User talk:Revrant

Welcome!

Hey,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like the site and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful (some of them may sound stupid, but I recommend you check them out):
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * [d[Help:Contents|Help pages]]
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * The Sandbox — A great place to experiment
 * WP:Village pump — A good place for help

While editing, please remember:
 * Be Bold, but not reckless in updating pages
 * No personal attacks: be upset with the contributions, not the contributor

You should introduce yourself here at the new user log. I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name, the date, and the time.

For your first edits, I suggest searching for articles that you think might interest you. You could also be audacious and try a random page.

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome and happy editing! Cbrown1023 22:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply please
Hey, reply on Indestructible's talk page. The point I just tried to make failed utterly, so I want to do it again, but I don't wanna double post, or edit my post. So just reply so I can try again. I'll even admit my last comment made me look stupid as hell. dude527 (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was confused as to what you meant, but after reading the reply I do see what you mean, but I'll reply and be as kosher as possible. Revrant (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would ask you, once again, to reply now. -- The Guy complain edits 05:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Revrant (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not getting it
You were discussion me more than the actual content dispute, which is indeed a violation of WP:NPA, therefore the template was justified. I would recommend not removing it, because it does you no harm unless you continue anyways, and they expire after a little bit. But you've got to leave it on for any future editors who might want to tag you for anything (not assuming that you will do something wrong, but just in case), then those editors could see that you had one previous offense, and act accordingly. That's the whole point of those templates. I don't care if nothing was "intended," you still violated the guideline, and you gotta face "the template." -- The Guy complain edits 01:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's just a matter of opinion, if you found it insulting I apologize, but everything I said involved you in relation to the article, not you as a person, therefore I did not. Revrant (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

FfD
After reviewing your history on FfD, I just have to ask, have you ever voted to keep anything?

Also, have you ever come up with any other reasons than the ones you list which seem to deem everything regardless of it's importance to the subject matter as having no significance to the subject matter, even things covered by major media and thought of as cultural touchstones?

I just have a hard time seeing any logic in your blanket-statements, they really don't seem to do anything positive or constructive for the process of deletion, I wouldn't mind understanding the reasoning behind it, because as of now I'm at a complete loss. Revrant (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Responding to your paragraphs in order:
 * See Files_for_deletion/2009_May_22; I know there are quite a few others.
 * I feel that non-free images of dead people, one album cover per article, and one company logo per article are automatically acceptable. Other non-free images must significantly aid readers in understanding the article by their presence. I didn't make the rule, the Wikimedia Foundation did and this is our implementation of it.
 * See that caption to Wikipedia up in the top left hand corner of the page? It's "The Free Encyclopedia". That means we want the encyclopedia to be free for anyone to use. Because any non-free content we add weakens that, we must keep our use of such content to an absolute minimum.
 * I hope that clarifies my position for you. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Response, also in order.
 * But there's another free image of him that's of much higher quality, so why wasn't that deleted and replaced with the better free image? The same isn't true for many that you vote down.
 * Yes, I did read that, and it makes sense, but I just don't see how you can blanket it across so many different images, many of the images you vote against(indeed, perhaps half) seem to be of great importance, for instance Larry King's picture relating to his troubled past. That image was not only representative of the life he lead as a young man, which even he has admitted was troubled, but I do believe a touchstone for those reading the article to relate with the subject matter. Your statement that it carries no significance and is "decorative" to me seemed without any reason what so ever, however it having no source was a legitimate concern, but the statement itself was close to banal, which seems to be a theme of sorts the more I read.
 * Yes, I was previously aware of the Wikipedia motto, thank you. That makes sense, but shouldn't there be a system in place before deletion is attempted to discover sources? I just think heaping the responsibility on the poster and not having a system akin to FfD for it is damaging to the articles, illustration is a powerful tool Wikipedia gets to use above all other encyclopedias and I think it's administrators should do more to save, but it seems from the many administrators voicing votes, there's a near-unanimous decision to delete everything presented across the board. Revrant (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like we are unlikely to come to an agreement on this matter. I'll just point out that because freedom of content is so important to Wikipedia, several of the processes are quite a bit faster than normal at deleting non-free content. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose further explanation would only exacerbate things, I'll just point out I think it's detrimental for Administrators to handily vote down everything without due explanation, or worse, with blanket statements, and that is directed at the many Administrators that do it so often, not you in particular. Revrant (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Print sources for Indestructible
Hey, I remember earlier this year during the FA nom for Indestructible by Disturbed, you said you had contacted publications to see if you could obtain any back issues. Any luck whatsoever? The  Guy  (edits) 21:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no emails were replied to, and all phone calls were rejected or I ended up being hung up on, the only way to get them is from eBay by the looks of it. Revrant (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll keep making every effort... Regrettably it gets harder and harder with time :/ The   Guy  (edits) 03:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR
Hey, just wanted to give you a warning. You're 1 edit away from violating the 3RR rule on Ten Thousand Fists.


 * 
 * 
 * 

The  Guy  (edits) 23:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be you, not me, so keep your warning and apply it to yourself, you're warring while a discussion is happening, that's against Wikipedia policy, until it is solved leave that portion alone or I'll have to involve an administrator. Revrant (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are both very close to breaking the three revert rule. How about you both stop the edit warring now and finish the discussion first? If you don't, the page will have to be fully protected until the issue is resolved. Tim  meh  16:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've said this a few times now, but he's intent on forcing this on the article before the discussion has reached a consensus. Revrant (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was aware how close I was as well, I simply wanted to make sure you were aware you were close as well (closer than I when I typed this). However, I'm of the opinion that the reverter holds the burden of trying to change the page, rather than the opposer trying to change it back. In other words, I was of the opinion that because you made the revert, it should have stayed the way it was prior to your reversion until the consensus was reached. Irrelevant now, anyways, but I still wanted to add my two cents. The   Guy  (edits) 03:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Sinneed (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please use the source and do not block information from the source or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Revrant (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please also give a read to wp:edit war, wp:SYNTH. The wp:burden is on the editor attempting to add disputed content to the article. - Sinneed (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no synthesis, it's a single source, the single source is one sentence long, the single source is explicit and not at all up for debate, if you continue to dispute a reliable source's inclusion this will lead to administrator intervention. Revrant (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As before: I have added 2 more reliable sources.  I hope to find the actual book and add it.  I have added the quote you claim to cover your wp:SYNTH addition.  I can assure you with great confidence that I am well within the bounds of reasonable editing.  I do encourage you to open an RfC, or ask for a 3PO if you feel you are being mistreated, but I don't think you will find much support for your position on this minor point. - Sinneed (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I care very little, they have nothing to do with this dispute, the first source is the source of the information itself, the line is intact, you have not added anything as it has been there for quite a while now, information from the line was merely excluded for reasons unknown. Given the source is reliable, the originator of the record, and plainly stated, this issue will be over soon. Revrant (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with Sinneed. A 3rd opinion has arrived at the discussion and confirmed that you seem to be misusing the source per WP:SYNTH. Do we need to do an RFC on this? --  At am a  頭 16:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't be misusing the source, I wish to quote it directly, and if one more person attacks me using synth, I will file a formal report against them, synth requires creating something out of two sources, I am using one source, therefore it is a baseless accusation and insulting. Given the opinion failed in two places to recognize key aspects of the argument and for some reason spoke of unassociated aspects I will have to take it to someone who will address these points and the argument. Revrant (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From wp:SYNTH - "... or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources..." This is not a break from wp:NPA. Please understand that 3 heavily experienced editors have all carefully read the source and do not agree with your interpretation.  One, you requested from 3PO.  This has nothing to do with you, personally, it is not a personal attack.  It is a disagreement.
 * It is important to understand that WP cannot assess correctness. It relies on the editors, who can only reach wp:consensus as to the best path.  In this case, the consensus is clearly against you.  You might choose to pursue an wp:RfC, but this is a very trivial bit, and I suspect will generate relatively little interest. - Sinneed (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it may be, and I have had three heavily experienced editors ignore my argument.
 * Yes it is, but I will not relent until the points are addressed, you have not addressed them, Atama has not, and the 3PO editor ignored them and addressed totally unrelated information. Revrant (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Yes it is, but I will not relent until the points are addressed" - Here, if one refuses to be bound by wp:consensus for whatever reason, one will eventually be unable to edit. WP runs on consensus. - Sinneed (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus cannot be reached if the opinions present are not addressed, you did not address them, therefore it could not be reached. Revrant (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to write something about how consensus is reached, but I've decided I'd rather just avoid speaking with you. If you'd had experience with me, it's very rare that I do this but aside from total vandals, I've never been attacked by an editor as spiteful and uncivil as you. Since the content dispute was mostly between yourself and Sinneed, I'm going to walk away and avoid conflict. If you continue your behavior at Talk:World of Warcraft, however, expect at the very least a report at WP:WQA. --  At am a  頭 23:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have liked to see that, given the disrespectful way the opinions were treated. I haven't had my opinions so demeaned and rejected and my edits attacked in such a manner since I attempted neutral discourse in a political article's discussion page. If you were to ever initialize unfounded attacks on my edits and opinions as WP:OR or WP:SYNTH again without an argument to support it I will definitely report you at WP:WQA. Revrant (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

WQA - You have been mentioned...
... in an incident at wp:WQA - Sinneed (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added my opinion, and I will restate I am not appreciative of the ominous line and it does nothing to relieve any tension given I clearly agreed. Revrant (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Question for administrator
 My phone's IP was involved in a case of mistaken identity, being the edits are from an entirely different geographical region, and unblock requests thus far have been flatly denied with no policy reason supplied. I need to elevate the issue to get it resolved and I'm not seeing where I move up to. I also need to know where to submit complaints regarding the unsubstantiated denials, thank you.

--Revrant (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC) Revrant (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume you are meaning that you cannot log in to your account on your phone? Phone IP's being blocked is not uncommon and they can be geographically widespread due to the nature of the networks.  If this is the case then you need to apply for IP block exemption as described on that page.  If as noted above you have logged in on your phone and can edit then the request will not be granted, you should not take the block on the phone network you use as any reflection on you personally which to some extent is how the unblock request are appearing.   Nthep (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious, Wikipedia can arbitrarily block my IP, cite no rules, and deny my unblock requests as arbitrarily citing nothing?  Your solution is to apply for something an infinitesimal portion of people receive, which will be denied? What approximate area of Mad Max's post-apocalyptic hellscape does Wikipedia occupy? Where rules deign not to follow? Where only Wikilawyering thrives? Revrant (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * does your phone have a static or dynamic IP address? If it's not static then it's not yours but is allocated by the phone company every time you connect.. As stated in response to one of the unblock requests the range has been involved in extensive vandalism hence the range block. If that range block is not stopping you logging in and editing then you have no issue as your personal editing experience is unaffected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nthep (talk • contribs) 10:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As you can see from this page, there is a vandal who preferably uses IPs in this same range, which is why a range block was implemented. Such blocks are acceptable under the blocking policy per long-standing consensus. Unfortunately, since it is necessarily a range block, there is no technical way to unblock just your address. If you cannot login on your phone due to the block, you can request the mentioned exception, but this does not seem to be the case since the block only targets anonymous users, so there is nothing more to do. If you want to argue against the range block itself, feel free to contact the blocking administrator herself or raise the issue at the noticeboard. Regards  So Why  10:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but it's been locked to that range for months as I last checked it for something in 2016, the individual could just be renewing their DCHP lease repeatedly and happens to be in the same range. The block is affecting my ability to use Wikipedia from my phone, but not from my account, I don't see why such a vast block is even necessary, the range could be blocked from dog and rapper articles, even though it failed to help as I see the edits continue, thus the block achieved nothing. Revrant (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have just spent a considerable time looking into this, in the hope of finding something which may help you, and the following are my main conclusions.
 * 1) I have confirmed that the only block currently affecting the IP address that you mention is an anon-only block on the IP range. An anon-only block does not prevent editing from an account, so if you can't do that there must be some other reason. I have checked for everything I can think of, such as an autoblock, a global lock, another block affecting a different IP range which also includes your IP address, and I have found nothing. Perhaps you can copy and paste the exact wording of the message you get telling you that you can't edit, as that may help to identify the cause of the problem.
 * 2) You are sure, are you, that the block really does stop you from editing from your account, and not just from editing without logging in? That may seem like a silly question, but it's the sort of mistake that is actually quite easy to make.
 * 3) I fully sympathise with the frustration you must feel if you are prevented from editing for no fault of your own, but it is worth you bearing in mind that the people looking at your requests for help are volunteers who are trying to help you as best they can. You are more likely to get sympathy, and therefore more likely to get help, if you come across as making friendly requests for help, rather than as railing angrily against the people who are trying to help. It is also not true that the block is arbitrary, nor that no reason has been given. As yo have been told, the block is because of a large amount of abuse. The person responsible has thousands of vandalism edits, using hundreds of IP addresses and numerous accounts. The amount of damage done is so enormous that we cannot afford to just sit back and let it continue, so a block is necessary. It is most unfortunate that this has the side effect of preventing other, constructive, editors from editing without logging into an account, but that can't be avoided. The block is already a compromise between the need to do what we can to stop the vandal and the need to allow other people to edit, as it allows editing from accounts, which reduces the effectiveness against the vandal, since, as I have already said, he or she has used accounts as well as anon-editing.
 * 4)  I will remind you once again, if you still can't edit when logged into your account, I suggest posting the exact message you get telling you that you can't. It may help. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Since posting the above message, I have noticed something else. Six minutes before posting your first unblock request you edited another page from this account. Did your ability to edit disappear within those six minutes? The block dated from more than five weeks earlier. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not blocked on my account, but I don't always have access to the account, but as I said above I question the wisdom of creating issues for me when the range block did not work(the edits continue) and the issue with the range could be solved by blocking edits of dogs and musicians within the range rather than just gumming up everything in Wikipedia for me when the range block didn't stop anything to begin with. Revrant (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to prevent you from editing while logged in, and I can't think of anything that would prevent you from logging in to your account on your mobile device to edit. Yes, rangeblocks are a blunt tool, but it's one of the few we have to prevent the type of abuse seen from this range. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant, that was never the issue, and it is not an excuse, and the abuse was not prevented at all, it in fact immediately continued, so in addition to being a hindrance placed on me it didn't even work. There's no sound reasonable way to explain this, I just keep getting "Well because wikilawyering and bureaucracy" thrown back at me. I don't particularly care if you bust my knees I'm still able to drive, don't bust my knees, it's not a sound argument, it's "We did a thing, it frustrated you and didn't work, but we're gonna keep doing it for no sound, logical reason." I swear if there were ever a need to provide an example of wikilawyering this would be prime material. Revrant (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm quite confused here. This account is not blocked. There is nothing stopping you from using this account on IP addresses that have been blocked for non-logged-in users. What are you asking for? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 05:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you aren't, no one here is confused, however everyone here is patently insane from being inside this bureaucracy for so long. Admin did ineffective thing that did not work, ineffective thing that did not work harmed my ability to edit from my phone if I choose, appeals are denied because I have an account(totally irrelevant), the thing that harmed me and is staying because well 'we did it so there' continues merrily on while I pull my hair out talking to people who by all rights have all the reason and flexibility of an answering system. There is no reason, none, for the range block affecting me to remain, it harms my ability to edit, it did not work, and it is easily undone, but because the "bureaucracy did something, it must therefore stay in place" the reasonable thing will not happen, I am literally trying to get Vogons to be sensible and I am exasperated by it. Revrant (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Talk:Wonder Woman (2017 film), but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC) (redacted)


 * I have again removed the problematic claims.


 * WP:BLP clearly states that it applies to all Wikipedia pages, including talk pages.


 * You have repeatedly stated that it would be "a stretch" to include your claim to the article. I am repeating my insistence that you take the issue to the BLP noticeboard should you feel a strong need to restore the claim.


 * Your claim is synthesis. Joe Blow supports Mayor Gordon in one source. Another source says the mayor got drunk. It is synthesis to say that Blow supports alcoholism.


 * Further, you are speculating as to a possible hidden motivation for a state's actions. As we cannot add your speculation to an article, discussing your speculation on the article's talk page is off-topic. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for general discussion of the articles' topics.


 * I would suggest that -- however strongly you may feel about your claim -- the material is a poorly sourced controversial claim about a living person (see WP:BLP) and is only tied to the topic by your speculation.


 * If you disagree please take the issue to the BLP discussion board BEFORE restoring the material. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further 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 have repeatedly re-added a controversial claim about a living person. The source you have provided says “I am sending my love and prayers to my fellow Israeli citizens,” she wrote. “Especially to all the boys and girls who are risking their lives protecting my country against the horrific acts conducted by Hamas, who are hiding like cowards behind women and children...We shall overcome!!! Shabbat Shalom! #weareright #freegazafromhamas #stopterror #coexistance #loveidf”

It does not say she supported the actions you have discussed. You have refused to take the discussion to the BLP noticeboard as repeatedly requested.

WP:BLP is a very rigid policy. If you restore the material again anywhere on Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.'' Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have again removed the material under WP:BLPREMOVE. ("Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research)..." The source you have repeatedly cited as saying the individual supports the contentious actions does not directly state that she supports those actions.)


 * As such, the burden is on you to demonstrate that the claim is either not contentious or is well-supported by the source. As previously explained, the BLP noticeboard is the perfect place for that discussion.


 * As you seem to be unwilling to discuss the issue, I have asked for a short term block from editing, primarily to get your attention.


 * If necessary, we can certainly have a discussion at WP:AN/I as to whether or not expressing support for an organization is equivalent to expressing support for every action attributed to that organization. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have requested a block as well, your constant WP:VANDALISM is becoming too much to contend with, your attempts at censorship because you feel very strongly about the individual and will not engage in discourse has lead me to this end, I cannot continue to edit-war your censorship and accusations. Revrant (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Stop It
Stop the edit warring and any other form of disruptive editing. Sort out your differences with SummerPhDv2.0 civilly or at ANI. But if there is any more edit warring I will block both of you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt the editor in question will stop edit-warring anytime soon, but I will certainly strive to sort this out in spite of their conduct and accusations. Revrant (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I would also gently suggest that you take Dennis Brown's note below to heart. I have not looked into this in detail but he is a highly experienced admin whose judgement I trust. If he is pointing you to what he believes were errors in editing I would take that onboard as well intentioned advice. But please bear in mind that WP:BLP is taken very seriously and compliance is not optional. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course. Indeed I would think more of his advice had he not utterly ignored the conduct of the other party, which was quite poor, but I am otherwise willing to be engaged. I understand, although it is not a disputable fact, an entire lifetime of vocal support equating to support is by no means a violation of WP:BLP or synthesis. The other editor merely takes personal offense given their apparently deep involvement in defending the subject matter as it relates to the star and film articles. Revrant (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm Dennis Brown, an administrator here at Wikipedia. Let me be brief and clear: Edits like  (and others) are not acceptable.  We are not a forum, there is no right of free speech at Wikipedia because it is a privately owned website.  We expect editors to stay on topic and not try to fan flames or start drama.  We aren't a political blog.  We are an encyclopedia.  That comment was completely out of place, as were some of your other actions.  Getting on a soapbox at the talk page of Wonder Woman (2017 film) regarding UN and Palestinians and Gaza and such is beyond silly.  Don't. It doesn't belong there, and the way you presented the information, it doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia.  I'm not prone to repeat myself, so I just want you to understand that if you do it again, you will be blocked.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You expect that and yet you have nothing to say about the other editor edit-warring and making bold accusations as to my character and conduct in an attempt to stifle discussion, which she naturally failed to mention on ANI. I'm not sure what possessed you to suggest it doesn't belong on Wikipedia given the extensive coverage and surfeit of articles pertaining to that very topic, phrasing hardly disqualifies it. Semantics are the flashpoint but the very nature of suggesting this individual supports something she has unequivocally supported her entire life in aforementioned Israeli military action, and never criticized, as "synthesis" is itself "silly". The suggestion of possible reasoning for political retaliation by way of banning her film is mundane, the reaction by the other editor was not, whatever bickering over phrasing exists the next stream of actions on my talk page - which I reverted - were far out of bounds. I will certainly discuss the issue as it presents itself, regardless of your threats, as many do on Wikipedia and will continue to, and I am also certain partisan individuals will find issue with my phrasing then as well. I'm really rather put off by the unequivocal heavy handedness of your handling given the poor conduct of the other editor, in fact, I take issue with it. Revrant (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Shades 1.jpg


The file File:Shades 1.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused personal photo. Out of scope."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 15:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)