User talk:Rebecca jones

Welcome!

Hello, Rebecca jones, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for getting involved over there. I deleted the original YV ref while I checked it out, because I'm not sure of 7sur7.be and thought it would be better to at least give the straight name for the source when people roll-over the link. As for the Ron Paul quote, because it was from 2010 it is difficult to fit in. Though it could be the opening paragraph, I think that would be kind of POV. You can put it back if you want, I won't revert you. I just wanted, awkwardly, to suggest that it seemed out of place. Also, I read somewhere (I think in Le Monde, but I'd need to check back) that RT & Sputnik had increased their traffic fourfold in France in the last months; so I also won't revert you if you write up the statue in Toulouse, but I'd really like to see better pictures. Interesting. Best, SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. O3000 (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a solution for you : French Language Courses User talk:Rebecca Jones

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. O3000 (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You or User talk:Snooganssnoogans ? Again you should invest inf French language courses. L'humanité is a recognized newspaper in France and it is difficult to understand comments of User talk:Snooganssnoogans about it. The journalist of this article should be very interested by these comments....

I am perfectly capable of reading the article, and you will find that making snarks is not conducive to forming consensus. You have failed to gain consensus. Do so at the article talk page and stop edit warring in your version. Also, RT is a Russian government propaganda outlet not considered a reliable source. O3000 (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Si comme vous le déclarez, vous maîtrisez la langue française cela implique donc que vous ne respectez pas les déclarations de députés à l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe reporté par un journal français reconnu. C'est très inquiétant parce que le conseil de l'Europe est une instance démocratique : https://www.humanite.fr/la-convention-europeenne-des-droits-de-lhomme-peut-elle-empecher-lextradition-de-julian-assange-vers

User:Rebecca Jones

I said nothing of the sort. And please take your arguments to the article talk page. O3000 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't speak french CQFD (Ce qu'il fallait démontrer) User:Rebecca Jones

The term is QED nearly everywhere but France. And you have demonstrated nothing. Please stop these snarks and argue your case on the article talk page. Wikipedia is built with WP:CONSENSUS. Snarks generally are a poor method of gaining such. O3000 (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't speak french, if you understand it, so you respond me in french .... User:Rebecca Jones

I'll respond in the manner I wish. And that manner is now not at all since you have shown no interest in engaging in polite dialogue. "La personnalités des gens sont comme la façade des bâtiments, certaines façades sont agréables et d'autres moins." -- Francois de La Rochefoucauld O3000 (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C'est bien la preuve que vous ne maîtrisez pas la langue française, "les" et non pas "la" parce que personnalités est au pluriel avec un "s" à la fin et que "la" au singulier ne s'accorde pas avec "sont" au pluriel ! A votre décharge, le français n'est pas une langue facile à apprendre..... Il faut donc écrire "Les personnalités des gens sont comme la façade des bâtiments, certaines façades sont agréables et d'autres moins." User:Rebecca Jones

I was directly quoting a well known French writer from the 17th Century. Good grief. O3000 (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Et vous pensez vraiment que Francois de La Rochefoucauld écorcherait ainsi le français ? Vous l'insultez ! J'ignore si il a écrit ou dit une telle citation, mais je suis certaine qu'il n'a pas pu publier une telle faute de grammaire ! You don't understand french (CQFD) User:Rebecca Jones

Ms. jones, a suggestion: to sign talk page posts (like the "Thank You" section you added below) you just need to add a river of 4 tildes: ~~~~ I've sort of been following this. The problem I see is pretty complicated: Huma is associated with the Communist Party. The article cited about the GUE is behind a paywall. Party members can probably read it. It is probably a smart article, what I can read of it strongly suggests that deputies were dissatisfied at the timing of the arrest the day before the end of the parliamentary session.

The other source that a guy who calls himself Neutrality reverted was the Guardian. It is not behind a paywall, nor is it, afaik, associated with anyone's Communist Party. If you want to remain "embedded" in en.wp you should probably re-read the WP:BRD essay (it's !policy concerning dilatory tactics proper etiquette). Otherwise, you may end up pre-emptively ineffed. Cf. GenderDesk @ wordpress.com on makin' martyrs. Courage. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rebecca. I'm the admin that reviewed the report of the edit war at Julian Assange. Please read my comment here: I declined to block you, since you're using explanatory edit summaries and engaging on the talkpage. But at the same time you're not far off a WP:3RR block. Please continue discussing on talk, and don't revert again. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

As i said, O3000 does not speak french, he doesn't understand this article https://www.humanite.fr/la-convention-europeenne-des-droits-de-lhomme-peut-elle-empecher-lextradition-de-julian-assange-vers User:Rebecca Jones

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Julian Assange. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jayron32 18:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca: Despite the grace shown to you by Bishonen above, in the comment at 17:09, 8 May 2019, you continued to edit war to force through your preferred version of the article. In an edit at 17:58, May 8, 2019, here, you once again added what was substantially the exact same text as multiple other editors have objected to. Please note, this has nothing to do with whether or not the information you are trying to add is correct or not. This is purely a behavioral issue. When there is a dispute, you are supposed to talk about it on the article talk page, and build a consensus for what you want to do. Repeatedly adding the same thing over and over is NOT productive. If you can convince Wikipedia administrators that you intend to stop trying to add the same text, and instead will use only the talk page until AFTER you get consensus for your proposed additions, you may be unblocked early. --Jayron32 18:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your action is good for a paper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WikiLeaks

Very interesting always the same users ! lol

User:Neutrality User:Snooganssnoogans User:Geogene O3000

An article you recently created, Vanessa Baraitser, is not about Vanessa Baraitser. It is about judgements she has made. There is no biographical content. The listed and described cases should be included in the articles about the subjects. Please turn it into a biography with reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely moving a sentence in the Julian Assange article so that all the information about the 2017 tribunal decision was in the same place and in chronological order. That is not "vandalism". Please don't use misleading edit summaries. If you have an objection to the sentence being moved, please explain why on the talk page.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as an FYI, I think for most cases it is best not to use minor edit in your edit summary, such as [1]. Just a suggestion as it might stir the wrath of some editors ;-) Better to dont tick that box unless it is something really really minor, like a typo, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:

She is probably notable through being a judge, however this article only describes two of her notable cases/decisions. Needs more details on her general notability, and biographical information such as where she studied, any awards/special achievements would be useful too.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vanessa Baraitser and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Vanessa Baraitser, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rebecca jones! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MurielMary (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rebecca jones, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Julian Assange have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Julian Assange. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you're edit-warring - again - on the Assange article. Bad-faith accusations and edit-warring will earn a block of significant length if they recur. Acroterion (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you see I attack other editors please [User:Acroterion|Acroterion]] ?

Have you elements to justify your last comment please, I am very curious to read them.Rebecca jones (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here [2] in the edit summary. Disagreement isn't vandalism, and you've done it before. Stop that. Acroterion (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A user drops a report of United Nations special rapporteur and you don't consider this action as vandalism Acroterion (talk) ? And according you, adding again this report is an attack of other editors ? And you think really to be a serious administrator of wikipedia Acroterion (talk)? You don't see problems to drop these informations ? "Assange is incarcerated in HM Prison Belmarsh, where United Nations special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has said Assange's life is at risk.^[1][2]"

But why United Nations special rapporteur exists i ask you ? I am shocked that an administrator of wikipedia write this !

Rebecca jones (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are permitted to remove things that they do not believe should be included, and they are not to be labeled as vandals or their edits as vandalism thereby. I will say this one more time: disagreement is not vandalism, and making accusations of that kind will draw admonishment from administrators.. Stop with the accusations of vandalism - that's the point you're expected to take away from this. Discuss it respectfully on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Julian Assange shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Acroterion (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rebecca, I suggest to not use the vandalism term on edit summaries, even when it appears it is, since the admins will state that you have violated WP:CIVIL. Sometimes it is good to raise admins attention, and maybe this was your intent and it has worked. In this case I believe the actions of a few editors on this page might amount to WP:CIRCUS. That said, your response to it is a bit of WP:1AM. My suggestion in this case is to go slowly and to use the WP:RFC process after you first flesh out the objections and second attempt to find compromise on the issues. In general I haven't seen any good reason why the editors have reverted your content and we will flesh that out of on the talk page, likely the UN rep on torture is a category expert and also the location of Assange's incarceration is also non-controversial, thus we will see where it goes. Maybe the admins that are now looking at this will also see that other editors reverts of this content was out of line, let's see what comes out in the process. Wikipedia is a process after all (of finding the truth, or at least a consensus of what the truth is). Sincerely! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Administrators don't adjudicate content, they deal with behavior, such as calling other editors vandals to try to win an argument about content. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Snooganssnoogans_edits_on_Julian_Assange Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Bishonen | talk 18:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I am very surprising by comments of Snooganssnoogans and Bishonen. Why wikipedia refuses to report the conclusion of United Nations Human Rights ! What is the speciality of Snooganssnoogans and Bishonen ? Who are these users to judge the competence of three physicians, a psychiatrist and an UN Special Rapporteur on torture ? ^{[1] [2]}. This is a big joke ! I am shocked ! Rebecca jones (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am equally surprised that you think I've posted some comments attempting to judge the competence of some physicians, psychiatrists, etc. All I'm aware of posting to you is the two standard, extremely general, alerts above, in the blue boxes, about special rules for American politics and for biographies. What's there to shock you in those? Do you have difficulty understanding them? I realise that English is not your native language. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Why Bishonen posts alerts about special rules for American politics and for biographies whereas I have just added conclusions of an UN Special Rapporteur on torture ? And why Bishonen wants to know if English is my native language ? Why he needs information about others users ? Rebecca jones (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want any information about you. I can tell by the way you use English that it's not your native language. And now I can also tell by your misreading of my post. I don't like being addressed in the third person, btw. Never mind, forget it, I was just trying to help. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Julian Assange, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not continue to Edit War. Please discuss big changes to the lede on the Talk page first.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 12:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you are now wp:editwaring, you are now over wp:3rr, please stop.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to read wp:spa.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Julian Assange; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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 and work towards a version 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ——SN54129 14:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Always same behaviours from administrators of Wikipedia : they refuse publications from union of journalists...... Again I am shocked, why wikipedia allows their behaviours ? Wikipedia is neutral ? And if yes why drop these official informations ? Rebecca jones (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several union of Journalists consider him as a journalist and the Committee to Protect Journalists is today very troubled by prosecution of Julian Assange ^[3][4][5][6]. Currently, 120 journalists take the defense of Julian Assange and ask for his release ^[7]

You're blocked because of your edit-warring behavior, and this isn't the first time. You were warned and continued anyway. As I've explained before, administrators deal with behavior, not content. If this happens again, you'll be blocked indefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Union of journalists will be interested by your actions, again I am shocked ! Rebecca jones (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in reading the discussion here: Talk:Julian Assange/Archive 17#Request for Comment - Journalist. – bradv🍁 20:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As i said, unions of journalists will be very interested by actions and comments on wikipedia, they drop publications of Committee to Protect Journalists or Reporters Without Borders, who are administrators of wikipedia to judge their contributions or comments ? I am shocked ! Rebecca jones (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Vanessa Baraitser, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. El_C 21:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for chronic edit warring at said article. Note that you are still permitted to engage in discussion and make proposals on the article talk page.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 21:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I wait this, Iam not surprising, I can report it to journalists, they are very interested by your lasts actions. Wikipedia does not respect european laws

Sorry, but that's a bit too incoherent for me to parse. El_C 21:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C drops "reactions in Europe" reported in versions since 16 May 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&oldid=957085538

Jack Upland as usual drop it whereas all user ask to maintain it. His action is vandalism. European laws are not optionals, we are not in United States. So why Wikipedia do not respect Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and refuse to report the question of a dutch senator ? It is not first time that Wikipedia drop it, I am shocked I ask questions about the quality of wikipedia moderation. Is El_C paid to drop it ? Or he thinks he is god ? Or wikipedia are paid to drop Article of the European Convention on Human Rights or a question of european senator reported in several newspapers ?

In this version of Assange (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Assange&oldid=957085538), El_C drops

"WikiLeaks was recognised as a media organisation in 2017 by a UK tribunal, contradicting public assertions to the contrary by some US officials, and possibly supporting Assange's efforts to oppose his extradition to the United States. This is why the Dutch senator Tiny Kox asked the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights, Dunja Mijatovic, whether the arrest of Assange and his possible extradition to the US are in line with the criteria of the European Convention on Human Rights, because Assange can benefit from the protection of the right to freedom of expression and information according the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights ]

@El C: not objecting to this block, nevertheless I'd like to point out that the article changes that Rebecca opposed had no consensus, as is clearly demonstrated on the talk page. The article has been locked in a sort of stasis for over a year, and everyone editing the page is aware of it. While this is unfortunate, it is in my view the outcome of edits that tend to turn Assange's biography into a coatrack for material on the 2016 US elections, a subject that is grossly overrepresented. The edits that Rebecca opposed contributed further to that imbalance. -Darouet (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're about to be blocked from the talkpage too, and you will be blocked entirely if you repeat such unsupported accusations here. Acroterion (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions will be reported. As i said journalists ask questions about moderation of Wikipedia. They report activity of firms on Wikipedia for their clients. Ask a question to a user to know if he is paid to modify an article on wikipedia is not a personal attack. It is a reality. https://www.numerama.com/business/626945-comment-des-agences-de-e-reputation-ont-modifie-des-articles-wikipedia-pour-leurs-clients.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca jones (talk • contribs) 00:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a personal attack when you make unsupported accusations against other editors because you disagree with them, or because they don't agree with your agenda. You're about to be indefinitely blocked. if you don't stop that behavior. This is not the first time you've been warned or blocked, Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy or for righting great wrongs. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:: Acroterion : It is not a personal attack. Each time i reported news from famous european newspapers about Assange, same users drop them. I am surprised the first time because Le Monde is very famous in France. But when i reported decision of a UK judge in famous newspapers about Assange again same users drop it. Same things for the questions of a dutch senator about Assange, again they drop it. So I ask me why these same users drop all european reactions about Assange. And I saw these users spend all their times on wikipedia like you.

Read wP:vandalism and WP:ONUS (wp:brd might be worth a read too).Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists have reported the lack of neutrality of Wikipedia administrator because these administrators are paid by firms to drop or add informations (https://www.numerama.com/business/626945-comment-des-agences-de-e-reputation-ont-modifie-des-articles-wikipedia-pour-leurs-clients.html)

So I ask question to Wikipedia, why do you drop all europeans reactions and decision of justice in Europe about Assange published in famous newspaper ? You cannot drop them and report only reactions of United States. Assange is in Europe and the decision of an indicment depends only of Europe, not United States.

I am very shocked that Wikipedia accept you as administrator because you do not respect neutrality rules of Wikipedia, and you do not respect laws in Europe.

Again, journalists will be very interested by your last action because you drop these informations whereas they are published during several months on wikipedia.

« Reactions to the US indictment Several jurists, politicians, associations, academics and campaigners viewed the arrest of Assange as an attack on freedom of the press and international law.[378][379][380] The Reporters Without Borders said Assange's arrest could "set a dangerous precedent for journalists, whistle-blowers, and other journalistic sources that the US may wish to pursue in the future."[381] Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, wrote that Assange's prosecution for publishing leaked documents is "a major threat to global media freedom".[382] Independent United Nations rights experts such as Agnes Callamard said "the arrest of Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange by police in the United Kingdom, after the Ecuadorian Government decided to stop granting him asylum in their London embassy, exposed him to the risk of serious human rights violations, if extradited to the United States".[383] Reactions in the UK and the European Union WikiLeaks was recognised as a media organisation in 2017 by a UK tribunal, contradicting public assertions to the contrary by some US officials, and possibly supporting Assange's efforts to oppose his extradition to the United States.[384][385][386][387] This is why the Dutch senator Tiny Kox asked the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights, Dunja Mijatovic, whether the arrest of Assange and his possible extradition to the US are in line with the criteria of the European Convention on Human Rights, because Assange can benefit from the protection of the right to freedom of expression and information according the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[388] In 2019, British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said that Assange had revealed "evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan" and his extradition to the United States "should be opposed by the British government".[381] In February 2020 Corbyn again praised Assange, demanding a halt to the extradition. Prime Minister Boris Johnson responded vaguely with "it’s obvious that the rights of journalists and whistleblowers should be upheld and this government will continue to do that.”[389][390] Eva Joly, magistrate and MEP, said that "the arrest of Julian Assange is an attack on freedom of expression, international law and right to asylum".[391] Sevim Dagdelen, a German Bundestag MP who specialises in international law and press law, describes Assange's arrest as "an attack on independent journalism" and says that he "is today seriously endangered".[392][393] Dick Marty, a former state prosecutor of Ticino and rapporteur on the CIA's secret prisons for the Council of Europe, considers the arrest of whistleblowers "very shocking".[394][395] Several well-known Swiss jurists have asked the Federal Council to grant asylum to the founder of Wikileaks because he is threatened with extradition to the United States, which in the past "silenced whistleblowers".[396][397] The French Union of Journalists (Syndicat national des journalistes (CGT) [fr]), said that "the dissemination of documents or information of public interest" could not be considered a legal offence. The union called on Britain "to refuse the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States and to release him."[398] In a letter, several French Union of Journalists (Syndicat national des journalistes (CGT) [fr]) and (Syndicat national des journalistes (CFDT) [fr]) asked Emmanuel Macron to enforce Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. According them, "Faced with threats to Julian Assange's health and at the risk of seeing him sentenced to life imprisonment, we are saying loud and clear, with the IFJ (Fédération internationale des journalistes) that 'journalism is not a crime'". They add: Julian Assange denounced in his publications war crimes condemned by the Geneva Convention. Today, he is the one we would like to imprison, we would like to silence. ... We consider this case one of the most serious attacks on the freedom of the press, against public freedoms within the EU. The IFJ, the French unions and their Australian counterparts have launched a motion to seize this serious case the UN Human Rights Council and the European Parliament and the Council of Europe.[399] The yellow vests movement called for Assange's release.[400][401][402]

Other reactions Former Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa condemned Assange's arrest.[406] Bolivian President Evo Morales also condemned it.[333] Maria Zakharova, spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the indictment.[413][333] In January 2020, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted to oppose Assange’s extradition to the US.[414] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca jones (talk • contribs) 09:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note accusing users of vandalism just because they have undone your contributions is a PA (read wp:npa). Fell free to report me to the press, my details are on my user page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven Yes vandalism to drop decisions of justice in Europe about Assange and all reactions from european magistrates, senators, jurists and journalists in Europe. And Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am very shocked by your behaviours and i am not alone to be shocked! Again wikipedia do not report only decisions or reactions from United States. Assange is in Europe, not in United States and UK decides of his indictment from european laws, not United States laws.

That is not vandalism, that is disagreement, you need to start reading our polices. I could just as easily have called trying to add opinions of people that carry no legal weight in the case as vandalism (after all I disagree with the edit), I did not as we have a strict definition of what counts as vandalism, and good faith edits are not it (no matter how much I may disagree with them).Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now if you keep on calling good faith disagreement vandalism you will get your talk page access revoked, I suggest you stop now. ANd carry pout your threat to take us to THE PRESS!!!!!!!!Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven Several journalists have published on users like you. This is a very big problem on Wikipedia.

You drop all european reactions of magistrates, jurists, senator, journalist and you keep all american reactions and you think it is not vandalism ?

Why do you report reactions of american politicians whereas you drop reactions of european jurists specialists of european laws ?

Indictment of Assange depends on european laws, not american laws. So why drop the reactions of these specialists ?

Where is your good faith ?

I am not surprised by opinions of journalists and researchers about Wikipedia, because users like you are not neutral, spend all their time on wikipedia .....

And administrators cannot check if a user is paid or not by a firm, therefore ask the question is not a personal attack

https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/au-temps-du-coronavirus-faut-il-se-fier-a-wikipedia_2123479.html

https://www.numerama.com/business/626945-comment-des-agences-de-e-reputation-ont-modifie-des-articles-wikipedia-pour-leurs-clients.html

https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2020/05/30/faux-nez-et-bourrage-d-urnes-wikipedia-mene-l-offensive-contre-les-contributions-promotionnelles-opaques_6041257_4408996.html

https://www.zdnet.fr/blogs/l-esprit-libre/wikipedia-des-agences-prises-la-main-dans-le-sac-a-trafiquer-des-pages-d-entreprises-39904489.htm

https://www.franceinter.fr/societe/comment-les-contributeurs-de-wikipedia-font-le-menage-pour-supprimer-les-contenus-promotionnels

I will not be responding any more, I have tried to explain to you how a content dispute is not vandalism, I am now asking that as you continue to muse your talk page to make PA's (in the name of getting an unblock for making PA's) I would ask the blocking admin to revoke talk page access.Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued personal attacks and gross incompetence. No, I am not "paid" by anyone nor am I "God," as you claim, but your blatant and continued disregard of the rules, including but not limited to the constant attacks that you direct at your opponents, will no longer be tolerated on Wikipedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

El_C 15:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rebecca jones. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Vanessa Baraitser".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]