Guinsberg

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are 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.

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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

Just see my Talk Page history: I had already been blocked for 24h from Wikipedia because of charges of edit warring. The block period has expired and since then I haven't made a single edit in the ADL entry -- or in any other. This block is preposterous, and I can only assume that the adm. who's blocked me did so because s/he can't see that I had already been punished. Guinsberg (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC) That edit summary was made when I had been punished for behaviors that other users, the ones I was debating with prior to my blocking, engaged in without being punished. I felt singled out, then. The situation has been amended, and if I knew then that would be the case, I would have reacted differently; I wouldn't have felt so enraged; I wouldn't have written that edit summary, which I regret. Please, remove the block. You can see it was not properly imposed. Guinsberg (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Tiderolls' message to M.S. states that he thinks my reasoning is incorrect. But where exactly am I wrong? M.S. has blocked me for "edit warring" on an article that I haven't looked at in the last 35h. Guinsberg (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

It appears that this editor has not resumed the WP:EW since the expiration of previous block. Unblocking with a caution to engage in civil, good faith discussion and avoid future block evasion via the use of anonymous IPs. Toddst1 (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That edit summary was made when I had been punished for behaviors that other users, the ones I was debating with prior to my blocking, engaged in without being punished. I felt singled out, then. The situation has been amended, and if I knew then that would be the case, I would have reacted differently; I wouldn't have felt so enraged; I wouldn't have written that edit summary, which I regret. Please, remove the block. You can see it was not properly imposed. Guinsberg (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Tiderolls' message to M.S. states that he thinks my reasoning is incorrect. But where exactly am I wrong? M.S. has blocked me for "edit warring" on an article that I haven't looked at in the last 35h. Guinsberg (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)}}

How does one take "may be in error" to mean "is wrong"? If I had found your unblock request to be lacking I would've declined the request. Instead, I contacted the blocking admin so that we could co-ordinate rather than working at cross purposes. Check into properly indenting and placement of your talk page posts; this thread has the delicate choreography of the Oswald prison exchange. Tiderolls 15:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll contact Malik Shabazz for you, but I won't unblock you myself as this edit summary convinces me that you still haven't grasped what you were being told. Another good reason to archive one's user talk rather than make use of one's perogative to blank the page. Tiderolls 08:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "punished"? We don't do punishment: a block is an attempt to protect the project by preventing the issue from recurring. It's quite possible that someone originally blocked you for less time than you deserved, expecting you to learn - but clearly you have not, so it's been incremented. I could be wrong - and it might be a unique situation either way (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sabra and Shatila massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Hirst (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Mahmoud Sarsak

Thanks for updating the article; I thought I'd better point out though, lest you get the wrong idea, that the content in question was supported by the sources as they were at the time the content was added. News agencies' tendency to literally change their story seems to quite often result in confusion like that, AGFing is usually the best solution. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hrs for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Can you please use edit summaries when you make an edit so other editors are able to see what you have changed more easily? Ryan Vesey 21:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you reverted my edit, can you take a look at Talk:Operation Pillar of Defense#Dalu family and Talk:Operation Pillar of Defense#Dalu family revisited and comment on the latter? Ryan Vesey 20:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al-Dalu family killing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IDF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Al-Dalu family killing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Al-Dalu family killing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Dalu family killing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Ryan Vesey 02:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Your recent editing history at Al-Dalu family killing shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please note that you have already crossed the 3RR line and should self-revert. According to the article talk page, all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. - MrX 14:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

1RR Violation at Operation Pillar of Defense

Guinsberg, you have violated 1RR of WP:ARBPIA at Operation Pillar of Defense. I have opened up a case regard this violation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days for edit-warring on the page Operation Pillar of Defense. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Palestine-Israeli notice

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stay cool

Please keep cool even when it is difficult, that will keep you out of trouble and give you more opportunities to improve wikipedia. PerDaniel (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

January 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts with User:BilalSaleh, as confirmed via checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalai lama ding dong. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)