User talk:Jonathansamuel

Prior to today 2/8/10 I was unaware of the "three-revert rule" ("3RR"). It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, usually for a 24-hour period for a first incident. Now that I am aware of this rule I will obey it, as I obey all Wikipedia rules provided that I am aware of them.[edit]

Other than the 3RR rule it seems to me that the the definition of edit warring can be subjective. If multiple editors are going back and forth, with multiple editors reverting each other and then reverting each others' reverts, it might be difficult to know who is edit warring and who is not. However, I intend to abide by the 3RR rule and see if that solves the perceived problem. It might, since three reverts a day will limit whatever activity it is that some object to, and perhaps limit it within bounds acceptable by all. I will also post on the Talk page when I revert, in case anyone is reading the Talk page, which has not been the case with the Heidegger article up until now.[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Jonathansamuel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
and some hints-- You're doing fine, but some points I noticed checking the article of Ouakhin: It would really help to have reviews of some of his books--the english language ones should be easy enough to find--any librarian can help. The French Wikipedia usually doesn't bother with that, but we do. You should link to the French article-- see WP:ILL. and see also's should not usually repeat items linked to from within the text. DGG (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note by JonathanSamuel: I am looking for a talk page where I can reach the person who wrote this message. Where should I go to?

Heidegger[edit]

Salutations Jonathan, and thank you for trying to improve the Martin Heidegger article. However, you seem to be engaged in an edit war with another user. This is not how constructive change is implemented on Wikipedia. Can I ask that you take your proposed changes to the talkpage and we will all discuss their merits to reach consensus? Thanks, Skomorokh 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted again. That is most disappointing, and it is not at all the type of behaviour welcome in a collaborative project. Please explain your disagreement with Mtevfrog (talk · contribs) here. If you continue to refuse to discuss your edits and revert others, you will be blocked from editing the encyclopaedia. Sincerely, Skomorokh 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment on the talkpage, Jonathan. Mtevfrog has responded here. I'm sorry that I haven't had a lot of time to engage with this so far. Regards, Skomorokh 17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FFVII vs Martin, on Heidegger[edit]

I am seeking consensus on whether or not there should be a "For the FFVII character named heidegger, see blah" type header at the top of the article for Martin Heidegger.

If you would be so kind as to cast your vote as you see fit, I'd be happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shentino (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you found my call for votes section ok. It also seems that we've got a 2-2 stalemate now :P. Sorry, should ahve linked you first. But, I'm an amateur and didn't know how to link at any level below article. Also found out that these "disambiguators" are better known as hatnotes. ;) Shentino (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment dblchk[edit]

Please review your comments on talk:martin heidegger.

I did a bit of reorganization to make it cleaner, and I'd like to verify that I didn't munge any of your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shentino (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Martin Heidegger has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Clarince63 (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Martin Heidegger. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Clarince63 (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Martin Heidegger. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Clarince63 (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Martin Heidegger. Clarince63 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock me. You may wish to review the history of the Martin Heidegger page.

The term "Nazi" is a standard English word which has its own entry in Wikipedia. Some editors believe that when describing Martin Heidegger's Nazi activities as a member of the Nazi Party the term "National Socialist" should be used instead. However, "Nazi" is standard English terminology as in "Nazi Germany." Few people write "National Socialist Germany."

Yet these individuals object to the use of the term "Nazi" and have everywhere replaced it with "National Socialist." One of the individuals who did this JSP722 repeatedly posted anti-Semitic drivel on the Heidegger page, referring to "supremacist ideologies such as Judaism"

Another individual who was involved, Clarince63, had Request for Rollback Rights Declined on 12/31/09. His rights were reinstated on 1/15/10. Here we are one month later and he has joined up with JSP722, who posted the phrase "supremacist ideologies such as Judaism" on the Heidegger page.

I ask you to review the history of the Martin Heidegger page, unblock me, and if you so choose block JSP22.

Thank you.

Decline reason:

You should have been blocked much earlier for edit warring. You've been editing around here long enough to know that's not acceptable. What's more, you made no attempt to work this out on the article talk page, which would have been the proper place to attempt to gain consensus for your desired edits. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:43, 8 February 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Mr. Gordon: Please review your decision, based on both procedural matters and on merits. If you examine the state of the Heidegger article last month, before JSP722 and others modified it, you will observe that this article for many months has referred to "Nazism" in its opening paragraph. The undiscussed change was the attempt to assiduously remove the term "Nazi" and it was first made by: JSP722, 00:51, 5 February 2010 (hist diff) Martin Heidegger ‎ (→Freiburg: Replaced inaccurate and poitically biased term “Nazi” with the actual name of the party joined by Heidegger) . Moreover, none of the individuals who protected JSP722's change discussed JSP722s changes on the Talk page prior to my being blocked. I urge you to look at the article history and observe that it is JSP722 who made the undiscussed change, not me. It was JSP722 who refused to discuss proposed changes on the Talk page, not me. I made NO PROPOSED CHANGES and merely reverted JSP722s changes. I also urge you to consider on merit that the word "Nazi" should and did appear for months in the initial portions of the wikipedia article on Martin Heidegger, who was after all a Nazi Party member. With respect to the merit of JSP722s claim, I remind you that on 13:57, 7 February 2010 JSP722 posted a reference to "supremacist ideologies such as Judaism." The major individual involved in pushing this agenda is clearly acting in violation of Wikipedia's own guidelines which forbid expressions of racial or religious animosity. I hope that you will consider the unclean hands of JSP722 and those who have been protecting his wrongful attempt to ban use of the word "Nazi" from the initial portions of this Wikipedia article.

Decline reason:

The three-revert rule applies to us all, even when we are certain that we are right. WP:DISPUTE has some good strategies for dealing with editing conflicts without edit-warring. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:43, 8 February 2010 (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.

Regarding the comment at the top of the page, this was not a 3RR issue, this was an edit warring issue; it was so far over 3RR that that was simply irrelevant. I do note that the editor was not at any time warned for edit warring, and that the accusations of vandalism were inappropriate; this was a content dispute ("Nazi" vs "National Socialist") rather than vandalism, and should have been treated as that from the start. I suggest that this editor should file one more unblock request, now that he understands how serious and disruptive we consider edit warring to be, and reassure the reviewing admins that he'll resist the urge to edit war in the future. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, shouting at the top of your talk page generally won't do any good. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Test of new section[edit]

jpgordon has suggested that he doesn't care for me posting large headers at the top of the page. I assume the New Section button is the way to add content to one's own usertalk page. This is a test of that method.

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the talk page[edit]

You need to answer points raised on the talk page. You ask for information, its given and you ignore it. You are asked questions and you ignore them. You then open a new section with a new point and ignore what has gone before. You also appear to be a largely single purpose editor. I suggest you have a think, engage on the talk page and try and respect the need to work with other editors. Otherwise you are going to end up with another block sooner or later. --Snowded ^TALK 22:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Martin Heidegger. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Snowded ^TALK 22:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I flatly dispute that I have made more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. I have made multiple edits, as have others.Jonathansamuel (talk)

You have made three within a period of two hours and during that time you have made no attempt to engage on the talk page. 3RR is not a right, it is a level at which an automatic block comes into effect. You can be blocked for less, or for reverting without discussion over a longer period of time. The warning above is to make you aware of that. If it fails and you continue then a report would reference it to show that you had been warned. --Snowded ^TALK 23:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three reverts are allowed within a 24 hour period. It is MORE THAN THREE reverts which is not allowed Jonathansamuel (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this three reverts are not an entitlement]. Coupled withe your refusal to say if you that other IP or not and the failure to assume WP:AGF you are on very dodgy ground. I have seen people banned for far less. Also you are an editor with an obsession with one page and have already had a block for edit waring on that page. This is a precarious position and I suggest you consider it. --Snowded ^TALK 05:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted to click on the link provided by the previous editor. Got a "No Such Section" error.

The above editor's persistent demand that I provide him with my IP address is inconsistent with Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia already knows my IP address. If Wikipedia so chose, it would be able to provide the above editor with my IP address, although at considerable legal risk to itself.

Since Wikipedia chooses not to provide the above editor with my IP address, it is not for me to correct this matter. It has been resolved, and he may wish to stop harping on it. Jonathansamuel (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have now reverted 4 times within a 24 hour period. I have no problem getting to the reference page but as you do here is the text:

3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR.

Otherwise you either edited the article using your IP address or you didn't. If it is yours then I suggest you replace the IP address with your normal signature, or if it isn't yours then simply say so. --Snowded ^TALK 21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look. I have not violated 3RR. If you wish to claim I violated something other than 3RR, fine. Just don't mention 3RR.

Your link is still broken. I cannot read it, or have any idea where what you are allegedly quoting comes from. Nor do I care, because I have not violated 3RR. Jonathansamuel (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have taken two seconds for you to try the reference but I have fixed the link. You have continued to edit war overnight and you are now clearly in breech of WP:3rr. If you revert again without agreement on the talk page I will report it. Please also read up on how to edit the talk page. Everytime you make a contribution to a debate you do not need another section. You should also indent your comments progressively with colons so other editors can see the thread. I short period of time looking through the various pages referenced below may help you.

I flatly assert that I am in conformance with 3RR. Jonathansamuel (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try counting the number of times you reverted, its a around 7 over the last 36 hours. Also, given that you did not recognise the quote I gave above it is obvious you had not read the policy on 3rr. I suggest you do --Snowded ^TALK 07:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try counting the number of times I reverted. It is no more than 3 in 24 hours. Some edits are reverts, and some are not.

Furthermore, 3RR refers to 24 hour periods, not to 36 hour periods. Jonathansamuel (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got about 10 minutes to self revert while I assemble the formal report. You are edit warring against THREE other editors --Snowded ^TALK 07:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rr report made here --Snowded ^TALK 07:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome...

Hello, Jonathansamuel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Snowded ^TALK 06:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More trouble at Martin Heidegger[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Disruptive editing. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Long-term edit warring at Martin Heidegger, which continued after an earlier block for the same thing. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Jonathansamuel reported by User:Snowded (Result: 1 week). EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

User jonathansamuel filed a 3rr report on user mtevfrog at the same time as user Snowded filed a 3rr report on user jonathansamuel. The 3rr report on user mtevfrog showed four reverts in a 24 hour period. Wikipedia blocked user jonathansamuel and did not block user mtevfrog. I would like to know why both were not blocked, since both (I had mistakenly thought that only UNDOs were reverts) violated 3rr. It seems to me that user mtevfrog's four reverts in a 24 hour period is a violation of 3rr, and that he should be treated in the same manner as user jonathansamuel. If Wikipedia does not treat both users the same I would like to know why.

Decline reason:

This is a question not a request for unblocking and you haven't addressed your own behaviour. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:56, 15 February 2010 (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.

I have addressed the disparity in treatment of user mtevfrog and myself. Jonathansamuel (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan, I agree that the point of view you are bringing to the article is legitimate and needs to be heard; and I say that even though I don't necessarily agree with it - it's just a legitimate point of view, reflected in the current scholarship. But the only practical way to ensure that it is heard on WP is to try to work with other editors. Being confrontational or threatening to revert changes just ends up with you being unable to influence the article (whether any other editor has been equally or more disruptive I don't know). Try to work with us.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Thank you for your wise advice, KD Tries Again. Threatening to revert is definitely a mistake. I suspect that my comments on the Talk Page today implied that I would revert, and I must make certain not to give that impression. Rather the impression I need to give is work with me and I will work with you to resolve this disagreement.Jonathansamuel (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

Hello Jonathansamuel. You have been leaving comments from various IP addresses at Talk:Martin Heidegger during your block, and signing them as yourself, for example here. This is WP:EVASION. Your block may be extended if you continue to do this. Please follow the rules and limit yourself to the talk page of your registered account for the duration of the block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an immediate cessation of block evasion and edit waring. You block will certainly be extended, I have also suggested a topic ban on naything to do with Heidegger. I'll withdraw that request if you STOP and also apologise (message also left on the talk page of the IP you are using) --Snowded ^TALK 07:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended your block to one month due to your use of 96.240.43.90 to evade the block, and I have semiprotected Martin Heidegger to prevent anonymous editing. The block may be shortened if you will credibly agree to follow all Wikipedia policies. Use {{unblock}} if you believe the block is not justified. Wikipedia is a group project, not a solo venture. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]