User talk:Crissedcrossed

Notification
In addition, as a result of a recent ruling, all IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. RolandR (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
RolandR (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Gilad Atzmon. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 05:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon
Please stop. You're fighting a losing battle because you don't understand the ground rules.

The Wikipedia article doesn't have to accurately summarize what Atzmon wrote in his blog. It has to accurately summarize what Dershowitz wrote in his review, and I think it does that (although if you think it doesn't, I'm willing to listen to your arguments). If Dershowitz misinterpreted Atzmon, it doesn't matter because we've attributed the (mis)interpretation to Dershowitz. That's the way things work here.

Please stop insulting other editors, unless you want to be blocked from editing. And don't edit war under any circumstances. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Your recent editing history at Talk:Gilad Atzmon 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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&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. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:RolandR, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. RolandR (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at Talk:Gilad Atzmon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''You are engaging in both edit-warring and personal attacks against several editors in your edits to this page. If you continue, you are likely to find yourself blocked from further editing. RolandR (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)'' RolandR (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to make the obvious more obvious: there is no "discussion" on that talk page, only an edit war that reinstates a rant. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to make the obvious even more obvious: there is no "discussion" on that talk page because Drmies, to whom I was not addressing my questions and appeared out of the blue from no where to distrupt discussion, keeps removing it before the party to whom it was address can answer it.


 * Clearly this little cabal does not want there to be discussion or the issues to be raised, hence all the exaggerated accusations and deceptive distractions. --Crissedcrossed (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed | reason=I am asking you to make a judgement on the actual edit and how I was following the living persons biography policy.

There's no question of "discussing my own conduct" beyond that. I followed the policy and removed a deliberately inaccurate and deliberately exaggerated quotation which other restored without discussion and with a false summary.

You need to look at where and from whom the first offences started and how the provocations, and lies about them, continued afterwards.

Again, I was discussing, as per the rules, other kept removing the discussion before the party I address it to had a chance to respond. Or show they had no intention to respond.

Leaving the quotation as is makes a mockery of the idea that this is all about following rules.

A Bit of Perspective
Just to put things into perspective, when one of the cabal stomping all over me for removing a single line was personal involved with arranged protests against the subject, see or  or here; https://www.gilad.co.uk/search?q=rance, and note that it has been going on for 10 years,

And another player's family was directly involved in "shipping guns illegally to Israeli terrorists (Igrun) according to their own user page, see here . (User:MShabazz or Malik Shabazz).

Surely it is reasonable to suggest, just a little, that just perhaps there are non-neutral elements involved here when the topic's subject is a critic of Israeli?

I mean, it would be ridiculous not to.

Thank you. --Crissedcrossed (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)|decline=Your unblock request can be summarised as "here is why I am right and everyone else is wrong". That's not what unblock requests are for, so I'm turning your talk page access off. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)}}

Wrong end of the broom
Advice: you are sweeping with the wrong end of the broom here, Crissedcrossed.

It is not Wikipedia's place to judge whether Dershowitz is wrong or right on Atzmon, only whether his position is (a) accurately represented and (b) representative of a (not "the") notable mainstream opinion on its subject. And unfortunately it's easy to show that there is a substantial part of the mainstream — left, right, and centre — that finds Atzmon's rhetoric and activity to be noticeably anti-Semitic even when taken entirely independently of any political question on Israel. If you think that Dershowitz's views are not accurately represented, then say so. But "I personally don't believe it's true" is not sufficient grounds to demand its removal; your subsequent tantrum was therefore misdirected from its first keystroke.

Rather than stop and attempt to understand *why* you were sanctioned for your behavior, you instantly chose instead to climb aboard the "censoring cabal" horse and as you rode it you attacked other editors for what are at root *your* misunderstandings of how Wikipedia works. When your edits were reverted, you decided that the solution was to repost them, usually verbatim, and JUST SHOUT LOUDER even as calmer voices were asking you to stop and think. This behavior dug you into a rather deep hole. That you wrapped your attacks on other editors in specifically Jewish vocabulary ("cabal," "the chosen people", "the chosen editors") has not helped you at all, I'm afraid. And the alacrity at which you hopped aboard that horse and rode it hell-for-leather makes it more difficult to accept your claim that you're just an objective everyman with an innocent question about a random saxophonist.

Note also that there is no rule or Wikipedia principle that says only authors friendly — or not unfriendly — to a subject may be quoted in a biographical entry, or that only editors friendly to a subject may edit the subject's biographical entry; the determining factor is whether the editor does so fairly and according to the rules of Wikipedia. We cannot judge what's in someone's heart, but we can judge what's in his/her edits, in his/her behaviour on Wikipedia. Ensignobvious (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)