User talk:Zaalbar

November 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Pink News was changed by Zaalbar (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.893959 on 2012-11-02T14:59:53+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Pink News with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism; read the source. Zaalbar (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Feel free to remove the warning. - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Pink News with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using templates and read the freaking source before reverting edits. Zaalbar (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-serving SPSs

Please read WP:SPS, especially the line that deals with self-serving sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't apply to what we have in dispute. Zaalbar (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to quote the person, you should use quote marks, because that's how quoting works. However, it is still preferable to use language that is clear and neutral, so the reader will know what the article means, and thus I do not recommend reverting again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't need to be quoted, we just can't change what he said. Zaalbar (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you argue that we have to use his words, which we wouldn't write in normal encyclopedic prose, you are arguing that we must quote him. This seems fairly simple. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can do anything as long as we don't change what he says. Interpreting what he means by 'protect marriage' and then re-writing it to what we think it means is not appropriate. Zaalbar (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring, please

Stop edit warring on Australian Christian Lobby or you'll be in violation of WP:3RR and most likely be blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 21:14, 8 November 2012 (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. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Edit warring again

When material you add or restore to an article is challenged and reverted, it is up to YOU to discuss the matter on the article talk page and get consensus there BEFORE the material can be added. The source you used was not reliable for the information added. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I can't believe you of all people are bringing up BRD. Zaalbar (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Input provided at RSN, heading out now

Hi Zaalbar, thanks for considering my responses at your RSN discussion thoughtfully. Just wanted to let you know I'm heading out for the weekend, so I may not have another chance to respond. Just FYI in case you were going to be looking for any more input from me there. Cheers, have a great weekend. Zad68 20:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll look for the full interview and see what can be added. You too. Zaalbar (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Shepard

I would strongly suggest that you stop roaming Wikipedia trying to re-define Shepard's murder as a "possible" hate crime based only on the claims of the perpetrators. We would not change an article on a murder to a "possible murder" based on the sole claim by the perpetrator that they were innocent. We stick to the facts and the reliable sources. The minority view may be appropriate to be mentioned in the Shepard article itself, but it is certainly not relevant elsewhere. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just based on the attackers. It's one of the girlfriend's, the prosecutor of the case and one of the lead investigators. Zaalbar (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Murdoch

Thanks for the fix here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Zaalbar (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Your recent editing history at Same-sex marriage shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's my last revert. If it gets undone then I'll go to talk. Zaalbar (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Just wanted to say 'thanks' for all your hard work lately. `Belchfire`-TALK 00:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Zaalbar (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2012 (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.

Your recent editing history at LGBT rights in Ecuador shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Same-sex marriage. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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) 17:14, 24 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Bbb23's stated what my reverts are here [1] Number 1 may be seen as a revert. I'm not sure though since it had been two days since "supporters" was removed and I used the talk page during that time to discuss that. After two days no sufficient source had been provided and so I added "supporters". Number 2 is definitely not a revert, as the edit war has been over "supporters" and I didn't touch that but decided to work on other wording and left the disputed "supporters". Number 3 wasn't a revert either, I just removed a statement to editors that had been there for a while which I didn't think should be there (there were no previous disputes over it). Number 4 is the only revert (unless you count number 1, which I wouldn't since it is just a removal of un-sourced information on 24 December after the talk page discussion concerning it had resulted in no supportive source since it started on 22 December). Zaalbar (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not blocked for 3RR, you're blocked for edit warring. Bbb23 has clearly stated that this revert count is not what you're blocked for. Max Semenik (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2012 (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.

Can you elaborate? As I don't think one revert can be seen as edit warring. Zaalbar (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the revert count is justification for this block and since it's actually 1 revert, not the stated 4, then an admin needs to unblock me or actually say that the block is for that one revert. Zaalbar (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another reason why it is only one revert and the only edit with a chance of being seen as a second revert - Number 1 stated by Bbb23 - is not a revert is from WP:EDITWARRING "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." Because it was two days since the change and I'd been using the talk page during that time, I wasn't edit warring by removing the un-sourced content after the two days of talk page discussion failed to provide a sufficient source. Zaalbar (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Read up higher and decide. Zaalbar (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests are to respond to the issues the led to the block AND to address any discussion since (see WP:GAB and WP:AAB). "Read up higher" does not address anything at all - especially because a few lines above is a very clear decline with nothing new to even SUGGEST that you understand WP:EW or WP:REVERT. To go back and make the edit you did in the middle of a discussion was pure edit-warring and disruptive, and against the promises that are inherently made during dispute resolution. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:47, 25 December 2012 (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.

The discussion had started on the 22nd and by the 24th no sufficient source had been provided. My choice was to leave the un-sourced information stay in the first paragraph of the lead or remove it. I made the correct decision as it was clear that no source to support the claim could be provided and to leave it for several more days (or longer) would be wrong to the readers and reduce the reliability of the article. Zaalbar (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zaalbar, What surprised me is you kept reverting despite stating on the talk page that you won't revert the compromise. That sounds like a flip-flop to me. Pass a Method talk 21:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was up to others whether it should be contested and belch decided to so I reworded it. Though I should have put "atm" at the end of "I won't remove Method's compromise". Zaalbar (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely adding "atm" is even worse - it suggests that you'll revert as soon as the 24h 3RR runs out. I think you need to understand that 3RR in 24h isn't a bright line - you can be blocked for far less, if your editing pattern is seen to be disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 01:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No that's not what I mean. What I meant by the original post was that I won't revert Method's edit (even though I know it's wrong) if everybody else accepts it. Belch didn't accept it and so I changed the wording of that part of the paragraph (getting rid of Method's "particularly" as well). Also, I was no where near 3 reverts in 24 hours when I responded on talk to his change. Zaalbar (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you communicate more clearly in the future instead of clarifying yourself after you're blocked. Pass a Method talk 01:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, but this small misunderstanding hasn't caused my block or any other problems. Zaalbar (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of SPI

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm afraid a grave mistake has been made. My twin brother operated the Acoma Magic account and when he was banned, he was quite annoyed and quit Wikipedia. I felt bad for him and decided to try editing Wikipedia. I've looked at his contributions and continued some of his editing, hence the accounts are quite similar. Zaalbar (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Bullshit. Kuru (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2012 (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.

That is one of the funnier things I've ever heard. The evil twin.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short and sweet or wot!!! In your face, Bovine Fecal Emitter!!! Basket _Feudalist 16:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Triplets? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 17:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... Zaalbar (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zaalbar, you may want to read Wikipedia:My little brother did it. Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They probably already have, but I didn't know about the essay - thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People are collapsing talk page discussions under the guide of WP:DENY. Somebody may want to edit that policy because the large title box highlighting that the collapsed discussions has a blocked sock puppet contributing there will make more people want to bother reading it. The policy/people are working against their purpose. This is my last post on Wikipedia so bye. Zaalbar (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has it occurred to you yet, that if you were actually following the policies, you wouldn't need to keep creating new accounts? Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately my twin bro was unlucky enough to run into admins who don't follow policy. Some didn't know the definition of a revert or liked to block somebody for two reverts but leave the person who did three. Granted he violated policy by editing his talk page with a proxy, but there was no point in continuing in that account with incompetent admins watching constantly. It still hasn't changed, BK and Bbb (and several editors) tried to revert articles to MOS and NPOV violating versions in direct contradiction of Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits and several other policies. Anyway, not to worry, there's only a few more tidbits that need fixing before I'm finished with this controversial part of Wikipedia. Zaalbar (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Matthew Shepard

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

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]