User talk:Jonathansamuel

== Prior to today 2/8/10 I was unaware of the "three-revert rule" ("3RR"). It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, usually for a 24-hour period for a first incident. Now that I am aware of this rule I will obey it, as I obey all Wikipedia rules provided that I am aware of them. ==

== Other than the 3RR rule it seems to me that the the definition of edit warring can be subjective. If multiple editors are going back and forth, with multiple editors reverting each other and then reverting each others' reverts, it might be difficult to know who is edit warring and who is not. However, I intend to abide by the 3RR rule and see if that solves the perceived problem. It might, since three reverts a day will limit whatever activity it is that some object to, and perhaps limit it within bounds acceptable by all. I will also post on the Talk page when I revert, in case anyone is reading the Talk page, which has not been the case with the Heidegger article up until now. ==

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!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

and some hints-- You're doing fine, but some points I noticed checking the article of Ouakhin: It would really help to have reviews of some of his books--the english language ones should be easy enough to find--any librarian can help. The French Wikipedia usually doesn't bother with that, but we do. You should link to the French article-- see WP:ILL. and see also's should not usually repeat items linked to from within the text. DGG (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Note by JonathanSamuel: I am looking for a talk page where I can reach the person who wrote this message. Where should I go to?

Heidegger
Salutations Jonathan, and thank you for trying to improve the Martin Heidegger article. However, you seem to be engaged in an edit war with another user. This is not how constructive change is implemented on Wikipedia. Can I ask that you take your proposed changes to the talkpage and we will all discuss their merits to reach consensus? Thanks, Skomorokh  19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You've reverted again. That is most disappointing, and it is not at all the type of behaviour welcome in a collaborative project. Please explain your disagreement with here. If you continue to refuse to discuss your edits and revert others, you will be blocked from editing the encyclopaedia. Sincerely, Skomorokh  19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on the talkpage, Jonathan. Mtevfrog has responded here. I'm sorry that I haven't had a lot of time to engage with this so far. Regards, Skomorokh  17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

FFVII vs Martin, on Heidegger
I am seeking consensus on whether or not there should be a "For the FFVII character named heidegger, see blah" type header at the top of the article for Martin Heidegger.

If you would be so kind as to cast your vote as you see fit, I'd be happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shentino (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like you found my call for votes section ok. It also seems that we've got a 2-2 stalemate now :P. Sorry, should ahve linked you first. But, I'm an amateur and didn't know how to link at any level below article. Also found out that these "disambiguators" are better known as hatnotes. ;) Shentino (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

comment dblchk
Please review your comments on talk:martin heidegger.

I did a bit of reorganization to make it cleaner, and I'd like to verify that I didn't munge any of your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shentino (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

February 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Martin Heidegger has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Clarince63 (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Martin Heidegger. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Clarince63 (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Martin Heidegger. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Clarince63 (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Martin Heidegger. Clarince63 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the comment at the top of the page, this was not a 3RR issue, this was an edit warring issue; it was so far over 3RR that that was simply irrelevant. I do note that the editor was not at any time warned for edit warring, and that the accusations of vandalism were inappropriate; this was a content dispute ("Nazi" vs "National Socialist") rather than vandalism, and should have been treated as that from the start. I suggest that this editor should file one more unblock request, now that he understands how serious and disruptive we consider edit warring to be, and reassure the reviewing admins that he'll resist the urge to edit war in the future. --jpgordon:==( o ) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, shouting at the top of your talk page generally won't do any good. --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Test of new section
jpgordon has suggested that he doesn't care for me posting large headers at the top of the page. I assume the New Section button is the way to add content to one's own usertalk page. This is a test of that method.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the talk page
You need to answer points raised on the talk page. You ask for information, its given and you ignore it. You are asked questions and you ignore them. You then open a new section with a new point and ignore what has gone before. You also appear to be a largely single purpose editor. I suggest you have a think, engage on the talk page and try and respect the need to work with other editors. Otherwise you are going to end up with another block sooner or later. -- Snowded TALK  22:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Martin Heidegger. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Snowded TALK  22:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I flatly dispute that I have made more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. I have made multiple edits, as have others.Jonathansamuel (talk)


 * You have made three within a period of two hours and during that time you have made no attempt to engage on the talk page. 3RR is not a right, it is a level at which an automatic block comes into effect.  You can be blocked for less, or for reverting without discussion over a longer period of time.  The warning above is to make you aware of that.  If it fails and you continue then a report would reference it to show that you had been warned.  -- Snowded  TALK  23:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Three reverts are allowed within a 24 hour period. It is MORE THAN THREE reverts which is not allowed Jonathansamuel (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read this three reverts are not an entitlement]. Coupled withe your refusal to say if you that other IP or not and the failure to assume WP:AGF you are on very dodgy ground.  I have seen people banned for far less.  Also you are an editor with an obsession with one page and have already had a block for edit waring on that page.  This is a precarious position and I suggest you consider it.  -- Snowded  TALK  05:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Attempted to click on the link provided by the previous editor. Got a "No Such Section" error.

The above editor's persistent demand that I provide him with my IP address is inconsistent with Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia already knows my IP address. If Wikipedia so chose, it would be able to provide the above editor with my IP address, although at considerable legal risk to itself.

Since Wikipedia chooses not to provide the above editor with my IP address, it is not for me to correct this matter. It has been resolved, and he may wish to stop harping on it. Jonathansamuel (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You have now reverted 4 times within a 24 hour period.  I have no problem getting to the reference page but as you do here is the text:
 * 3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken. It is not an "entitlement" to revert a page a specific number of times. Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR.
 * Otherwise you either edited the article using your IP address or you didn't.  If it is yours then I suggest you replace the IP address with your normal signature, or if it isn't yours then simply say so.  -- Snowded  TALK  21:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Look. I have not violated 3RR. If you wish to claim I violated something other than 3RR, fine. Just don't mention 3RR.

Your link is still broken. I cannot read it, or have any idea where what you are allegedly quoting comes from. Nor do I care, because I have not violated 3RR. Jonathansamuel (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It would have taken two seconds for you to try the reference but I have fixed the link. You have continued to edit war overnight and you are now clearly in breech of WP:3rr.  If you revert again without agreement on the talk page I will report it.  Please also read up on how to edit the talk page.  Everytime you make a contribution to a debate you do not need another section.  You should also indent your comments progressively with colons so other editors can see the thread.  I short period of time looking through the various pages referenced below may help you.

I flatly assert that I am in conformance with 3RR. Jonathansamuel (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Try counting the number of times you reverted, its a around 7 over the last 36 hours. Also, given that you did not recognise the quote I gave above it is obvious you had not read the policy on 3rr.  I suggest you do  -- Snowded  TALK  07:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Try counting the number of times I reverted. It is no more than 3 in 24 hours. Some edits are reverts, and some are not.

Furthermore, 3RR refers to 24 hour periods, not to 36 hour periods. Jonathansamuel (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You've got about 10 minutes to self revert while I assemble the formal report. You are edit warring against THREE other editors -- Snowded  TALK  07:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 3rr report made here -- Snowded TALK  07:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome...

Hello, Jonathansamuel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place on your talk page and ask your question there.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

More trouble at Martin Heidegger
for. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below. Long-term edit warring at Martin Heidegger, which continued after an earlier block for the same thing. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed the disparity in treatment of user mtevfrog and myself. Jonathansamuel (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jonathan, I agree that the point of view you are bringing to the article is legitimate and needs to be heard; and I say that even though I don't necessarily agree with it - it's just a legitimate point of view, reflected in the current scholarship. But the only practical way to ensure that it is heard on WP is to try to work with other editors.  Being confrontational or threatening to revert changes just ends up with you being unable to influence the article (whether any other editor has been equally or more disruptive I don't know).  Try to work with us.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Thank you for your wise advice, KD Tries Again. Threatening to revert is definitely a mistake. I suspect that my comments on the Talk Page today implied that I would revert, and I must make certain not to give that impression. Rather the impression I need to give is work with me and I will work with you to resolve this disagreement.Jonathansamuel (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion
Hello Jonathansamuel. You have been leaving comments from various IP addresses at Talk:Martin Heidegger during your block, and signing them as yourself, for example here. This is WP:EVASION. Your block may be extended if you continue to do this. Please follow the rules and limit yourself to the talk page of your registered account for the duration of the block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest an immediate cessation of block evasion and edit waring. You block will certainly be extended, I have also suggested a topic ban on naything to do with Heidegger. I'll withdraw that request if you STOP and also apologise (message also left on the talk page of the IP you are using) -- Snowded TALK  07:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have extended your block to one month due to your use of 96.240.43.90 to evade the block, and I have semiprotected Martin Heidegger to prevent anonymous editing. The block may be shortened if you will credibly agree to follow all Wikipedia policies. Use unblock if you believe the block is not justified. Wikipedia is a group project, not a solo venture. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)