Welcome!
Here are a few good links for newcomers:
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:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing! If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page! Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages:
Best of luck to you, and happy editing! – Luna Santin (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC) |
Hi Saxophonemn. There is currently a discussion about your edits being made here. If you decide to participate in it, please be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I can elaborate further if you need more information. IronDuke 00:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Saxophonemn Please share your point of view, Please don’t use loaded words, Please--Puttyschool (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Malik Shabazz I was able to make an archive of m banning process.
Archive of my banning, the truth set me free!
Hi, Saxophonemn, can you explain this edit? There is some discussion going on that you meant to imply you would like to see the destruction of the Palestinian people. I hope that's not the case, as it would be extraordinarily inappropriate and wrong to post, but perhaps you could clarify what you meant. Or, if you did mean that, perhaps you could promise never to write anything like it again. Thanks for your attention. IronDuke 16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I have very little tolerance for people who edit war over a BLP while that person is in a coma saying that their religious self-identification is inaccurate. I strongly suggest you go edit other articles for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't make any reversals of any edits without getting more sources. I was ultimately surprised that my original edit went back, I had nothing to do with it. Yes there is an issue of who is a Jew, however not from my standpoint. From an outsiders perspective this is hard to grasp, and from a bias of not being Torah literate you will get Jews to have erroneous opinions. The analogy of trying to tell people that you're Black holds, except there are bona fide ways to become Jewish, and not Black.Saxophonemn (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)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.
Saxophonemn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Well Sarek was pushing his POV, I showed an article which he must not have read, the article <http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141644> stated "Her paternal grandfather was a rabbi, but the fact that her mother was not Jewish defines her as a non-Jew according to Jewish law." I added this to the article, he seems to be sensitive (biased) that feelings are involved, I though encyclopedias were POV neutral. This really irks me, since I was blocked while in the process of explaining what was going on, he also didn't read my comment on the edit, and didn't fully explain himself. There is a huge discussion log, and after I got the article and others tinkered with the wording it appeared to be all set. Last time I checked Artuz Sheva was sort of like a mainstream media of Israel Saxophonemn (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You repeatedly made the same edit in the face of removals of that edit by others. That is what "edit warring" means. You are clearly convinced that you were right to do so, and your unblock request has explained why. However, Wikipedia's policy is "no edit warring", not "no edit warring unless you think you are right". JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Saxophonemn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Not sure how to fix this, there was no editwarring, as stated the page had two sections, one with an info box, which I never futzed with without ever sighting a new point or reference. The second point was in the article, in which the discussion went back and forth. And then it was agreed upon and the Sarek went back again and decided to go against all of the discussion because of his POV. I was told in the discussion not to deduce, but find an article. I maintain there was no edit warring, the matter appears confusing because of two edited posts. It's quite clear that what I stated was upto wikistandards, and other users even modified my wording. I apologize for not finding the valid reference sooner. What I see now is that I'm pushing the envelope of political correctness. Do have a neutral POV in this matter you'd have to admit that she's not Jewish according to everyone. It appears one of my edits stuck from my original point, so clearly the other editors agreed with me. Is it sensible that someone who had no role in discussion of a matter can come in and edit a page and threaten you because they didn't like what you did. From my standpoint I'm being bullied, for not towing the line that you can be whatever you want to be. Saxophonemn (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Saxophonemn (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were asked not to add your edit to the article, and you added your edit to the article, reverting another editor to do so. Thus, the disruption and the block. It does not matter that your edit is accurate, if it is accurate - what matters is that you did not wait for a consensus to post your obviously controversial edit. And that's edit warring, and that's the reason for your block. Sarek may or may not be right about the material, but he's spot-on as far as the disruption goes. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
One more attempt at clarification, in the hope of helping you to understand the block (though not necessarily to agree with it) : I previously thought that you must not understand what "edit warring" meant, so I took the trouble to explain. However, I see that you still deny that you were edit warring, after the explanation. For clarity, here are four edits in which you placed substantially the same information (although phrased differently) into the same article: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. No matter whether the edits were RIGHT or not, repeatedly putting the same information into an article is edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Got it, it's just rather confusing seeing that usually this isn't a problem. In essence someone in the discussion page has to say something about the change being OK? Right now someone is mentioning that most of the sources agree, not that hard when they're all secondary sources from the same source. This warning has me more cautious of what not to do in the future, sorry everyone. Saxophonemn (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Just for my own curiosity, should I be reading your username as "saxophonist from Minnesota"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Heh. Small world. What I know was what the media reported, as I didn't know about the event after it happened. I don't know if there were any actual prepaid reservations needed; what I heard was that admission fees were voluntary but recommended. You probably know more than I do on this. But the Tea Party's attempt to make political hay out of it was a bit silly. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An invitation to join us! If you are already a member of WikiProject Judaism, disregard this message. | |
Hello Saxophonemn, you're invited to participate in WikiProject Judaism, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about all aspects of Judaism and Jewish Life. You can check out the Judaism WikiProject page for more information about the project and what our goals are. You can join by adding your name here. We hope to see you join us! ___________ -Invited on 1 July 2011 by Magister Scienta. |
I have declined your submission at WP:3O as there appear to be more than two editors currently involved. As its name indicates, WP:3O is for soliciting a third opinion and should not be used if there are three or more editors involved in a dispute. You are welcome to consider other forms of dispute resolution. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)