User talk:RevertBob

August 2018
Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Icewhiz (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating WP:1RR on Jeremy Corbyn, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Vote misplaced RfC Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party
you put "Include - They're not "just comedians" but notable public figures whose views on the subject of antisemitism have been widely covered. RevertBob (talk) 15:05" ~ under RfC.3 Expert opinions section  ~ e.g. Rich, Exclude Lipstadt and Hirsh instead of comedians. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Doh, school boy, cheers for the heads up! RevertBob (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk: Jeremy Corbin
You said: "I think this is pretty straightforward. "Internationally recognised" is obviously a POV statement which can't be presented in the Wiki voice as fact, the page title should be used which allows readers to make up their own mind."

As far as I can see, I share your view that parts of this article related to antisemitism are horribly POV. So I didn't want to contradict you! But I think that "Internationally recognised" is a question of fact, not of viewpoint. The definition can only be said to be "internationally recognised" if you adopt the perverse view that "internationally" means "by more than one country".

I don't think we should give up the fact-based argument so easily, and abandon the field to those who want to argue based on viewpoints. Arguments based on fact are stronger.

Cheers, MrDemeanour (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I mean that no, it can't be presented in the Wiki voice as fact; but rather that the claim that it is internationally recognised should be denied in Wiki voice; it is a fact that it is not internationally recognised.


 * HTH! MrDemeanour (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks but take it to the talk. RevertBob (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for getting in contact. I was in a bit of a rush this morning so I didn't have time to read your message and respond properly so sorry for being a bit short. I don't disagree with your points. I was trying arguing for the wording to be neutral. "International recognized" is a matter of opinion so I think it's better to use the name of the article and let the reader decide whether it is not from the article it directs to. RevertBob (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A bit reluctant to bother you further, since you seem to be a busy chap. So I'll be brief.
 * My point was that "internationally recognised" is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact, and it is false. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Your username
Hi RevertBob, has anyone ever discussed your username with you? Many users see reverts as disruptive actions, and we have a policy against usernames implying an intent to disrupt. I don't feel so strongly about it that I'm going to pursue it, but have you considered your username with respect to the policy, and whether it might be a good idea to change it? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Ivanvector, the word revert had many meanings and the "Revert" in my name has absolutely nothing to do with editing behaviour, regards.
 * Oh, it's just a coincidence? ——  SerialNumber  54129  09:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. RevertBob (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Pilgrim State (book) and The Lynching
Some of the content you added to the above articles appears to have been copied from elsewhere online. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some of your additions had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

March 2019
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  21:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Revert
You said you were 'sorry' to shift an ordered summary of the gravamen of three statements which contain the gist of the hullabaloo, from the historic background section and bury it down the page. Saying one is sorry explains zilch. Could you explain why that material was shifted down, at least here? Technically the dislocation of impeccable sourced relevant data must have a rationale based on some policy, and not be an expression of just personal disagreement.Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Nishidani, I don't think the content was historic to be included in the "post war" section as it was recent from 2018 so moved it to the relevent in the section where the relevent topics are discussed. RevertBob (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My view is that those three incidents are the core, the quintessence if you like, of the attack on Corbyn and his party. Something engendering such (to me wildly paranoid) claims, unheralded in Anglo-Jewish history over 360 years, with the collective endorsement of the 3 major Jewish UK newspapers and Sacks, constitutes a pivotal moment for this topic's history. It was recent, but much history is recent, and of historical importance because it was an unprecedented measure never taken in 350 years, as Sacks himself admits. Of course, you have every right to contest my reading of this. But its placing either in the lead or the historical section gives notice of a defining moment in (again to me absurd) Anglo-Jewish relations, since it is the first time that a whole Jewish Western community has, through its major newspapers and distinguished former chief rabbi, thrown its collective weight against a major national party in a Western democracy. Not something to be buried as a minor set of incidents regarding the criticisms of the working definition of antisemitism as revised. It has no intrinsic connection to that highly nparticular debate but was far more broad. Regards   Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My view is that the lead needs to summarise the whole of the article and inserting the views of a select few isn't anymore noteworthy than others. Looking at the incidents of the three Jewish British newspapers and Sacks, the coverage they got was one of many and most of last summer was around Labour adapting the non-binding working definition for their code of conduct.


 * You have an insightful perspective on the matter, it seems you know the topic beyond what many will take at face value and your contributions add a lot of value to the project. RevertBob (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bob. You may be right re the lead. I don't expect to know more than what attentive readers in Britain are familiar with. Probably much less. When I read the remarks on this of people whose novels or historical works I greatly admire -Howard Jacobson, Simon Schama,Simon Sebag Montefiore - I remain deeply perplexed, finding them lucid in everything else but utterly blind here, and the only way I  can explain this dissonance is that they must be reflecting antipathies or responding to prejudices in a metropolitan literary-intellectual hothouse or circles which are out of touch with the real world, including Israel. Something similar occurred to Christopher Hitchins. (He wasn't talking about the real world after 2001, but arguing against the opinions he and his erstwhile cronies in London embraced in the 1960s and 1970s, thinking he had learnt to be a realist but not noticing that the world had changed radically in its power relations and fantasies in the meantime) A parlous prejudice very real to them is, to many Jews of similar distinction, like Stephen Sedley, just petty, and dangerous only in its possible repercussions on the concept of equality before the law. That is the old clash, intrinsic to Judaism since Isaiah, between universal values embracing the other (typical of Jews in diaspora after the enlightenment), and ethnonationalist particularism, threatening Judaism with the creation of statehood) something that worried Arnold Toynbee back in the 1950s.
 * What I do know fairly well is the broader picture of the I/P conflict, the theories and practices associating with ethnonationalism, and associated things like persecution and paranoia. I was reminded rereading last night Umberto Eco's 'Name of the Rose' (in the Italian original- I don't trust translations) of how close, as Eco well knew, the reading of signs correctly, when analysis, intuition and empiricism conjoin, can run alongside a reading of the same traces with paranoid suspicion. These two are being invariably confounded in the British mediatic circus and are fascinating theoretically precisely for that reason, apart from being alarming for the impact the resulting tohu bohu will have on civil society. Anyway, there may be a compromise between (a) taking it from the lead, which I accept and (b) putting it back to the compromise solution of the historical section. It's only my hunch, but I think, if the sane world survives its systemic travails, future historians will write extensively on that conjuncture of three startling declarations in 2018. At the moment, in the thick flurry of sensationalism, the significance of that unprecedented 3 pronged outburst, is easily lost. Whatever, regards. Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you read a lot of books! It's good to have your independent opinion on the topic. I merely contribute by finding information around the topic from online and print sources. RevertBob (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

AE
Please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement where you have been reported.Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating 1RR and misleading edit summaries on the page Jeremy Corbyn, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Disambiguation link notification for July 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jewish Voice for Labour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Williamson ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Jewish_Voice_for_Labour check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Jewish_Voice_for_Labour?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Skawkbox as a reference
Hi, You have twice deleted a membership claim referenced to Skawkbox. On the first occasion, the edit summary was 'cites added', so not mentioning the deletion. On the second occasion, you were explicit, saying 'Needs better source'. Why do you think Skwawkbox should not be used on this occasion, given that they are sympathetic to JVL and are hardly likely to fabricate a claim by them? What Wikipedia guidance are you using to justify deleting this material?

Note that: The Skwawkbox subscribes to independent, Leveson-compliant press regulator IMPRESS. In August 2019, Newsguard gave Skwawkbox a green approval mark with a pass on all relevant criteria. (See their article for links)

Moreover, you will see that I have now added a similar claim from JVL directly, so Skwawkbox would simply be a secondary source confirmation. May I use it, please?

Thanks. Jontel (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Skwawkbox has been rejected everytime it's been attempted to be used as a secondary source on other pages. Maybe the matter should be taken to RSN so we can get a ruling for consistency? RevertBob (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. will do. Jontel (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard