User talk:Livingengine1

Welcome!
Hello, Livingengine1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Council on American–Islamic Relations. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Ezaid Fabber (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

October 2013
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Discuss, don't repeat the problematic claims about people, don't edit war
Hi Livingengine1, I am an administrator on Wikipedia and I have been asked to look into your edits. As you've been made aware, Wikipedia takes contentious claims against living persons very seriously (see WP:BLP). Please be aware that making repeated negative claims about individuals, on any page on Wikipedia (including Talk pages), without adequate sourcing (see WP:RS for our sourcing rules), can result in having your ability to edit restricted. Also, repeatedly reverting to your preferred version of a page is disruptive, see our rules against edit warring. I am not taking any position on the matter of content; I am only making sure you're aware of the issues here. Please be careful in your editing. Thanks... 00:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Council on American–Islamic Relations shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 00:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

HI,

I am doing absolutely nothing wrong here. The edit war is being conducted by Roscelese. What he is claiming is demonstrably false. I have sourced court documents which disprove what he is claiming. Even the sources he uses disagree with him. I have talked to him about this on his talk page, and the talk page for the Wikipedia entry for CAIR, and now here we are.

If someone can tell me how I am violating Wikipedia policy I will be enlightened, but this is not happening. Instead, I am being threatened. This is completely uncalled for, and I really have to complain. I can see NO justification for what Roscelese is claiming on Wikipedia. He appears to be motivated be personal, and political considerations. He simply can not support what he is claiming.

Please let me know what I can do to clarify my position here. This should be an open, and shut case of Roscelese knowingly putting up false information on Wikipedia.


 * Hi Livingengine1, first, thanks for stopping all the reverting. I'm sorry you felt threatened, but we have standards of conduct editors are supposed to follow, including avoiding repeatedly reverting (an edit war).  You are involved in a content dispute.  I am not going to get involved in the matter of content, but I can point you to this link:  WP:DR.  See that for a list of ideas about how to resolve your content dispute.  In particular you may find one of the noticeboards useful.    00:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for writing me back. Part of the problem I am having understanding this is why isn't Roscelese also guilt of edit waring? If one looks at past versions of the Wikipedia talk page for CAIR, I believe it will show OTHER people besides me were complaining about this portion of the entry on CAIR.

I will stop the reverts, but put up my own explanation of things and let the reader decide. As far as, "adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page ", I have NO idea what this is in reference to.

I am new here, and a reasonable person. I am willing to discuss this with Roscelese, but as I think the record will show, he is not interested in doing this. He wants to get me banned. Please don't let him get away with this.


 * Livingengine1, there is an exception to the edit-warring rules that the editor who removes BLP violations can do that without worrying about edit-warring. I understand that you are new, and you are not expected to know about the rules of editing behavior you need to follow until you've been warned about them.  As you now have been warned about them, you are expected to follow them.  You will need to read the links I have already given you to understand the rules Wikipedia has about sourcing, and especially sourcing for biographic information about living persons (see WP:BLP).  At this time before making any more edits you should read the information you've been pointed to.   01:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

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) 03:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for violations of WP:BLP policy
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 19:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You were warned several times yesterday to mind the WP:BLP policy, but persisted in adding material that was not in line with it. To prevent further BLP problems I have had to block your account from editing temporarily. 19:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-Roscelese
You have indulged in edit war that is why you have been blocked from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. See edit warring. You have a right to appeal and please also see WP:RS. Regards Ezaid Fabber (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese
Hello, Livingengine1. First things first: Roscelese is a girl, not a boy; it's on her userpage (look there, if you must). Second, I know how angry you are about being blocked for just trying to get the truth into a Wikipedia article. I know exactly how you feel. I was blocked, thanks to Roscelese's squealing, recently too. You can read all about it on my talk page. They just wouldn't listen. But I've been here long enough that I didn't expect any different outcome (yet, hope springs eternal!). Some advice about Roscelese: if you're going to be opposing her POV pushing to the point of edit-warring with her, you better have all your ducks lined up, because she knows every trick to frustrate your edits. She has like-minded editors who assist her on establishing a local consensus that favors her version of the article, even when the consensus is contrary to written Wikipedia policy. She even has admins standing by who are sympathetic to her POV, and from what I've seen here, most admins are sympathetic to her POV. Let's call it a "progressive" POV. You need to be realistic about what you can achieve here because that's what you're up against. That's before you consider that mainstream media sources are preponderantly "progressive", as are "academic" and "scholarly" sources. I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't already know or will soon find out for yourself. The bottom line is: the deck is stacked against you in many ways and it's best to be realistic about it (don't waste too much emotion on the outcomes you don't like). --72.66.30.115 (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Indent
Hi, Livingengine1. We have a convention about comments on talk pages: we indent them under the previous comment, if that's the comment you are reponding to, using colons. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-The 1993 Philadelphia Meeting at Wikipedia
The issue is very simple. You have to justify your edits by giving reliable sources. So I strongly recommend you to assume good faith and be aware of the content which can be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Ezaid Fabber (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I see. I have absolutely NO interest in violating Wikipedia policy or guide lines, or getting into "wars" with people. I don't need to do that; the facts are on my side. I will take responsibility for what ever part I played in getting blocked, but it didn't have to happen. Roscelese is clearly a partisan, and hostile editor.


 * Can you tell me if Roscelese is acting in good faith? Did you read this from the AGF link you left me?


 * "To be clear, at Wikipedia, "ownership behavior" — even subtle ways of acting proprietary about entries — is prohibited."


 * Or how about this? - "Deliberately adding falsities to articles, particularly to biographies of living people, with hoax information is considered vandalism."


 * That is EXACTLY what Roscelese is doing.


 * Or what about this? -
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encourage_the_newcomers


 * What I hear you telling me is discouragement; there is only so far I can go, etc.


 * With all due respect, I don't need that, and it is not what I asked for. Livingengine1 (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

February 2014
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Stop Islamization of America. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bishonen &#124; talk 05:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

So Roscelese and Livingengine1 were having a content dispute, and the result is that only one of them is blocked? The three-revert rule allows reverting "obvious vandalism", which was not the case. Rocsele reverted four times:, 2, 3 and 4. The fourth revert is just barely outside of the 24 hour span. So what's up with sniping one party out of an edit war? --Pudeo' 15:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is the fact that I did not, in fact, make four reverts. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , you did make four reverts--the list above is correct. You should have waited and employed other means besides reverting, and I think the case on ANEW should have cited more explicitly that beyond simple content removal this was vandalism of a sort: intentional disruption of an article to further a political point. (That is, I accept that this removal of verified content is unwarranted, and POV-driven, as indicated also by the POV tag). Whether the IP6 edit was Livingengine's or not is not so material to me--what matters is the edit warring and the lack of any kind of solid argument made on the talk page. Thus, I find that the block is warranted, even though I don't completely agree with Roscelese's argument. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The list is correct, but the user was reported and blocked before the fourth one, so the hand-wringing about how Livingengine got punished and I didn't for doing the same thing is misplaced. I'll keep in mind your advice to more explicitly describe the user's disruption if they continue to edit-war. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think not all those four diffs are reverts, Roscelese, you'd better explain why, because they look like reverts to me. Indeed the fourth hadn't yet been made at the time I blocked Livingengine, since you made it seven hours later. But now that I see that revert, I would say you're edit warring on the article too, and I've just placed a warning on your page. That said, Pudeo's description of your fourth revert as "just barely outside of the 24 hour span" (actually 10 hours outside it) is pretty idiosyncratic. You haven't breached 3RR. But please don't edit war.


 * @Livingengine: you're pushing a POV on the article without regard for reliable sources. That's not why I blocked you, but it's disruptive in itself, and if you pursue it, it will become a blocking matter pretty soon. Adding: Drmies, it's pretty obvious the IP is Livingengine logged out. Going by the edit summary, I don't even think they were trying to hide it, but got logged out accidentally. (I keep getting logged out on this site.) Bishonen &#124; talk 18:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Bishonen, I don't really doubt the IP note (though I never get logged out!), but it's not material to me because the bright line of 3R isn't as important to me in these situations as the context of the edits and their intent, in as much as it can be discerned--for me, all edit-warring cases are in principle complicated and I try to take my time judging them. This one is not all that complicated, in the end, and I fully endorse the block and the warning to Roscelese, who should have known better. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But actually Livingengine1 didn't break 3RR either, his last edit is 1 hour after the 24-hour span (in this case barely outside then!) and besides his first edit of the war wasn't a revert. However, he definitely was edit-warring. I don't think his reverts were vandalism, although his version removed one citation and left the last sentence without any, so that was worse in his revision - but it wasn't without any ground because the sentence used different wording than the ref ("wrote that he inspired him" vs "was inspired by"), and indeed there can be some BLP issues with such contoversial things if you want to make that point, but it's hard to say where to draw the line and I'm not going into that. Using the talk page more should have indeed been Livingengine1's responsibility, but Roscelese didn't really respond there either, so I just don't like how it looks a bit too one-sided. --Pudeo' 18:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Pudeo, this wasn't two editors at their best behavior, but one behaved worse than the other, IMO. Thank you, though, for bringing it to attention and for breaking a lance for Livingengine. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Livingengine, I'm not going to review your block. An uninvolved admin—somebody not me—will review this request for unblock. If I were you, I'd rewrite the request right away, because it has a pretty poor chance as long as it addresses the wrong person about the wrong thing. See how it says in all the templates above that you can appeal the block but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first ? You'd do yourself a favour if you did that.

Secondly, please log in. You can edit this page from your account while you're blocked, though not any other page.

As you ask me questions, though, I'll reply.
 * My understanding is that I am being blocked for deleting the statement that implied Geller inspired Breivik to kill.


 * Your understanding is mistaken. You were blocked for deleting that sentence over and over. Edit warring.


 * Roscelese has now modified the statement.


 * Also mistaken. Pudeo modified it. Read the article history.

To avoid being blocked for disruption in the future, don't re-add contested edits to the article, or repeat contested removals, without making a case for your action on the talkpage and getting consensus for it. Don't re-add the NPOV tag without making an actionable complaint. You say: "Numerous editors have remarked on the lack of neutrality of this Wikipedia article. The tag is most apt, and will remain until the partisan editors fix this problem." That's not an actionable complaint, it's mere handwaving, and worse, it sounds as if you threaten to keep the tag there with brute force (=edit warring) no matter how many editors remove it. "It will remain". It's not a good idea to speak in such a big voice. See also Drmies' recent post in the "Tagged for Violation of Wikipedia Policy regarding NPOV" section on the talkpage.

Again, don't address my warning about POV-pushing in an unblock request, they're not connected. I stated that disruptive POV-pushing was not the reason I blocked; edit warring was. Don't use the unblock request template to discuss other things. Try to write a relevant request — one that addresses the reason for the block — because you're simply wasting the time of those uninvolved admins by calling them to this page to see you argue about something else. If you keep doing it, your access to editing this page will be removed. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen - My block is unjustified. WP states
 * "Remove IMMEDIATELY [my emphasis] any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material

Roscelese's statement about Geller inspiring Breivik is libel, and should be except from the 3RR rule.

You have yet to explain to me how I am "POV-pushing", and I don't think that you can.

That fact that someone other than Roscelese put the statement about Breivik, and Geller in a voice other than Wikipedia's doesn't not answer the question "Why didn't SHE make this adjustment before having me blocked?" Why was there no warning before the blockage? No attempt was made reach consensus.

To say that I am "POV pushing " in the context of the SIOA Wikipedia is outrageous. The entire article is in violation of WP:NPOV. I don't think you have even read this article, and you have yet to justify your action against me.

We now have the opinion of Hidi Brerich, (and that is all it is, an opinion), without any counter-point, ballast, or response to criticism. How is this not a violation of NPOV? Also, the lede which claims SIOA is an Islamophobic organization is simply a collection of people's opinions put in the voice of Wikipedia.

I am not going to put this is a small voice for you - you can not justify your action against me in terms of Wikipedia policy. Your decision to block me is precipitous, unwarranted, and unprofessional. Please feel free to respond. Livingengine1 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Roscelese is an extremely screamy and extremely dishonest user. Not only she was edit warring, but she was violating BLP in the process. This block is as bad as it gets, and should have never been imposed. 76.126.140.135 (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Livingengine, may I ask if the IP above is yours? Did you post that? If you find you have accidentally posted from an IP, it's a good idea to make a note underneath it, explaining that it was you logged out. You should avoid the appearance of being two different users if the posts are really both from you, as explained in WP:SOCK. Bishonen &#124; talk 01:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Bishonen - you need to stop accusing people of things they didn't do. I am Livingengine1, and no other. Furthermore, I am demanding that you explain your assertion that I am "POV pushing", and that you are going to act against me on this basis. I want you to explain yourself here. May I remind you, that your actions and statements at WP are being recorded for anyone with an Internet connection to read. If you continue to abuse WP, people are going to take notice, and that is not my fault. I am not this person. I have given you no reason to suspect that I am, and it is further evidence of your unprofessional conduct at Wikipedia. So, where do we stand with your false accusation, and threat regarding "POV pushing"? I want an answer to this. Livingengine1 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , I don't think that IP is Livingengine - it's probably Mbz1. If any socks are Livingengine's, it's the ones that were vandalizing a bunch of pages over the SIOA issue while Livingengine was blocked. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not engaging in sockpuppetry. You have no call to say this. People who are making edits at WP SIOA are just honest people who don't like your lies. This is not my fault. Livingengine1 (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "I have watched, for the better part of a year, a number of decent human beings including, but not limited to, Pamela Geller, Paul Belien, Diana West, the Baron and Dymphna from the Gates of Vienna blog and many others". Page 431. I'm sure you know what her response was: "Breivik was targeting the future leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims who refuse to assimilate, who commit major violence against Norwegian natives, including violent gang rapes, with impunity, and who live on the dole". Drmies (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice try, Drmies. Let me know if you find Breivik saying anything like this about Geller "The Muslims showed us that deadly shock attacks are the only tool we have at the moment which will guarantee that our voice is heard." - page 1352 of Breivik's Manifesto


 * Or, let me know if you find Breivik confessing from his jail cell that Geller inspired him to kill, because as it is right now, he has confessed to being a Nazi, and his atrocities were designed to discredit the counter jihad movement.

" He says that he sent a manifesto "counterjihadistisk" rhetoric to protect the "ethno-nationalist" and instead launch a media drive against anti-nationalist counter-jihad supporter. He calls this strategy of "dual psychology". " - http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fexpo.se%2F2014%2Fbreivik-vill-deportera-illojala-judar_6336.html


 * You might also take a look at this thing called Wikipedia, you may have heard of it. In the Wikipedia entry devoted to Breivik, you will see he was thinking of killing back in 2002. Geller didn't start blogging until 2004. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik#Planning_attacks


 * To imply that Geller inspired Breivik to kill is to engage in libel, and should be removed immediately without regard to the 3RR rule. That's what I did, and I was disciplined for following Wikipedia policy, and violating the personal politics of rogue Wikipedia editors. Livingengine1 (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's libel, maybe you should bring me up on some charge or other on the appropriate noticeboard. I suggest you try your luck at WP:ANI, but you might want to duck on your way out. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am telling you plainly that you can not support the assertion that Breivik was inspired by Geller to kill. I think you are beginning to see that you don't have a case for this. Why is it necessary to go to ANI? Why don't you defend your position here, with me? Do you have a case for saying Geller inspired Breivik to kill, or not? If not, then it doesn't belong, and is libel. Are you trying to get me banned from Wikipedia, Drmies? Livingengine1 (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Drmies, what do you mean by saying I might "want to duck" on my way out? Is that a threat? Why are you and Bishonen threatening me? Show me where I am wrong. Show me where Breivik said he was inspired by Geller to kill. I tell you what, I will even accept Breivik IMPLYING that Geller inspired him to kill. You just don't have a case, you don't like being shown up, and now you are going to engage in threats, and personal attacks. If you can not support the claim about Geller, and Breivik, and are instead going to engage in threats, and personal attacks then I will take this to the larger Wikipedia community. I have no interest in bringing anyone up on "charges". I am not playing games. Livingengine1 (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here I will help you. Do not read the entire Breivik Manifesto, which consists mostly of cut, and pasting of other people's writing. Instead, go to the ending, and work backwards. Here you will find Brievik's own writing where he discusses his experiences in Norway, his encounters with Muslims, his personal philosophy, and his plans to kill. Look here to find any mention of him being inspired by Geller to do anything. I have already done this, and I have not found Breivik saying anything about Geller inspiring him. Maybe you will find such a statement. That would be a contribution, but I am telling you - stop making threats against me, Drmies.Livingengine1 (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already spent too much time on you. I'm not threatening you with anything, and saying that I am is a very wimpy thing to do, of course. (It's called playing the victim.) You're accusing me of libel, and all you can respond with, when I ask you to put your money where your mouth is, is to post a manifesto of your own. As for personal attacks, I have made none, though I will make an observation you may not like very much: you can't read very well. What's in the article came from the source. You can take issue with the source, if you like--do so at WP:RSN. What you are trying to do is make Bishonen and me, besides those other editors, responsible for a statement made in that book. It won't work. Happy days. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Drmies, what did you mean by the statement I had better "duck on the way out"? If this is not a threat, what do you mean by that? Why is it necessary to go to the ANI? Is this an attempt to ambush me? Is this your idea of working toward consensus?


 * What are you trying to say here -"What's in the article came from the source." The deletions I made were libelous statements made in the voice of Wikipedia. If you are now referring to similar statements that are now attributed to Heidi B, or some such, I am not objecting to that. What I am saying is why is there is no "response to criticism" section in this article. According to Roscelese, this would give "undue prominence" . Is this your position as well?


 * Again I have to insist that you explain why I should have to "duck" . If this is not a threat, than what is it? What is with all the name calling? I am not writing a manifesto, I am showing you where you are wrong. Where is your response other than name calling, and threats? I am not going away. Livingengine1 (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Geller inspiring Breivik
It seem the crux of this snit between Livingengine1 and Roscelese is whether Pamela Geller inspired Anders Behring Breivik to commit the 2011 Norway attacks. One needs to keep in mind that Breivik quoted a laundry list of people for inspiration. Given that Breivik is most certainly insane, it is very not legitimate to single out her and Robert Spencer. This is akin to stating that John Hinkley, Jr. is Jodie Foster's boyfriend. -- Frotz(talk) 03:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The first part of what you're saying could be acceptable, if presented a bit more fully on the article talk page. What you need to do (and I don't know if you can) is to make the argument that a proper application of WP:UNDUE is relevant here. You'll need a good grasp of that policy if you want to make that argument, and you cannot do so if you're simultaneously arguing that the writer of that essay is a partisan hack, etc. etc. Because the book was published by a reputable press, and that counts for a lot; trying to discredit the book just makes you look like you don't know what books are, but an argument from UNDUE, that one element out of a longer list is singled out, that could be valid. However, if you make that analogy, about Hinkley, you'll be laughed off that talk page, and correctly so. It's a stupid analogy and makes no sense at all. What you and Livingengine need to understand is that 'X inspired Y' doesn't mean that 'X meant to inspire Y and acted in such a way'. There need be no intent on Geller's part to make that person do those things for her to be an inspiration nonetheless. If you don't see how that makes your analogy invalid I think we're done--there is no way in which Foster could have been Hinkley's boyfriend. To put it another way, if you really can't see why that analogy is ludicrous and makes you look terrible, then I don't give you much chance of changing that part of the article. The sooner you two stop being such Geller apologists you'll stand a much better chance of getting an argument accepted, or at least of being taken seriously. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Drmies - This is the second time I am having to warn you about your choice of language on talk pages. This is the second time you have used the characterization "stupid". Stop doing this. You are in violation of WP concerning conduct on talk pages, and I do not want to have to tell you this again.


 * When you say that we " . . . need to understand is that 'X inspired Y' doesn't mean that 'X meant to inspire Y and acted in such a way'." I have to reply by asking - where did Breivik say he was inspired by Geller?


 * What you need to understand is that for someone to say that Breivik was inspired by Geller on Wikipedia requires some kind of substantiation. If it is merely someone else s opinion being posted in a Wikipedia article, then it needs to be balanced with a response, and you know this.


 * Your decision to characterize what I am doing as being a "Geller apologists" is highly revealing of your bias, and I think grounds to ask you to recuse yourself from further involvement in this matter unless you can justify this statement.


 * I am not being a "Geller apologist". I am abiding by Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV. The Wikipedia article on Stop Islamization of America is in violation of Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV.


 * Here is some of what can be found on the page regarding Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view.


 * Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—the core policy that informs how pages are to be approached.


 * This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.


 * "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies.


 * The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus.


 * Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias.


 * Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another.


 * Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice.


 * Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.


 * Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources


 * The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.


 * Jimbo Wales qualifies NPOV as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view


 * Drmies, you need to explain what you meant by calling me a "Geller apologist". I am not going to let this pass. You need to either apologize, or defend this statement.


 * The Wikipedia page on SIOA is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV.


 * Take a look here -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stop_Islamization_of_America#The_Case_for_Tagging_this_Article_as_Being_in_Violation_of_NPOV


 * In particular, I would like your response to citation number 2 in the lede which calls Spencer/Geller "racists". Is it also your position that Spencer/Geller are "racist"?


 * Also, please explain the numerous citations in the lede that do not characterize SIOA as Islamophobic, and in one case do not even mention SIOA, or Pamela Geller, at all.


 * Watch your language, please.Livingengine1 (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * How do you account for the fact that Breivik started his insane writing two years before Geller started her blogging? -- Frotz(talk) 22:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. No one is saying that she was a first or only inspiration. I suppose I'm playing devil's advocate for both sides here. He mentions her, and for your opponents that's what matters. "The better part of a year"--that's not nothing. When exactly he started is not to the point. And don't make me account for the fact: it's the source that says it, not me. It has nothing to do with me or with other editors. I'm giving you the tools to make an argument, but you are asking the wrong questions, focusing on the wrong thing. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Drmies - Please show us where Breivik said he was inspired by Geller. Livingengine1 (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Livingengine, it's not a personal attack or something like that to call a stupid remark stupid. Look it up. This is really enlightening, you know. I am trying to teach the two of you how to achieve what you claim you want to achieve: to have that one mention removed from that one article--you wanted it so badly that you got yourself blocked over it. So, here I am, giving you some friendly advice on how to achieve it, and you a. insult me and b. ask me to explain some citations in some lead that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You're welcome! Thanks, by the way, for the lesson in what Wikipedia is. I'm surprised I endured here so long without knowing any of the wisdom you just shared. Well, I tried. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip, and I suppose I can't squeeze a decent Wikipedia edit out of you, but I can die knowing that I tried. Happy days! Drmies (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Drmies, you have not explained why you called me a "Geller apologist". You have not provided a single example of Breivik saying he was inspired by Geller. You have in previous posts called me a whimp, a victim, and stupid, and now we have the "Geller apologist" business. Why did you call me a "Geller apologist"? I want an explanation, because I think your bias is showing.Livingengine1 (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Beirich didn't make her case, but . ..
Livingengine1, I agree with you that we shouldn't be citing Heidi Beirich to say Geller inspired Breivik—because Beirich gave no supporting evidence for her claim. If she was thinking of Breivik's manifesto, Pamela Geller is only mentioned once there, and only as a victim of the Little Green Footballs blog. Breivik, however, does mention Geller as an "ideological role model" in a statement he made to the court on 2012-06-04: https://sites.google.com/site/breivikreport/documents/anders-breivik-court-statement-2012-06-04: ""It is very important to emphasize the distinction between ideological and methodological role models. The ideological role models do not support violence, but they describe the ideology very thoroughly. But when it comes to methodological role models you have Al Qaeda.

When it comes to ideological role models Robert Spencer describes problems in a good way. The same for Fjordman. They describe Europe's problems even if they do not support violence. Bat Yeor also describes very well. Pamela Geller supports the efforts against the Islamization of the U.S. but she is Jewish herself so she does not support the European Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Bruce Bawer describes the censorship and sums up Europe's problems. Andrew Bostom is good at some issues." (court statement 2012-06-04)."

Since Breivik is discussing role models and mentions Spencer, Fjordman, Bat Yeor and Geller in this context, couldn't one conclude that these "role models" inspired him? --71.178.50.222 (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure. Breivik was also inspired by John F Kennedy, Lau Tsu, and many, many other people. But, especially in the context of a hostile Wikipedia article it needs to be made clear, that Pamela Geller did not inspire him to kill. This is something that the partisan editors are determined to stigmatize Geller with. Livingengine1 (talk)


 * I agree with you that the partisans on that article are trying to smear Geller, Spencer and anyone who's not thrilled about being blown away by a jihadi or seeing Sharia law gain a foothold in the US. What I'm trying to point out is that, in the passage I quoted, Breivik says all his ideological role models do not support violence and that his model for violence, which he calls a "methodological role model", is Al Qaeda.  The notion that Spencer and Geller "inspired Breivik to kill" is refuted by Breivik himself.  But, the partisans at the article aren't interested in a NPOV (let alone the truth), only in seeing their own POV over-represented.  --71.178.50.222 (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have to tell you, you are doing good work keep it up. I have yet to see the partisans address the fact that Breivik was thinking of killing before Geller started blogging. Where does Pamela Geller talk about killing? Wikipedia has been sued before if I am not mistaken, I can see why. This is out, and out libel, and they even have a written policy about libel. This is what gives Wikipedia a bad name.Livingengine1 (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014: tendentious editing
You are disrupting Stop Islamization of America and currently appear to be here solely for the purpose of pushing anti-Islam material into it. I notice you pursued a similar agenda more baldly on Council on American–Islamic Relations and Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development a fews months ago. On Stop Islamization of America, I see you mine reliable sources for nuggets that can promote an anti-Islam agenda when used without taking account of the wider context in which these nuggets occur in the sources, such as here. The way you recently plucked a few words from the New York Times and inserted them in a different context in our article, here, is an example of gaming the system, and I consider it the last straw. See Tendentious editing. I see no collaborative editing from you, either on Stop Islamization of America or its talkpage. Please demonstrate that you're here to help create an encyclopedia, and not merely to skew articles to be as anti-Islam as possible, or I will block you. By "demonstrate", I mean demonstrate in practical editing and talkpage discussion, not merely by assuring me that I've got you wrong and that you're all about Neutral point of view. Show, don't tell. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Note: I'm moving your response from my page to here, where it's easier to follow. I'll reply below it.


 * Hello, Bishonen - I have collected a number of your statements, and have included my responses in italics.


 * Bishonen -you appear to be here solely for the purpose of pushing anti-Islam material into it.
 * Please show me where I am pushing "anti-Islam material"


 * Bishonen - I notice you pursued a similar agenda more baldly on Council on American–Islamic Relations and Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development a fews months ago
 * can you please provide me with the examples of this? Particularly how it is "anti-Islam"?


 * Bishonen -you mine reliable sources for nuggets that can promote an anti-Islam agenda when used without taking account of the wider context in which these nuggets occur in the sources.
 * The example Bishonen gives is: "Breivik has since confessed to being a Nazi, and that his atrocity was designed to discredit the "counter jihad movement". How is this "anti-Islam"? This is the second time you have accused me of being "anti-Islam"


 * Bishonen- Please demonstrate that you're here to help create an encyclopedia, and not merely to skew articles to be as anti-Islam as possible
 * please show how I am "anti-Islam". You have repeatedly made this claim without any substantiation. This is the third time.


 * Bishonen- The way you recently plucked a few words from the New York Times and inserted them in a different context in our article, here, is an example of gaming the system, and I consider it the last straw.
 * please show how this is gaming the system, or how I am altering the meaning of what was said, misleading the reader, or taking it out of context.


 * Bishonen - I see no collaborative editing from you
 * I have made edits that have been agreed to by other editors. The SIOA page is clearly biased, and I am discussing it on the talk page. I am not trying to get anyone blocked, or censored, or any of the things I have had to put up with. I am discussing the many problems with the SIOA article, in particular its violation of WP:NPOV, in a clear, cogent fashion. There is no reason to threaten me, or accuse me of anything here, but you ARE invited to try, and refute what I am saying, without the threats.


 * Bishonen- The source by no means says that Breivik has confessed anything — that's your own addition.
 * It appears your objection is to the word "confessed". If this is the case, I am perfectly willing to modify it. It is not clear to me what it is that you think Breivik is saying in the Expo piece. Here is what Expo reported -


 * " He says that he sent a manifesto "counterjihadistisk" rhetoric to protect the "ethno-nationalist" and instead launch a media drive against anti-nationalist counter-jihad supporter."
 * http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fexpo.se%2F2014%2Fbreivik-vill-deportera-illojala-judar_6336.html
 * To my reading, this says Breivik used counter jihad rhetoric in his manifesto to turn the media against the counter jihad movement to protect his Nazi friends. I think confession is a good description, but if someone wants to change it to "admitted", or what have you, this can be discussed on the talk page without threatening people, accusing them of being "anti-Islam", or having them blocked.


 * Expo goes on to report Breivik's Nazi sympathies -


 * " Anders Behring Breivik claims he seeks a "pure Nordic ideals." He argues that the "Nordic race" is being eradicated and want to form a Nazi party in Norway like the Swedes party "


 * " Breivik also identifies himself as part of the "Western Europe's fascist movement." ".


 * Bishonen -Expo does not adopt Breivik's claims and relay them in the magazine's voice. But you want Wikipedia to do that? To speak uncritically in Breivik's voice and pass on his supposed confession, unmediated? You're referring to a reliable source, the magazine Expo, but you're abusing it.


 * What is it you think Breivik is saying, and how am I abusing anything?
 * I do not know what you mean by this, how it constitutes "abuse" of anything, or is evidence of being "anti-Islam".


 * Unless you have an alternative reading, I think it is obvious that Breivik said he did what he did to discredit the counter jihad movement (which would include Pamela Geller), and protect the Nazi movement. This is compelling evidence that contradicts Heidi Breirich's unsubstantiated claims. 


 * On reflection, I agree with those editors who told me this page is not about Breivik. I think that is proper. That is why I am arguing that Heidi Breirich's claim about Geller/Spencer/SIOA were inspirations, or primary sources should be left out. 


 * Bishonen - I don't see you actually quoting Breivik's manifesto anywhere, maybe you're going by what you've seen somebody else say about it, I have no way of knowing — shrug.


 * I have given examples, quotes from Breivik on the SIOA talk page. Here is one example - "The Muslims showed us that deadly shock attacks are the only tool we have at the moment which will guarantee that our voice is heard." - Anders Breivik manifesto page 1352. Here is another, from Wikipedia -" Breivik claims that in 2002 (at the age of 23) he started a nine-year-plan to finance the 2011 attacks, founding his own computer programming business while working at the customer service company. " -Wikipedia
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_breivik#Planning_attacks


 * Geller did not start blogging until 2004.


 * And, I have more.


 * So including Expo, Wikipedia, and Breivik's manifesto, and other statements by him I have shown at least three compelling pieces of evidence that contradict Heidi Breirich's unsubstantiated claim.


 * Please just try to grasp my main point: you yourself are not a reliable source, and your readings of primary sources such as Breivik's manifesto do not trump Heidi Beirich's.


 * I am not asking you to take my word for it. I am relying on sources such as Wikipedia, Expo, and Breivik's Manifesto, and other statements. I still have yet to see you, or anyone account for Heidi Breirich not substantiating her claims with even a single quote from Breivik in her entire book.


 * Bishonen - if you're going to attack people (in this case, me and User:Drmies) on a stranger's talkpage, it's considered the decent thing to alert those people, either by linking their usernames to invoke an Echo notification (you can see how I link Roscelese above, to make sure she doesn't miss my request for whisky), or by a little FYI note on their pages. Please consider it.
 * I will do that. However, I am being harassed, accused of things I am not doing, and being threatened. Here is what Wikipedia says about accusations of "gaming the system", and POV pushing -


 * "Use of the term "gaming the system" should be done with caution, as it is inherently an accusation of bad faith editing. Although users might engage in the practices described above, that activity should not be considered proof of malicious intent."
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GAME


 * "Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them."
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#POV_pushing]


 * So, in conclusion Bishonen, I do not find your arguments to be convincing, or even clear. Maybe you would like to join me on one of the Wikipedia bulletin boards where you can try to convince an audience that I am being "anti-Islam", or deserve any of the threats, and accusations I am getting from you.


 * I look forward to your response.Livingengine1 (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply. I refer you to what What is a troll? says about large numbers of stupid questions, and questions the asker already knows the answer to: "Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers. Of course, sometimes what is obvious to one person is obscure to another. If a user seems to be asking stupid questions, try to give them the resources to help themselves. You can also send them to the help desk. If they persist, politely explain that you would love to help but you are rather busy. I tried giving you the resources to help yourself here, on my page, where I explained several questions that you had asked then (and are now asking again, god help me). The time has come for "I would love to help but I am rather busy". Feel free to take your grievance to any board you think appropriate. There's WP:ANI and there's WP:BLPN, depending where the focus of your dissatisfaction lies. I can't promise to be there, as I'm pretty talked out, but you'll get other eyes and neutral editors evaluating your case. Since you've been blocked, I guess it's moot for now, but I hope you manage to appeal in a way that deserves an unblock, and then you'll be able to pursue the cause you outline above. I don't advise it, mind you, I think you'd be wasting your time and making yourself look bad, but it's an option. Bishonen &#124; talk 08:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Here we have an admin accusing me of things I have not done such a POV-pushing, and threatening to act against me on this basis, and when I ask for clarification I am called a troll.Livingengine1 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

February 2014 - Strike 3
You should be careful not to be rude to editors who have lots of talk page watchers. One of them, like me, might notice what you are doing and become curious, and inspect your edit history, as I have done. It is very clear that your entire single purpose history of editing Wikipedia is to push your point of view, to edit war, and to insult other editors. This is not the way to do it. If you can identify articles you would like to improve and how you would improve them, your block might be lifted. Otherwise, you are not going to be allowed to continue past activities, which have been almost entirely harmful to the project. Good evening. Jehochman Talk 02:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, I want to protest this, in my opinion, arbitrary, and capricious block. We were having a discussion on the Wikipedia page. There was a discussion. There is no reason for this block. I have never received an explanation for how I am being anti-Islam, POV pushing, gaming the system, or engaging in tendentious editing. All of this seems like a pretext for silencing me because I am pointing out obvious NPOV violations at SIOA Wikipedia page.Livingengine1 (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please re-read your talk page history and then tell me how you would improve Wikipedia's articles. Please address how you would deal with editors who might disagree with your edits. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 04:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It's surely better that an uninvolved admin also evaluates the block and the reasons you give for requesting unblock, Livingengine — not only the blocking admin. The code of the unblock template you used higher up on this page will call an uninvolved admin here; that's the advantage of using the template. Appeal the block by adding the following text below:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You really should read it, seriously, and take it to heart. The unblock requests you posted after your edit warring block higher up on the page never had a chance, and an indefinite block is far more serious, obviously. Your request needs to convince the reviewing admin that you're capable of and willing to edit constructively, and that you understand what constructive editing entails. Bishonen &#124; talk 08:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC).

Jason from NYC
Jason from nyc Thank you for what you are doing on the SIOA Wikipedia talk page. Using Wikipedia to stigmatize Pamela Geller, and SIOA with the actions of Breivik is a serious violation of Wikipedia policies, and is an insult to the readership.

Confronting the clique at SIOA Wikipedia with Heidi Breirich's weasel words is of paramount importance, and you are doing a brilliant job.

However, as you may well already know, this is not the only problem the SIOA Wikipedia. As has been pointed before me by Wikipedia editor Federales, none of the newspaper, or web sources call SIOA "Islamophobic". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stop_Islamization_of_America#.22Islamophobic.22.3F_According_to_who.3F

When the word is used at all, it is attributed directly to CAIR, in one case. http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/2010/09/09/Muslim-center-here-copes-with-increased-Islam-bashing/stories/201009090394

In the second case, it is mentioned thusly -

"In the Bay Area, more than 125 religious leaders of various faiths signed a statement in July denouncing the ads as "Islamophobic" and saying they "promote fear of Muslim Americans."" http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0728/Anti-Islamic-bus-ads-appear-in-major-cities/%28page%29/2

There are no links or further references provided.

If this is all that comes up from four different citations supposedly supporting the claim SIOA is Islamophic, that is pretty weak.

Then there is the inclusion of Deepa Kumar as a citation in the lede. This person is not a reliable source. Deepa Kumar is a crackpot Marxist with academic expertise.

Here she is claiming the Islamophobes receive 50 billion dollars in funding. @ 8:20 This isn't just a mistake. It is repeated back to her, and she acknowledges it.

@3:21 Loonwatch is featured.

@11:01 she tells us that she held an event far larger than Pamela's 35k 2010 911 observance, and that she forced Pamela out of the city.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10698

Here is an appearance of Deepa Kumar on RT where she throws around the figure of trillions of dollars.@3:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMnDf75aHns

Her sloppiness continues here, where the video has been edited twice to, I am assuming, omit some of her other misstatements, such as when the moderator has to interrupt her when she confuses Michele Obama with Michele Bachman. @33:55

@1:04:30 She indicates a desire to work with CAIR, and admiration for Tariq Ramadan. @48:59 she says the same thing that happened to the Japanese interned during WW2 has happened to the Muslims.

@1:08:00 she is asked about the Material Support law. Instead of talking about this, Deepa Kumar begins talking about COINTELPRO @1:16:00. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbEMS4-h1U0

Notice how everything Deepa doesn't like is "racism". This is not a reliable sourceLivingengine1 (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for unblock
Reason for Blocking

Editing from Livingengine1 has been blocked (disabled) by Jehochman for the following reason(s): Disruptive editing: Edit warring, incivility, tendentious editing here

Edit Warring
the reverts -

1.Islamophobia in the lede. here

2.removed citation that contained erroneous material, Breivik inspired by Geller. There is no evidence to support this assertion by Heidi Beirich, and is in violation of WP;NPOV, and WP;BLP. here

3.(implying that Geller inspired Breivik to kill is not supported by anything in the world, and is violation of WP:BLP, and will be deleted.) here

4.implying that Geller inspired Breivik to kill is a violation of WP:BLP and was deleted. here

My reverts were made in accord with my understanding of WP:LIBEL, which states -

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 here

Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. here

This policy was also explained to me by WP admin Zad68, who said - "Livingengine1, there is an exception to the edit-warring rules that the editor who removes BLP violations can do that without worrying about edit-warring." /wiki/User_talk:Livingengine1#Discuss.2C_don.27t_repeat_the_problematic_claims_about_people.2C_don.27t_edit_war here

I stated this in my edit descriptions, but the WP policy regarding libel was never addressed in the decision to block me. I do not feel the need to do this again. I have made my point.

Tendentious editing
Is it "tendentious editing", or is it attempting to bring balance to a very biased WP page?

I do not agree that my edits have been disruptive. It is my opinion, that since my participation, the Wikipedia page for SIOA is a better article today. There is more interest in the page now, it is more accurate, balanced, and a very interesting discussion is happening on the talk page which is challenging the POV that has dominated this article.

Specific examples of my "POV pushing", or "tendentious editing", are-

Breivik, and Expo The admin's concerns here seem to be more about general editing than with violations of Wikipedia policy. I am not even asking for what she claims. I don't want Breivik included in the article. This is not an example of pushing an "anti-Islam agenda". argued here, and here

Heidi Breirich The claim that Geller had something to do with Breivik's atrocity is libel, and is supported by nothing, and ignores numerous, compelling, reliable secondary sources such as the Guardian, The Telegraph, the Associated Press, and Stieg Larson's Expo, that all contradict what Breirich says see here. This is just one example of violation of WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE on the Wikipedia page for SIOA. argued here, and here

gaming the system This edit was "the last straw", and an example "pushing anti-Islam material". Again, this is an editorial matter, and not a violation of Wikipedia policy. see here

pushing anti-Islam material I have been accused of this three, or more times. There is absolutely no truth to this, and is further evidence of acting in bad faith, and of the proprietary interest that some editors have taken in this article. see "The way you recently plucked a few words from the New York Times and inserted them in a different context in our article" here

The Wikipedia page for SIOA is out of step with both the WP pages for Anders Breivik, and Pamela Geller neither of which state that Geller was a source of inspiration for Breivik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCE6:B440:2598:24FE:EC3F:2524 (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Incivility
I will accept responsibility for whatever excesses I may have committed, but I invite the reviewer to search from the following list on my talk page, and else where.

pursued a similar agenda here

pushing a POV here, "Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil" here

a lawn sprinkler here

gaming the system here, This is uncivil behavior see here

skew articles to be as anti-Islam as possible here

a troll here

stupid here

or this from another editor -

"you might want to duck on your way out." here

wimpy here

victim here

stupid here

Geller apologists here

a brick wall here

a broken clock here

Your ongoing jihad here

or this from yet another editor -

"Remove duplicative citation to Geller's blog about editorial. She's not reliable for anything, is she?" here

"except for one quote from Geller, which ought to go in the lead just because I suppose she ought to have one (sourceable) thing to say about her group, despite its implausibility and contradiction to all RS" here

Conclusion
My blocking is the result of an editorial dispute over NPOV, and is unwarranted. I have made significant improvements to this Wikipedia article. In particular, the version which had the statement "Geller inspired Breivik", has been significantly qualified after I was blocked for edit warring.before, and current

Finally, the editor who was arguing against omitting the Heidi Beirich statement connecting Breivik to Geller here, has now adopted my argument here "The details are fuzzy now, but I believe I only kept putting more and more in there to satisfy a now-blocked user who wanted to quote Breivik's court testimony as a rebuttal. It's actually possible we started out with no quote at all, which is fine with me." .

And, with that I rest my case.

@ D P "I have read, re-read, and re-read the wall-o-text above."

Please clam down. There is no reason to type in capital letters, or repeat yourself over, and over. At this point, I do not know whether, you are referring to my unblock request, or what is on my talk page. If you have read my talk page, you will see there are no real examples of my incivility, POV pushing, anti-Islam agenda, gaming the system or even tendentious editing which were cited as reasons for my blocking. This is not a trivial detail.

As far as the edit warring goes, I am not arguing anything in my unblock request, I am explaining why I did what I did. If I had it to do over again, I would take it to one of the bulletin boards because I had reached an impasse on the article's talk page.

"You're arguing above that your interpretation of a policy is sacrosanct"

I never do this. I am simply explaining why I did what I did. And, in regards to edit warring, I say I am not going to do this again. I just can not agree with your interpretation of what I am saying here.

"it's how you ACT when challenged that's the problem (and it's a GIGANTIC problem)."

It would be more helpful if DP spoke to specific examples of what he/she means. I still do not know what the gigantic" problem" is. To say someone has a "gigantic" problem, and then not say what the problem is, is rude. What is the action of mine that was so terrible?

"attacks or other uncivil behaviour. "

Where are the examples of my uncivil behavior? Where has any one warned, or even complained of my incivility? There was plenty of incivility on the page, but it wasn't coming from me.

"you're continuing to claim that you were right, when quite clearly you're not"

What I am doing is simply stating facts. This was an unnecessary blocking. When you say that quite clearly I am not right, I have to ask what are you referring to? The Edit Warring? Pushing a POV? Pushing an anti-Islam agenda? Incivility? I am really confused by what you are saying here.

"you've clearly NEVER read WP:GAB or WP:AAB." You are wrong about that. I have read them, perhaps not well enough, but without talking specifically about these pages, and how they relate to my request, I really do not know what to say in response to you about this.

"similar unblock requests that fail to address YOUR behaviour may lead to removal of access to this talkpage"

I did address my behavior in my unblock request. I did not talk about anyone else in my unblock request. I did not try to convince you that I am "right" in my block request. I addressed the edit warring explaining why I did what I did. The statement I took down was libelous. The Wikipedia policy I cited is what it is. Whether what I did was proper application of policy, or whether there is a better way, is something I left up for others to decide.

My user page is my own, and I can put up what I want there. If it isn't helpful to you, I think I need a different admin to review my case. The capitals, the repeating yourself, over, and over is uncalled for, unwanted, uncivil, and I would like you to stop doing it.Livingengine1 (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Second Request for Unblock
Brown HairedGirl (talk)"An unblock request is not about content or your policy interpretation, it's about your behaviour and how you'll resolve such disputes in the future " Are we talking about what was said at the admin's page? If so, what specifically was said by me? I do not understand why Wikipedia editors have to be so cryptic, but I do thank you for not getting emotional, and typing in caps, telling me I have a "gigantic problem" without saying what is meant by that, etc.. Livingengine1 (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Brown HairedGirl Can you help me out by telling me what behavior we talking about here? I could really use some help with this question. Livingengine1 (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Anthony Bradbury"talk"
Anthony, I have two eyes, and can read. I have not engaged in tendentious, or disruptive editing, and to say that is a complete reversal of fact. I am never going to admit to this because it isn't true, and anyone who can read can see that it isn't true.

I did draw the ire of the politically motivated editors at the SIOA Wikipedia who have decided to form a consensus in violation of Wikipedia policies regarding BLP, and NPOV. Again, this is in the record, and glaringly obvious.

This is a punitive block done to impress someone's girlfriend.

This is your club, and you can run it any way you like, even in defiance of Wikipedia policies, and guidelines, if you like. Many people have invested much more in Wikipedia than I ever will. You have every right to be protective of it. However, you do not have the right to insist I make a false confession. There is NO evidence that I am a threat to the encyclopedia. Any mistakes I have made have been honest mistakes, and not a systematic, willful circumvention of Wikipedia policy such as that that is going on at the SIOA Wikipedia article.

I have no illusions here; I am being given the "treatment". Many people, better men than I, have been chased from Wikipedia, and that may happen to me, but I am not going to apologize for being threatened, and verbally abused by Wikipedia editors. I am not going to do that - ever.Livingengine1 (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that I asked for recognition and understanding, not confession or apology. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)