User talk:Redtobelieve

Yes the change was in good faith, thank you for that vote. I believe it is a simple change supported by his declaration of leaving a party that cannot be saved. It is historical reorientation not seen since the 1970s. Reminds one of the Interesting Times, Chinese curse - I hope you agree now, let me know

March 2016

all edits are supported by text in Wiki itself - Nationalism vs Citizenship - many make this mistake if you have Nationalism as a category, there is nothing controversial about that but it should be as accurate as possible there are two definitions in Wiki for Nationalism - land and blood - and you cant change either - it also relates to ethnicity citizenship on the other hand is a legal term and you can change citizenship just as you can change political party

text supports change, and it text is accurate, then facts support change - if you want to go to far as to remove text so that you can then remove reference support then you IMO are going to extreme measures to obscure nationality

I see nothing controversial about that category

I do see controversy when existing text is Wiki that supports corrections is removed to that Nationality can be removed

for what reason I can only guess

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Noel Ignatiev. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Robert Kagan. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Donald Kagan. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:25, 24 March 2016 (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).

Redtobelieve (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

my edits are WP:GF and WP:NPOV

Decline reason:

You were warned to stop, and you continued to make the same contentious edits. If you continue making the same sort of edits after this block expires, the next block will be for a significantly longer duration. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:16, 24 March 2016 (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.

WP Biographies

recap

1st edit 3/3 corrected Robert Kagan from Republican to Democrat EvergreenFir reverted without reading article

2nd edit 3/4 Provided WP:SYNTH EvergreenFir understood but removed catagory, I then replaced category with None as None at least is to be understood by the article then...

corrected Robert Kagan Nationality to Greek & Donald Kagan to Lithuania - place of birth - no objections noted for these Nationalities - no controversy -(NPOV) for everyone w/ Greek

3rd edit 3/18 Now clearly Donald Kagan was born in Lithuania Wikipedia:jus soli {{jus soli}} and his parent were Jewish Wikipedia:Jus sanguinis {{Jus sanguinis}} - upon reflection updated to Jewish b/c of Wiki explanation on Land {{jus soli}} and Blood {{Jus sanguinis}} versions of Nationality pointed to {{Jus sanguinis}} over {{jus soli}}

so the definition by either route is not clear although...

Nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a state. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state - source wiki - points to Law of Return {{Law of Return}} Israel

Naturally citizenship in NPOV and not controversial - looking back at the history of this page Donald Kagan has had "born into a Jewish family" since 2007 and

EvergreenFir effort to remove "born to Jewish family" part of article since 2007 - to prevent this information to be used to support correction to Nationality for both Donad Kagan and by extension Robert Kagan - clearly indicates that EvergreenFir may not have a NPOV

Malik Shabazz takes a different tack more of a shotgun approach than erasing many years pointing to question at hand, first using poorly referenced then somehow mentions controversial then mentions references living (or recently deceased) persons which it seems he should know by heart as he has been making edits for

then repeats poorly referenced, repeats somehow controversial, and for good measure adds defamatory

then repeating and adding, unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory

while on his own page Talk, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source; see WP:CIRCULAR - the article says who his parents are since he has made edits on is since 2007

While EvergreenFir seems more rationale, neither is WP:NPOV and should be block from editing their favorite professors - tried to not come to that conclusion but there it is at the moment

Finally perhaps just as Greek and Lithuania were not "controversial" nationalities I would guess French might not be controversial,

I would like to edit Salah Abdeslam who also has the Nationality in error - France 24 article [1]

referenced says citizenship correctly while Wiki again has this mistranslated as Nationality

Words matter and we have to use the correct word and remove our prejudice as to what is or is not controversial Redtobelieve (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Redtobelieve (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a time traveler?!?!?! Wow! ([2]).

Snark aside, you seem to insist that having Jewish parents makes your nationality "Jewish". Nationality is not ethnicity. Please see WP:EGRS, WP:IDENTITY, and Template:Infobox_person#Parameters. Kagan was born in the USA, he's a US citizen and a US national. That Israel offers Jews citizenship does not mean they have to accept it. We would require that the individual themself states that their nationality is something other than their country of origin and citizenship. You also need to read WP:BLP. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) took a sec to figure our time travel - look your reasonably, and I have no such focus exactly, if the blue to red to blue or as we finally left it as none, I would not have notice that Kagan, the son was born in Greece, hence the Greece nationality at first - grant it his father was an American, but he was born in Lithuania so what you write is not correct as currently in Wike - which gets next to Malik Shabazz and WP:CIRCULAR which means I can't info on Wiki for years. I read with interest WP:EGRS, \

WP:IDENTITY which in actually says "nationality May be used instead of citizenship (below) or vice versa in cases where any confusion could result. Should only be used with citizenship when they somehow differ. Do not link if a commonly known nationality."

So like my 1st edit - Robert Kagan or his father Donald Kagan, not born in America should use Citizenship.- as an additional note Roberts article show how his Foreign Policy interest seems to trump other portions of the traditional GOP platform so much so that he is voting for Clinton. so like Republican to None - perhaps using your references if you read them yourself, National to Citizenship

Snark is not so bad if done well, hopefully I did it well reguardsRedtobelieve (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: took a sec to figure our time travel - look your reasonable but wrong about Kagans (both) being born in US - although :@Malik Shabazz: says that it would be WP:CIRCULAR to use information in the article itself - it is actually making the article more coherent and clearing confusion your direction to WP:EGRS was interesting but Template:Infobox_person#Parameters hits the nail

nationality May be used instead of citizenship (below) or vice versa in cases where any confusion could result. Should only be used with citizenship when they somehow differ. Do not link if a commonly known nationality." citizenship Country of legal citizenship, if different from nationality. Rarely needed. See usage notes for nationality above. Should only be used if citizenship cannot be inferred from the birthplace; note that many countries do not automatically grant citizenship to people born within their borders. Do not link if a commonly known country.

so with Template:Infobox_person#Parameters in mind, we can add nationality Lithuania and Greece respectively or replace with citizenship for Robert or both - I can assure you I am not attached to any option but just the correction, especially since you showed me the WP links that help to set the rules to be followed :@Malik Shabazz: seems to equate this type of update to defamatory but it would not be WP:NPOV to take that positionRedtobelieve (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Your recent editing history at Andrea Mitchell shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
When no sources report the existence of a controversy, or apparently even criticize the action in question, it is plainly inappropriate to describe the matter as a "controversy". Doing so reflects poorly on the article subject, a living person, and therefore violates our BLP policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Andrea Mitchell 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.

Timing theories in Donald Trump Access Hollywood controversy that contradict reliable sources

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page etiquitte

Hi Redtobelieve,

In this edit, you inserted your comment directly above an indented comment. This creates the impression for a casual reader that the indented comment was responding to yours, thereby making it hard to follow the course of the conversation. Please don't do that. In this case, I've moved your comment slightly later in that section, where it does not create that false impression.

Thanks, JBL (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello, I'm ZimZalaBim. I noticed that you recently removed content from Chris Whitey Sims without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]