User talk:Beebop211

Warning
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 Aristides de Sousa Mendes, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPratas (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

sousa mendes
Hello, I just reverted an edit of yours. But I now see that you are involved in a big mess about cutting down this entry. No easy task as I see it. And you announce your moves on its talk page - so you got my blessings, I hope it works out alright in the end.Super48paul (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC) And another thought: I am a vandalism patroller. Whenever I encounter a large revert without comment, I assume something is wrong. So maybe it is a good idea that in the future you add a comment such as: deleted as discussed on the talk page. That sends a clear warning that there is more going on... Thanks,Super48paul (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, will do! Thank you! Beebop211 (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I urge restraint
Please be cautious about removing material from the article at this time. You have received edit warring warnings. Please allow discussion to play out on the talk page. You are placing yourself at risk of being blocked. Thank you.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand. But it's hard to be patient with the article still in such a disastrous state. Beebop211 (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of work to do to improve the article without removing content before consensus is clear. As I said over two months ago, I have no expertise in the topic and am only now starting to read and understand the sources. You have the topic expertise. Improve the referencing, Critique the shortcomings on the talk page. Please don't get yourself blocked.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. I understand. By the way, I'm impressed with how quickly you've gotten yourself up to speed on this matter! Beebop211 (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the talk page is difficult for other contributors to follow atm, I am afraid other contributors can hardly give further opinions unless they are expertise on this subject. But I strongly recommend you initiate the dispute resolution process if you think you are right (which seems so to me) - the volunteers, reviewers and administrators in the dispute resolution boards are more experienced in handling cases like this. BigCat82 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. How do I do this? Beebop211 (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing edit war - please stop immediately
Your recent editing history at Aristides de Sousa Mendes 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. Any further violations of the policy against edit warring on Aristides de Sousa Mendes WILL be reported for administrative action. Cease and desist immediately!  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You must stop
You are obviously conversant with the reliable sources about Aristides de Sousa Mendes. Perhaps you think that I have been your ally, because I have opposed the point of view pushed by another editor. I had earlier hoped that you would advance the neutral point of view by emulating the excellent example of Oskar Schindler, which is a Good Article which accurately summarizes the reliable sources that describe him as a deeply flawed character who rose to the momentous occasion by doing his very best to save people's lives when the challenge was at its greatest. Was I wrong? I am not arguing that Schindler and Sousa Mendes were identical, but rather that this Good Article provides a model for this one about Sousa Mendes. So, is your goal to go to battle, or is your goal to improve the encyclopedia as a whole in a neutral way? Please prove yourself now.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Cullen. My goal is definitely not to go to battle. Life is way too short. But yes, I will not stand by and watch Sousa Mendes be defamed when the bottom line is that he did an extraordinary thing, which was to rescue total strangers at his own personal peril. How many other examples do you know of ANYONE doing anything like that? Mordecai Paldiel, who led the Righteous Among the Nations department at Yad Vashem for 25 years considers Sousa Mendes to be a "Righteous among Righteous." Comparing him to Schindler is a red herring. Schindler's case at Yad Vashem was controversial because he did benefit financially from the slave laborers whom he saved, and he never quit the Nazi party. This is a totally different level of "deeply flawed" than the Sousa Mendes case. I don't view Sousa Mendes as any more "deeply flawed" than you or me. He was not a saint, but he was a great man. Wasting ink speaking about an extramarital relationship is of no relevance to what makes Sousa Mendes notable, whereas speaking about Schindler's Nazi party affiliation is directly relevant. The fact remains that Sousa Mendes is not a controversial figure, except in Portugal where there are still pro-Salazar diehards nostalgic for the good old days, including one in particular who believes that the Holocaust started in 1942 and Sousa Mendes was not out to save any Jews. Now please tell me... what exactly would you like me to work on re: the article? I'll follow your instructions. Thank you for very much for jumping into this fray, which is I'm sure no fun at all. Beebop211 (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your recent comments on my talk page, and I apologize for not replying here earlier. I am a bit frustrated with this whole situation right now.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Unblocked
I have unblocked this account, in accordance with the agreement that you reached using another one of your accounts at User talk:Redmoon660. As I understand it, you agreed to an unblock on the conditions that you edit only using this account, and that you observe a topic ban on editing about Aristides de Sousa Mendes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Beebop211 (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean Zay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pantheon (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) 08:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)