User talk:Mystichumwipe/Archive 1

August 2010

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Jaimal Singh. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Fæ (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, Mysticbumwipe, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears to intentionally offend other editors. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. Fæ (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Mysticbumwipe, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe/Archive 1

Based on your original choice of username, I am wondering what types of articles will you be here to improve on Wikipedia? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: "Wipe" is the name of a currently active and productive Wikipedia editor. I think we can agree that "wipe" by itself isn't a problem. I don't know about "humwipe", since it seems to be deliberately chosen for its similarity to bumwipe. Also if I go to the "mysticbumwipe" page on Myspace it brings up a band, but it doesn't seem to be the name of the band.

Longer comment: I understand that most user-edited websites are a lot more lax than we are with regards to which names are allowable, and in fact we used to be that way too, but by comparison to most other encyclopedia wiki sites we are actually very open even now, and lately a lot of attention has come from the mainstream media running negative stories on just how unprofessional Wikipedia is, and the prevalence of usernames with "obscene" meanings, even if not necessarily offensive, are a source of problems and are generally disallowed. Even in the "good old days" a name with bumwipe in it would probably have been blocked, though perhaps not without a warning first. Please try not to take it personally. I do encourage you to find a name with not even a hint of the original name in it, however. Would be willing to use "Mystic Wipe" or some variant thereof? —Soap— 13:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I have a quite wide circle of interests. But to give you a brief idea, specifically I consider my self more than averagely clued up on Middle-eastern affairs, Shabd Gurus and their related spiritual theology; Radha Swami gurus, their lineages and inter-lineage politics; early Christianity; Hindu/Advaita philosophy, etc. As I explained before, I have used this name for nearly two decades on various discussion groups related to sufism, Radha Swami or Sant Mat related topics. I therefore think it only fair that people who share my interests know who they are talking with. As you can see I have already contributed to the page on Baba Jaimal Singh the 19th century Beas Radha Swami guru. So I hope you can see from that, that my intention is serious, and I am not here to vandalise or spam. You are correct that I recently changed my user name on Wiki to keep it similar to my previous name. Allow me to explain why. I appreciate that to people who don't know me, my name might be considered offensive or frivolous. That is why I hoped this recent small change would fit your requirements and mine. Viz., that the 'new' name 'mystichumwipe' would now not be considered offensive to those seeing it for the first time (which fits your preference) and that to those who know my previous username on associated discussion groups will know with whom they are discussing and thus my credentials ( which fits my preference). So therefore may I request you to reconsider and allow the inoffensive 'mystichumwipe'.

I am not 100% happy with "Mystichumwipe", but I suppose there's nothing really wrong with it, so I will accept it. Please do go for the name change right away. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you put up another unblock request this morning. You are already unblocked and should be able to go to WP:CHU and follow the instructions there to get your username changed. Was something stopping you? —Soap— 14:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Reblocking

The block notice above says "At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request". You have been unblocked now for more than 4 days, and shown no attempt to file a request for user name change. Since the unblock was for this one purpose only, I have reblocked you. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd AGF, he seems not to edit very often and may have just lost interest. Or he could be editing under another name already. —Soap— 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm? Curious. I was under the impression that I HAD "filed a request for user name change" along the lines we had agreed. May I confirm that I am just starting out as an editor and have NOT lost interest. This is proving harder than anticipated to get going. I don't understand why my name change didn't go through. I did what I understood was a "file a request for user name change" to the name 'mystichumwipe'. I did that shortly after your request to do so. Within a day as I recall. A day or so later I tried to come in and do an edit but saw I was still blocked so I assumed that there is some time dealy from your end. Now I have come in to start contributing only to find I am blocked again. I'm sorry if this is tedious or irritating or if I seem uninterested but that is not the case. Can we not just do a permanent unblocking and I change the name to what we agreed. Does there need to be a time limit imposed upon that? I have other commitments occasionally that make that an extra hurdle to surmount.

There is no record of you or anyone else ever submitting a name change request with either mysticbumwipe or mystichumwipe in. You can file a request at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. It has to be done in the software and therefore even "ordinary" administrators don't have access, but lately they seem to be responding to the names pretty quickly. You can also try to create a new account, and avoid the wait, though the reason I didn't mention this before is because I suspect the new username and the old username will be deemed too similar and the software will think you're an impostor (sorry, but it's not intelligent enough to know that it's the same person creating the new account). Either way, if there were some content edits you wanted to make immediately, I think it will be OK for you to do them as long as you've placed the username change request, even if it hasn't been answered yet. Bumwipe isn't terribly offensive, just a bit unprofessional. —Soap— 12:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

> Ok. I have followed the instructions and requested a username change. I must have done this incorrectly previously. Hope I did everything properly this time. :-)

Everything should be good, so you can relax now and get to whatever it is you wanted to work on. —Soap— 13:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done by Xeno (talk · contribs). —Soap— 13:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

- - - - Thanks. Much appreciated

January 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Thirteenth Tribe. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion completely to ref. of Shlomo Sand - edit war

- - Hi Jayig. Thanks for your notification regarding 'edit wars'. I'm relatively new to this. I made a bit of a hash of my entry yesterday due to incorrectly inserting 'end code' for references and due to not not using the 'preview' option. Thus My triple edits in one 24 hour period. I explain all this in order to avoid being blocked and to ask for leniency. I've got the hang of it now. I have also started a discussion with the other editor with whom an apparent disagreement exists, which you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Thirteenth_Tribe#Deletion_completely_to_ref._of__Shlomo_Sand.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs) 08:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you seem to be continuing to edit-war, against two experienced administrators. I've brought up an issue on the article's talk page for you to consider, and I really think from now on you should just discuss (rather than reverting) until consensus is reached with the other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you've reverted yet again. If I find you simply edit-warring in this material again, this discussion will move from user talk pages to much more serious venue. Please take this seriously, and discuss instead of reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

I have asked both editors to discuss on the discussion board and both have not done so yet despite continuing to delete and undo my contributions to the page.

I see that I am not alone in thinking that the section I have been contributing to appears biased and not neutral. The whole slant of the article is in my opinion very anti the book it is the subect of. I see you have also now made a comment there without adressing or answering any of my points either. I'm not sure how to remedy this and achieve consensus if people delete contributions without discussion first and won't discuss the issues I have raised but merely raise new unrelated ones of their own.

Given the fact that those disagreeing with you are administrators with many years of experience, and tens of thousands of edits, I think it's very important for you to consider the possibility that the issues they are raising are most likely the important ones here. The relevant rules and policies of Wikipedia are not always obvious to new editors; I very strongly recommend that, rather than further reverting, or pursuing your own lines of questioning, you read the links people are providing you, and respond to the issues and questions they raise. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Years of experience is fine. I am attempting to follow wiki guidelines as scrupulously as possible and I have been attempting to point out where I see the article as it stands infringes these policies. I have answered all points put to me and asked for clarification of contrary viewpoints but yet these and my own questions/points remain in the main unanswered. And the fact remains that others before me have raised the same issues that I am now raising without any adequate response that I can see in the discussion board. Therefore it does seem on the face of it that a clear bias is in effect in the editing of this page. Is it possible that that can be addressed please. For example it is now required of me to show where my Prof. Sand addition "mentions" the book '13th Tribe'. Yet we have a negative opinion of the book in the article by Bernard Lewis which does not do so. There does therefore appear to be an inconsistency in application of wiki policy in effect here that I have asked for clarification of and none has yet been forthcoming. In that absence of a reply to that, the perception of bias and a lack of neutrality arises which years of experience editing does not diminish.

Talkback

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, breaching the terms of your previous unblock, and sockpuppetry. If you continue in this way you may well be blocked indefinitely. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mystichumwipe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I request an unblock for the following reasons: 1. I have not created multiple user accounts. I have and use only one. 2. I don't understand how I have breached the terms of my previous unblock? I haven't changed my name? Can you explain. 3. Edit warring: I have attempted to comply with all directions to me regarding editing. I yesterday added NEW qoutes and additions all now with specific references from reliable secondary sources. I can only think that one source was of questionable reliability. So I don't understand this either. I did re-add one previously deleted sentence but now I provided a specific source reference (it didn't have that before so contravened verifiability). I don't actually understand why the new material has been deleted as the aim (as I stated) is to add balance and a Neutral point of view to the article in question. The new material I added was specificly discussing the book in question (as requested), and this time had specific references and sources (as requested). Plus I asked for clarification last night on the discussion page regarding why a previous addition of mine had been deleted. So... even if my blocking remains in force an explanation would be good for the future (I have read the unblock page guide to appealing blocks.) Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

As you will see from my comment below, I am not entirely happy about what you have done. However, I am willing to assume good faith, and believe that saying "I have not created multiple user accounts" was a mistake, as you may have genuinely forgotten an action you took nearly three months ago, and using that account now may have been a mistake, as you say you use that username elsewhere. I suggest being more careful in future. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Was it perhaps an accident? You made two edits under your old username. I have no comment on the edit warring, but I find it easy to believe that your use of the bumwipe name was an accident. —Soap— 12:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] As the blocking admin I will not assess your unblock request, but will leave it to another administrator. However, I will clarify the situation. You originally edited under the use name "Mysticbumwipe". This was considered an unacceptable username, and Cirt blocked you on 4 October 2010. I unblocked you on 13 October 2010 specifically for the purpose of allowing you to request a change of user name and edit under the new name. You did not make such a request, and so the block was restored. On 2 November 2010 you came back and asked to be unblocked again to enable a change of user name. You were unblocked, and at 13:17, 2 November 2010 the account was renamed. One minute later (13:18 2 November 2010) a new account was created under the same name as the original name of this account. That account started editing on 27 January 2011. Its only edits have been to one article and its talk page. You had earlier been warned about edit-warring on that article. In this edit that account uses the first person in referring to edits you had made. There is no doubt that the two accounts are run by the same person. Your unblock was specifically to allow you to stop editing under the name "Mysticbumwipe", and use another name. Not only have you continued to edit under the old name, in violation of the terms of your unblock, but the timing of your creation of the new account indicates that you always intended to do so. It was, in fact, this evidence of taking preparatory action immediately after the name change for such violation that led me to impose a block for as long as a month: otherwise the block would have been very much shorter. Soap may well be right: your use of the old user name may have been an accident. However, the account with your old user name should not have existed, and it is difficult to see any legitimate reason for your having created it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi soap. This is a mystery to me. I have absolutley no idea HOW I possibly can use the old username. I just type in four tildas or use the sign icon. Are you saying I have two accounts? I can assure that I have not created a new account with the old name. I can see the one edit (last nights) using the old name but I don't understand how I can possibly have logged in to an old account with the old name. That was blocked and then changed. If I haven't (as I have not) created a new account with that name then that shouldn't even be possible should it? (I mean to log into my current and only account using my old name...?)

Hi Mr Watson, Thanks for unblocking me. But re: "partially an accident". I can wholeheartedly assure you that I have NOT deliberately used my old name. And I do not understand how that is possible without creating a new account with the old name, which I can categorically state I have NOT done. Is it possible for me to keep the old account somehow on an old computer? ( I have two computers at home and last night used a different computer to normal). As regards the other reasons, I still do not see what I have done that infringes wiki policy. I have been polite, assumed good faith, initiated discussions, and attempted to comply with all requests. Have you followed the discussions? I would really welcome another's independent feedback on these other reasons for the blocking --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I am confident that the recent use of the second account was an accident. I don't see any way that the creation of the account can have been accidental, and since you were able to use it you must have known the password, so it must have been you that created it. However, I can believe that you created the account back in November (for whatever reason), didn't use it, and over the course of nearly three months forgot you had done so. It would then be very easy to quite by accident log in using the same user name you use on other sites and the same password you use on this account, and for all I know on other sites too. Obviously I don't know that it happened like that, but it seems very likely, and I am willing to believe it. You shouldn't have recreated the account, but if you had forgotten you did so, and using it was a mistake, then that's not worth dwelling on, now that the account is blocked. Regarding the reasons given for your block, "breaching the terms of your previous unblock" and "sockpuppetry" both refer to your use of the "bumwipe" account, which I think I have said enough about. As for "edit warring", you have been warned about doing so, and at first it looked as though using the other account was an attempt to continue to do so under a different name, but it now seems very unlikely that this was so. (It would have been a stupid attempt to do so with such a giveaway username, but I have known editors do things just as stupid as that.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I now see what has happened. I use three computers. One of these automatically logged me in with the old user name and password. You write: the account with your old user name should not have existed. Well, I have only ever created one account. A question for the future: by logging in with that 'old' name, is that what you call "recreated the account"? Basically I'm just logging in using different computers. To try and remedy this I have checked how to delete the account but see that I cannot. I can only change the name. Which I/we did. So... unless by logging in using bumwipe I am recreating the old account I still don't really understand how I can still log in with the old name... but... as you say I'll just have to be more attentive.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Raymond Allen Davis diplomatic incident appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. do not remove cited info from the article Wikireader41 (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Raymond Allen Davis Page

The page was nominated for deletion on Feb 1, by user Scieberking. You can see it on the history of the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymond_Allen_Davis_diplomatic_incident&diff=next&oldid=411358750 Hudicourt (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the RAD page, while it is blocked, could be indirectly improved by including into the Diplomatic immunity page the lessons learned from the RAD incident Hudicourt (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hudi. I'm not sure what you mean. Something like a new heading? What lessons learned are you referring to?

The sources and material concerning diplomatic immunity that were used in the RAD page could be integrated in the Diplomatic Immunity page.Hudicourt (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Green">Skier Dude]] (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Gurinder.S.Dhillon.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gurinder.S.Dhillon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 04:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

-- HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Immigrated" is a perfectly good English word.

Please see, for example, entries in Wiktionary and Dictionary.com. You might also want to read the entry here on immigration. LadyofShalott 18:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Yes, I stand corrected. You are right and I admit I was wrong about that.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Invention of the Jewish People‎

Please consider reverting your last edit to The Invention of the Jewish People‎. That article, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction, and you may have violated 1RR. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malik

The background history is that an addition I added (to create what I see as greater balance and accuracy of consensus view in the introduction), has been on the page for about a month, I think. It has been reworded twice in that time, and both times I think weakened it but I let it go. Now someone is deleting it all together for reasons that I think are not justifiable. We have a summary of how some think that there is no genetical research to support the Khazar hypothesis. That apparently is NOT supported by the evidence according to one geneticist/expert. He says the evidence is not conclusive either way. The intro did not reflect that ambiguity before my addition. On the contrary, it claimed there was no ambiguity. Now here we are a month later and NoMoreMrNiceGuy keeps deleteing the balancing statement for reasons that I don't believe hold up under scrutiny. First he said the source did not include any such statement like that. Then he changed that when challenged, to saying the source didn't support the wording in the leader. And then when I attempted to adress his concern with another rewite, he just included the exact actual quote which I pointed him to and which already appears under the appropriate DNA RESEARCH heading later on the page. I think a summary of the quote is more appropriate as it is balancing a summary of others viewpoints without quotes i.e. achieves better balance. I have now three times reworded it and explained in my summary the reasons for its inclusion. In conclusion, my position is that to ONLY say the evidence does not support the Khazar hypothesis is neither fair, nor balanced nor even accurate. Therefore I would like the balancing addition to remain in some form.

Regarding 1RR I think have edited only once a day. When a 24 hour time period starts and finishes is naturally going to be a little vague as I assume we are all operating from different time-zones. But as far as I am aware, I am within the [WP:1RR|1RR]] requirement.

Hope this explains adequately my reasons. Feel free to respond if you disagree and think I am missing something. Best wishes. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANEW#User:Mystichumwipe and User:No More Mr Nice Guy reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Holocaust denial

Your edit summary doesn't come near to explaining your massive deletion here, can you please explain the discrepancy? Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Which massive deletion? ...OMG! I just saw. My apologies. I inadvertently and unintentionally deleted all that. I was working on editing just the testimonies section, when my whole street suffered a power-cut. When I logged back in again I must have re-pasted in that small sub-section over the whole article by mistake. Whoops! :-o --Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ouch, better explain that on the talk page. I sympathise. Or even better, a null edit? Dougweller (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Or what you did. :-) Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Criticism of Holocaust denial, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Er... That would be my first as well as my last warning then?

And I don't know what you are referring to. Can you explain?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see User talk: Jayjg, Mystic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goswamir14 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why you don't just fill in the sections created for you on the article's Talk: page; for example, Talk:Criticism of Holocaust denial#Mystichumwipe's first proposed addition to the article. I'm quite happy to discuss potential additions to/deletions from the article, so long as those discussions are clear, and deal only with article content. Do you have some fundamental objection to simply and clearly stating exactly what it is you want to add to or delete from this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 08:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence User talk:Bpell. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. The answer is, no, it's not cool to solicit support for your position. There's even a warning template for it. What is good is getting more general participation by filing a WP:RFC. Gerardw (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. No one minds an innocent mistake. Now you know. Gerardw (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks Gerardw for the info. I have now read the section on canvassing.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

9/11 Arbitration sanctions notification

• This is just a notification so that you are aware of the history surrounding these issues. All users are advised to tread lightly and discuss any changes that could be controversial before making them. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, In response to your suggestions, and it is OK to make such suggestions, I did not go to the Discussion Page, but I did do 4 minor but important and uncontraversial edits, 2 in the Introduction and 2 for Atypical Alternative Explanations. I find it useless to discuss such matters as they will never agree to any improvements and will certainly go to a revert--they're very predictable. And you're right, the article violates neutrality because it implies the official version is true. And it promotes the lunatic fringe idea that conspiracies can't happen, which is unimaginably stupid, of course. Also, you should not use lunatic fringe language, it plays into its hands. And conspiracy theorists should be called crime theorists as often whether or not there was a conspiracy is not the issue, or the conspiracy aspect is secondary or irrelevant. --BlueRider12 06:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for your reply.:-) --Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have changed my mind and have put in a comment on the Discussion Page as my edits were reverted by an administrator. --BlueRider12 14:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs) Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Warning regarding edit warring

Further to the notice in respect of the discussion at WP:ANI regarding some of your recent edits, I would note that you appear to be engaged in an Wikipedia:Edit war. Please note that consensus must be found for any change to the status quo of an article, and that per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle any revert of a change indicates that there is a requirement to discuss the proposed change and form a consensus upon the issue. It should be further noted that there 'does not appear to be an issue with keeping the change while it is discussed' (my paraphrasing) does not exist in any policy or guideline I am aware of, and is indeed contrary to WP:BRD - contested changes are reverted to the prior state while they are discussed. Lastly, reverting two (not just one, but two) uninvolved editors who are returning the content to the pre dispute basis as they are 'not involved in the discussion' has no basis in policy whatsoever; the purpose for having uninvolved parties reviewing and acting upon issues is that they are only concerned with the application of policy and guideline.
I note that you have previously been sanctioned for, partly, violation of the edit warring policies, and that your account is just over a year old. You would be well advised to familiarise yourself better with Wikipedia policy and its application and practice, and especially in how Wikipedia:Consensus is arrived at. Under the circumstances I would note that this is a final warning in regard to edit warring, and strongly suggest that you return the article lede to its earlier version while you discuss the proposed changes and that you do not revert any editor who does so in the meantime. Less Heard vanU (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding.:-o I ceased reverting and have initiated discussion with the ones reverting MY edits. Have you sent this to the ones reverting my edits?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition to answering that question, can you tell me how this works? Who has asked you to notify me and issue this warning? How did you get the instruction to do that?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You have already commented at the ANI discussion, which I referred you to in my notice, and you were previously notified of. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I had tried to find that ANI discussion after the notification but couldn't find it. After I wrote this to you here I did some searching and traced that admin notification. I then saw that it was Jayjg who initiated all this. Have you read my rebuttal of his version of events?

And have you sent out this warning to any of the one's undoing edits and then undoing my undo's? If not can you explain why that is not regarded as necessary? ? Doesn't it take at least two editors to edit-war?? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of a reply to my questions above? The misrepresentation from Jayjg I regard as quite serious.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)