts needs not be linked are acceptable in new users, not in people who have been here for well over a month and who have come into contact with the rule before. The first revert of a sequence need not revert to a page that had been in action within the last 24 hours. And anyway, remember that the 3RR is not a licence to revert three times; even if you had not broken the rule, I'd have been tempted to block for edit warring anyway.

Note that this is your third block for revert warring. Future blocks may be a longer - and other users have been blocked indefinately for repeated violations of this rule. --Robdurbar 12:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Primarily because Silm herself attempted to engage in a prolonged discussion as to what was wrong with your edits. She notified you of your error [17] prior to reporting it, and there is a large discussion under the report explaining the situation. To be frank, I would have probably given a newbie the benefit of the doubt. But you have been blocked under the rule before, twice. To me, that says that you should understand the rule and the technicalities.

I suggest you read WP:3RR. That explains what is and isn't a revert, it ecplains the situations under which we ban and if you learn from this and never break it again, then everything is hunky-dory. --Robdurbar 10:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well to understand that, I think you need to understand the purpose of the rule. It is there to stop people constantly warring with each other and instead to encourage them to ues the talk pages of an article, or to follow the dispute resolution process. My answer to you is that if you think you're coming close to breaking the 3RR, that means that you are in a content dispute and the best thing to do is to not edit on the page for a few hours, but to stand back and discus changes.

Any admins who reviews a case will look at the edits and decide if they qualify as reverts; don't worry too much, we do use a seensible level of judgement to ensure that not every edit is a revert ;)

To be honest, Slim is the best person to be speaking to on this. If you go to her talk page and explain that you really didn't undesrtand the rule and ask her to warn you earlier in future, or to discuss your content issue, then I'm sure she will assume good faith and help you. The point is that Wikipedia is editied collaboratively - if you disagree with someone, don't remove their changes or edit the article straight away (or, rather, most will say you can do that once, but if they change back, don't edit it immediatly again); attempt to discuss with them. --Robdurbar 11:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of Israeli apartheid

I still don't see why you asked me to take a look at Allegations of Israeli apartheid but I did anyway. In the revert that crzrussian made, it seemed like you deleted alot, and added alot. What you added was useful, but what you deleted WAS useful, of course until you deleted it. I suggest you go back to the version comparison page, copy what you wrote, and put it into the article constructively. Maybe talk to Crzrussian about what you can do. As I am not yet even an adult.. nor am I an admin, I don't keep up with the news in Israel or any of the middle east for that matter. Hope that helps, Ard0 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, next time you post, and hopefully every time you post, please sign your name using four tildes. (~~~~) Ard0 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the edit of Crzrussian you will see that he deleted an entire paragraph of RS material inappropriately. Thanks.Kiyosaki 05:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Patient negotiation is the only sensible response. Fred Bauder 17:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Taking a long vacation from that article. Good luck though. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. I promise at some point, as General MacArthur said, I shall return. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That rollback...

That revert was by User:Humus sapiens and not User:Crzrussian. What are you talking about? ---J.S (t|c) 16:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of them. Please review this. I beg someone to look into it. Seriously. These are not good-faith rollbacks and they appear to violate the spirit of everything I read on the Help:Revert page regarding the way admns. should do things. Thanks.Kiyosaki 02:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying to help

I'm not out to get you, just trying to help. I want you to understand that if you make further comments at ANI it will almost certainly prejudice others against you. While you have valid concerns, ANI is simply not the right venue. It really would be best to peruse the dispute resolution process and follow those guidelines. As I mentioned earlier, WP:RFC is the proper venue to discuss your concerns. Also, try to keep one thing in mind...it's rarely a good idea to accuse anyone of bad-faith editing without some serious proof, but especially an established and respected editor like SV...you don't earn any points that way. If other editors actually are acting in bad-faith, then you should certainly pursue a DR rsolution; you'll have the high ground if you've been the one resolutely following policy. I don't know if any of this will help, I just wanted to mention it. Good luck, Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 08:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh. You were on my takpage as I was on yours, and I just got your message. I'll be happy to offer advice or assist you with questions, but I'm really not willing to get involved with that particular article. I've been aware of it for a long time, always as a hot-spot for controversy and strife. I get enough of that in my own projects :) Seriously, I'll help you if I can, but you'll see pigs flying freestyle to the moon before you see me editing that page. I will keep your talkpage Watchlisted for a while and keep an eye on things here. Sorry I'm not more helpful than that. Again, good luck with this. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 08:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, ok, you caught me in a moment of low willpower (not too hard, I have lots), and I'll take a look. I'm not promising anything, and I'm way too tired to do it tonight, but I'll look it over. Once I do, I'll drop a note here to let you know what I think. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 08:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Having reviewed the article and its talkpage, I find that my initial suspicion was correct. Namely, it's a bloody nightmare and I don't want to get involved. All I can do is reiterate the advice you've already been given by myself and others: You should use the dispute resolution process and an RfC is probably the best way to start. Good luck. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To answer your query

I reviewed the history of the article in question, and I see you engaged in highly biased editing in a spirit that can hardly be called co-operative search for the truth. I recommend that you steer clear of this article entirely for a week or two until you have calmed down. I think you can't see what is going on here due to your close involvement with it. Attacking people personally and using your very strange and borderline racist terminology is going to get you banned, and justifiably so.--Jimbo Wales 09:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not just "my" query. This is a Wikipedia problem, as it has been explained to me. If you review the Talk page and my edits in detail, you will see that I am a serious editor. I'd like to see Wikipedia articles vetted appropriately. Jimbo, can you show the diffs that you are referring to that "will get me banned"? For chirssakes. Please? Thanks. I find it distressing that people can find the same allied pro-israel editors there. There is a group of pro-Israeli editors that have that page on lock down, and there is NOTHING I have ever seen in my life that is so dishonest.

Thanks for the Barnstar

There is still so much to add and improve, but I appreciate your recognition of my efforts at countering systemic bias. Your passion for the truth is great, just do it all the while, breathing and smiling. Tiamut 18:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. I'm speaking of this edit in particular. I would recommend, as a show of good faith, that you go and strike though that comment with an apology. You are coming closer than I'm sure you'd like to be to making antisemitic slurs now. IronDuke 19:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Kiyosaki,

Thanks very much for the barnstar. It was very kind of you. It is sometimes hard to work on controversial article especially when they touch politics. I wish you the best both in wikipedia and in your real life. Thanks again,

--Aminz 07:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Check user confirms that this is the Disruptive Apartheid Editor, a banned user; see User:Jayjg/DAE. I've blocked the account indefinitely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.