User talk:Autoarbitaster

Welcome, and the FBI
Hi Autoarbitaster, welcome (back) to Wikipedia. Having just seen your edit @ Federal Bureau of Investigation, I wanted to suggest two things. (1) Details and citations are good, especially on issues of this sensitivity. (2) If you have expertise in this area, the page on COINTELPRO needs work and could really use help from someone knowledgeable/passionate. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Hello, I'm Cyclopia. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Grad missile seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ''Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor it is a place to vent your opinion. Thanks.'' Cycl o pia  talk  18:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

See the wiki pages in question, I'm not wrong about the primary claim regarding missiles (computer guided precision weapons) vs rockets and artillery. (And I'm not wrong about the rest though one may despute details or attempt justifications.) I'm well aware that I made the redirect manual, instead of automatic, and made what I deem constructive contributions, namely noting egregious propaganda, despited those being deemed otherwise by Wikipedia policy. But I am not wrong about the propagandistic misnomer of referring to rockets and artillery as missiles and I shall restore my edits as a form of protest until all erroneous, bad faith references to Qassam missiles, Grad missiles, etc. are removed from the multifariously disproportionate number of articles devoted to the murder of civilians by Palestinians, compared to Israeli terror, apartheid ethnic cleansing and aggression (war crime). (Which unfortunately is not a war-crime as evidenced by the fact that the Allies (including gold old "uncle Joe") murdered more defenseless civilians by military means with no credible pretext of military targets than the Axis, and any type of despicable act that the Fascists' attributed beyond reasonable doubt to the Allies was therefore not criminal.)Autoarbitaster (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

PS other troubling issues are the way the structure of pages frames things, and using state (and corporations') propaganda agencies as sources for unattributed claims to objectivity, especially when these states (and corporations) are actors in the events being described.Autoarbitaster (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)220.233.78.32 (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Grad missile, you may be blocked from editing. ''Again, Wikipedia is not the place to promote political causes (no matter how noble). If you have issues with the factual accuracy of the main article where Grad missile redirects, go on its talk page and discuss it there.'' Cycl o pia  talk  10:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Grad missile, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cycl o pia talk  10:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

AN/I thread about you
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Autoarbitaster replacing redirects with propaganda. Thank you. -- Cycl o pia talk  10:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Grad missile shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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.  — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 11:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Grad missile. 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 adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. De728631 (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You were given plenty of warnings: you were the one who should have stopped and offer a compromise, if anything. And you still do not get that we're not here for propaganda. I doubt your request for unblock will be granted. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/wikileaks-israel-aimed-to-keep-gaza-economy-on-brink-of-collapse-1.335354 http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/un-chief-israel-s-blockade-on-gaza-strip-serves-only-to-bolster-extremists-in-region-1.464087 http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/un-independent-panel-rules-israel-blockade-of-gaza-illegal-1.384267 http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-announces-let-up-to-gaza-siege-but-only-in-english-1.296809 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/gaza-siege-chokes-israel-diplomatically-1.382984