User talk:Rbaish
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Why did you delete the sourced section on violence, alcoholism and aggression fromWhite Christian male?futurebird13:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These topics are not specific to the WCM, and theses topics have no special relationship to the WCM. Basically, I am deleting the section due to its irrelevance to the topic.Rbaish17:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a 3 revert rule here on Wikipedia. You have conducted two reverts already. You have 1 left. If you revert four times within 24 hours will be reported and may be blocked. Do not revert more than three times. SeeWP:3RR.Signaturebrendel18:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been advised. :\Rbaish20:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have beenblocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours as a result of your disruptive edits toWhite male. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note thatvandalism (including page blanking or addition ofrandom text),spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations,personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of ourneutral point of view policy will not be tolerated.Rlevse03:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
???
Regarding these edits:
Please do not change the headings of sections in this article from "racism" to "racism as an excuse" this is vandalism and POV pushing. This is a warning.futurebird17:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to theAffirmative action page. It is consideredvandalism. If you would like to experiment, use thesandbox. Thank you. --VectorPotentialTalk16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia'sneutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did toKwame Kilpatrick, youwill beblocked from editing Wikipedia.TedFrank03:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rbaish, please cease edit-warring, adhere toWP:DR, and self-revert your re-insertion of the Kilpatrick material. There is no consensus for its insertion, and it self-evidently violates NPOV. --TedFrank12:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reported aprima facie breach of thethree revert rule by you on the articleBlack supremacy. Please seethe reports page where you may wish to comment.Sam Blacketer16:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits have been reverted, as they were blatant violations of the NPOV rules. --Orange Mike23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
, also BLP and NPOV vios, 48 hours.Rlevse23:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to this article has been reverted, on the basis of POV bias - your judgement that a large section of the text is 'silly' is your personal opinion and adds nothing to the article. If you have something constructive to add to the topic, please do so.Eyedubya11:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onRacism. Note that thethree-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate thethree-revert rule. If you continue, you may beblocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains aconsensus among editors.Slp114:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are tags to use if you want citations. Don't just remove entire sections of text that other editors have worked hard on. See above.Eyedubya15:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please quit adding Jesse Jackson et. al. back into the list of black supremacists on theblack supremacy article, and particularly quit doing so without so much as an edit summary. You cannot add these people back into the list just becauseyou think they are black supremacists--it's not even close to being good enough and I think you know that. Extraordinary claims--and calling Jackson, who founded the "rainbow coalition," a black supremacist is extraordinary--need extraordinary sources and you have provided none. If you find some sources which label these folks black supremacists, stick them on the article talk page so they can be discussed.
Placing Jackson, Waters, and the others in this list violates rules laid out atWP:BLP, an official policy, which says that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." I believe I've cited this policy to you before on the article talk page so you should be familiar with it. Labeling Jackson and the others black supremacists is extremely contentious, and I will continue to remove it (without violatingWP:3RR of course). If you continue to add in this information you might well end up getting blocked as you have several times already.--Bigtimepeace|talk |contribs18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From who? Click here:{{test}} ←BenB401:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add commentary or your ownpersonal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did toBlack supremacy. Doing so violates Wikipedia'sneutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use thesandbox. Thank you.Gscshoyru16:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia'sneutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did toRacism, youwill beblocked from editing Wikipedia.Jeeny(talk)23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is thelast warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia'sneutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did toRacism, youwill be blocked from editing Wikipedia.Gscshoyru11:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-Philippe |Talk19:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as in several months ago, there is a discussion happening about content in this article on the article talk page, but rather than participate in that discussion you edit war - without even using edit summaries - for your preferred version. Why is it so difficult to simply have a discussion on the talk page and explain your view? If you do not do that it is highly unlikely that you will be able to keep in the content you want to include given that there are several editors who disagree with you. Obviously your approach to editing Wikipedia is not working very well (witness comments on this talk page and your four blocks) so you might think about taking a more collaborative approach. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace|talk |contribs20:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, Rbaish. I'm dropping by to address concerns from another editor, as notified above. Your editing habits are getting somewhat concerning: yourrecent contributions seem to be very much centred around asingle purposes, which can be somewhat harmful. Whilst I am not going to make any statements with regards to blocking, I will say that you should be careful that you do not cross the boundary whereby your editing becomes disruptive.
Perhaps it's time to spread your wings, and edge away from your current area of contributions? Again, you seem to be very heavily focussed on it, and it's probably best to find some fresh areas that you (perhaps?) don't feel so strongly about. This is just a word of friendly advice, but I do hope you follow it. If you have any questions, please feel free toget in touch. Cheers,Anthøny22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the reporthere, I have executed an indefinite block for disrupting the encyclopedia. I note from your contribution history that you generally edit within a narrow interest area, and that your edits are frequently challenged on the grounds ofWP:NPOV. I see little attempt at your part to attempt to edit within the established consensus of the various articles, and less at establishing a dialogue with other editors.
Should you wish to challenge this block, please place {{unblock|"your reason here"}} under this message, giving your reasons for requesting unblock. I would further comment that an indefinite blockdoes not necessarily mean an infinite block, and the sanction may be lifted as soon as there is an undertaking to abide by Wikipedia editing guidelines.LessHeard vanU (talk)23:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rbaish(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There is no reasoning with bigtimepeace. Rather than waste my time engaging in a fruitless conversation in which he will undoubtedly stick to his marxist perspective, I immediately engaged in an edit war. I think I saved everyone some time.
Decline reason:
Unblock declined. You clearly understand why your edits are often problematic and you have expressed no willingness to change. The language of your unblock request is deliberately inflammatory and arrogant. I suggest, if you sincerely wish to be unblocked in the future, that you allow some time to pass before your next request. —CIreland (talk)02:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.