Regarding Mussolini:

1) Mussolini was baptized in 1927 but not "converted".

2) He was never a practicing Catholic.

3) His baptism was, of course, politically motivated.

4) Mussolini's embrace of atheism was enthusiastic.

5) Some of the other atheists on the list were not life-long atheists: Graham Greene, for example. Why does Mussolini have to be an atheist every moment of his life to be included?

Jimjilin (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2009‎ (UTC)[reply]

You've inserted information about Scott Galen McKinley three times into the Harvey Milk article. I strongly suspect you are attempting to insinuate that Milk was a pedophile by stating that McKinley was 16 when they got together, of course, neglecting to state that McKinley left home because he sought out gay relationships in New York and under no circumstances could the source you cited be stating that he was being taken advantage of by Milk.

Regardless, I am warning you now that if you insert the information again, I will report you to WP:3RR for edit warring and you may be blocked. If you think this information has value, start a discussion on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: neglecting to state that McKinley left home because he sought out gay relationships in New York and under no circumstances could the source you cited be stating that he was being taken advantage of by Milk.

My reply: What!??! If true does that change McKinley's age? Does that negate the fact I added?

Please stop trying to cover up the truth!

If you think this issue has value, bring it up on the article talk page, and include what truth you think is being covered up. --Moni3 (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for edit warring. --Moni3 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jimjilin,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 16:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Harvey Milk. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 could 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) 12:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article List of religious populations, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 08:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reference to this edit. You should provide at least an edit summary if you are going to remove material from a controversial and highly edited article like Margaret Sanger. I reverted your edit. If the information is in error you can provide a citation. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your addition to List of atheists in politics and law. I've already removed it twice, but you have re-added it again without explanation. There are a few problems with what you are adding.

• Firstly, it is usual with these things that the person describe themselves as atheist. It's not enough to cite that someone else once said of Pol Pot ..
• Secondly, your first cite merely demonstrates that Pol Pot was a dictator who suppressed the religious rights of his people. That does not make him an atheist.
• Lastly, I don't know how you got your second cite, but Encarta, apart from being a tertiary source which is undesirable, ceased to exist three years ago. Adding cites with links to it doesn't really help anyone.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, dude. Factually incorrect - Alison ^❤ 07:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Same-sex marriage in the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Alison ^❤ 08:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're already past your limit, and edit-warring against consensus and policy. There is no cover-up, needless to say. Take it to the talk page or risk getting blocked for edit-warring past 3rr, POV-pushing and WP:RS issues - Alison ^❤ 08:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And your 'source', Family Research Institute, has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That utterly fails WP:RS and WP:NPOV - Alison ^❤ 08:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you want to deny information to Wikipedia readers. You want to censor information that fails to confirm your prejudices. The SPLC is a far left hate group that long ago lost any credibilty.

D== July 2012 ==

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Maimonides with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 17:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If by not "constructive" you mean including a fact which you seem to want to cover up.

Drop the personal insults - read WP:AGF. And since you use edit aummaries (good thing to do), you must have read mine that said "you'd have to read his book to use that plus attribute by name". You clearly haven't done that. You can't rely on someone else who isn't a reliable source to report a source correctly. And as you have now been reverted by 3 editors, you need to discuss this on the talk page. You've been warned about editwarring before, and don't misunderstand 3RR, that's not an entitlement. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take this to the talk page now please, don't reinsert it - you've been warned for editwarring so it's time to get consensus. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blocking your account for a week for this, as you're clearly logging out to continue you edit-war. It's not the first time you've done this either - Alison ^❤ 09:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to criticism and now I am just quoting Shahak directly. I don't see what the problem is.

I think Shahak is a significant voice who should not be ignored. Gore Vidal and Edward Said and Robert Fisk have all praised Jewish History, Jewish Religion.

quote: He became a well-known activist in international circles, co-authoring papers and giving joint speaking engagements with American political dissident Noam Chomsky, and winning plaudits from Jean Paul Sartre, Gore Vidal, Christopher Hitchens and Edward Said.

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shahak#Politics_and_works

Norton Mezvinsky and Ilan Pappe each wrote a forward for Jewish History, Jewish Religion.

The fact that he is a scientist hardly disqualifies him from making contributions in other fields! Is Chomsky ignored when he speaks on topics other than linguistics?

You have repeatedly been re-adding edits of which have been removed due to lack of citations, this is akin to an editing war which you have been warned about previously, please follow the guidelines as stated under WP:HISTRS, WP:PSTS, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Failure to abide to this will result in you getting referred again for editing war. Joshuaselig (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to all of your criticisms, even those which lack merit. Primary sources are acceptable at Wikipedia, but I found secondary sources. I don't know why you didn't approve of the NYT article, but I responded to your concerns. You are mistaken when you say I failed to include citations, I always provided references. I think you are engaging in an editing war. Please follow the guidelines and stop removing materials with references.Jimjilin (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly been re-adding edits which have been removed due to not being WP:RS, not presenting a WP:NPOV and having zero WP:Verifiability. Please stop doing so, or be referred again for editing warring. The "sources" you present are either strongly religiously biased, and are certainly not partaking in/recognized the academic demographics community. Jensgb (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC) I have responded to your criticisms, however little merit they had. Please stop deleting my edits without sufficient cause or I'll have to report you for edit warring.Jimjilin (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been edit warring on Demographics of atheism in order to include your material from unreliable sources on that page. Since you have been blocked 3 times in the past for edit warring already, you should be familiar with the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle by now. Your spurious 3rr warnings on the pages of other editors does not help you in any way, you are at fault here. You have a long behaviour of edit warring, POV-edits and general disruptive behaviour, and it is becoming increasingly clear that you are not here to edit in a collaborative, unbiased fashion. Please abide by the policies and try to stick to topics that you are not so personally involved in, I am quite sure that if you continue your present behaviour you won't have a long Wikipedia editing career ahead of you. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please carry out your threat and report me - and the other 2 you warned. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But seriously, you are likely to be blocked if you continue. If you think others are wrong about a source, take it to WP:RSN. And somehow I doubt you know more about statistics than I do. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page edits, as you did at Talk:Demographics of atheism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Saddhiyama (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Noam Chomsky. Thank you. It has been established several times at the reliable sources noticeboard that Frontpage.com, a site which specialises in smearing its ideological opponents. cannot be used as a reliable source in any biography of a living person. RolandR (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of edit warring, please discuss in the article's Talk page why we should include such a significant statement when its only source is a right-wing website. It's a question not just of reliability but also due weight. ElKevbo (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steven Massof is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Massof until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Technopat (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, please recognize that a pro-life activist's blog is not an appropriate encyclopedic source in this context. Separately, as you may or may not be aware, articles related to abortion are subject to discretionary sanctions (as described here), including a 1RR limit for all editors. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And adding that material twice, as you did, could be considered a violation of that probation. Please discuss on the talkpage instead of making further edits. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And giving a false summary of the conclusion of the study you referenced is also not a good idea. Here's the direct link (pdf) to that study. Read the actual conclusion section. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have now been editing as a registered user for many years. However, you are leaving bare URLs all over the place. If you intend to contribute constructively to this encyclopedia, please read up on how to correctly add inline citations. Thank you. --Technopat (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:Roscelese. Amaury (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So much hostility! lol My additions vanish for no reason. I'm accused of using biased sources and yet highly partisan pro-abortion politicians and NARAL are used as sources!!! Can we move to at least in the direction of fairness?

Roscelese could you please tell me why my sources are inadequate?

A tag has been placed on Category:. Crisis pregnancy center, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Surfer43 (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Abortion. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

On June 10 and 11 you appeared to be edit warring on the subject of health effects of abortion at Crisis pregnancy center. This article is under a WP:1RR restriction due to its connection with abortion. Your edit summary here at the Abortion article suggests that your personal views on the topic are so strong that they may prevent you from editing in a neutral manner. You wrote, "It's remarkable that biased sources like the Guttmacher Institute, a mouthpiece for the abortion industry, can be used as a source while prolife journalists are silenced." Though you are not expected to agree with everything you may read here on Wikipedia, any changes you make to articles should be neutral. If you are truly editing neutrally, it should not be possible for outside observers to discover which side you favor when they review the pattern of your article edits. Please be more careful in the future, because sanctions including a topic ban are possible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Crisis pregnancy center into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Please do not bring text into a Wikipedia article if it is a too-close paraphrasing of the copyrighted source. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just dropped by to encourage you to hang in there, but also to be careful. You are in "enemy" territory, so please tread lightly. The enemies of the Truth will beat you down whenever they get a chance. You should never forget that, taking the long (and I mean longest) view, they will receive their reward. And never forget that the Truth has already won the battle for us, regardless how the battle appears to be going in our own moment of life. Hope and Courage! --108.45.72.196 (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Abortion. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
As you have already been informed, articles related to abortion are under a 1RR restriction, and fall under arbitrary sanctions. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have spent quite some time over the last few days inserting the above historian into various articles, sometimes in completely inappropriate places. In places where articles discuss historical responses to historical events, random mentions of commentary from a single contemporary historian are out of place. Please just be careful and think about the context into which you are inserting text. Yeah? Stalwart111 22:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please be careful. Adding something to the lede of an article when it isn't mentioned anywhere else isn't really the right way to go things. Take you time, read the article and work out which part corresponds to the bit you are trying to add. Also, the editing box includes a pre-set citation template tool that allows you to cite references properly. It would be worth you working out how to use it because, if nothing else, people will be far less likely to revert your contributions on site as spammy or nonsensical. Stalwart111 07:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've given me a lot of help and even more condescension.Jimjilin (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be condescending at all - you seem to be adding interesting and well-sourced info but it loses some of its value when someone else has to come in after you and change it. A couple of small changes and those edits would have been fine - better that I encourage you to make those changes yourself than following you around changing every edit you make, surely. Stalwart111 18:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just kidding lol.Jimjilin (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jimjilin reported by User:Dougweller (Result: ). Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the result of this edit warring report, which contains a warning for you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sex-selective abortion, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Do not remove valid text cited to a study published by a respected journal. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edits to Napoleon Chagnon. I'm sure you feel strongly about this issue, and it can be frustrating when something you believe won't be accepted in an article. However that the nature of Wikipedia and we just need to accept it. It might be worth your while to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, in summary, if you want to spread the word about the flaws in Chagnons research, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals first.Mark Marathon (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was not about feelings or belief but facts.

I've closed the January 20 3RR report about Napoleon Chagnon with warnings to three editors and full protection of the article. You are mentioned in the report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Sex-selective abortion, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So adding a single unadorned fact together with a reference from an excellent source = bias & "adding commentary and your personal analysis"?! lol Is suppressing facts you don't like a hobby or a full time job? Do you burn books as well?Jimjilin (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm RolandR. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person on Noam Chomsky, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. None of the sources that you have repeatedly added has described Chomsky as "an apologist regimes". Please stiop this breach of our policy regarding living people. RolandR (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Noam Chomsky shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. RolandR (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been repeatedly warned that the sources you are using are insufficient, and that the text you are are adding constitute a BLP violation. Stop, and take it to the talk page. If you feel editors are being obtuse, take it to RSN. If you keep inserting the same text after a brief gap, you will end up blocked, one way or the other. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of military disasters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Warsaw (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bernard L. Schwartz. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Bernard L. Schwartz. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are facts referenced by articles from the NYT and Washington post considered unreferenced?!Jimjilin (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the warning also includes "poorly referenced". Your additions removed the words "alleged transfer" and also removed the fact that Schwartz was exonerated and also the reference which supported his exoneration. Instead you added the phrase "in a scandal" which is not supported by the references you supplied. On the contrary, your references use the word "allegations" also. In conclusion, your edit violated both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, not to mention WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:BLANKING for removing the sentence "but was exonerated of any wrongdoing after a Justice Department investigation" and the reliable source which supported Schwartz's exoneration by the Justice Department. Overall, if you insist on this course of action the prospects for your uninterrupted editing here don't look that promising. I hope this helps. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You use the phrase "exonerated of any wrongdoing" which is not found in the article you cite. Please change it.Jimjilin (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you would ask that. It didn't take me long to find a citation from the New York Times which says:

We are pleased that the facts in this case have now been made public and that Mr. Schwartz and Loral are shown to be innocent of any wrongdoing, said Thomas B. Ross, a company vice president. [...] Mr. Specter said in an interview that he did not realize at the hearing that Mr. Schwartz had been exonerated by the Justice Department because he had not seen Mr. La Bella's addendum.

.

Using Google to find references to support facts is a must in any encyclopedia, especially for adding information affecting articles involving the biographies of living people. So next time, please try harder to verify any information you add or remove from an article. Thanks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should also point out that Loral agreed to pay a civil fine of $14 million.

http://www.loral.com/inthenews/020109.html Jimjilin (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And of course we can't ignore the findings of the House Select Committee.

For example: The rocket guidance system on which Loral and Hughes provided advice in 1996 is judged by the Select Committee to be among the systems capable of being adapted for use as the guidance system for future PRC road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles,

http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/app.htmlJimjilin (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And according to the Defense Technology Security Administration:

Loral and Hughes committed a serious export control violation by virtue of having performed a defense service without a license in the course of conducting an investigation for China of the failure of the February 1996 launch of the Long March 3B.

This activity also violated the U.S.-China Space Launch Technology Safeguards Agreement.

The defense service consisted of a full range of investigatory, engineering and corrective analyses to assist the Chinese in identifying the root cause of the failure and corrective measures.

The significant benefits derived by China from these activities are likely to lead to improvements in the overall reliability of their launch vehicles [i.e., rockets] and ballistic missiles and in particular their guidance systems.

http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/ch6.htmlJimjilin (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to this Google Book:

<ref name="Hirsh2003">{{cite book|author=Michael Hirsh|title=At War with Ourselves: Why America is Squandering Its Chance to Build a Better World|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=jiM1ag9p8H8C&pg=PA150|year=2003|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-515269-2|pages=150–|quote=Bernard Schwartz was exonerated of all wrongdoing when the Justice ...}}</ref>

Which mentions that the company paid the fine under protest since there were no clear guidelines as to what constituted technology transfers. Also Franklin Miller, deputy secretary of defence, testified at a senate hearing that he didn't believe that there was any improvement to Chinese ICBM capability due to any information transfer from Schwartz's company. It's all in the book. And this book calls them "China-bashing pseudoscandals":

<ref name="Blumenthal2003">{{cite book|author=Sidney Blumenthal|title=The Clinton Wars|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=vAxrr2fcO8AC&pg=PT1035|date=20 May 2003|publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux|isbn=978-0-374-70629-6|pages=1035–}}</ref>

Overall, the negative information you want to add doesn't look strong enough to be included in Schwartz's BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion of the findings of the House Select Committee and the Defense Technology Security Administration are not the issue. These are significant sources and their findings should not be covered up. If you want to add Franklin Miller's views or Michael Hirsh's views that's fine. Certainly we should also include the views of those less subservient to the Clinton administration: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/25/opinion/essay-the-china-connection.htmlJimjilin (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood what I wrote above, even though the quotes are quite clear. These are not my personal opinions as you suggest, these are Google books and they are considered reliable sources in Wikipedia. Therefore, you should read what I wrote above again. In any case, I have said what I had to tell you and I think I am wasting my time further discussing this topic with you. Any further discussion should take place at the talkpage of the article, or at WP:BLPN, so that other editors can offer their opinions there. I am done here. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Bernard L. Schwartz shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please will you enable your Wikipedia private mail in your preferences. Sometimes wikipedia good faith editors need to communicate about reliable reference sources, without propagandist, thinly–veiled–bad–faith, psycho–editors (no–one in particular, though i can privately provide evidence examples by numerous different users on & off over several years) stalking every communication and getting themselves insanely worked–up to the point of revenge, thinly–veiled–attack edits, merely because of our communications. In the real world psychos are best dealt with by holding to account every action they make, constantly keeping their psycho actions irrelevant and them aware of their psycho actions’ irrelevance and inconsequence—taking away the power of their psycho actions in the world, while recognising their symptomatic feelings of despair at their insecurity (and worse eg. paranoia)—requiring everyone’s strong, casual, small, efforts for their liberation and their recognition that insecurity is not cause for despair, rather for their acceptance of it as normal and to have self–compassion shared with compassion with everyone, as everyone has insecurity per normal. Phew! WP:PDGP Reply to me by my wikipedia mail (see "Email this user" under the Tools menu on the left–hand column of my user page), don’t reply here on your talk page to this, and again by setting up your own wikipedia mail so i can send to you some more important reliable references information sources. Thanks. --Macropneuma 03:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I mentioned your name at WP:ANI as an IP is adding nearly identical content in a similar way that you did over at Satanic ritual abuse. If 174.125.115.111 is not you, then I apologize, and I hope you'll clarify at ANI. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, with regard to these edits: [1][2][3], the reason why I reverted your initial edit, was because you removed content without explaining why. The use of edit summaries is a communal norm, which is why when you look in the article's edit history you'll notice that another user and I explained our reversions of your edits as "unexplained removal of content". I don't know if Sheldon's mother is depicted as a Roman Catholic or if Sheldon is an atheist. What I do know is that you removed the content without explaining why in any of your edits, which can often appear to be vandalism. So, that's what's up. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that your edits to the Napoleon Chagnon article are under discussion at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. I hope you can join the discussion so we can reach consensus on this issue. Mark Marathon (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits Satanic_ritual_abuse&diff=611605109&oldid=595582049 were reverted due to sources. I put them in again with additional sources and they have been removed again (3 times). The page will be protected for another 2 days, you can add your input via the talk page. Talk:Satanic_ritual_abuse#Batley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amousey (talk • contribs) 19:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Adam and Eve. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been repeatedly warned (including at WP:EW) about what is apparently a years-long edit pattern. DMacks (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Akbar, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at David Ben-Gurion shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
This article is part of WP:ARBPIA and under WP:1RR please self revert. Shrike (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jimjilin reported by User:Shrike (Result: ). Thank you. Shrike (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Michael Kempner. Doing so violates Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of The pejorative use of "largesse" is at best a comment on the companies. It has nothing to do with Musk as a person. And why have you headed it "career" unless you want to imply that taking handouts is his career? andy (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What??! These are his companies, he is the CEO!Jimjilin (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)view|neutral point of view policy]] and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. andy (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My addition was almost a direct quote from a good source.Jimjilin (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Elon Musk. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. andy (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andyjsmith please stop engaging in disruptive editing. Your indiscriminate removal of my edits seems like harassment. Please stop removing my well-sourced additions. You are violating Wikipedia policy.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Religious abuse. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Don't remove references without a good reason andy (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Religious abuse. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. You have removed a reference from this article without giving a reason. You have reverted my restoration of the reference. Please do not do so again. In addition please stop adding non-neutral comments to articles such as at Tom Steyer - you are stating debatable opinions as if they were acknowledged facts and this is misleading to readers. andy (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andyjsmith please stop deleting well-sourced information until you have achieved consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. I added the phrase has been accused.Jimjilin (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If your edit adds a pejorative statement to an article it is not sufficient to merely state that it's the opinion of some people ("has been accused"). It has to be an opinion that is worth including in the article because it comes from a notable source or from multiple reliable sources. It doesn't necessarily have to be a widespread opinion but if it isn't then it does have to be noteworthy because of the nature of its source. By repeating an "accusation" without expanding in any way on the controversy that led to the accusation, or giving details of the accusation, or quoting a rebuttal or counter-argument, you are in effect giving your own synthesis of the source material, which is not allowed under wikipedia guidelines such as WP:PRIMARY. andy (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added another source.Jimjilin (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• How about restoring the source you removed from Religious abuse? andy (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.Jimjilin (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add the blog bedejournal.blogspot to any articles at it contains copyvio. I don't know how much but it only took seconds to find that "During the siege of Toulouse in 1217-18, captured crusaders could expect to have their eyes put out," was copied from [4]. The necrometrics page fails WP:RS but you might be able to find some useful sources there - you'd have to check them yourself of course before using them. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just what is it about a simple request to discuss this on the article talk page that you find so difficult to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay go to the Karl Marx talk page.

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Karl Marx, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Removal of good content, in order to "prove a point", is unacceptably disruptive editing. If you persist in this, you could find yourself blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you feel I am only trying to "prove a point". Jimjilin (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Karl Marx. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jesus, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have plenty of experience with warnings about edit warring (given the above). On the chance that you still don't understand Wikipedia's policy on the three revert rule, I'll be happy to explain. You can ask on my talk page. In any case, please do not add re-add the passages in question at the article on Jesus for a third time without achieving a new consensus, as the current version has consensus. If you do so again, you can be blocked for violating the 3RR rule and edit warring. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Karl Marx, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please remove your false and defamatory reference to me. Such personal attacks are not helpful towards building an encyclopaedia, and are forbidden on Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are an admitted Marxist aren't you? What's the problem?Jimjilin (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poor dear Marxists have such tender feelings. They tear up so quickly if they don't feel loved! People always so harsh to Marxists just because they murdered about 100 million people.Jimjilin (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be edit warring on the article on Jesus. The established version has consensus. You have removed a passage you don't like twice without establishing a consensus for change. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked. If you violate the 3RR rule, you may be blocked.

On a side note, this type of editing is not the best way to get results on Wikipedia. Try proposing compromises rather than violating (repeatedly) Wikipedia's policies and insisting on a positions that fall outside of the same policies. Airborne84 (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not making any sense at all Airborne84! Jtrevor99 & FutureTrillionaire & I have expressed dissatisfaction with the unaccompanied Russell quote. There is no consensus. You threaten me with blocking for doing the same thing you are doing! lol Please try to make some sense.Jimjilin (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are conflating two issues. The first is regarding a rebuttal of Russell's quote. Your idea that the Russell quote should not be included at all is a separate one.

Second, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. At WP:Consensus, you can read the following: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." The Russell quote has been there since May 2014 at least (I didn't check further back). That means it was added and not disputed. It achieved consensus then. It has had consensus since then. You revised the quote (by deleting it) and that was disputed. We are now in WP:BRD territory. You made a bold edit, I reverted to the established consensus. The next step is to discuss on the talk page. Your task is to clearly establish a new consensus. You may be able to do so. For the Russell quote, I recommend starting a new section on the talk page. You could recommend deleting the quote or simply paraphrasing the quote so that it is not as prominent. These are acceptable ways forward. Simply re-deleting the quote is not acceptable within Wikipedia's policies.

I'm fairly sure you know all this, and I'm a bit surprised that you are asking me to make sense. Or have you simply not read through Wikipedia's policies even after all the warnings above?

If you think I'm doing the same thing you're doing, you simply don't understand WP:3RR. You have some choices here. You can familiarize yourself with these policies and try establishing a new consensus. Or you can believe that you are in the right and I am just doing the same thing you are and continue to edit war. The result (whether you are blocked or not when I report you) will be the test. I recommend the former. But it's your choice. Airborne84 (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Jtrevor99 & FutureTrillionaire & I have expressed dissatisfaction with the unaccompanied Russell quote isn't the consensus broken?Jimjilin (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying my answer from my talk page here.

Not necessarily. Consensus isn't a vote. The reasons are also taken into account. And your reason that Russell's position has been proven "false" by the opinions of others carries little weight at Wikipedia. It would at other POV platforms on the web. And you'd need to identify what issue you are talking about. Are you talking about removing the quote itself? If so, Jtrevor did not state that the Russell's position should be removed; he suggested making it less prominent (a more reasonable position). And FutureTrillionaire asked if it should be removed. If you are talking about the rebuttal, there are at least two other editors (one weighed in and I noted the other one in the archive) who appear to disagree with the rebuttal.

If you want the Russell quote removed or changed, why don't you simply make a new comment thread on the Jesus talk page and make a recommendation about it? That won't get you blocked. It's the right way to go about things. To be honest, I wouldn't object to a paraphrasing of the quote (although it is probably worded as a quote better than we can paraphrase it). If you had suggested that, the change might have been made by now. Instead you decided to:

• Add a POV rebuttal using Christian views in the "other views" section—in a controversial article
• Edit war on the rebuttal when other editors disagreed
• Violate WP:BRD by deleting the Russell passage a second time without establishing a clear consensus for change—in a controversial article

I'll refer to my earlier comments about your editing not being the best way to get things done here. Instead of us discussing this on the talk page and coming to an agreement, even a compromise, you have simply violated Wikipedia's policies. I like to assume good faith, but you simply must know the details of edit warring and WP:POV by now. I can only suggest that you choose compromise and working to achieve a new consensus when appropriate in the future rather than the path you have chosen over the past 2 1/2 years, assuming you do not get blocked indefinitely. Airborne84 (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again I don't understand your criticism Airborne84. Does your opinion alone carry weight at Wikipedia? Do you decide when a consensus has been reached and when a rebuttal is appropriate? Anyway, I think we've reached a compromise. I don't know why you keep threatening me and attacking me with great blocks of ill-considered proseJimjilin (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I listed my concern at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard regarding your history of edit warring above. Just wanted you to know. I'll note again here that this type of behavior simply is not the best way to accomplish what you want here. Compromise and establishing consensus with other editors rather than tendentious editing and edit warring is a better way to go. Airborne84 (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness and compromise would be better than threatening. Instead of threatening me why not respond to my questions.Jimjilin (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the link is here for the listing. Airborne84 (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted it here. Airborne84 (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but life gets in the way of WP editing sometimes and it might take me some time to dig out the book and re-read some of it. Gravuritas (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.Jimjilin (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your recent edit to Fine-tuned Universe for reasons explained in my edit summary - but subsequently realised that you have copy-pasted the content almost verbatim from the source cited. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources, and avoid making similar copy-paste edits in future - Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Marxism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
Your contentious edit to this page has been opposed by every other editor who has commented. Please cease your edit-warring, and attempt to gain consensus on the talk page before adding such material. RolandR (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Please stop deleting my posts without reason.Jimjilin (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons have been given, please see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Consensus is against you. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Criticisms of Marxism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. RolandR (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Michael Kempner has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC) I paraphrased the source, that's the usual procedure. What's the problem?Jimjilin (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't change it at all. It's identical to the source, here. Your addition: Diff of Michael Kempner. Please don't re-add it or you will be blocked for copy vio. The second sentence is your own interpretation of events, and is not backed up by the source you added. Please don't re-add it without sources. Unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, should never be added to our articles. If you do so, you could be blocked from editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Helpsome (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Bernie Sanders. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Thomas Piketty. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Disagreeing with Xcuref1endx does not = disruptive editing. Maybe Xcuref1endx feels he is omniscient and should never be questioned? In the Piketty article Xcuref1endx seems desperate to cover up a fact he doesn't like. Is that what intellectual honesty looks like?Jimjilin (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the mirror if you are interested in seeing what it looks like. Cherry picking facts to POV push (which is what you are doing) is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The reasons were explained, however, it seems part of your M.O. is to ignore other editors concerns and continue on with your POV pushing agenda. Gain consensus before you make a controversial addition. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC) How awful to want to include facts in an encyclopedia! What am I thinking?! lol I do tend to ignore fatuous arguments designed to censor inconvenient facts, and for that I apologize. Jimjilin (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picked facts are not helpful in article. This was already pointed out to you. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC) If these facts make you uncomfortable, why not post other facts to achieve balance? Isn't that better than covering up facts?Jimjilin (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting things then in the summary section add "How's this". Put the suggested change in the talk section first, not in the actual article so it could gain consensus. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit at Michael Kempner. I explained my edit at the talk page, but the short version is, even if you think the Examiner is a reliable source, I can't get past what appears to be a factual error, linking lightbulb regulations to Obama. If you want to make the connection between his involvement in low-wattage lightbulbs, fundraising and Obama-backed regulations, I think you have to find a reliable source that's more explicit and specific. Otherwise, please discuss the change in the talk page before reinserting the claim again. Mosmof (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What factual error?Jimjilin (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and read the talk page I linked to. Mosmof (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-touts-new-light-bulb-standards/Jimjilin (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jimjilin. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
Message added 16:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please don't make any more reverts until we get a third party to weigh in. Thanks. Mosmof (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Christian right shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hum looking above you did not need this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not copy & paste information and add it to Wikipedia as you did here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Louis IX of France has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Swarm ♠ 02:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support in the Incident topic. Ideloctober (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. Always fun to oppose the thought police, the book-burning, the show trials.Jimjilin (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to a clear consensus achieved at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, you have been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia by the community. You may appeal this ban to the Arbitration Committee, as is usual. For more information on appealing, please see here. --ceradon (talk • edits) 02:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to see you did get banned. It seems to be mainly due to 3RR, more than POV. If you want to appeal I would support that you didn't make POV edits at Thomas Piketty, where it has been decided to include the information you wanted to. Probably the best action, if you want this account unbanned, is to appeal in a few months saying that you won't 3RR and that the block was decided by relatively few editors/admins.

Kind regards Jonpatterns (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and advice.Jimjilin (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear you were banned. I hope you're able to successfully appeal it in the future. Ideloctober (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Jimjilin (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]