User talk:Jbamb/Archive-1

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -Willmcw 04:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

John Bambenek
I was reading over your contributions to John Bambenek. If it is applicable, please read autobiography. Editors are discouraged from editing articles about themselves. -Willmcw 17:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

For the most part it's only editing vandalism or grammar, but I can refrain except in the clear case of vandalism...

Jbamb 17:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's cool. Thanks, -Willmcw 18:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -Willmcw 18:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I have tried discussion, they aren't discussing, they are erasing. -Jbamb 18:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert-rule. I understand that you are a newcomer, but it is no reason for waging edit wars. David.Monniaux 18:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I have started to protest this. The only reverts I did were in clear violation of the rules on content disputes. I put my position in the talk pages, and they were ignored and the changes were unilaterally removed. Rama, clearly enforcing his political prejudices in clear violation of wikipedia NPOV refuses to let it be acknowledged that the policies of the National Socialist Movement of the US are in fact socialist, and instead of discussion is outright censoring it. And when I wouldn't let it go, he found another sysop to block me. This is flagrant.
 * Violating the 3RR is only permitted in cases of clear vandalism, and the edits in question do not count as vandalism. -Willmcw 20:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I'm not questioning the 3RR, that's my bad and stopped when I was told. What I am questioning is the sysop violating the content dispute policy, and instead of taking it to discussion gets another sysop to block me. -Jbamb 20:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The NPOV policy requires that we include all verifiable, significant viewpoints. You need to provide sources for your assertions. You can't just say they seem socialist therefore they are leftist. There already was a discussion going on the talk page in which we talked about that problem. -Willmcw 00:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And I provided such support, namely the 25 points on American National Socialism. And I provided which points.  Those points include things like nationalizing industry, "breaking of interest slavery", talk about a living wage, nationalized health care, affordable housing, environmentalism, nationalized education, the end of the free press and creation of national media, and the anti-military tirades throughout.  As I said somewhere else, I'd deal with getting rid of the Left/Right moniker all together, but to call it right-wing is patently absurd.  How is it right wing?  Where's the proof on that?  It's just stated as fiat and when questioned, my changes were summarily removed by one sysop without comment, and I was blocked by another sysop, even though there was a clear violation of the content dispute policy. -Jbamb 01:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, looking back, here is another abuse... This comment was from Rama, timestamp included... you can view yourself Talk:National Socialist Movement (United States)


 * Sanctions for violating the 3RR rule, for calling me a vandal and now for "propagandapedia". Consider this a last warning. Rama 18:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I made no edits after that point, yet was blocked and the edit log clearly shows this. I'll be filing a complaint as soon as unblocked. You give warnings, and if there is another violation, then fine. There wasn't even another violation and they blocked anyway, with comments that make it clear it was political. I have an "agenda" so on and so forth, despite the fact that some do seem to get my point. -Jbamb 01:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone was abused here, given Rama's history as a hot head and ill tempered admin it sounds like a clear cut case.


 * Thanks for the support, Dorothy. To be fair, I did violate 3RR, and I acknowledge that.  I was inexperienced and didn't know the policy, and should have went the content dispute route, but now I know.  But these are sysops, and they REALLY ought to know. -Jbamb 01:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)