User talk:Rebyid

3RR at Barack Obama, referring to him as a "practicing Muslim"
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Italiavivi 23:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as an FYI, Italiavivi reported you for 3RR violation on Barack Obama. WP:AN/3RR It's generally a good idea not to make another revert after someone puts a warning on your page. --Bobblehead 02:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the Three-revert rule. In the future, please solve editing conflicts through discussion rather than edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Heimstern Läufer 03:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

But those users work in tandem, they know the 4 revert rule so one guy does 3 and then the other guys steps in and does 1. This way nobody get's kicked off.
 * Sorry, but that's the way Wikipedia works. You have to build consensus to get anything done around here. And some friendly advice: before you get the "bright idea" of using more than one account to create the illusion of consensus, be aware that can lead to a permanent ban under the Sock puppetry policy. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I read that wikipedia believes in the communist idea of shared intellectual property. But I see that here too, communisim quickly turns to fascism. All it takes is a group of 5 or 6 wikipedians who are well versed in the rules of wikipeidia with a common POV. With dedication they can silence any opposition to what they want to say.
 * Not entirely true. There's third party mechanisms in place under the Resolving disputes process that can break such deadlocks if you believe an agenda is unfairly being pushed. --  Netsnipe  ►  12:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your accusing editors at Barack Obama of being paid Obama staffers.
I encourage you to read Assume good faith and No personal attacks. Italiavivi 17:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming something doesn't mean you shut your mind to evidence to the contrary.

Obama
Although I have not read your Obama edits carefully, I think you are trying to say that Obama is Muslim. As far as the citations that I have seen, this isn't reported. Wikipedia is about citing reliable sources so if you have citations, I might be in support of such an edit. If you don't have such citations, I would be opposed to inclusion.

No. I'm simply saying he was BORN and RAISED a Muslim according to those who knew him as a child. This is substantiated by valid sources including the L.A. Times article you will find I cite on the Obama talk page. Rebyid 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I do have to agree with your feeling that there is a concerted effort of "political spin". Unflattering information is quickly deleted. My evidence for this is that Obama has had some police support but significant opposition. One person just put "Obama got endorsed by the F.O.P." and then cited a reference. I read the reference. What the reference actually said was "Obama got a chilly reception at the IACP" and mentioned the F.O.P. only in passing. A NPOV view would be to report both. The appears to be a concerted effort to stamp out the truth and only report the F.O.P endorsement.

I have raised similar questions about Republican Mitt Romney. In that article, there doesn't seem to be a concerted effort to wipe out everything and put out only the best about him, at least not yet.

Don't worry about your block for 3RR. As long as you edit for fairness and truth, I am for it. If someone edits with unsubstantiated information, I say "produce a reliable citation for that or withdraw it".KMCtoday 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Rebyid 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)