User talk:Narbit

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i have added the source.

See

reliable sources say. Until a reliable source (NOT a fansite) is provided to support it being a single, you CANNOT keep inserting such a claim. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

An article without citations cannot stand on its own per WP:Verifiability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

look at the article "devil pray" this is the type of article i have created on ghosttown. i am adding sources as we speak

Can you please GIVE ME A CHANCE TO ADD SOURCES???

Sorry, I hadn't read your message at the time I redirected. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it. Does not have any notability. Work on this in your sandbox for better usage of the resource. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please also delete then, the page "Devil Pray"

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Swarm ^X 21:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Ghosttown (Madonna song), you may be blocked from editing. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

–==Israeli legislative election, 2015== Hello Narbit. Please stop adding Livni to the party leader field in the infobox. Herzog was the Zionist Union leader, as you can see here. Cheers, Number 57 21:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you will see on the election slip the party was officially led by Yitzhak Herzog and Tzipi Livni.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs)

That doesn't matter. The #1 candidate is the leader. Please stop making this change. Number 57 20:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the matter on the talk page rather than keep reverting. If you continue, I will request you be blocked. Thanks. Number 57 20:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will request you be blocked because this party fielded two candidates for prime minister, has a dual leadership, and to not reflect that in the Wikipedia article is inappropriate. I will keep changing it because you are wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on the talk page. If you revert again, you will have broken

WP:3RR and will be blocked. Number 57 20:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You're the one with the edit war. You're the one who first changed it: where is the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you changed it first. I reverted. This is the

Talk:Israeli legislative election, 2015. I have also reported you for edit warring, as promised above. Number 57 20:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

As you have continued edit warring, I have reported you again. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Narbit reported by User:Number 57 (Result: ). Number 57 13:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must have no time on your hands that all you do is spend time on Wikipedia and fight people over edits. You want to feel powerful in some sense so you bully and report anyone who disagrees with you. It's disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 13:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I supported @Number 57 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Narbit reported by User:Number 57 (Result: ). Narbit, I begged you to make the changes in the body text of the article and to leave the infobox alone. Absolutely nobody would remove the general idea from the article itself; as you have correctly stated, it was material to the election. But consensus is that it does not belong in the infobox. Why can't you walk away from that and approach the subject in a way that everyone will support and appreciate?

Additionally, you do not even bother to sign your posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~ at the end of them. That may seem like a small point to you, and we all forget from time to time. But when you never do that, it really makes us wonder how much you care about operating within the rules around here. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use wikipedia. This and like two other things have I ever edited. Unlike you all, I don't waste my time with this utter nonsense. As ℅-leader of the party, on equal footing with Herzog, Livni's name belongs in the infobox. I mean since it's an equal partnership why not just put her name there? Because then Herzog would be missing. Both leaders must be there. And I recall that u said "the starting point must be with two leaders." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 15:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is "utter nonsense", why do you bother? You have a very heavy emotional investment in this issue. Are you involved? Are you a party member? A family member? Why does it matter this much to you that it appears this way in this spot in the article?

I felt that the starting point should be with both leaders because the party article showed co-leaders, and in the absence of other criteria I chose that as my starting point. But I did my own examination of the situation and determined that my initial perspective was mistaken, and that I should change my mind. So I changed my mind. The defining point in my mind was that the overwhelming majority of other Wikipedias chose the other approach, including Hebrew Wikipedia. If there had been a real difference of opinion—if it had really been pretty close to 50-50—I probably wouldn't have changed my mind. But I did, and the consensus was against you.

(Why Herzog only and not Livni only? Do I really have to answer that?)

If you really want to make sure that Mrs. Livni's role in the party leadership and election is recorded faithfully for posterity, I suggest that you focus on editing the body text of the article, and do so before you get blocked from editing this article at all. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point about "using only Livni and not Herzog's name" was a hypothetical, and I said so because I wanted to impress that it's just as absurd to omit Herzog as it is to omit Livni, since both lead the party, both speak at faction meetings, both were PM candidates, etc. The point being that it doesn't matter which leader you exclude, it's just as absurd. Livni may be a close friend of mine but it doesn't matter and shouldn't matter. The duality of the leadership should be expressed in the infobox, just as the user opens the page. -Narbit

Well, if you want a substantive reason to exclude Mrs. Livni from the infobox, the substantive reason is that over the course of the campaign, as things evolved, she sensed that some potential voters were uncomfortable with her taking a turn as Prime Minister, and stepped back from that as an absolute position. (See "Livni forgoes rotating premiership with Herzog".) That happened only 12 hours before the polls opened, but at the moment the polls opened, the official position was that if Zionist Union won, Herzog would be the Prime Minister—not Herzog, in rotation with Livni. So in that sense, the infobox is actually correct. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The media portrayed it as renouncing of the rotation but that's actually not true. She merely said "rotation will not be a roadblock to us forming a government." But that point aside, it's not to do so much with prime ministerial candidates as it does with party leaders. The infobox doesn't say "PM candidate" it says "leader." And in this case, Livni, while maybe in the final reckoning, wasn't a PM candidate, still shared the leadership of the ZU party. What is the substantive reason for denying her the representation of a leader equal to that of Herzog, and she had been a PM candidate for the majority of the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 18:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Reliable sources

reported that. If you have a reliable source to refute "what the media portrayed"—not personal knowledge, but a reliable source that can be put into the article as a source—please share it.

In the meanwhile, her name will not appear in the infobox here, for the reasons we have stated previously. In about 30 minutes, I will revert your edit again. I am warning you explicitly that if you try to revert me again you will be in violation of the 3RR rule and will be blocked. Please never say you weren't warned. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my other points, which I explicitly said comprised my argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 20:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) Narbit, I wish you understood that this is really no longer about the objective truth of your argument. Your argument has objective merit. There is no doubt about it. To be perfectly honest with you, if I had stumbled across this on my own, it wouldn't have bothered me to leave both names in the infobox.

But when I stepped in, I was trying to do so in the role of an unbiased arbitrator. (I'm not an administrator, but I step in as an arbitrator sometimes because I think it is important to do so.) As an arbitrator, I put a temporary halt to the edit war—giving your position the temporary benefit of the doubt, I'll add—and asked for additional opinions. We didn't get too many additional opinions, but we did get one, and he weighed in against you. As an arbitrator, I might have thought that sufficient evidence to weigh the argument against you. But I didn't. I did my own independent investigation. And I, too, came to the conclusion, that notwithstanding the objective merit of your argument, the appropriate conclusion to this disagreement was to leave only one name in the infobox. This is not because your argument is objectively wrong—though you did not respond to me about

WP:reliable sources

supporting your view of the co-leadership at the end—but because it is also a reasonable position for us to take that we never name more than one leader in infoboxes.

I think you are on very thin ice here. You implied that you are close to Mrs. Livni. That makes you a biased observer, and the opinion of biased observers is normally given less weight here than the opinion of unbiased observers. I strongly urge you not to revert again, because you will be blocked per 3RR. Instead of that, if you really think that we have done you a massive injustice here, I would encourage you leave the article alone for now, and to go to WP:Dispute resolution and set up a formal complaint.

I am going to break off this conversation at this point, and do not plan to return to it after Shabbat. I wish you much luck. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Ghosttown (Madonna song). —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Rebel Heart Tour. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tzipi Livni, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages English and French. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Narbit. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you reverted my edit without giving explanation. You should know that the current style of the template is usually reserved only for Presidents' pages. I know it's probably not enshrined in Wikipedia guidelines or anything, but there is an observable precedent of using that design only for POTUS pages. So unless I'm missing something, please give a good reason why this design should remain so. Otherwise I will go back and revert the edit. Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You have already been blocked over this issue. Do you really want to be blocked again? StevenJ81 (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit to User talk:StevenJ81. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Benazir Bhutto. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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.Ominictionary (talk)

Your addition to Benazir Bhutto has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ominictionary (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you make that edit (you know which one I'm talking about) one more time, I will block you from editing indefinitely. Please get the message. Thanks, Number 57 19:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Narbit, it's been two years. You've been warned a dozen times. Why are you so desperate to make this change? Kimpire (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]