User talk:Drone2Gather

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Responding to previous "warning: don't continue to vandalize or you'll be blocked" discussion
In User_talk:Banaticus, I was asked to respond to an earlier "warning: don't continue to vandalise or you'll be blocked" template that had been applied to this page and say that it wasn't vandalism. My short response:"I apologize for that -- it was not vandalism."A more lengthy response, including the context around which I gave that warning."I saw your post on the talk page of the article while monitoring recent edits to Wikipedia with Huggle. I added my voice to the discussion, agreeing with the other user you had been talking with. I then switched back to monitoring recent edits and saw that you moved a somewhat POV link to a new place in the article and interpreted it in a new manner, contrary to how the discussion had seemed to be shaping out.  This caused a new tone to be set for the article, in apparent disregard of the discussion which was already taking place -- 'Jewish American' was changed to 'Jewish' in multiple places in the article.  I accordingly tagged it as vandalism in Huggle and, because multiple other users had already warned your account of apparent vandalism in other matters (what the other matters were is between you and them), Huggle automatically assigned the next warning level to you, which happened to be level four, or the level to be warned of a block if you continued to vandalize. I am not saying that this was Huggle's fault as I claim full responsibility for the results of my own actions. Wikipedia policy states: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW)."Although, in hindsight, Drone2Gather did add a somewhat "controversial personal opinion" to an article despite a previous warning, it was because of a content dispute and thus should not have been tagged as vandalism. I apologize for tagging it as such and, if (in that light) I had still undone the edit, I should have manually issued a lower warning level.  I apologize for that as well. Banaticus (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, apology accepted :-) It is somewhat understandable why you'd think that, also considering my being a new editor and all. Thank you very much for the clarification, no hard feelings.
 * By the way, the link can hardly be interpreted as POV since Haaretz is the oldest newspaper in Israel and also considered the most neutral (while the other two function as our local "CNN vs. FOX" if you will). We'll continue the discussion on the talk page, as agreed. Drone2Gather (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Enforcing consensus is not a qualifying reason. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your attempts to broker a peace are admirable. Try to let them run thier course. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I just wish everyone would cease from eagerly removing his being a Jew from where it truly deserves to be. Also, neon white wrote that "Jewish is not a nation." Say what??? Drone2Gather (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect has put forward his proposed wording of the lead section, I suggest you comment on it on the talk page. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 14:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

your question
calling editors antisemites should be reserved for those times when they actually are being antisemitic, otherwise it is a personal attack. untwirl (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not call anyone an antisemite, I said that a specific remark was antisemitic. I still stand behind this statement because denying the existence of the Jewish nation is antisemitic. Drone2Gather (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, considering the concept of 'jewish' as a single group of people was one that was created by anti-jews. --neon white talk 21:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are so many fallacies in your statement that I don't know where to start... are you actually serious??? Drone2Gather (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum
Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Note also that Wikipedia strives for a Neutral point of view, and that we have a policy on personal attacks as well as valuing civility. With all respect, you are being fairly rude and disruptive. I advise you step back, calm down (and if you are calm, then examine your editing style) and when you edit, you attempt to show courtesy and civility to your fellow editors. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain where exactly I was "fairly rude and disruptive" and where are the personal attacks, to which you are referring. Drone2Gather (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a forum
 * Civil, possible NPA KillerChihuahua?!? 20:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Relevant to the article subject.
 * 2) Polite questioning of edit patterns, nothing about the editor himself.
 * 3) – again, referring to edits/remarks, not the editor.
 * 4) Do not ignore the fact that my good faith edits have been interpreted as trolling, moreover – another editor told me that the Jewish nation does not exist (a defamatory remark, which does not belong in Wikipedia altogether). Drone2Gather (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Nothing about article content at all. Do not discuss the topic. Seriously. Read TPG. Specifically, Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
 * 2) "you seem to have taken a liking of protecting antisemites" - nothing about the editor? Uh, right. Your "sincere apology" notwithstanding, there is zero point to that insult.
 * 3) "the attitude here is already starting to sicken me, mainly because of remarks such as yours." This basically reads as "your remarks sicken me". This is not about the article. There is no suggestion for improving the article, only an insult to a fellow editor.
 * 4) "Fuck this" is generally considered uncivil. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This was a suggestion for (hopefully) changing editing patterns when it comes to such controversial topics. I really might take it all the way up to Jimbo Wales.
 * I was referring to editing patterns. I might have breached WP:DUCK... anyway, the apology was actually sincere and your implication is somewhat offensive.
 * I might have had a "momentary lapse of cool," but other than that I was expressing my genuine contempt with being called a troll when trying to emphasize the fact that Jerry Seinfeld is a highly notable member of the American Jewish community by bringing it up in the introductory sentence.
 * Again, I plead "momentary lapse of cool" on this one. I meant to write "I give up." Drone2Gather (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Shamir
Several things: one, a disambiguation page should have only enough to clearly identify which "X" you want. Two, edit warring will get you blocked. Three, you really need to read WP:BLP and four, you need to follow WP:CON. Let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One, the "antisemite" detail is as much a detail as are "Russian", "Israeli", "Swedish" and "writer". Two, you are right – we are both edit warring here and we both have two reverts, so this equally applies to us both. Three, adding a claim supported by a reliable source does not go against WP:BLP. Four, I do not see a clear WP:Consensus as for either one of our edits. In any case, thank you for your kind proposal. I am just getting to know Wikipedia and I am seeing some absolutely outrageous examples of consensus that seems to side with antisemitic views rather than being truly WP:Neutral; moreover, when someone like me is not afraid to state the obvious, they are being accused with personal attacks and what not. So my question to you is: what is the way to end this hidden bias? Drone2Gather (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a Dab page. Antisemite is a slur. Not discussing whether accurate or not, but its a Bad Thing. Therefore, it goes on the bio not the dab, unless it is the only thing the person is known for and it is undisputed (murderer for Gacy, for example.) You cannot go around saying things like "your comments make me sick" and "fuck this" and expect to have a long productive time here. You will eventually be blocked as an uncivil, disruptive, undesirable. Comment on content, not contributors. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a slur. It's what we call here in Israel "calling the baby by its name"... I guess you'd know it as "calling a spade a spade" (I seem to quote this quite a lot lately). Writing books about "the global Zionist conspiracy" contains many slurs, that's true. I guess if I called Hitler an antisemite and a mass murderer, I'd be blocked for slander. I'm still puzzled as for what makes Wikipedia tick. Drone2Gather (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not a compliment. It doesn't go on the dab page unless its the primary thing the person is known for, and is undisputed. Quibbling about the precision (or lack thereof) of "slur" is missing the point. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia sure is funny. This is an example from another disambiguation page:
 * "David Duke (born 1950), American politician and white-nationalist activist"
 * Unless we start de-legitimizing such people by actually describing them as dangerous racist criminals, our world is heading towards serious mayhem. If Hitler were not seen as a legitimate politician from the start, but rather as the dangerous psychopath he was, maybe serious damage could be spared. But hey... why do I look to Wikipedia when Ahmadinejad gets to build a nuclear plant and voice his outrageous opinions on the best of world stages? Drone2Gather (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason anyone knows who Duke is, is because he was the Grand Wizard of the KKK. Please note this meets the criteria I gave you - it is the primary thing the person is known for and it is undisputed. Now, I'll grant you that he parlayed the KKK notoriety into a political career. But it is undisputed that he was a leader of the KKK. This is consistent. Your "funny place" comment shows you are either not paying attention, or talking nonsense for your own amusement. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you misunderstood me. What's funny to me is that he is called an "American politician." He's no politician, he's an evil cult leader. We must de-legitimize him by not using the term "politician" at all. Neutrality in this case is wrong, just like the famous Edmund Burke quote: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Drone2Gather (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a violation of NPOV. As a state senator, Duke is a politician. You are entitled to your view that he is also an "evil cult leader" although two of those words are words we generally avoid, especially in biographies of living persons. In short, you cannot present your point of view as "fact" here. I suggest you read the linked pages as well as Controversial articles. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I wouldn't use the words "evil cult leader" on the DAB page itself, nor would I use them in the article. My proposition would be:
 * "David Duke (born 1950), white supremacist and former Grand Wizard of the Ku-Klux-Klan"
 * His involvement in quasi-legitimate politics becomes a relatively insignificant detail when put in such perspective. Would you agree with this wording? Drone2Gather (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply
No such consensus was reached. If you'd like to contribute to the discussion, go ahead. But for now, the consensus is still to keep this 1-off joke material out of the article. DP 76764 (Talk) 19:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.
 * See also here, which documents final warning and continued violation of our policies. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After my block expires, I'll post an equally long list of positive contributions I've made in the short time I've been here. I've done my share of homework as for learning policies and tried to enforce some of them in my constructive edits from the get-go, but apparently all you people do is look for the negative. I'm a proud Jew, therefore when an editor makes a controversial statement such as "there is no such thing as a Jewish nation" I try to protect the well-being of any community (and of course, Wikipedia is no exception) by telling the truth about the statement being racist. Unfortunately, the editor making the antisemitic remark gets patted on the shoulder while I am being called a troll and getting a block for being disruptive. Just like here, this is a norm in the world today. Truly saddening. Drone2Gather (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You've made a total of 271 contributions, and if you'd made 2,000 good edits it would not negate the need for you to follow policy and to treat your fellow editors with respect. No once cares what your ethnic or religious background is, nor should they. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)