User talk:Zoomjet3

February 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bob Simon, you may be blocked from editing. Ignoring talk page discussion for 3rd time Light show (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

RESPONSE FROM ZOOMJET3:

IN THE ABOVE STATEMENT, USER:LIGHT SHOW STATES THAT I SHOULD STOP  MY "VANDALISM". ATTRIBUTING VANDALISM TO WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN IS NOT TRUE. THE WIKIPEDIA DEFINITION OF VANDALISM IS THE FOLLOWING...

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism.

THE FOLLOWING IS WHAT I WROTE ON THE BOB SIMON PAGE...

For a period of approximately 30 years, beginning in the 1980s and continuing until the time of his death, Simon was repeatedly criticized by organizations (both Jewish and non-Jewish), media pundits and large numbers of the public for what was perceived as a blatant and unremitting bias against the State of Israel in his reporting. CBS and 60 Minutes were criticized for permitting Simon's bias against the Jewish State and were held to be enabling and complicit.

Matt Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, gave this response to a 2012 report on 60 Minutes by Bob Simon. “It is absolutely outrageous that, of all the places in the Middle East, and in fact the world, to single out religious persecution of Christians, CBS would choose to attack Israel. Israel is a beacon to the world for religious tolerance and inclusiveness. The picture painted by Bob Simon and CBS on ‘60 Minutes’ has no basis in reality. Sadly Christians are being murdered and persecuted daily in the Muslim world and across the globe.” Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren called the same report a “hatchet job” on Israel.

WHAT I WROTE WAS AN ENHANCEMENT OF THE INTEGRITY OF WIKIPEDIA BECAUSE IT GAVE ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT INFORMATION, WHICH WAS ACCURATE AND WHICH CONVEYED A FULLER UNDERSTANDING OF BOB SIMON'S CAREER.

I ASK USER:LIGHT SHOW TO SHOW THAT WHAT I WROTE WAS IN ANY WAY CONSISTENT WITH THIS WIKIPEDIA DEFINITION OF VANDALISM.

Your recent editing history at Bob Simon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:43, 13 February 2015 (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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Zoomjet3. It appears that you've broken the WP:3RR rule at the Bob Simon article. On Feb. 12 and 13 you reverted seven times altogether. You may be able to avoid a block if you respond at the noticeboard and promise to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

HELLO,

I HAVE USED WIKEPEDIA AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR A CONSIDERABLE TIME. BUT I HAVE ONLY VERY RECENTLY PARTICIPATED IN DOING EDITS A THE RULES ARE UNFAMILIAR TO ME.

I HAVE ONLY NOW NOTICED THAT THERE IS A METHOD FOR DISCUSSING A DISPUTE.

THE CURRENT ISSUE IS ARISING FROM MY ADDITIONS TO THE BOB SIMON ITEM.

I HAVE MADE NO DELETIONS OF ANYTHING WRITTEN BY OTHERS ABOUT BOB SIMON.

BUT I HAVE ADDED INFORMATION THAT WAS COMPLETELY ACCURATE ABOUT BOB SIMON'S REPORTING ON THE STATE OF ISRAEL WHICH HAS PROVOKED THE OUTRAGE OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE OVER A PERIOD OF APPROXIMATELY 30 YEARS. MY ADDITIONS (EDITS) WERE STATED IN A NEUTRAL, DESCRIPTIVE TONE... A SIMPLE STATEMENT OF FACTS.

BUT MY ADDITIONS (EDITS) WERE REPEATEDLY DELETED (REVERTS ?). I MUST ASSUME THAT THIS HAS BEEN DONE BECAUSE OTHERS DID NOT WANT TO SEE THE TRUTH, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS INDISPUTABLY ACCURATE, TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS ARTICLE ABOUT BOB SIMON.

IS IT THE POLICY OF WIKIPEDIA TO SUPPRESS A TRUTHFUL DESCRIPTION ?

Edit warring at Bob Simon
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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. The full report is at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)