User talk:64.230.120.237
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] IRmep
If you revert one more time you will have broken the 3RR.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- You have me shaking in my boots there Moshe. Let's focus on the RfC. :-) --64.230.120.237 20:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 20:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've done the block properly now. Let me make a few suggestions to you... first, register and get yourself a username. You lose nothing and gain quite a bit. Second, comments like You have me shaking in my boots there Moshe. are what got you the full 24h block instead of a shorter first-time one. Third, please don't try to settle disputes with 3RR; use the RfC process (which you seem to be aware of - so why the need to revert?). You can edit this page (only) to reply William M. Connolley 21:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- I added a comment on your talk page which shows clearly that Moshe did three reverts prior, I posit that he was trying to bait me but was smarter about Wikipedia processes than I and thus he got me blocked. I guess that is one way to win an argument. I do suggest you have a look at the talk on IRmep -- I am trying to push it to an RfC in a nice manner and I think I am actually sticking to the facts. It does honestly feel as if these individuals are purposely being unfair to me in order to anger me and thus discredit myself via becoming beligerant -- it's like the older brother in the back seat who is always secretly poking his little sister and then when the sister finally gets mad and smacks the brother the parents see it and punish the sister. It is an interesting technique and probably very effective against many individuals. I would like to note that it is occuring here, of course since they are already begun the processes of discreditation this comment will probably be taken with a large grain of salt. --64.230.120.237 21:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- 3 reverts is not wonderful, but fails to trigger The Law. 4 reverts does. Thats how it is. I hope youll re-read my message above William M. Connolley 21:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I accept the technicality, although it saddened me that it was used in an attempt to win what was a content disagreement. You do seem fair though. Would you be willing to comment on the RfC (Talk:Institute_for_Research:_Middle_Eastern_Policy#RfC_Summary)? No one has. Moshe's reversions were about claiming that the IRmep was an "anti-Israel website" and not a think tank, and he provided no sources to support this contention -- all of his reversions were the same: [1]. Moshe described me as "User:64.230.120.237 has been very disruptive, and has continually added information solely from one extremley biased source which happens to be the subjest of the article." Please look at the RfC. --70.48.240.232 16:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I have also created a user account as per your suggestion: User:LuckyLittleGrasshopper. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 17:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Good idea. I've commented there William M. Connolley 18:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean] |
