User talk:KewinRozz

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lavdrim Muhaxheri (September 15)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lavdrim Muhaxheri and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Lavdrim_Muhaxheri Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Lavdrim_Muhaxheri reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, KewinRozz. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! GrammarFascist  contribs talk 17:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lavdrim Muhaxheri has been accepted
 Lavdrim Muhaxheri, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Yann (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC) — notice reposted by GrammarFascist   contribs talk 17:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Lavdrim_Muhaxheri help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Lavdrim Muhaxheri page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=684561478 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F684561478%7CLavdrim Muhaxheri%5D%5D Ask for help])

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) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Lavdrim wiki.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Lavdrim wiki.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Lavdrim Muhaxheri
You need to explain this.--Z oupan 13:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zoupan, Wahhabism is the theory referenced to in this article under section "Muhaxheri's impact on the State of Kosovo" in accordance with the references. Please read the referenced articles and then suggest categories on the talk page. Further,there's no other difference between "Wahhabism" an "wahhabists" than grammatical. 'NATO' is referenced to as an organization in general and their establishments and not only about their personnel User:KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * My edit includes proper categorization (or category clarification): Wahhabism→Wahhabists, NATO→NATO personnel, Iraq War→People of the Iraq War, Syrian Civil War→People of the Syrian Civil War, adding of Terrorism in Kosovo (section "Muhaxheri's impact on the State of Kosovo") and removal of Kosovo Liberation Army and Kosovo War, since this person never participated in either (he was born in 1989). The Wahhabism category is intended only for general subjects, not individuals such as Muhaxheri — such parent categories should not be used. Now, you reverted the whole edit, like it wasn't an improvement, when this is clearly a no-brainer. I am expecting that you undo your last revert.--Z oupan 13:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * for instance, 'People of the Syrian Civil War', why should it only refer to the people of the Syrian Civil War' and not Syrian Civil War in general? It's also better to keep the category names short, e.g 'Syrian Civil War'.The article isn't about 'Terrorism in Kosovo'. Both al - Nusra and IS are believed to be founded in the middle east, not in Kosovo.  User:KewinKewinRozz  13:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Because Muhaxheri is not the "Syrian Civil War", he is a person of it. The article is not about "Wahhabism" or "Terrorism", but an individual, Wahhabist, who is connected to cells in Kosovo, hence "Wahhabists" and "Terrorism in Kosovo". Your last sentence makes no sense to what we are discussing here. Read Categorization of people: General considerations. I understand that you are new, but you should follow what I'm saying here.--Z oupan 13:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "Syrian Civil War" includes all people involved in the Syrian Civil War. 'Wahhabism' is the name of the theory to which Lavdrim Muhaxheri adhered, once again read the reference articles number 23 and 26.User:KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Further,on "Terrorism in Kosovo", the events referenced in the article about Lavdrim Muhaxheri that are related to terrorism are alleged to have taken place in Syria and Iraq and not in Kosovo. I think that the confusion might be that Muhaxheri is from Kosovo. User:KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No... Compare Category:Syrian Civil War and Category:People of the Syrian Civil War. Which category includes people involved in the war? I really don't understand how this doesn't come through to you, after these several replies. Now, I assume that it is clear to you that you have no legitimate support whatsoever for continued reverts? I'll remove "Terrorism in Kosovo" for now.--Z oupan 14:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The category 'People of the Syrian Civil War' is a subcategory to the main category 'Syrian Civil War'. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes (!). A subcategory where people are included, as per guidelines.--Z oupan 14:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Do not revert this.--Z oupan 15:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As for now I'm reverting this to the original version which has been co - edited by not only me. The categories should be consistent with the article. I think that you're confusing subcategories with main categories when it's the main categories that are referenced to in the article. For instance, the article mentions "wahhabism" as a theory and not exclusively people who are wahhabists.Readers of the article might want to know both about the theory or people who adhere to it. The same goes with the rest. I'm currently looking at if your tag 'Kosovo Muslims' is consistent and relevant for the article. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Issue discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Refusing proper categorization. Thank you. Z oupan 15:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
If you continue to edit-war against multiple editors regarding categories, you will be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Ohnoitsjamie, my intent is not to engage in an 'edit - war', and I don't object to multiple editors as this article is written by serveral editors and I think they all have a say in the edits before over - writes.KewinRozz.KewinRozz (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added the differing categories that were missing in the revert from the original. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are not missing. They have been removed according to guidelines. Do not re-add these; if you insist, you may well be blocked for Disruptive editing. Please take time to read the guidelines linked in your talk page.--Z oupan 18:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * according to which guidlines? it's according to the ref articles, as I cited on the talk pageKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lavdrim Muhaxheri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic State. 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) 09:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'll check the tagging on Islamic State; Islamic State and update KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Last warning
Your recent editing history 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 article's 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. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Administrators, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist."KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for chronic edit-warring against several other editors
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, I'm not going to make an appeal, you know that the OP - issues are correctly pointed out. That article that you've now added, nr 6, isn't optimal for convincing anyone that he's in Syria, it's a report of financial sanctions, as the one about freezing assets. There was one article published in 2015 that claimed that he was in Syria, thus, it's not consistent with other articles but if you want to claim that I'd recommend referencing to that article instead, use Colin Freeman's article for Syria,ref nr 6; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/kosovo/11818659/Inside-Kacanik-Kosovos-jihadist-capital.html KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I've changed my mind on not appealing the block, there are still the synth - issues that I referred to as I pointed out on the talk page KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * (1) Please read WP:VANDALISM, as you don't seem to understand what it is. (2) You were asked multiple times on the article's talk page and on your own talk page to stop edit-warring on the page and making large-scale unexplained reverts to old versions without raising specific objections. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read that part and do understand that the reverts were correct since the bio you refer to doesn't claim that he was an English  translator, it further contradicts the recent reports that say that the prosecution are currently prosecuting an imam and two other members as leaders for the group that Muhaxheri was in, according to the ref 19 that I stated on the talkpage and that now has been removed. This is clear vandalism and lowering of content and accuracy of facts. Recall that I wrote that I don't object to adding more refs and info but that the version was correctly tagged but now there's content that has no reference. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * as I wrote on the talkpage, reverting vandalism isn't edit-warring KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You've only confirmed that you still don't understand what vandalism is. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 'The edit history of an article may be checked for any recent suspicious edits, and compared with the version after any previous revert or cluster of non-suspicious edits. This method can check many suspicious edits at the same time. The article size, as given in bytes, usually increases slightly with time, while a sudden large decrease may indicate a section blanking.'KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije where ? 'I see a lot of edit-warring'KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Checking in
KewinRozz, I first saw you post over at the helpdesk, and wanted to chime in here a bit. I can see this process is frustrating for you. However, hopefully you can see by the responses that multiple editors and administrators agree that your well intentioned edits are violating various policies and/or guidelines of Wikipedia. While we value your contributions, the method in which you are contributing is considered disruptive. I'm sure you find that difficult to understand. One of the biggest challenges we face with Wikipedia is that everybody has something to say about a topic, however as part of any community there has to be guidelines in place to ensure that information presented is done in a collaborative, consensus based way. The vast majority of edits take place without significant scrutiny, however in this case, your edits have drawn the attention of other very well meaning editors and administrators. Together everybody is working together to create the best online encyclopedia of information. Many times newer editors often encounter problems when they break one of the many policies or guidelines of WP. Even after years I'm still discovering new guidelines and precedents out there. My best advice is to take some time, understand the policies which have already been cited to you and work within those parameters to see the changes you'd like done. Don't spend time taking the effort to point out what other people are doing or other errors that are taking place (such as edit wars elsewhere). To cite that someone else is doing something wrong is never a good excuse for you to also do improper behavior. If you have questions, please let me know. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Tiggerjay, the original version was collaborative and with some synth issues, as is the current version that is edited by one admin and two editors. For me to point out synth issues in changes can't be characterized as improper behavior according to guidelines. I suggested consensus based way on the talkpage. As I wrote to the admin on the talk page, that there are two central issues that any reader will notice if they compare the articles, the first is that not all statements are supported by the articles (due to displacement and like), secondly the current version is too biased in compare to the previous versions.For instance, there are many ways to point out something without replacing or removing reliable sources.  It's not the case that it's me editing someone else's article, it's vice versa, by which I mean that I'm not intruding on someonelse's article. I've had no issue with editors in the past either. My edits are always well meaning, I don't edit unless there's issues with op, gram, synth and sources, as can be seen by the history way back.  KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is that you were editing the article itself when there was clear controversy and disagreement. It doesn't matter who is right-or-wrong, edit warring is where there is disagreement and people continue to edit the article itself until they work out the issue. It really is preferable for an article to stable in a broken state, until the discussion can be resolved, versus fighting on the article page itself. The talk page is the appropriate location for this to take place. It is for violating that principle which is why you have been blocked. Additionally there is your statement that you make about "someone's article", regarding ownership. While you may have created this article, and perhaps have deep insight or knowledge on this article, you do not OWN this article. As a result, please do not take offence at other editors attempts to make the page better. Wikipedia is not the place for original research or information based on personal knowledge, experience or understanding. Rather editors are to contribute using their knowledge to find reliable sources to support specific statements and claims, and use their editorial skills tie together these cited elements. I do not specifically understand the 'synth' issue you are speaking about, so I cannot speak to the merits of anyone's claim on the matter. Rather, the intent here is to help you understand why 'this is happening to you' and give you guidance on how to move forward once your block is removed. Basically, DO NOT edit the page itself until you are certain that there is agreement on how the controversy regarding 'synth' is resolved. If you don't believe that the admin and the two other editors agree with you on the 'synth' then DO NOT edit the page. Continue to work it out. If you cannot find agreement, you can seek out the resources of WP:RFC or WR:DR which will call the attention of other experienced editors to come and help assist with this dispute/disagreement. You can also make non-controversial edits to the page as well. But just keep asking yourself, do you believe those other three people will disagree with it's inclusion. If so, you probably should not post the change, but rather discuss or propose on the article talk page. It is not that every time you edit something nor does other editors do this, but when you are going up against respected, long standing editors with a lot of experience and you find them disagreeing with you -- you might want to step back and evaluate the situation and consider that there might be far more at work than what you understand about the situation.
 * The article was as it was two weeks ago, then there was points on SYNTH and OP issues and the article was changed by three editors, whereof one admin. The article has thereafter been changed where it's shorter,more biased and ref articles are still displaced and some have been removed. 'you do not OWN this article' - this isn't the case/issue as I wrote above this article has been a collaborative effort. ' Wikipedia is not the place for original research or information based on personal knowledge', that's one issue with the current version. The edits reverts have to do to with SYNTH issues that are easy to specifically point out. As with other changes. But I'll check the guidelines for further info on those things.I appreciate and am thankful for your advice and the things you wrote above. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * -...'that there might be far more at work than what you understand about the situation.'- that's not the case, it's rather the vice versa, it gives an underrepresented view as I've pointed out on the talkpage KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your replies, but I think you're misunderstanding a few things:
 * I have not had the time to evaluate the lengthy dispute here, so my intention here is NOT to say who is right or wrong here, or that one version is better than the other. Rather it is to explain that all editors are working in good faith, and are to assume good faith of eachother. At the moment I am assuming good faith of everyone involved, as well as of you. As a result, I'm attempting to help you navigate the deep waters of a controversial edits.
 * "far more at work" is in reference to policies, procedures, guidelines and precedents which transcend your perspective of this specific article. While you may believe your changes to be correct, that is insufficient. Additionally, even if you are actually right about everything you're saying, what you are overlooking is the policies and procedures to resolve the conflict. Your block is NOT because you're right or wrong about the facts of this article, but rather the way in which you are going about making those changes. The way you are changing the article itself is wrong and is primarily why you were block and why your block appeal has been overturned twice by different administrators.
 * WP:RFC and/or WR:DR are some of the very effective ways to resolve these sorts of disputes regarding factual changes to an article. When your block is lifted it is those routes of change which you need to exercise, not changing the article itself. As an already blocked user, I must caution you against doing ANY edits to the article itself, regardless of how egregious you feel the errors on the page are currently. You will be swiftly blocked for failure to follow the policies regarding dispute resolution. Please follow those processes for assistance, and once consensus is reached, then the changes can be made.
 * WP:OWN was stated as a reply to your statement of "It's not the case that it's me editing someone else's article, it's vice versa" - that appears to mean that you think someone else is editing your article. It is that logical approach which is flawed. These are not other editors changing your article, but working to improve wikipedia per policy.
 * Also based on your edit history, you are effectively labeled as a single purpose account -- not that there is anything inherently wrong with that, but do take a look at that page to gain a deeper understanding of how other editors and admins might interact with you.
 * Finally, I want to encourage you to contribute, and be a source of information to the project, and volunteer your deep understanding and knowledge on things which you are passionate about. It is for those reasons I want to help you navigate this area which you have been snarled up upon, so we can move forward. All the best... Tiggerjay (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Tiggerjay, I'm very thankful and have taken into the advice to call attention to other editors, as specific as I can be. The SPA|single purpose account is valid, I don't have time dedicating to other pages as for now, perhaps in the future I might take a look around. 'When your block is lifted it is those routes of change which you need to exercise, not changing the article itself.' - it was the article that was changed by others, I'm not objecting to all of the changes (most of the text is my and previous editors writing so it would be ironic to object but it has been taken out of context in some places )but I will discuss some things that are problematic on the talkpage and hope that others will discuss them with me.'but rather the way in which you are going about making those changes.' - the block is very  easy for an admin  but he didn't discuss with me, he kept giving me editing warnings when I specifically pointed out the reason. I hope that this will change. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * this is a missconception; 'The way you are changing the article itself is wrong and is primarily why you were block and why your block appeal has been overturned twice by different administrators.', it wasn't me editing the article, I was reverting suspicious edits by an admin and two other editorsKewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Even a revert is considered and edit, and by continuing to revert their edits, you violated the Three Revert Rule. The three-revert rule states:
 * It does not matter if you thought what they were doing was vandalism, which it technically was not. Since you continued to 'undo' their edits, you violated RRR, which is why you were blocked. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits.' This has been an issue since two weeks back, and I don't know how to respond in cases when editors come in and don't want to discuss the changes they make on the talkpage. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already advised you how to respond to cases like this by way of WP:RFC and/or WR:DR. However instead of using these resources which both I and others have recommended, you continued to edit the page violating the 3 Revert Rule (above). Now, a new user violating this rule accidentally is NOT UNCOMMON, and the reason why the block is short (72 hours) is because it's just long enough to get an editor to pause and learn about what they did wrong. This is an example of what I meant earlier by saving "there is far more at work here". You must use those resources that are available to you. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, but my reverses were in well-intended and motivated,5 and 7 was reasons I've motivated since reliable sources were removed and parts of text removed. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Presuming good faith of you, yes I would agree they are 'well intended' but that does not change the fact that they are against the guidelines of wikipedia, and in general good dispute resolution in real life. To continue to fight over what version stays up instead of having a discussion over the merits of the content is fighting the wrong battle. It is like someone trying to get in the last word of a discussion. Just leave the article as is, imperfect as it may be, and then leave it...alone...without editing... until everyone has come together in consensus over the changes to be made. See other comments lower on about consensus... Tiggerjay (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I'm thankful for the advice, I see Rfc and other review requests on NPOV and discussions as the way. KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 14:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Tiggerjay, as no one has replied to the Rfc, can I still make syntax and gram fixes?KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad you asked. A couple of thoughts: (1) Your RfC is basically a wall-of-text, which results in something we call WP:TLDR -- which is when there it too much content, any one volunteer (remember nobody is paid here), a volunteer will take a look at more than a screen full of text, and skip it moving on to something more manageable...; (2) to resolve that I would close (ie remove) that RfC and create a new RfC, and start with the most major item that needs to be resolved. Try to keep it to just a few sentences, less than a full paragraph. Make it approachable to another volunteer that can simply read it and say, 'yes, I can help with this'; (3) normally I would say it is okay to correct grammar, but am pretty confident that at this point it wouldn't help, but hurt your case, so leave the errors in place, I'll put some tags on the page to call attention to those who specialize in grammar. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Tiggerjay, thanks, I'm preparing a version with links to edits concerning NPOV and add it as a new RFC and remove the current one on the talkpage. I checked the Dispute resolution notice board which I suppose is the next step after the RFC. I think a NPOV tag should be added as well, I'll add the new RFC text on the talkpage and in a post on the NPOV noticeboard tomorrow.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tiggerjay has given you good advice on how not to complicate things too much. On the same note I would advice against starting a new RfC and at the same time open another thread at NPOV noticeboard. If you want to get input from uninvolved editors, it is wise to keep things simple and managable. One thing at a time is better. --T*U (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, Tiggerjay's advice is appreciated. Since the edits also concern NPOV they should be added there as well, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) KewinRozz (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * there are other involved editors from earlier who might be interested in partaking in this as well.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is, of course, entirely up to you; it was just an advice. But as to Wikipedia guidelines: At WP:NPOVN it is explicitly stated "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion." Since you are planning a new RfC, it could be argued that it is premature to post at NPOVN until that RfC has been tried. --T*U (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * and you've replied to commenting on the edits it concerns on the talkpage, so this has been done; "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page." KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tiggerjay Is it possible to add a POV check tag and NPOV tag ? KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you have already added the tag, that is fine to leave as is for now. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * my objection wasn't to add a tag, it was the description in the tags themselves. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tiggerjay,have been advised both to edit (except RFC) and ANI, what do you think?
 * Tiggerjay,have been advised both to edit (except RFC) and ANI, what do you think?

KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) KewinRozz (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Some more advice
I see that a user from the help desk has given you some good advice. I would like to add some more to think about while you are waiting for the block to expire: Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * #1 First a question: You have several times mentioned OP issues. Could you please explain what you mean by OP?
 * #2 I will suggest that you begin to use edit summaries. It is a great help to other editors to see at a glance what an edit is all about. Please read carefully WP:Edit summary. An edit summary can be short, but should say what you have done and/or why you have done it.
 * #3 The way you repeatedly mention "synth" seems to indicate that you have not completely understood what a synthesis is. Please read carefully WP:Synth. Synthesis is when you combine material from different sources to make conclusions that are not in any of the sources. One example is your insistence on adding the category "People of the Kosovo war" to the article. You combined the fact that Camp Bondsteel was created in connection with the Kosovo war and the fact that Muhaxheri worked at the camp to conclude that Muhaxeri should fit into that category. That was synthesis.
 * #4 It seems that you still have not quite understood why you were blocked. It was not because of the content of your edits, but because of the way you did it. Please read carefully WP:Edit war again.
 * #5 You should avoid calling edits vandalism unless they are deliberate attempts to damage Wikipedia. Please read carefully WP:Vandalism, in particular the sections about what is and what is not vandalism.
 * #6 When you use the talk page to suggest changes to the article, you should ensure that you will be correctly understood:
 * Present the suggestions in a clear and well structured way.
 * Do not make too many suggestions at the same time, but start with those you find most important.
 * Present each suggestion separately (i.e. numbered or with separate headings), explain what change you suggest and why.
 * If you want to comment on references, do not refer to them with numbers. The numbers are dynamic and will change when the articole is edited.
 * #7 I have noticed that you sometimes make many edits in a short time, with minor adjustments to the initial edit. There is a very useful function in Wikipedia that may help you in such situations: When you have made your edit, instead of clicking the "Save page" button, there is another button just beside it, marked "Show preview". If you click that, you will see the result of your edit before actually saving it. You can then correct any mistakes, if necessary in several rounds, before saving your final version.

I'll get back with commenting later,KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi T*U, there's now a review request for commenting on the talk page. It mainly concerns NPOV between the versions. The person receiving the Please read carefully WP:Vandalism tag also got the motivation to it and it was resolved. It didn't have to do with intentions as such. Many mentions of OP in recent versions but I've pointed out specifics under section 'Review of Article' on the talkpage. Could you get back to me about the header 'Joining jihad', I think that there are some parts of the text in that section that are taken from another section and have lost their context. There are some "synth" issues in that section. The reason for the block was the 3RR rule which is new to me. When I began editing on wiki I was a bit unaware with the "Show preview" which came with time. Thanks for the advice. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Re OP: You did not answer my question: Could you please explain what you mean by OP?
 * Re vandalism: The edits that you called vandalism are very clearly not vandalism, which is defined as "deliberate attempts to damage Wikipedia". I do not understand what you mean by "also got the motivation to it", "it was resolved" and "didn't have to do with intentions as such". --T*U (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * pardon, typ-o, OR (original research)
 * 'The edits that you called vandalism are very clearly not vandalism' the edits it concerned are not added in the current version. The other parts that are problematic under section  'Review of Article', see the talkpage. Then there are some other things but those are less significant for now.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing posts after they are answered
So as not to clutter the talk page even more with things irrelevant to the article, I will explain what I meant here:

It was (rather obviously) not the section starting "On WP:TL;DR, the parts might..." I was referring to, since I have not answered on that. It was the section starting "Hi, the request for review in this case regards...". After I had answered, you changed that section so that my answer did not make sense. That is not acceptable.

I have reinserted your original version and kept the "revised" version, placed my answer in the correct context and commented in small letters. --T*U (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * if you mean 'changing of posts' as editing my comments that's true for the comment in the end, the comments say the same thing just that the latter/ edited is a bit more elaborated. These are things that the reviewers might wonder about so thanks for bringing it upKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant exactly that: Editing your own comments after they have been answered. I will give it with teaspoons. You first wrote: "Do you have any concrete comments on any of the points ?". I answered: "As I said, I find this RfC absolutely unsuitable for commenting." Then you changed your comment to: "Each part states 2-3 reference articles in the description. A reviewer is free to choose to only comment on one or a couple of the parts." That made my answer look either completely weird or extremely arrogant, depending on how one interprets it. Your edit was disruptive. You should avoid that kind of after-edits completely. --T*U (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * yes, I elaborated specifics. Your comment doesn't look weird, and both the versions unedited and edited are thereKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No, you did not only elaborate specifics, you removed the question I had answered to. Yes, both versions are there, because I reinserted the question you had removed. Oh, why do I bother? --T*U (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * your comment was that you didn't want to review. Noted.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:REDACT which deals specifically with editing your talk page messages after someone has replied. In general, only if immediately after you posted, and before someone else has replied, can you go back and correct an error. But once someone has replied, to go back and correct that error is not appropriate. Rather, it is best to just leave the error "as is" and then restate your correct position in your follow-on reply. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * -'and before someone else has replied, can you go back and correct an error.' that's what I did.The comment appears as both first and second edit.

I'll follow your advice in the future, 'Rather, it is best to just leave the error "as is" and then restate your correct position in your follow-on reply.'Thanks for your advice. KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "-'and before someone else has replied, can you go back and correct an error.' that's what I did." No, that is not what you did. In this edit you changed your comment (and removed the question) while my answer is clearly standing there. Enough. --T*U (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, but that was prior to your answer, you hadn't answered the question,you had one comment which I replied on. Then you added other replies under your first comment. I don't see your point, both questions (edited and unedited) are about commenting on the review, if you have any concrete comments since your comment was that you didn't want to review. You further stated that the review  was too long so in the edit I replied that a reviewer can choose to review one or more of the 5 parts.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How diffucult is this to understand?
 * 1) 2 Feb at 08:27 to 08:29 in this set of edits you ask: "Do you have any concrete comments on any of the points ?"
 * 2) 2 Feb at 08;34 in this edit I answer: "As I said, I find this RfC absolutely unsuitable for commenting."
 * 3) 2 Feb at 08:56 to 09:13 in this set of edits you remove the question and add new text.
 * 4) 2 Feb at 09:37 in this edit I reinstate your question so that my answer can be understood in its correct context.
 * Just to be quite sure you get it: I am complaining about edit number 3), where you change your text from edit number 1) after I have answered in edit number 2). Clear now? --T*U (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * - 1) and 2)are not clear, when I edited the second I didn't see 2) under 1) but perhaps my browser wasn't updated, but as my edit appears after that, in the end of the comment, I still don't see the issue.
 * I also see the answer in 2) as replied by the edit since I take it as related to the first comment.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I further commented on 2) after this, it's not necessarily brief to review per see, it's 2-3 articles to consider for each part so brief is relative. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is edit 3 (where you remove the question I have answered). Since you do not seem to understand plain English, I give up! --T*U (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) is the same comment as 1), hence, same answer as I've already replied above, I also replied to it yesterday in this section as I recallKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * --T*U (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * reposting the comment here;

Comment. Beside being far, far too long (as in WP:TL;DR), this RfC is completely unsuitable for commenting. The guideline says "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". The "statement" in this case is a complex and confusing mass of quotes from different versions of the article and pointers to a jungle of references (only indicated by numbers), mixed with arguments, synthesis and original research. I pass! --T*U (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@KewinRozz: Do not change your postings after they have been answered. That makes the answers look out of context. I have reinserted your original posting and moved my answer in order to make it possible to understand what I was answering to. --T*U (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean the editing of my latest comment below to 'On WP:TL;DR, the parts might seem long due to the cited texts from the articles in each section but the descriptions are relatively short. It's up to you if you want to review one or more of the 5 parts.'? 'the article and pointers to a jungle of references' - there are part of text/blockquotes of text, one from each version (version 1 and 2) with the statements to be reviewed. They are cited directly from the versions with the reference numbers in the versions preserved. Then there are 2 - 3 articles in each description. The reviewer can compare the articles in the description and also compare reference articles of each cited part of text by reviewing the versions KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the original message I answered to: Hi, the request for review in this case regards several points on NPOV in two versions, version 1 and 2. Do you have any concrete comments on any of the points ? KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

(I outdented my first comment to ease readability.) As I said, I find this RfC absolutely unsuitable for commenting. --T*U (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC) this NPOV review isn't a brief review, it takes time and consideration since there's a bit to go through about NPOV.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the message as it was changed after I had answered: Hi, the request for commenting and review in this case regards several points on NPOV in two versions, version 1 and 2. Each part states 2-3 reference articles in the description. A reviewer is free to choose to only comment on one or a couple of the parts. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

On WP:TL;DR, the parts might seem long due to the cited texts from the articles in each section but the descriptions are relatively short. It's up to you if you want to review one or more of the 5 parts. KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Forum shopping
You have added some templates to the start of your RfC. They are confusing, to say the least. How could a RfC be an essay? And what does the CSB template do in a RfC? Please remove both these templates.

I see that you also have started threads at NPOV/Noticeboard and at Wikiproject CSB. Please read about forum shopping at WP:FORUMSHOP. --T*U (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The CSB template is correct and the reason for it is stated as there are NPOV issues. I asked you yesterday to compare and return to me about the 'Joining Jihad' section, which is a compiled section of parts that both I and other editors have written in other sections, partly denoting to other things. I'm not saying that your and one other editors editing of this isn't well - intended, I'm saying that you might not have fully understood what certain statements in version 1 denote to.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The CSB template is used in 157 Wikipedia pages. Of these are 118 in "User:" pages and 24 in "User talk:" pages, 8 are "Wikipedia:" pages and 5 are "Wikipedia talk:" pages. One is in an archived talk page discussion about the template back in 2008. That leaves 1 – one – place in the whole Wikipedia where the template is used in an active "Talk:" page. This should tell you that you have misunderstood completely the intentional use of that template. The Essay template is also completely misplaced. --T*U (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * it's added to the CSB list for review so the tag indicates the section on the talkpage KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of pages on that list, at least. Not one single of those pages have used the template, except the one you added. 1 – one – active "Talk:" page in the whole Wikipedia ahs the template. --T*U (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * if you read the instructions on the CSB page it says that the tag can be added to a talkpageKewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. It says that you can add it "to your userpage". Like 118 of Wikipedias 27 million users have done. --T*U (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't find that WP:FORUMSHOP override the policy of NPOV, or that it would be WP:FORUMSHOP to request a CSB - review to maintain or obtain NPOV in the article; 'Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.'KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes however it is not the place for an involved editor to assert consensus, when there clearly is dispute over a topic. In most disputes over content both side, presuming good faith, equally believe that they have a quality argument that is better than the other side of an issue. Involved editors can agree on consensus when all those involved agree together, basically a coming together of the sides. But when there is still dispute over content, an involved editor is stepping beyond their bounds to assert or claim consensus as a rational reason for changes. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've requested a CSB - review on NPOV, but in order to reach consensus I do think that NPOV is essential.'they have a quality argument that is better than the other side of an issue.' this is rather about that the text has become biased in the rewriting of some statements.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Involved editors can agree on consensus when all those involved agree together, basically a coming together of the sides. ' this isn't how things transpired in this caseKewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is fine to use NPOV/Noticeboard. It is fine to use Wikiproject CSB. It is fine to file a RfC. But doing all three things at the same time is forumshopping. --T*U (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see your point thus the RfC is thus a way to reach consensus while the other to are more about the content in contrast to NPOV.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Closure of RfC
What exactly do you think you are doing? After you withdrew your RfC and opened a new one, I followed normal procedures to close the old discussion. This is done to prevent people continuing the discussion on the old thread. When a RfC is closed, you are not supposed to edit it anymore. The text "The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion." is clearly displayed at top and bottom. Therefore I moved your comment out of the closed discussion. In this series of edits you not only moved your comment back inside the closed discussion, but you also removed the closing template. I take it that you did this because you do not understand how a discussion closure works, or it would stand out as distinctly disruptive. If you for some reason want to challenge the closure (even if I cannot think of any reason wny you would), there are procedures for this. Please make yourself acquinted with WP:CLOSE. I will revert your edits. --T*U (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no conclusion made on the review, it's forthcomming that it's closed for commenting without conclusions. The RFC is being reopened.KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I ask you please, please to read this carefully and try to understand it before you do anything more in connection with the closure of the RfC.
 * When you first started this RfC by using the template, it started a Wikipedia procedure, where the RfC was automatically registered in relevant lists, and people were notified through relevant channels.
 * When you removed the tag before the standard 30 day limit was reached, that worked as a withdrawal and started another procedure, where the RfC was automatically delisted.
 * The normal procedure after an RfC is finished is to close the discussion to avoid people taking part in a discussion that is no longer active. This was what I did.
 * When you say that the RfC is being reopened, that is not correct. When you use that template another time, it is not the same RfC, it is a new RfC that is starting the automatic procedure again.
 * I understand that you wish to have some kind of link from the old discussion to the new. You have inserted text between the header "Review of article" and the closure. That is fine! Then you also want to repeat it inside the closure, and then you remove the closure note. That is not fine, since that discussion is supposed to be closed.
 * I will again assume good faith (even if it is wearing a bit thin). I will close the discussion again, but will adjust the closing remark to point to the new RfC. If you for some incomprehensible reason want to contest the closure that you initiated yourself, then follow procedures outlined in WP:CLOSE. Do not, repeat not, delete the closure again. --T*U (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've fixed whats needed so assuming the good faith likewise you have no reason closing it so stop closing them and leave them be until it can be reviewed unless you have something to say about itKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the things above are already answered, but to repeat, this isn't entirely what you stated;'The normal procedure after an RfC is finished is to close the discussion to avoid people taking part in a discussion that is no longer active. This was what I did.'KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What I did was to follow the advice in Closing discussions, the last sentence: "So closing by means of the and  templates, with suitable parameters, can provide a convenient summary of the result and preserve the fact that the discussion had been advertised through the RFC process." and the following subsection "Closing vs archiving": "Closings are sometimes termed "archiving", although unlike traditional archiving, the discussion in question is not moved to a separate page, but is kept in place and enclosed in a shaded box. This can be accomplished by placing  and  or  and  around a discussion." I still do not see why this should be wrong. --T*U (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * once again it's not what the tag stated, which is why I removed it, and it was also forthcomming on the end of the section that it was closed for Rfc and by my text on top. What I mean by unconstructive is that it's not contributive for either the matter of the review or the Rfc in the next sectionKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Competence
Wouldn't it be fair to say that the user's edits and comments show incompetence to help build the encyclopaedia? I would like to ask and, both having dealt with problems done by, and raised by,. I am sensing that the article Lavdrim Muhaxheri is on the way going back to its former OR and Synthesis-struck state, judging by the user's comments at the RfC, and confusing inline tags. He quotes NPOV, "avoid stating opinions as facts", when what he is about to do is including his own opinions into the article, adding "pseudonym, to some extent giving the impression", etc. when no sources state this. He is also claiming that experts and prosecution refute that the photos and videos are of him, where this is nowhere stated (he is using ex silentio on picked refs...). He has now initiated two erroneous RfCs, and keeps opening an archived one.--Z oupan 11:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Zoupan do you have any actual comments?. The Rcf is fine, you've also commented and I've replied.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) KewinRozz (talk) KewinRozz (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the many comments by various users on your talk page and the article page speak for themselves. The RfC is not fine, you have neither gone by the points on Requests for comment, nor fixed (or allow to fix) the previous one.--Z oupan 12:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the previous one has been closed prior to opening the new one KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've not claimed that the prosecution refutes the warrant, in contrary, I've claimed that the prosecutions warrant from the Court of Ferizaj, as presented in the references, claims the same thing as the Interpol description/warrant, experts questions which footage is of Muhaxheri, if Muhaxheri might have emulated himself and so on. Your 'sources' are articles, but the articles don't claim that the warrant is for an alleged beheading KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What in the 100 heavens are you now speaking of? That is not what I am saying, nor have said. None of this, as you just put it, has been discussed. This only reinforces that you have no competence. You said that "researchers and experts are not convinced that it's the same individual". You don't understand what is being said, emulate, as in Muhaxheri imitating a leader, not another person imitating Muhaxheri. Where is it claimed in the article that the warrant is for an alleged beheading? You are constantly changing what you are saying, even what other editors are saying, confusing, and making up problems that aren't there. This is very irritating, but most of all unconstructive and disruptive.--Z oupan 20:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already answered to you on this and referred you to the article; 'These are not the only images that have been published and claimed to be of Lavdrim Muhaxheri in articles but the claims of which of the images would be of Lavdrim Muhaxheri has been questioned by experts, reference 11 in the description.' I've also replied on Shtuni's claim about emulation. So no, I'm not changing what I'm saying and having to repeat what I've already answered is disruptiveKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment I must admit that the thought about WP:CIR has occured to me, to put it mildly. I do not see any indications of bad faith, so I have been extremely patient, more patient than I normally would be able to be. What I see is either unwillingness or incapability of understanding what is explained, even after painstakingly detailed explanations. I will give a few links from my experience:
 * User had placed Category:People of the Kosovo War in the article. It was removed several times (I have lost count) by different editors, using the edit summaries to explain that he was a child at the time. User stubbornly reinserted the cat again and again (without edit summaries). I removed it for the last time with reference to the TP, and we had this TP exchange. No bad faith, just extremely slow comprehention.
 * User placed an essay and a CSB template in the talk page in this edit. I tried in the first part of this exchange to explain that the templates had nothing to do in the RfC. In the end the user finally understood and removed the templates again. It took some time.
 * Then there is this. The relevant links are in the thread. This time I had to give up. There was simply no comprehention.
 * And in the last days it is the closure of the first RfC. Too many links to give here, but this and this gives an idea about how this has developed.

On the more humorous side: The editor has today placed this on my talk page. I especially like the bit about "If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page." Hilarious, imho. --T*U (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Zoupan, you have claimed that the categories should be changed to Person of the ... instead of main or general categories, at least one has removed 'wahhabist' as the category you proposed (not by me) so no, I'm not the one that has made claims or changed the categories in this version
 * you haven't provided sufficient sources to the claims about Lavdrim Muhaxheri, as pointed out on the Rfc. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)KewinRozz (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I rest my case. --T*U (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the comment 'you haven't provided sufficient sources to the claims about Lavdrim Muhaxheri, as pointed out on the Rfc.' is an additional reply to Zoupan, pardon for the confusion T*U
 * KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Apology accepted. --T*U (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * T*U, you got the mildest in the category for unconstructive editsKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ...I think there is no point in further discussions, you obviously don't want to understand what is being said. You just warned TU-nor, now why would you do that, on what basis? Do you seriously see his sincere help to fix things as unconstructive? You are misinterpreting (misunderstanding) and countering every single tip, guideline and explanation put forward to you. I'll ask and  for input.--Z oupan  19:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Z oupan, you've initiated the discussion here for much of the things that I've already replied to you,'you obviously don't want to understand what is being said' - you mean that I don't agree with you about your claims KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I mean that you don't understand what is being said, you have every right to disagree.--Z oupan 21:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * you would have to be more specific what you're referring to;'you don't understand what is being said' but in general media reports and/or tabloid content isn't appropriate to state as facts in a biography about a person, especially on the risk of being libelous KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * More specific? This has been asked of you since the beginning. This discussion is about your behaviour and competence, not about the article. Libelous? The guy is a monster (!?).--Z oupan 22:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Libelous? The guy is a monster - is a POV itself, regarding the claims  I've asked you 'according to whom'?

KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ... D u h . I said that the guy is a monster, I didn't include it in the article (¡¿). What claims? You do not want to understand, and I think that if you'd read the comments on the article talk page 100 times, studied them, you'd still not want to understand. Why, I have no idea. I have never put in my own POV into the article. I have never used ex silentio on the news articles and deducted OR facts based on my own POV. I have never claimed a reference is dubious because a link within that reference, which is not used in the article, doesn't work. I have never used ex silentio on prosecution excerpts in a news article and based that something in the article is false when that something is a whole other subject, not treated by that news article. I have never misinterpreted terms and and merged unrelated sentences to form a fact. I have never changed what I said and meant 100 times, nor do I turn a blind eye to every single good faith explanation and invitation to constructive work.--Z oupan 18:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've replied to these comments on the Rfc as I recall, pointing out some of the claims I referred to above. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One essential part is to distinguish facts from opinions;“A fact is a statement that can be proven true. An opinion expresses someone's belief, feeling, view, idea, or judgment about something or someone.”Many articles express their opinion about footage,but these are opinions and not facts. Expert statements overweigh journalist opinions.KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Please. Help. He reverted proper citing, and re-added "International mass media outlets have not named the man in the video as Lavdrim Muhaxheri, and have stated that the video is uncensored." which is OR, and redundant. The video is of Muhaxheri. He removed external links of interviews which he himself had previously used as references in the article (!). Why is he doing this? I think he 3RR just now.--Z oupan 22:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Didn't, added them one at a time and motivated on talkpageKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * are you saying that you didn't remove that content? (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tiggerjay no, I didn't do any 3RR, that's correct, I restored removed content, or content that one user was removing, but not all of it and not in the same versionKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tiggerjay I removed the external links, where he had placed the content prior to seeking consensus on the talkpage,as is fortcomming, such content including primary articles KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Question about comment

 * For the record: When I started this section, I gave it the title "Changing posts after they are answered – revisited". This was for some unfathomable reason changed dy KewinRozz. --T*U (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Remember this: ?

Now again:
 * Your edit, 20 Feb at 17:36:
 * My answer, 20 Feb at 18:29:
 * You change the posting 20 Feb at 19:19:

Do. Not. Change. Your. Postings. After. They. Have. Been. Answered. --T*U (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

T*U that wasn't a reply to your comment  KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I recall having to give a lengthy answer to this  KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * while you might have not intended to reply to, you did in fact reply to him. This reply was valid.. And presumably, you then saw the error of your post, and correct it.... The problem is that you cannot go back after-the-fact and make that correct, because it causes confusion to anybody who reads it later. When you made that change it make it look like is jumping to conclusions, when in reality, based on your errant post, he was quite justified in his reply. While there are many ways to make a correction (see WP:REDACT), to edit something someone already replied to, is not one of them. Probably the best is simply to have striked your comments using the and such as (example: strike this error ). You would leave the reply where it was, because again, your stiked out comment gives the reply context. And then under a different edit properly post your reply, bringing the attention to the correct editor you intended to address. An alternative way would have been to reply to  and say, "I'm sorry, I was really talking about user X" -- which would also maintain context, as well as bring the discussion to the attention of the correct editor. The edits you are making are effectively re-writing history, which is not proper. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Minor updated to add WP:REDACT reference. 20:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tiggerjay, I'll edit it with correction of to make it clear that it's gotten out of context, it was adding a ping to another editor but corrections are in order.KewinRozz23:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * I regretfully need to take this step for your edit war going on, plus your failure to get the point regarding multiple wikipedia policies and guidelines. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll appeal since I didn't begin edit - warring as forthcomming KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There really is no such thing as "who started it"... either you're involved, or you're not. In this case you were involved. It doesn't matter who started it, you continued to participate in it. Good luck with your appeal, but you'd do better by reviewing the policies, guidelines and precedents that have been already provided to you. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * but so are the other two, and if you look at the edits I'm being blocked for it's because the reference articles got out of context since the formulation of the context had been changed, there's nothing wrong with the fixes I made in the links/edits pointed out as reason for blocking. KewinRozz
 * 'by reviewing the policies, guidelines and precedents' The edits, especially the last one, is consistent with NPOV guidelines KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually there is everything wrong with your "fixes" which illustrate that you do not get the point. You are violating WP:3RR 'regardless' of if you accept it or not. Policy clearly says: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." There is no exception for POV/NPOV or what you believe is unacceptable. Since you are involved in an edit war, you were blocked. This is not the case of one or two involved editors, but multiple editors, including myself who have not been directly involved in editing the page, who find your edits unacceptable. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * it also says;'Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required.' and I'm far from the only one reverting.KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be correct if you actually understood policies, but clearly you do not understand them. You are actually undoing policy based revisions. And regardless of intent, if two experienced editors are having a disagreement over policy then it is still considered an edit war. Again, another example of you not fully understanding policy. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * answered to this in the section below KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk page formatting, indenting
Kewin, it appears that you still have difficulty following the formatting standards of wikipedia which makes it difficult for other users to follow the conversation. Please see WP:THREAD for extensive examples of how to properly indent, and participate in conversations. You have habit of indenting incorrectly and/or simply posting directly behind someone else's post without any indentation or distinguishing break. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks for the advice and for notifying me about it, I'll check it. KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks
You have been blocked for two weeks for continuing to make pointless editorializing edits like this and this, as well as continuing to edit war and not being able to get the point. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

there's nothing faulty in this edit since the context had been reformulated in the previous edit,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavdrim_Muhaxheri&diff=prev&oldid=706549378

neither this one, which is consistent with NPOV - guidelines, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lavdrim_Muhaxheri&type=revision&diff=706555998&oldid=706555722 KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The two edits I cited in the block notice were the simply straws the broke the camel's back, and are part of a long-running series of you misinterpreting policy, not making clear explanations, and edit-warring. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * that's not true, in contrary, I think that the guidelines on consensus between involved editors and NPOV have been disregarded, else there would have been discussions prior to editing anything, but it hasn't been, and for those who see the talkpage can see that I've tried discussing the content in multiple attemptsKewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the edits above aren't examples of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, in contrary, they're examples of following NPOV, which the article has done upon recent month KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually it does, and multiple editors agree with . You do not understand what NPOV really means, nor other policies such as SYNTH, OR, and RS. But we've been down this road before. And either you don't care (ie WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) or you simply don't have the Competence that is Required for Wikipedia. We really want to help reform you into a constructive editor to the project, but your behavior is disruptive and is distracting to constructive contributors. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tiggerjay in BLP it's clearly stated; 'A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other,[6] include all the explanatory information.' So I've understood NPOV to this point at least but I'll submit further motivation on the points above. KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What you're doing is called WP:WIKILAWYERING which essentially stated: "Using the rules in a manner contrary to their principles in order to "win" editing disputes is highly frowned upon by the Wikipedia community." Your postings are not neutral but rather appear to be inline with an apologist, which is BIAS and is a non-neutral point of view. It is because of these sorts of behaviors, and failure to HEAR other much more experienced volunteers, that you have encountered such adversity. Could/should the beheadings be included, is it a fact or opinion, is it a case for BLPCRIME -- I'm not sure, as we haven't discussed that angle yet. However, instead of working collaboratively with other editors, when you're presented with a specific question such as here, instead of addressing it, you bounce off to another discussion and remove content. That is not collaborating. Rather you are just bouncing from beheading discussion to one about external links.
 * Ultimately it seems like what you're encountering is a situation where you're single purpose on wikipedia is to introduce a specific set of information, regardless if it adheres to policy, rules, guidelines, standards and established precedent. Instead you are trying to find every way possible to get your content and opinions added. Instead of finding appropriate information that fits Wikipedia, you're trying to fit specific information into Wikipedia -- that is going about it the wrong way. Use your vast experience to find appropriate information, not try to figure out how to exploit wikipedia for your own biased objectives. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Tiggerjay, that's not what I'm doing, what I'm doing is to point out unsourced  information that harms the credibility of the article according to BLP and NPOV in order to improve and maintain the neutral tone of the article, which should be the strive here.KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tiggerjay, this isn't, and shouldn't be a matter of 'apology' vs 'vilification', it should be about neutrality, by which, if there's no conviction one can't claim that the subject has committed a series of crimes in an article. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly you have no intention to understand what people are trying to communicate with you. This is at the heart of WP:IDHT and the reason for the block. Stop trying to explain your actions and have an answer for everything... Stop, listen, and try to understand what people are saying. Stop defending and listen... If that continues then you're 2 week block will expire and you'll find yourself indefinitely blocked from wikipedia. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tiggerjay, the Twitter-account part was removed then re-added of some strange reason
 * as a sentence from it, just that the same article was posted twice, on 29 January 2015 and 29 December 2015, both times as 'new footage', that is, to remove one is to favor the other, and the report about him being in Syria comes either before or after depending on which article is chosen. On the footage, he's not warranted for it, only organization KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * KewinRozz 'Use your vast experience to find appropriate information, not try to figure out how to exploit wikipedia for your own biased objectives,' what do you think is biased from my part?
 * KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tiggerjay pinged myself, I get how it seems bouncing forth and back with the external links but the RFC concerned articles that were being move into the external link but I get your point on how it can seemKewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: block review. In any case, KewinRozz is entitled to request review by an uninvolved admin. KewinRozz, if you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks (carefully!), then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: . That will automatically call an uninvolved admin to this page. It may take a while, though. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Bishonen,thanks, I'll request a review, I believe that I have valid reasonsKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Commenting from blocking admin This incoherent unblock request is a good illustration of why this user has been blocked (again). That, along with adding tortured disclaimers and editorial comments, which the user has been warned about and previously blocked for. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the block review states; 'In any case, KewinRozz is entitled to request review by an uninvolved admin' who might want to review the blocks,KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a great observation, and it's why I didn't decline your unblock request. I'm simply commenting on it for the benefit of any uninvolved admin who has trouble making sense out of your unblock request. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't been blocked for the edits in the links 'tortured disclaimers' and 'editorial comments' prior to this block and the edits are motivated and linked to in the unblock request about the Daily Mail article
 * KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved admin: I might have reviewed your unblock request, but that gigantic wall-of-text is just too much. You might have a better chance getting someone to look at it if you follow the guidelines here. Best ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the brief thing wasn't easy given all the guidelines, RS,OR, SYNTH exc brought up but in bottom - line the issue with the Daily Mail - related edits, that I've edited and reverted, is that the Daily Mail article doesn't mention Muhaxheri. Thanks for the advice KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The primary problem with these edits is that they contain accusations about crimes for which there's no conviction;'A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.'BLPCRIME.This claim is based on articles from 29 July 2014 claiming that Muhaxheri is seen on photos published to a Facebook-account, the article headlines were mentioned in the Department of State - list released in September 2014 and have been given DUE weight since the story has been highly published in media but the claim isn't based on a conviction,  the warrant from the Basic Court of Ferizaj and the Interpol warrant for Muhaxheri isn't for murder but for recruitment, organization and affiliation in terrorist organizations. Prior to the reformulation it was presented as an indirect, summarized statement, which isn't the same as WP:OR or WP:SYNTH;.. "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process"'WP:SYNTH. When it was reformulated to a fact, or accusation I reverted to this edit 3 times, leading to me being blocked for 3RR. After the block I added an RFC to discuss the reformulations on the talkpage. Thus I referred to NPOV: avoid stating opinions as facts while precluding but not explicitly referring to BLPCRIME. I reverted the second claim that has been reformulated to a fact, accusation twice; this edit and this edit due to being contentious material; 'Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.'WP:BLP with The reference article includes expert opinions questioning the footage, it states that the footage isn't authenticized and makes no reference to a conviction.

Since I'd already added an RFC, that was an ongoing RFC about the first reformulation/accusation I didn't see a reason for adding a second discussion about the same issue. This was reverted back and in the new context it clashed with the Daily Mail article, which doesn't mention Muhaxheri, and that works in the former but not the later formulation. In retrospect, at this point I shouldn't have continued editing since all these edits contain contentious material, I believe that at this point I should've posted to ANI which is the issue with my fixes with and after this edit. I've answered about the edits with the reformulations, accusations on the IRC support but not fully about the reverts of them so I've complemented the last question above. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You are not blocked anymore (the two week block expired), so I've cleared the unblock template. However, if you go back to the same editing patterns that got you blocked the first two times (which has been explained to you, ad nauseam, by multiple editors), the next block will be indefinite. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've been notified about not being blocked already, the parts about BLPCRIME will be brought up at the relevant noticeboard. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for ignoring consensus and edit-warring
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your . Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Per Huon in the last unblock, you've made it abundantly clear that you have no idea how Wikipedia works and that is unlikely to change. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * From the chat yesterday, also with others, it was one of the edits, the DailyMail edit that wasn't well-formulated but that's one exception, far from ordinary. In this case it's not my editing that's the issue, and I don't engage in spamKewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

This user became unblocked on 8 March, and you re-blocked them today with the reason as "Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy".

Between 8 March and the new block, they made 14 edits (unless some were deleted?) - 6 of which were here on their own user talk page (so who cares about those). I looked at the other 8, and cannot see any of the things you mentioned in your block reason.

Am I missing something? Can you show the specific edits why you've blocked them again?

Would it perhaps be best to let a different admin review their most recent block?

Thanks, 81.108.18.234 (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I made the block reason clear in the heading above the block template message, which uses standardized warning. When a user immediately resumes the same type of edits that got them blocked previously, there is nothing controversial about an immediate reblock, and this user was given an explicit warning that this would happen.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Which of the 8 edits concerns you? 81.108.18.234 (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't done any of the sort described in the text of the block; "Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy".KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

He did give a policy reason for deleting the information in the edit summary, which even if you don't agree to it, does seem like it might apply to the edit (and even if it actually doesn't it is an easy mistake to make and not a reason for a block). I suggest an unblock, as reblocking this editor indefinitely based on one ambiguously dodgy edit seems overkill, especially as I've seen this editor doing good work elsewhere. Please take this into consideration, thanks. never mind, i see that a failure to understand the BLP rules, combined with a rash approach to WP:BOLD is the reason this editor was banned in the first place. as it is difficult to suggest a BLP topic ban, i unfortunately have to agree with the reviews here. However, i would suggest downgrading to, at most, a six month ban, as a decently long ban can sometimes help a user to "get it" and understand why they were banned. InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Insertcleverphrasehere, the approach about Muhaxheri has been that he's a non-public figure throughout given he's been considered a low profile figure, there's been many publications about him but not by his own initiative but rather as a non-self promoting speaker in videos and published footage  obtained from others, claimed to be of him and designated to promote the Islamic State. So this isn't a changed view from previous. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

PhilKnight, 'if he's as known as Bin Laden would be interesting to discuss' was a related to the chat discussion regarding if Muhaxheri would be wellknown by WP:WELLKNOWN. However, based on the distinction of low or high profile the videos that Muhaxheri is claimed to appear in are promotional videos for Islamic State and not for Lavdrim Muhaxheri, so that would mean that Muhaxheri is a non - self - promoting character if appearing as a speaker in those videos, that is, a non - public figure. In order for WP:WELLKNOWN to apply, whereby BLPCRIME wouldn't apply, he would have to be a public figure. In that sense it's not 'edit - warring' to editBLPCRIME, as it states that such reverts edits don't preclude discussion, thus in this case there's been an RFC about it. KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

PhilKnight, In parallell with the edit I also added a post about it on the BLP noticeboard for discussion of these reformulated statements in aspect of BLP and NPOV. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me try to make a bit of an explanation. At some point in an argument you should WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass especially when you reach the point where WP:SNOW comes into effect. The fact that you seem unable to, indicates to me that you are guilty of WP:tendentious editing, which I personally have experience with (I was topic banned from cold fusion for a year for the same thing). Believe me when I say that the ban in place is totally justified, this sort of behaviour wastes many hours of editorial time. I suggest backing away from wikipedia for a few months to reflect on your actions. Perhaps, when you reach a point of clarity on the subject, you should appeal your ban on the grounds that you maybe have learned something from your reflections. If so, perhaps they will consider it. If you appeal on the basis you have been trying (that everyone else is wrong and that you are right), you will get nowhere, as this is simply more evidence of the tendentious nature of your arguments. I hope this helps provide some clarity.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Insertcleverphrasehere I don't see what these points have to do with low or high profile. I'm further not guilty of WP:tendentious editing,'If you appeal on the basis you have been trying (that everyone else is wrong and that you are right), you will get nowhere', I don't want to mistake this to a threat and I also don't think that this regards 'everyone'. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am in no position to threaten you with anything, I'm not an admin, nor do I have much standing as I'm not a super experienced editor. However, based on my own personal experiences, this is the best advice I can give you. Back away and come back later with a cooler head. You aren't going to convince any admins to unban you unless you calm down and realise that reaching a consensus is more important than being right.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your advice, and I'm further just replying to the comments. A consensus can be reached in numerous of ways, discussing the matter is imperative though, as on the BLP Noticeboard for instance. However, this claim WP:tendentious editing lacks substance, many of the past months edits have been made as WP:TALKDONTREVERT and I've replied to them with RFC. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To be more clear, tendentious editing can also apply to talk pages, not just article edits.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't done any WP:tendentious editing on the talkpage either KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ignoring consensus and continuing to argue is generally considered tendentious. Even if you know for certain that you are in the right, there is a point when you have to step away. I was topic banned for a very similar situation (for tendentious editing on talk pages), because I was new and didn't realise that it is not a good idea to continue a debate once a consensus forms against you. It is bad for Wikipedia because it creates a large time-sink of editorial time. I took my year ban, learned from it, and edited elsewhere on AfD, Requested Moves, and AfC. Slowly I learned why it is such a pain in the ass when someone continues to argue when it is obvious that the conversation has reached the point of the WP:Snowball clause. If you are interested in helping to build Wikipedia, I would suggest asking them to downgrade you to a topic ban, so that you can help in other areas, however, until you learn the intricacies of wikipedia etiquette and policy, it is clear to me that you are far too passionate to be editing on the BLP pages that have gotten you into so much hot water.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Insertcleverphrasehere, this isn't the case 'Ignoring consensus and continuing to argue is generally considered tendentious' but thanks for sharing your opinions and advice.KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Insertcleverphrasehere,to motivate, after the edits began I added a Review of Article section as RFC on the talkpage to discuss the edited sentences and since some commented about it being too long I collaborated and added the first part as a new RFC, also after discussion. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record, I've just had another lengthy discussion with KewinRozz in #wikipedia-en-unblock. By now I'm pretty sure that he's wikilawyering to support an outcome he had sought before ever bothering to find out what Wikipedia's policies have to say. He cites policy but blatantly ignores the parts of policy that make his quotes inapplicable to the situation at hand. The alternative to deliberately twisting policy would be a staggering level of incompetence. In either case, I'm done wasting my time discussing these issues with KewinRozz. Huon (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's pretty good at cutting-and-pasting policies, but not so good at communicating much of anything else. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk page formatting, indenting – again
You have been adviced about this here. I have tidied after you and reminded you about it in edit summaries here and here. You still seem to have difficulties following the formatting standards of Wikipedia. This makes it difficult for other users to follow the conversation. Please follow WP:THREAD. --T*U (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * T*U, thanks for noticing and fixing the indentation in the edits, I've become more aware of the indentations in the sections following that one. KewinRozz KewinRozz (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? These are some of your last edits: 1, 2, 3, 4. Perhaps you should be more aware. --T*U (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * T*U, you're right, fixed it now KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)