User talk:AFolkSingersBeard
March 2011
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article
Welcome
Greetings, AFolkSingersBeard, and
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Ad hominems
Please cease deleting my comments in
Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. RolandR (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You are suspected of
April 2011
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews . Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You have already been warned several times against removing such comments on another AfD page. Please do not start edit-warring on this one too. RolandR (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Please stop
]Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews , you may be blocked from editing. If you keep removing other editors' comments from AfD pages, you will be blocked again. Please stop. RolandR (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
You have been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for your continued disruption of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews. Prioryman (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Miqdam Al-Khadhari
You appear to consider the views of this cleric of importance for Wikipedia and yet there is no article about them. I suggest that if you want to quote this person's opinions as notable, you first create the article Miqdam Al-Khadhari in order to demonstrate they are notable. At the moment I can find no evidence in Google News that they might be notable or that they opinion carries any weight. Fæ (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=Miqdam+Al-Khadhari&aq=&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9d3468ca0635b6d AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I said Google News, random blogs, forum posts and personal or promotional websites are not sources to justify notability. Fæ (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- So because it's not on the internet, it doesn't count? I don't see how neither Al-Rahma TV nor MEMRI are not reliable sources. AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring on English Defence League
You currently appear to be engaged in an
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.
- 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Pontificalibus (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring on Palestinian Jews
You currently appear to be engaged in an
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.
- 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RolandR (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Blocked again
I suggest you stop hitting the revert button and start editing more agreeable ASAP, as you are quite close to an indefinite block, despite not even having been here for two weeks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Notification of sanctions
The
FYI
I have reported you at the administrator's noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AFolkSingersBeard. RolandR (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- As you've doubless seen, you've received many warnings already to stop reverting so readily. Here at Wikipedia, content is determined by consensus, not by who's able to revert the most times; if you continue to revert in this way, it will likely be seen as reason for an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)]
Unconstructive revert
Re this. Indeed, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. If you read it you would see that my last edit was done to address the disagreement regarding the bolding of terms in the lead. It would be nice if you would participate in the discussion, rather than blanket reverting to restore flat out errors, OR and other inaccuracies corrected by the edits made. Could you please self-revert? Thanks. Tiamuttalk 06:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- See Talk. AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 15:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)wtf?
AFolkSingersBeard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I know what I did was wrong and against Wikipedia policy. My reasoning for creating multiple accounts was to escape the WP:HOUNDing by a certain long-time user who was reverting all my edits wholesale, without bothering to engage in Talk. I've read the relevant documents and now understand completely how one is expected to behave on Wikipedia. I promise to never create another "sockpuppet" account again. Please give me a chance to redeem myself - I think you should be able to see by many of my edits and sources used, that I have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia. Best regards. AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Please make the unblock request at your original account, and make sure to address the issues that lead to the block there. Block evasion is only an additional problem -- a siginificant one, seeing the number of accounts you created, and in my opinion it shows a disregard of community norms, but it's not the main issue. Amalthea 09:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
AFolkSingersBeard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi, this is my original account I'm sure! The multiple accounts is not the main issue? What is??? I admit to being combative when I first joined, but I didn't really understand how Wikipedia worked, and I didn't think anyone would reply/engage on the Talk pages - as the editor who kept reverting me didn't. (And he's continuing to undo all my edits, now that I'm blocked btw!) AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
A checkuser has confirmed, below, that it is very unlikely that this is your original account. Sandstein 16:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- It is very unlikely that this is your original account (reviewing admin, feel free to request evidence from Tnxman307 or me). Amalthea 12:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unlikely how? I mean, it is, so... I don't know what "evidence" you're supposed to have. Which is supposed to be my original account? AFolkSingersBeard (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)