User talk:Ignoranceisnotbliss19

Why are the edits, all relevent and factual in nature being removed for reasons that do not make any sense?

3RR notice

You have exceeded three reverts at Scarlett Johansson, and will be reported for edit-warring. I've only just signed back on, and another editor should have warned you earlier, but that is still no excuse for edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I warned them; they removed the warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 00:53, 9 February 2014

There is some very bizarre and hostile behavior going on here. I apologize for being new here. This is a very disturbed and angry place apparently! I myself am not in any "war" of any kind, though I certainly cannot speak for Tenebrae & Hullabaloo Wolfowitz. Any time a request was made expressing concern for the expanded information I had provided, all which was topical and sourced, I changed it to reflect their concerns and appease them. THAT is the reason for the amount of edits. To me, it is important to be accurate and precise and not abuse wikipedia policy to attack personally unfavorable information. These two never even bothered to contact me without generating a substantial amount of unsubstantiated vitriol in my direction simply by my attempting to placate their largely priggish behavior. If ANYTHING can be done to satisfy these two of their "gestapo mentality" I am all ears. I hope that it be understood that I have no intention of "warring" with any one and hope we can settle matters through communication instead of hostility as I have received from Tenebrae and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz simply over a misunderstanding. Thanks! And have a good day!

February 2014

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I honestly have no idea on earth what you are talking about? Could you reference something specific that displays an "attack page", as you call it, if you are going to make such a wild and reckless assertion? Should you actually look at what has occurred, you will notice nothing of the sort. The entire edit consisted of expanding a poorly written and shoddily articulated article discussing the relationship between Oxfam and Scarlet Johanssen. Please be more careful next time before generating unneeded and unnecessary negativity throughout the community. Thanks! And Have a good day!

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How violative does one have to be that two editors independent of each other, and without knowledge that the other was doing so, are both reporting you? How violative does one have to be to make a fifth revert after he's already been warned he's gone over the limit and made a bright-line violation? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is well known MANY people have MANY wikipedia accounts so cut the crap and please do not waste everyones valuable time with this nonsense Tenebrae. You and I, as well as everyone IN THE ENTIRE WORLD knows you are simply trying to control unfavorable information from reaching wikipedia pages and the masses. The simple and plain truth is that the information posted is ALREADY ATTACHED TO THE ARTICLE IN THE SOURCE FILE and it is merely an inconvenience for yours and others personal agenda. Lets keep it real, ok Tenebrae? Come back when truth is on your side. And can you stop being so angry, it seeps out of your words like puss out of an infection, when dealing with a newbie to wikipedia?

What's the deal with the unsupported attacks?

Hi whomever keeps attacking my comments! I apologize for being new on here and hope you do not hold that against me and wish to encourage the community to contribute to wikipedia, as a stated desire of its founder.

One small concern, what exactly do you do when someone is removing your comments for clearly unsubstantiated reasons or if you adjust to their complaints but are being labeled as in an "edit war"? For me, I am ALL about precision and accuracy and would hope that simple communication can resolve any issues and not require people to take up such hostilities. My door is always open and I am not "warring" with anyone. As you will see, if you take the time to look, I have addressed ANY AND ALL concerns with any editing I have done and will certainly continue to maintain this as a policy. Obviously the point is to get it right, right? Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any issues and hope that clears up any confusion. Thanks to one and all & have a good day!

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hous for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Scarlett Johansson. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three different editors were making neither unsubstantiated claims nor attacks. The minute an editor adds to a public statement the phrase "even though" followed by cherrypicked material chosen to support one's thesis, then that is original-research synthesis, which Wikipedia does not allow.

I would also note that if you edit-war again after your block expires, an admin may choose to apply another, longer block. Take your concerns to the article's talk page, please.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for communicating directly this time Tenebrae! I find it much more helpful to the community at large this way and hope you will too in the future. Incidentally, the additional editing was done to satisfy your largely priggish and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz' unsubstantiated concerns. If you take a deep breathe and calm down for a minute, you will be certain to notice all of your concerns were being accounted for and there is no reason what-so-ever for you to be so openly hostile with people that are completely unfamiliar with wikipedia policy or, truth be known, if it really even apply. Thank you again for taking the time to publicly communicate your indefensible position and I look forward to future direct discussions with you!

Incidentally, the information was NOT cherry picked and was DIRECTLY FROM ALREADY UPLOADED MATERIAL OF A BBC INTERVIEW WITH OXFAM STATING THEIR POSITION ON A BLOCKADE OF ISRAEL. Please be a little more thorough next time before generating unsolicited and viscous attacks. Thanks again for your time and Have a good day!

I'm giving you a fair amount of leeway with your endless stream of comments about your edits and other users, but there is a limit. If you make another personal attack as you did here, I will revoke your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow. I just saw what Ignoranceisnotbliss19 wrote on that link Bbb23 gives just above: "Lets [sic] just cut to the chase, you are a Jewish man with an agenda to keep Jewish interests in illegally obtained land..." Holy moley, that skirts antisemitism. First, the comical Wikipedia tag "Hullabaloo Wolfowitz" doesn't mean someone is Jewish. Second, and I don't believe I have to reveal this much of myself here, but I myself am not Jewish, and while I (like many Israelis themselves) may be uncomfortable with the settlements, I agree with Hullabaloo Wolfowitz that your edits have been inappropriate. Oxfam made what statement it wanted to make about Scarlett. Selecting other comments the group may have made at other points and using them to bolster your "even though" argument is original-research synthesis. As for "priggish," you're entitled to your opinion. "Unsubstantiated" is just factually wrong for the reason I give (again) in this very paragraph. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please read carefully

Hello. I've extended your block indefinitely and have restored your talk page access so that we may sort out a few things.

As you said here, you are a newbie to Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with that, as nobody expects you to know all of our policies right away. However, if you'd like to continue editing, you are required to learn them. You are required not to make comments like this. And you may absolutely not make comments like this.

I am willing to lift your block if you can read over a few policy pages for me: our page on personal attacks, our page on civility, our page on edit warring and our page on biographies. That's some starting material. Once you've finished, you are welcome to reply here with a short, concise summary of each page and how you feel it relates to the behaviour you were blocked for.

Please tread carefully. I've restored your talk page access to give you a chance to prove that you are willing to be a constructive editor, and I've done so in good faith. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right - if you can tell me what you've done wrong, how you will avoid repeating your mistakes in the future, and if you apologize to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Tenebrae, and Bbb23, I'd be more than happy to offer you that privilege. If you cannot, then I will revoke your talk page access again and your stay with us will be concluded.

Feel free to reply at your leisure. m.o.p 21:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Puppets, Per your request, I have read the guidelines which you have forwarded to me, and thank you, sincerely, for your patience and understanding.

As largely the only difference between the two reflections of mine which you highlighted was the use of the term "idiot", I am concluding that this is the differentiation between the two which requires an additionally intensified categorization. If this conclusion was drawn improperly please specify so. If it is the use of the term "idiot" please note that the word was used to describe ACTIONS and NOT an INDIVIDUAL. However, that said, I agree that the language was likely stronger than the situation required and wish to extend an apology to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz if he took offense. I refer to my response to claims of racism if using the word Jewish has caused anyone consternation. I do not stand for racism and will not tolerate bigotry. Edit Warring is mentioned in said response, as well. As far as the biography page, I will need further explanation if I have violated these terms. My hope is that you are not simply going off of the words of these baseless accusations and can offer an example where I have violated this if you still feel this to be the case after reviewing my editing. I hope that answers your concerns and I do thank you for your attention to this matter. Thanks again! And Have a Good Day!

<redacted>

Well, thank you for attempting to fulfill my request, but I'm afraid it's not enough.

I understand that you have strongly-held views on this subject, but they are outright disruptive. Wikipedia is a place of knowledge and collaboration - your speculation on the sexual desires of long-standing and respected members of the community is not welcome here. Comparison between editors and the Gestapo is equally unacceptable.

I am removing your talk page access again. I'm sorry that we could not come to a compromise on this issue. m.o.p 03:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]