User talk:Jzyehoshua

Welcome!

Hello, Jzyehoshua, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Wikimachine 15:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I offer my own apologies in lieu of those of the offending party

I just wanted to say that I personally find pointed disregard for the health and well-being of a living thing of any age or circumstance to be repugnant, which is why I personally support a ban on partial-birth abortion, recognize that family planning, sex education and contraception are absolutely essential to limit the number of abortions, and support single-payer health care for every man, woman and child. To ban abortion on the one hand, but to absolve ourselves as a society of caring for the essential needs of those people who are born into this world is a contradiction I cannot accept. Two wrongs do not make a right, but then, in this world, we have a great deal more than two wrongs no matter what we do.

I found Alan Keyes' official public statement that Jesus wouldn't vote for Barack Obama to be shockingly absurd and cynically manipulative, as Jesus surely wouldn't have voted for Keyes either, and it seemed to be the epitome of taking the name of the Lord in vain. We live in a world where neither candidate is ever truly going to live and legislate in a perfectly Christian manner. That doesn't mean we idolize either candidate, but neither does it mean we live in a cacophony of bloodcurdling diatribes over every issue creating a dissonance that makes it impossible to live with or have a modicum of respect for anyone or anything. You're familiar with the expression "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good," and I would add "we should not be the enemies of the imperfect," because there is nothing but imperfection in this world. Frankly, I wonder if the point of this life would be moot if everybody did live in a perfectly Christian manner. Reading your user page as I have only done just now makes me hope that my responses at Talk:Barack Obama were not personally offensive to you, and I did acknowledge there that I respect your position. I maintain that this edit fails weight, sourcing, context and other BLP issues and this doesn't mitigate any editorial point I have made. Wikipedia is not the place for activism

After working on the above, I experienced an edit conflict and took the liberty of deleting the other addition to your page as it is unacceptable Wikipedia behavior. I apologize for any religious intolerance that is and may be expressed here; while every editor has the right to his own opinions, it is inappropriate for someone to arrive here without any previous interaction with you to say such a thing. Intolerance is as repugnant when it is directed toward the religious community from the outside as it is when it is directed from inside the religious community to others.

I would like you to know that it is my deeply sincere wish that you continue to travel the path toward truth and love that you relate on your user page, something I was moved to read, and that you have all the guidance, support and rewards I hope for us all along the way on our respective paths. Abrazame (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I just saw this comment of yours. Sorry for taking so long to respond. I will agree with you that some of Keyes' comments are a bit insensitive and vitriolic, to put it mildly. I hardly excuse all of Keyes' behaviors or his words, nor do I try to idolize the man. I simply overlook it to some extent, as I admire his candidness when compared to the typical politician who does not even state what they believe. One thing I dislike about Obama is that he says one thing and does another, or tells different parties different things. He tries to appease when he is acting and voting very radically, and I do not like the dishonesty. Keyes on the other hand is an unapologetic radical, and I recognize it, but at least like the aspect of honesty in the man's character - even if he puts his foot in his mouth on occasion.

I also accept your apology. I have a tendency to get overly defensive when there are a lot of fallacies and attacks flying, and it wasn't all just directed at you, but some of the other users using the tactics made me more defensive than I was initially. At any rate, I look forward to a better understanding between us, and hope later comments won't clash as much as they did already. Not that I mind disagreement, I just hope to avoid it becoming personal, rather than constructive, that's all. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, please don't make the mistakes that I made!

I see that you have a strong interest in adding criticism of Barack Obama to wikipedia, even though there is a strong consensus against your edits. I used to do that a lot, and I also did so against consensus. I have been topic banned and blocked multiple times - and it is not fun. I mean, it is not fun at all. It really sucks. I urge you to find less controversial parts of the encyclopedia to edit. Please do not follow the path down the dark side and get your self topic banned or blocked. Good luck! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the concern and for the suggestion, but I do not believe in shying away from that which is most important simply due to opposition. Indeed, I previously stopped participating in Wikipedia for a time when I suspected the community was so liberally biased as to unfairly discriminate against opposing views, apart from objectivity and guidelines. If Wikipedia were to disallow opposing views from being presented, why would I want to participate at all? I have participated in editing less controversial parts of Wikipedia before - however, I stopped because I thought for a while that Wikipedia would discriminately disallow objective examination of controversial criticisms of liberal politicians when it does not do so for conservatives. My participation in the future in Wikipedia will depend only on the extent to which I believe it to be a good and honest community for providing unbiased content. I would definitely not help further a medium I did not believe in, otherwise. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a lot in common! Grundle2600 (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw while browsing you'd been involved in an arbitration dispute. I would imagine it might be similar to this one, and a verdict was reached prematurely before full examination could be done? I noticed one admin seemed skeptical about the verdict.[[1]] I have already taken this discussion into Mediation myself.[[2]] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been the subject of several such cases. Prior to the current one that you just cited, I was topic banned from all articles that relate to U.S. politics and U.S. politicians. Now in this current case, I have agreed to avoid editing all such articles from all other countries too. I love editing wikipedia, and I don't want to get blocked from all articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--John (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I clicked on the new section tab and for whatever reason it created a new page, perhaps due to a large page size already? I was just trying to reverse it myself. I only wanted to create a new section, not a new page, and had used the feature before without issue. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, I just switched to the Beta yesterday and this is just the 2nd time I tried using that New section tab with it. Could this be a glitch? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Word to the wise

An edit summary like this one[3] will hurt your case. Threats to edit war are not going to go down very well, particularly given that the Obama article is on probation (you can see the discussion at the top of the talk page). I've stayed a little removed from the issue for a little while but I still think that if everyone can cool down a little there can be a more productive discussion. Cheers.... - Wikidemon (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I will give it a few more days after creating a section asking anyone to provide proof against the edit having a NPOV, and if no proof can be provided on the talk page, will make the edits once more. I will create the section soon to make crystal clear whether or not there is proof about the NPOV accusation. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Keep in mind that individual editor are often POV - they're supposed to check that at the door but human nature is what it is. The key thing is that the resulting article is NPOV. If we can achieve that, it's not so important what's in people's hearts of hearts. Happy holidays, if that's what you're into.... - Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

True, true. And not necessarily big on holidays, as I suspect they're an excuse for people to act 1 day a year the way they should all the time, but sure, Happy Holidays!  :) --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, while I'm semi retired as I take care of a personal project that is taking more of my time, I do occasionally come back and take a peek at what is going on here in Wikipedia. I've been watching your posts of the Talk:Barack Obama page and have seen your contributions. I can see that there is a lot of potential to really help Wikipedia grow. However, I've also noticed a couple habits that might impede you're being able to help the project and give you a public image you may not want. I also want these suggestions to be able to help you navigate the Barack Obama page a little bit better and cause/see less drama. These are only suggestions take 'em or ignore them if you want:

• Understand your own biases and passions. When editing neutrally, you need to understand your own biases and passions and try to keep them from ruling you. It is hard, I know, but if you know what you lean towards, you can make sure you don't edit that way. (One way I do, is sometimes I just won't edit or comment on an article that I might feel passionately for or against.)
• Understand where others are coming from. If someone disagrees with you, fully understand where they are coming from. Do their arguments make a valid point? Did they raise a valid reason?
• If it seems that you are the only one tooting that trumpet, and the majority of the community does not agree with you, then maybe it's time to back off on that issue.
• If you find yourself starting to call others names or groups of editors names, then that also might be a sign to back away from the issue.
• If you can, avoided walls of text. Try to say what you mean in a succinct and brief manner. Editors will be more likely to read what you say when you say it with as few words as possible. If you really need to delve deeply and explain a subject, maybe use a collapsed box around it, and the editors will be more likely to read the extra information at their own leisure.
• Also, take a couple hours and delve deeply into the archives of the pages. See what has been brought up, see what reoccurring arguments that have been brought up over and over again, and see why the community has grown more pissed over certain things. (I could do in depth, but I want to be brief.)
• Finally, be interested in other things then just Barack Obama and politics in general. Work on other non-political articles as a way to take a breath and relax a bit.

You seem like a good editor and can contribute a lot to the project and as I said these are just some helpful suggestions. Sincerely, Brothejr (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I am deliberately holding off on editing other Wikipedia articles however to see what kind of community Wikipedia is. I don't want to get involved in other pages until I see how Wikipedia will handle this current situation.

I do recognize that I have been going overboard, and treating others the way they treat me; getting defensive and acting in a way I don't approve of. Therefore, I am going to stop trying to defend my reputation and let others think what they want about me.

I still think that the Obama article is lacking in critical historical factors surrounding him, and that objectively the partial birth abortion issue has been a major one during his career. It's tough to walk a line between not acting vengeful towards those who are editing out of bias, and still stick up for necessary changes to an article. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well at least he isn't a sockpuppet. --Misortie (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm no sockpuppet. I have no desire to hide behind another account, although I noticed I did have some additional edits in the past for my IP address itself (just since Wikipedia lets you edit without being logged in, and if you're idle on your computer while making an edit you get logged out). --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk Pages

In regards to this [4], I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. I edit a lot of pages on Wikipedia, I don't recall "protecting" another editors edits as such, nor would I ever "protect" a specific editor or viewpoint. However, the conversation on Tom's talk page clearly shows there's no consensus [5] to delete those comments, please don't do so again.

Don't get me wrong, there's a grand bit of silliness on both sides of this issue. That's another case to be made, however, in the short term there's no call to delete one single person's comments from the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You and DD2K both showed up in December 2009 to help out Scjessey then, and I believe when his edits got reverted you were one of the ones helping out there as well. As for why I reverted, I simply wanted to make clear my objection to them later on, even though I knew his associates, like you, would drop to make sure the comment stayed, just like you did before. I didn't want him to be able to say afterwards that only one person objected to his playing the race card, and defending his accusations of racism in the conversation afterwards by saying nobody objected. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As for the comment in question, it obviously violates Wikipedia neutrality and other rules, but I don't really care if it remains. There's nothing in it worth responding to, and until Threeafterthree reverted it, I was just going to let it sit there and ignore it, continuing with the conversation - just as I intend to do now. I reverted it, following that exchange, more to make my dissent clear than because I wanted it gone. After all, it reflects more poorly on Scjessey and those like you defending it, than myself, so I am perfectly happy to let it remain. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I assure you, I have never showed up anywhere to "help out" Scjessey. You seem to insist that someone can't disagree with you without being part of some conspiracy. If you disagree with the original comment, take it up on the correct noticeboard and see what other people think. Had you (or Tom0 actually addressed what the comment said, a discussion would have ensued, I assure you. What you're saying above about deleting it to make your point clear isn't helpful. Dayewalker (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahuh. So it's just coincidence that in December 09 you and DD2K were around then also to help out Scjessey with the mediation disputes at the time, huh? You weren't active in this conversation from what I saw, but as soon as Scjessey came in, so did you. Furthermore, I was not the first to suggest such a group, I am finding. As someone said there, "LotLE and Scjessey are the attack dogs for a large group of editors who Wikipedia:OWN the political articles, POV-pushing on behalf of the left." Scjessey was facing discipline for actions on this article, as seen here and here, long before I ever showed up on the scene. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

See, I already knew once I showed up, that you'd all soon follow, and try to start an edit war with an inflammatory comment to get me and anyone else objecting in trouble, after which you and Wikidemon would of course consider them 'discredited' with our opinions on the article now invalidated. This time though, I was expecting it. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys are predictable. Just keep using this exact same strategy. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't know what you're talking about. I made a single comment in your area on that page (which I still agree with), and suddenly I'm part of a conspiracy? Hilarious. I edit a lot of articles, as you can see from my contribs list. You seem to need to make people fit on one side or the other, and I don't. You've ignored my good faith advice above in favor of paranoia, and there's not much I can do for that.

If you look to find conspiracies and enemies everywhere, you'll certainly find them. That's not what wikipedia is about, though. I'm not part of any "you guys," as you put it above. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The last time, it was Scjessey using his attack tactics, and starting an edit war when you showed up, followed quickly by LoTLe. You think I don't notice that you guys were absent the whole conversation, and suddenly show up each time to participate in edit war attempts? You can play innocent if you want; because it seems pretty obvious to me. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(OD) I'm not even going to bother, Jz. You're mind is made up, so I won't waste both of our time continuing to try and convince you otherwise. If you've got a problem with me or my edits, please take it up on the appropriate noticeboard. Dayewalker (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Obama article

Edits like this[6] are unproductive and not welcome at Talk:Barack Obama - or, in fact, anywhere on the encyclopedia. You have been alerted to the article probation on that page, and you have been topic banned for a month over similar incidents in the past, so you are well aware that the community considers aggressive accusations to be antithetical to the goal of creating an encyclopedia. Your attempt on this page (which I removed) to build a case against editors you see as your opponents, is inappropriate as well. If you wish to contribute to the construction of the encyclopedia, please find a way to do so that does not involve antagonizing your fellow editors. You're perfectly welcome to contribute to articles, even controversial ones, if you follow our editing practices regarding civility, accusations, use of talk pages, etc. If you find yourself too frustrated to do that on some pages, you may want to work on some articles that do not put you in conflict. If you do persist, I or others will ask for help from administrators, and you will likely find your editing privileges revoked - Wikidemon (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I was topic banned due to the intervention of you and your band of thugs, using insults and thread closings to finally tempt me into violating the 3RR policy. Alert the other admins! I would love to see this get more attention, because I refuse to be silent anymore about what I know is wrong, and I don't know how to start an arbcom case, so maybe if they see enough people like me saying that what you are doing is wrong, they will finally begin paying attention. It's one thing if 1, or 2, or 5 people accuse you of using a cabal to protect the page from public scrutiny, but eventually I am convinced, they have to listen. And if not, shame on Wikipedia. But the truth will come out, it always does, and you can't fight it. Slow it down perhaps, but it will come out. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You're the one doing everything you can to close my threads when I post on the Admin noticeboards. I'm sure you'll try to pick some admins sympathetic to you, but ultimately, no one is more interested than me in having the admins see what's going on here. The more attention it gets, the better. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure what you're trying to do is close the threads on the page and archive them back where nobody will see them, and get guys like Sceptre dropping by the Admin noticeboard pages to suggest the threads aren't worth looking at. And when that fails, you drop in and close the threads. Any intervention will be by supposedly neutral Admin who's as much in your pocket as possible. You're opposed to having the case seen by just any Admin, I'm sure. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, now you're in a dilemma, aren't you? Because if you report me, it'll mean the accusations I'm leveling get looked at, and even if you can make them look bad, you do not want that even getting considered. So what are you going to do? Try and intimidate me from airing the scheme you guys are using, and hope this never sees the light of admin day? Try and get me banned for some frivolous technicality and hope the admins won't listen to me afterwards as a result? Try and get this deleted somehow and covered up before anyone sees? I can only see so many options for you, and am expecting all of them. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Denial of course will be the first step, and maybe a nice hacking attempt. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've given you a final warning. I'm not going to engage at your level of attacks, etc. I'll be filing a request shortly for administrators to deal with this. Please remove the attack page you're creating here about other editors. If you try to take the advice of those encouraging you to work productively, you may be able to continue here. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This attack page, as you call it, will contain only quotes/citations from cases/incidents already archived elsewhere on Wikipedia. As such, I consider it crucial that past analysis of the members guarding the Obama article be provided, and such analysis to be long overdue. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, there can be no continuance while you continue to unilaterally close all threads that could result in productive change of the article. You ignore the attacks of other posters, and use any excuse to eliminate discussion of including controversy on the article, regardless of the sourcing. I wholeheartedly support escalation of this matter so it can fully be brought to the light. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As discussed I have filed a report at WP:AN/I, where you can read it and respond if you wish. Using this as an occasion to attack other editors would likely be seen as retaliatory behavior, which will not help your case. I urge you again to concentrate on your own editing and how you can best contribute. You'll find that if you try to get along, editors here will give you every last chance. But if you continue to do battle against other editors they will not. I think WP:BATTLEGROUND was mentioned in connection with your earlier topic ban, or some page like it. That's useful to heed. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding huge amounts of text to AN/I. The more text you use defending yourself, the less people read it, and the more apt they are to block you just to stop the logorrhoea.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Jzambrano.jpg

Thank you for uploading this media, (it's appreciated.)

However, it would be nice if you could give some kind of indication as to what license the media is under. That way other people can be confident in making use of it for many varied purposes :)

Adding license information also helps prevent media you've put effort into creating from being deleted :)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators which will assist you :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, this was my first time uploading an image, so I was unaware I had done it improperly. I'm reading right now, and will try to ensure the image conforms to all guidelines. Thanks! --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Only Warning

Do not again remove any hat/hab templates added by any user to any page. That is considered vandalism and will be marked as such. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Abortion in the United States. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. This is clear POV pushing, don't let it happen again. NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 18:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't spam my page with worthless garbage. I have undone your revert, which made no sense. The material amended was material, if you look at the page history, I originally created, and had mistakes in. The table has 2 headings for physically impaired, and one should've read mentally impaired. The other section dealt with the Trimesters section, not this one, and was accidentally included in the first place. Stop vandalizing the page just because you don't like me and want to find something wrong. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Abortion in the United States, you may be blocked from editing. edit warring is bad. NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 18:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is simply no way you can defend that revert.[7] You are making it to make the page worse just to try and attack me, and anyone who looks the revert will know it. If you want to try getting me banned for it, go ahead - the second anyone actually looks at it, that will be reversed. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Abortion in the United States, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You were warned. NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC) 18:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 24 hours, for Edit warring at Abortion in the United States. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to review or remove this block, or for other admins to do so, provided that you agree to leave the article alone while it is under discussion. You may or may not have a point, but repeated reverting isn't the way to convince others that your point is sound. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Please review the case and let me know what you find. I will leave the page alone in the meantime, but please consider overturning the reverts as they are utterly without basis. Any grammar student would have made the same edit I did. This was intended to prevent my participation in a noticeboard event, and silence my voice from Wikipedia long enough for him and others to attack my reputation, and possibly hide my recent posts showing their dishonesty.[8] I reverted 3 times only since the WP:3RR page appeared to say 4 reverts were required to break the rule. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Noted - and I've already unblocked you. My sincerest apologies - the reverting back and forth appeared to be disruptive, given that discussion was ongoing elsewhere. Do take care, even if you're clearly right, to avoid edit warring in the future - but this block was clearly erroneous, and I so indicated when I unblocked. Mea Culpa. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the intervention, I really appreciate it. Is there a way I should report edit warring attempts like this in the future without reverting more than once? Should I simply contact you or another admin about frivolous reverts? I would like to avoid making this mistake from now on. Also, I really was confused by the WP:3RR page, since it stated, "This says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period... The four or more reverts that constitute a violation of the rule may involve the same or different material each time." --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If there have already been three reverts, you'd report them to WP:3RR; the same or different material line means that the three reverts don't have to be identical to be reverts. For example, if Neutralhomer had reverted someone else's edit in addition to the reverts on your edit, those would have been counted together. Since you're already involved in an ANI discussion with this user, it might not be a bad Idea to mention it there - "Hey, I'm trying to do a simple edit here, and he keeps reverting me and calling it vandalism" - and then it can be discussed. Ideally, though, the reverting and reverted editor should discuss the matter on the talk page of the article before getting to 3 reverts - and if they won't discuss the matter with you, you might bring in a third opinion, or ping a relevant wikiproject for guidance. A Request for Comment is always a more formal option, if the issue merits it. The problem here was that everything moved very quickly - part of the idea behind discussion is to slow things down a bit. Hope this helps, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, that helps me understand how to approach this now. I'd always thought it was just 3 reverts, but when this began, I re-checked the rules and decided the limit was 4, and thought I would just be at 3 with one more, so I made a last revert. I will try to discuss from now on as well, but you're right that this moved very fast, with nothing but templates and reverts to show for it, and no discussion forthcoming on the talk page. Furthermore, because I was so sure the reverts wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, and consisted of out-and-out vandalism, I was quicker to revert than I ordinarily would be. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

This is odd. The admin noticeboard still lists me as blocked, with a message of

"You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address.

This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. The ability of all users on this IP address to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse by the blocked party. Innocent users are sometimes caught in an autoblock. It may be the case that you have done nothing wrong.

A user of this IP address was blocked by Ultraexactzz for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Jzyehoshua". The reason given for ::Jzyehoshua's block is: "Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule".

This block has been set to expire: 18:26, 20 May 2010.

Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. Most likely your computer is on a shared network with other people."

It now says I need to post the following:

{{unblock-auto|98.220.204.204|Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Jzyehoshua". The reason given for Jzyehoshua's block is: "Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule".|Ultraexactzz|1931385}}

Additionally, the original Admin, NeutralHomer, has used the time during this to close a key thread on the noticeboard and push a conversation to ban me. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If I had a nickel for every time I forgot about the autoblock... :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So you autoblocked, Sarek? I am not sure what you are saying. Either way, this seems extremely dishonest by NeutralHomer, trying to get me temp-banned on false charges long enough to prevent me from defending myself on the admin noticeboards concerning a ban discussion, while he closes key threads showing their misportrayal of my statements. I would hope a further review of this finds all guilty who should be. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the autoblock was part of Ultra's original block, and he forgot to check for it after he unblocked you. I'm just saying it's an easy, innocent mistake to make.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And incidentally, Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) isn't an admin. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Hopefully that gets fixed soon. In the meantime, NH is using this opportunity to block viewing of this thread,[9] since they want to portray me as opposing Obama just because of abortion. That thread reveals the lie, and that the controversy deals specifically with a now-illegal form of abortion where the child who survives an abortion is left to die unattended. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay there. Prodego ^talk 19:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help! --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the fewer accusations of conspiracies you throw around, the more likely it is that you'll be able edit this time tomorrow. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Still, you have to admit that the timing is convenient. NH goes to all these lengths at the same time he's trying to close that thread revealing how truly controversial the 'born alive' controversy is, even after I moved it to a new section so it wouldn't go off-topic per their concerns. It certainly looks like they are going to all these lengths to try and protect that distortion, and prevent viewing of that crucial thread closed by NeutralHomer. Not only would it make clear how wrongly they are portraying me, but would wake up the entire administrative community to how controversial this truly is. As such, it at least looks like they are doing everything they can, legal and illegal, to try and prevent it from being openly displayed. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It reveals nothing except that you're here to use Wikipedia as a BATTLEGROUND for your POV. Hiding it is doing you a favor, honestly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And yet you yourself supported this erroneous distortion of my position when NeutralHomer made it here,[10] just recently. Therefore, if you were yourself in the dark about where I stand on this so recently as well, how can you say the post reveals nothing? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, I knew exactly where you stood, and have recommended a year-long ban from WP, but I don't approve of people being baited into getting blocked. If you can convince us that you're going to stop the Battleground behaviors before the ban is finalized, you'll be able to continue editing. However, if you keep saying that everyone is out to hide the TRUTH except you, you're not going to last much longer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Two points:

• 1 - How can you claim you know where I stand? You didn't dispute NeutralHomer's statement that "I feel it is vandalism to push is 'abortion is bad' position", and said, "Wouldn't argue too hard with you on that".[11] Therefore, you clearly misunderstood the point I was making here[12], that the controversy surrounding Obama does not involve merely 'abortion is bad', but rather the killing of children who survive abortions. What part of "there is a difference between killing children inside the womb, and outside of it", do you not agree with?

• 2 - If you recognize that I was being "baited into getting blocked", why are you so critical of my claims of a cover-up? What exactly do you think I was getting "baited" for? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't speak for Sarek, but he also defended you in the quote above (point 1), where he said "but that's not what he was doing in that edit you kept reverting." In theory, we're all supposed to be neutral, so pushing any position - pro-abortion, anti-abortion, anti-some-abortion, or what-have-you - is grounds for concern, and that's how I interpreted the first bit. If you repeatedly push a particular position, and revert repeatedly to do so, then yeah it becomes disruptive. But that wasn't the case here, as we've discussed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per the obvious consensus at [13] you may consider yourself topic-banned from articles related to Barack Obama. I am extending this also to cover abortion, since you seem to be in the grip of crusading zeal on that topic. The intent of this topic ban is to enable you to learn to edit productively and harmoniously in areas where you do not have such strong personal feelings. This is less than most have called for in that discussion. Consider yourself on a final warning: I think the vernacular is "shape up or ship out". Guy (Help!) 21:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Obvious consensus among whom? Everyone there it seems was involved in the case! Why not call it a monkey trial, since many were notified of the topic after I left notices on their talk pages letting them know they were discussed. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There's an obvious consensus that you should be topic banned from articles related to Obama and abortion. There's a growing consensus that you should be banned from Wikipedia. You need to stop blaming others for your bad behavior and take responsibility for your words and actions. Now is a good time to start. Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Then go ahead and ban me. You were among those who helped ban Stevertigo, along with many of those involved for the alleged 'consensus'. The whole thing was a sham, and you know it. I'll apologize when I'm wrong, but not for this. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff that shows I was "among those who helped ban Stevertigo"? And, where have I helped voice my support for your ban? Do you understand that the act of apologizing does not necessarily occur only when you think you are wrong? Are all of the people upset about your behavior "wrong"? Are you the only person that is "right"? The contrarian strategy isn't going to work here. You have to adapt and overcome to collaborate on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I will apologize for that statement. I searched for your name here[14][15][16], and it seems that while Wikidemon and Scjessey were involved, you were not. I must have been thinking of your earlier argument on Stevertigo's talk page about the animal rights discussion.[17] It seems I jumped to conclusions, that because you already had a beef with him when coming onto the page, that you had helped in banning him, my apologies.

Nearly all of the people who achieved that consensus, as I said, had already been named as involved in the case. Many were involved in the December case as well, or in past Obama-related decisions. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua, you apologized for making false claims about me based on your emotions which were clouding your perception of the issue. You admit you were editing while angry and upset and that you "jumped to conclusions". Looking at the discussion on the noticeboard, you made the same mistake in regards to other editors as well, so I'm not alone. Extrapolating from these specific incidents we can see a pattern regarding your judgment. For me personally, this kind of bad judgment culminates in your statement on your politics subpage, which reads, "I do not support specifically the belief that all species came from a common ancestor." May I ask why you espouse this belief when all the scientific evidence points to a common ancestor? Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I suppose I kind of had that coming. As for your specific question at the end, I do not believe all scientific evidence points to all species having a common ancestor. Again, I see the evidence for natural selection and adaptation, as I stated on my Politics page.[18] Those we can replicate at any given time, and show proof for.

However, as mentioned in this video,[19] "circumstantial evidence is subject to interpretation, and doesn't necessarily prove anything". The evidence for the age of the earth, all species having a common ancestor, and the possibility of a molecular explosion creating all that now exists via a purely physiological beginning, is entirely circumstantial evidence.

Therefore, you are trying to simply accumulate the evidence, and additionally interpret it a certain way, to prove evolution, or that all species had a common ancestor. This is the same thing with I.D. too, as the video points out - both are a bit subjective and arbitrary, unlike evidence for natural selection and adaptation.

I already cited several reasons for why I don't believe all species have a common ancestor. For one thing, Darwin himself acknowledged there is in some cases very good proof for parent species as opposed to all species having a common ancestor.[20] For another, sterility, as I mentioned, tends to occur between what appear animals of different parent species. While breeding different kinds of dogs might work out alright, a lion and a tiger results in infertility. Many kinds of breeding don't even work at all. If all species were indeed immutable, this sort of checks and balances in nature, to me at least, wouldn't make quite as much sense.

Additionally, evidence for transitional forms was, according to Darwin, just a matter of an incomplete fossil record. I had heard he expected it to be completed within a few decades, though I don't have a reference handy at this moment, and furthermore stated this lack of transitional forms was "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory".[21] He'd expected it to be filled in within a few generations I had heard, but of course, not only has that not happened, but recent discoveries are actually reducing the number of transitional forms. As I pointed out, new discoveries are disqualifying well-established links in the list of human-primate transitional forms.

At risk of stating the obvious, I do believe the Bible, and as such, tend to give it the benefit of the doubt. At the same time though, neither do I simply close my mind to opposite possibilities. Rather, because I trust the Bible's veracity, I hold confidence in its ability to stand up to opposing claims, and for the evidence when examined with an open mind, to bear it out in nearly all cases. If not, I ask myself, is the evidence definitive in showing the Bible wrong? And if not, what are the probabilities that it could do so, and what alternatives yet remain? What probabilities exist there? I try to look at all possibilities, and believe the Bible actually calls noble those who examine it skeptically, so long as they do so "with all readiness of mind" and search it honestly to give it a fair chance.(Acts 17:11)

I know the evidence for transitional forms. It is a rather loose congregation of supposed missing links; though curiously, I notice many ancient species were larger, rather than smaller, and could appear larger versions of current reptiles or other animals. One alternative I have found interesting is the Creationist theory of a Greenhouse Effect due to a water canopy around the earth, providing more fertile growing conditions and an ideal environmental setting for reptiles in particular to grow larger. I haven't looked into this in years, and take it with a grain of salt, but it's always interesting to theorize. At any rate, I have always thought it interesting that rather than getting bigger, animals got smaller over time.

There is also the claim for vestigial organs, but this I too find unconvincing. There are multiple explanations, and women have been born with 6 arms in India for example. Yet I wouldn't expect this to be described as proof of a link to insects. It just seems open to interpretation, again, and the likelihood of mere physiological abnormalities/aberrations, rather than something that can be solidly proved to be sure evidence.

Primarily it is my concern with transitional forms. The record appears to be too disjointed, even though we have had some amazing discoveries, they are forcing scientists to abandon former theories, rather than fitting nicely together. Here are some of the recent articles I did not mention that illustrate this:

New studies of teeth disproves evolutionary belief that Paranthropus went extinct due to lack of varied diet: [22][23]

Footprints show modern foot and walking gait in 'prehumans':[24]

Evolutionists shocked that oldest fossils found in lakes, not oceans:[25]

New discovery of amazingly complex early fossils push back earliest complex animals 40 million years:[26]

Discovery of octopus fossils pushes back belief on origins tens of millions of years:[27]

Evolutionists conclude humans forcing evolutionary changes in animals 300% faster; shocked that such evolution can occur "well within our lifetimes":[28]

Rapid invasion of Australia by toxic toads shock scientists; evolve legs much faster than anticipated changing views on rapid adaptation:[29]

Furthermore, while I have heard the day-earth analogy suggesting the Bible and evolution are compatible, I just don't see it from Genesis 1. For example, it says birds came before land creatures. It says grass came just one day before the sun/moon/stars. If not a 24-hour period, that wouldn't make sense. Additionally, it defines days there as a light/darkness period, so while the first 3 days at most could be infinite amounts of time (since what was causing the day wasn't then the sun, but another unnamed light source), the latter could not. Ultimately, the early state of the earth according to Genesis could be billions of years old, hypothetically, but not the period mentioned as having life there. Or at least that's my way of thinking of it. And I just don't see the scientific evidence behind evolution to deny this that is claimed. The finches of Darwin appear adaptation to the environment capable of making subspecies, but nothing to show a complete shift as one would expect if all had a common ancestor. Same with moths on trees, or people who adapt to their environments with slanted eyes in snowy climes, or humans growing smaller on islands. I see the evidence. I just don't think it points to the conclusion that evolutionists would claim it does. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing us with another topic that might get you in hot water in the future. :)

As regards evolution, the basic problem humans have is that a billion years is an incomprehensible amount of time. We have enough trouble comprehending a millennium. And the fossil record is just a tiny fraction of the history of life on earth. So it's difficult to come up with the complete motion picture. All we have are snapshots or individual frames from that "movie". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Two links which will help illustrate the above are deep time and evidence for common descent. Viriditas (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is pretty interesting. But I am still quite concerned about Lyell's influence on the Deep Time stuff. As seen here,[30] Lyell himself had an agenda, to find a competing theory to the catastrophism associated with the Biblical flood. As stated there, "For inspiration, Lyell turned to the fifty-year-old ideas of a Scottish farmer named James Hutton. In the 1790s, Hutton had argued that the Earth was transformed not by unimaginable catastrophes but by imperceptibly slow changes, many of which we can see around us today." However, this shows there were 2 views. That of earth-changing catastrophic events producing the geologic change, and the new one by Lyell of slow and gradual change. Since discovering plate tectonics, it's like they instantly concluded that made his theory right - so why when mentioning ice ages and meteor storms, i.e. catastrophism, do they not consider this could've also hastened the speed of tectonics and geologic age?

I just now read the 2nd article as well, which is interesting... but I don't see where some of the conclusions come from as certain. For example, "Throughout the tetrapods, the fundamental structures of pentadactyl limbs are the same, indicating that they originated from a common ancestor." Isn't this a violation of Correlation does not imply causation? I have noticed this occurs with evolutionary theories, that they expound upon similarities by assuming causation. Elsewhere, this would be called a fallacy, wouldn't it? While yes, it can lead to theorizing, it is by no means decisive proof, right? Nor should it rule out consideration of other alternatives, you would think. This is repeated again, too: "If widely separated groups of organisms are originated from a common ancestry, they are expected to have certain basic features in common. The degree of resemblance between two organisms should indicate how closely related they are in evolution: Groups with little in common are assumed to have diverged from a common ancestor much earlier in geological history than groups which have a lot in common;". But the key word here is 'assumed'. They are assuming that similarity implies evolution, essentially. I understand the assumption. But I don't agree with it as decisive. Again, there is yet another assumption concerning vestigial organs, "The most reasonable conclusion to draw is that these creatures descended from creatures in which these parts were functional, which in turn indicates that most (or indeed all) creatures descended from common ancenstors." (P.S. there's a typo there)

Anyway, do you see the pattern? Key words are "assume", and "it is thought", or "most reasonable". They are working off of assumptions, but I disagree whether these are always accurate or even indeed the most obvious. This is why I said earlier it's circumstantial evidence open to interpretation. It's based off of assumptions, often that similarity means they evolved together/from one another (in turn based off a belief in theory of evolution). And as such, it is circular reasoning, in my opinion. The assumptions are made the way they are because uniformitarianism and evolution are taken for granted, yet in turn the conclusion drawn from such an assumption is then used to bolster support for evolution. I will admit I have not read the whole article yet, and may comment some more as I finish, but just wanted to state what my thoughts are so far. I'm not trying to be derisory of the page or the theories, but I just disagree. I just have my own theories as well, that's all. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've never been one to hide what's on my mind :) And yeah, that's kind of my way of thinking of it. We don't have all the evidence, and are making assumptions that everything used to be the way it is now, Uniformitarianism - yet we recognize that didn't always hold true. Somehow, the level of Carbon-14 and rate of decay remained the same even as meteor storms were wiping out the dinos and ice ages/floods were occurring (a flood with underwater volcanic activity, or 'the fountains of the deep breaking up', would seem a good explanation for the breaking up of Pangaea to me). I've always found it curious that the last alternative examined is always that of a worldwide flood for mass extinction, yet ice ages, meteor showers, volcanic eruptions, etc. are hypothesized upon. And yet there are flood legends across virtually all ancient cultures, with mention of ark-like structures and ravens/doves bringing back branches in both Native American, Middle Eastern, and Far East legends. I've personally looked into those for Native America and found the resemblances striking. Then there's the matter of mixed fossil deposits, and the very matter of fossilization suggests rapid extinction and subsequent burial. To fossilize something, if it sinks down in a swamp gradually over a long period, won't it decay? You have to eliminate the air to stop the decay, and cover it with a different substance, right? All in a rapid amount of time? This is mentioned at Fossil#Rarity_of_fossils. And then there's the question of how footprints could be fossilized if not instantaneously covered rapidly from above. Anyway, it's all very interesting for me. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are compelled to turn your attention elsewhere, you could maybe look into the work of User:Ben Tillman and others, who insist on labeling anything Biblical as "myth". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We will see. I do not know how this current issue will be cleared up. And if not, I would probably just go be active on another site. After all, I'm the only one on the web who uses the tag 'Jzyehoshua' yet a google search brings up nearly 10,000 results, so I tend to get around. I tend to go where my voice will be heard and truth will win out, and if reliable sources get censored, then it doesn't make sense to stick around. I'd simply be helping prop up a system I wouldn't be able to believe in, and in good conscience could not look back at the time without regret. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between WP:TRUTH and truth. You are using the former not the latter. Actually there was a reasonable consensus for simply banning you outright, what I've done is given you a chance to contribute in areas which are less likely to cause you to explode in righteous indignation. You're free to decline that and either storm off or violate it and get blocked, but you seem to be an intelligent fellow and I was rather hoping you might take it in the spirit in which it's intended, which is to try to help you enjoy this project rather than experience it as a locus of stress, anger and argument. Your choice, though. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I provided early on 50+ sources to back up the fact that these were controversies. Any time you or anyone else wants to start objecting to one or more of them, be my guest. Until then, I continue to maintain there is nothing wrong with any of these sources, and if by some chance someone says there's not enough, I'd be happy to find more.

• Obama's voting record on live birth abortion:

Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Barack_Obama_social_policy, United States Senate election in_Illinois, 2004, Nat Hentoff, James Dobson, David Freddoso, Jill Stanek, Gianna Jessen, Alan Keyes, The Committee for Truth in Politics

Sourced Independently: FactCheck.org/Newsweek[31], New York Times[32][33], CNN[34][35], FOX News[36], National Right to Life Committee[37], New York Sun[38], Real Clear Politics (Time Magazine blog)[39][40], Chicago Tribune[41], National Review[42], MSNBC[43]

Sourced additionally for Obama's present votes on these controversial bills: ABC News[44], PolitiFact[45][46], Chicago Tribune[47][48], Washington Post[49], Time Magazine[50], New York Sun[51], Huffington Post[52], Chicago Sun-Times[53]

Obama's Own Words in IL Senate Transcripts for Bills: Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act[54] (pp. 84-90), Induced Birth Infants Liability Act[55] (pp. 29-35)

• Obama's Citizenship:

Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Natural born citizen of the United States, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Andy Martin (American politician), Alan Keyes, Political positions of Sarah Palin, Ken Cuccinelli, Ted Poe, Wiley Drake

• Knocked off all candidates in 1st election by disqualifying petition signatures on technicalities:

Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Illinois Senate elections of Barack Obama, Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, Alice Palmer (politician)

Sourced Independently: CNN[56][57], Chicago Tribune[58] , Boston Globe[59], New York Times[60]

• Asked Emil Jones, head of Illinois Senate, to make him a U.S. Senator, following which he was appointed head of high-profile pieces of legislation worked on by other Illinois Senators:

Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama, Emil Jones

Sourced Independently: Time Magazine [61], CBS News[62], Boston Globe[63], Houston Press[64]

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with your definition of 'consensus', just as I did in December. According to WP:CONS,

"Discussions should always be attempts to persuade others, using reasons... Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed... Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them. Consequently, you should not remove a change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a policy-based or common-sense reason for challenging it."

So far, you are merely invoking 'consensus' to stop discussion of inclusion of these controversies, and not discussing them on their merits, or providing a 'policy-based or common-sense reason' for challenging them. Until you can show how they violate BLP, and prove the sources are inadequate, I will not accept such an argument. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But of course you won't do that. You couldn't do that back in December,[65] and you can't do it now. All you can do is try to switch topics, throw a few ad hominems, and do your best to close the topic and distract from the fact that you never managed to address the sources. I'm finished with you. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a note to say: "Indefinite" does not mean "permanent" but "of unspecified duration". If over time you can demonstrate that you have learned to collaborate in building Wikipedia without disruption, you can ask for a review of this ban... and I am sure there are editors and admins who will then speak in your favour. I'll be happy to be one of them, assuming that you edit productively in the interim. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My appreciation, but I will simply find another site I can believe in. Regards, Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Per ANI discussion - I am re-imposing Guy's indefinite ban, as an uninvolved editor who has reviewed discussion and the edits in question. The re-imposition is with the same exact terms and duration.

My rationale for this is that it's evident that you are not able to work with and within the larger community of Wikipedia editors, when it comes to this topic. Wikipedia is not just the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - it's the encyclopedia that everyone edits together. Ability to cooperate with others, in areas which have significant participation, is necessary.

There are plenty of people who have non-mainstream viewpoints and are able to come to working compromises with the community as a whole about what to include and how. An understanding of Wikipedia policy and cooperative engagement with other editors work fine in those cases.

You, on this topic, appear to be unwilling to compromise and work with others. You are convinced you're right and the other editors involved are all wrong.

I find this unfortunate; we prefer to have multiple viewpoints included in the discussions, and to have cooperative editors with all backgrounds. Excluding you is not a great solution. But your continued engagement on the terms you've chosen is merely disrupting the site to no good end.

I hope that you continue to work within Wikipedia on areas you don't find yourself in conflict with others. If you chose to go, that's somewhat regrettable. But this has become a bad situation, out of which any path has only less or more bad choices, not good ones.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

None of which nullifies my argument by any means. The fact that I say I'm right and they're wrong doesn't mean I'm wrong. It merely means that for extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which I was in the process of providing before the premature decision to decide the case before all evidence was examined. The indefinite ban suits me, since it means if this ever comes out, you will be held accountable to the full for your judgment. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not about content - this is about behavior. You are admitting here that you aren't even trying to cooperate with others anymore. That's not even vaguely OK for a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. The way we solve problems is that everyone gets together and presents evidence and arguments, and it gets talked about.

You have to cooperate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to cooperate because I don't intend to be here anymore, which in turn is due to a dishonest and unbased decision of the most biased and irresponsible kind. My breaking of the ban was merely to make your job easier in banning me, which in turn was according to a decision that if further scrutinized will prove baseless, so that I don't have to feel obligated to stick around and, as I said, your involvement afterwards will not be deniable. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have always sought to cooperate in terms of providing sources and meeting Wikipedia standards. What I refuse to cooperate with is the enforcement of liberal bias which operates through dishonest decisions, edit wars, ad hominem attacks, and forces others to adhere to their own biased viewpoints. And finally, now, I do not have to cooperate - because I will not be around. I'm leaving, have no intention of staying, and this breaking of an unjust ban is just my final condemnation of an unjust series of Wikipedia events. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely Blocked for violating the topic ban

As you edited the Talk:Barack Obama page after the topic ban went into effect: [66] and [67], and you have claimed you're going to continue to disrupt here, you are now indefinitely blocked from editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

My thanks. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)