User talk:Jeeny/Archive 4
|
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 10 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at White people. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia - please bear this in mind.
Kind regards, |
If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by
adding the text "{{unblock|your reason here}}" below this text, or contact me.
adding the text "{{unblock|your reason here}}" below this text, or contact me.
Request - Can the reviewing admin please see the 3RR report? Jeeny self-reverted. From what I have seen, we don't block people who undo their violating reversions because blocks are not punitive, and by self-reversion the user acknowledges that he shouldn't have edit warred and undoes the effect of this edit warring. The Behnam 23:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Here is a fast link to that report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Jeeny reported by User:KarenAER (Result:). The Behnam 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
What really concerns me is that the blocking admin has failed to report his action on WP:AN/3RR, in the hour or so since the block, even though he/she has since edited the page for something else. Looks strange, bad kind of strange.Never mind, my paranoid mind misread the time stamps. :) --Ramdrake 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I almost wonder if he read the report. Maybe he jumped too soon. In any case, I've some confidence that the reviewer won't commit the same oversight. Let's see what the reviewer says. The Behnam 23:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- That concerns me too, and then I went to the admin user page, I became more suspicious. There's no result on the ANI report. This looks really bad for Wikipedia. To allow an editor who's changed their user name by one letter, because of some spurious reason, perhaps to advert a block? And is consistently rude and defiant. Sure knows his/her way around Wikipedia for this to happen. I may be over paranoid, but I'm really having a tough time understanding Wikipedia. - Jeeny Talk 23:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Based on your block log, he read the report. Somehow I would have expected some sort of comment on the self-reverts, but nothing. He didn't even mark his decision. Looks like haste. Just waiting for a reviewer to clear up this mess. The Behnam 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- You know what's ironic. That last block was when I was new, and the blocking administrator was correct in blocking me. In fact, after that, I asked him to adopt me. I was blocked because I deleted my own article that I made from scratch, because I was so upset. And then started to delete all my contributions, like a child having a self-distructive tantrum. Yet I did not delete anything of the editor I had a problem with, but my own contributions, and one that was a DYK article. I was wrong, and waited it out with no objection. I then welcomed the other editor back. - Jeeny Talk 00:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Based on your block log, he read the report. Somehow I would have expected some sort of comment on the self-reverts, but nothing. He didn't even mark his decision. Looks like haste. Just waiting for a reviewer to clear up this mess. The Behnam 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- That concerns me too, and then I went to the admin user page, I became more suspicious. There's no result on the ANI report. This looks really bad for Wikipedia. To allow an editor who's changed their user name by one letter, because of some spurious reason, perhaps to advert a block? And is consistently rude and defiant. Sure knows his/her way around Wikipedia for this to happen. I may be over paranoid, but I'm really having a tough time understanding Wikipedia. - Jeeny Talk 23:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I almost wonder if he read the report. Maybe he jumped too soon. In any case, I've some confidence that the reviewer won't commit the same oversight. Let's see what the reviewer says. The Behnam 23:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I can only guess Anthony was in a hurry; I didn't see any note on WP:AN3 and closed your report as "no action required" (based on the self-reverts). So I was surprised to see your account on the unblock list. In any case, since you recognized you'd gone over and self-reverted, there's no need for a block. I've unblocked you; if you have problems with the autoblock, let me know here on your talk page. MastCell Talk 04:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I can edit articles now. But, I don't know if it's because you've undone the block or the time limit has expired as I have been busy doing other things outside of Wikipedia. Anyway, thank you all. :) - Jeeny Talk 05:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Your wikistalking[edit]
How convenient to "forget" that Lanternix is on my watchlist. I guess you did not learn anything at all. And your abuse was repoted by someone else too? Maybe it's time you stopped embarrassing yourself so much. Egyegy 04:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Me wikistalking? I've never been reported for wikistalking. Lanternix is on mine too, because we have history on each other's talk pages. Sheesh. How come you didn't responsed to User:Paxsimius when asking about the alphabet on Lanternix page, unless it was you watching me, heh? You said I should stick to the race articles, how do you know that if you are not wikistalking me? articles you never edit. Unlike me on the Ancient Egypt, etc. articles. I have more people for me than against me. And the person who reported me for a 3RR is a problem editor, just like yourself. My block was a mistake in haste. It was reverted. - Jeeny Talk 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- When you're rambling so much and not making any sense, it kinda says: Guilty! But a big LOL at your "Unlike me on Ancient Egypt, etc. articles", like you know what you're talking about. Consider my advice to you again and stop making personal attacks [1]. Isn't it interesting that none of us make personal attacks or ethnic innuendos about you and your buddy Taharqa, yet this is the one thing you two seem to be good at! I might have been offended if I didn't feel so sorry for you. Egyegy 05:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Jeeny your recent edits to Egyptian and Coptic articles were very harmful and biased. I don't know how much knowledge you have about these topics, but to support claims easily refutable by Egyptologists like Zerida and by people with advanced knowledge on Egypt/Coptology such as Egyegy and myself, is unexplainable. Please refrain from reverting every single contribution we make until we discusss each in a mutual fashion. I don't mean to sound agressive, I know we've had a history of mutual contribution so far, and I'm looking forward to continue this tradition. Thank you. --Lanternix 13:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Lanternix for being civil, but I must correct you were you say "refrain from reverting every single contribution we make", as I do not do that. If I reverted EVERY single edit of all three without discussion, I'd be blocked forever. I do not believe my edits were harmful nor biased, that's part of the problem when there are people who only side with some scholars. I can see both sides -- usually. Thanks again, and take care. - Jeeny Talk 16:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)