User talk:Amoruso

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1st Archive 2nd Archive

Shamir1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better.

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I, LifeEnemy hereby grant you, Amoruso, this barnstar for listening to the advice others and learning to better keep a discussion civil and on-point.

I, Humus sapiens, award you this Bagel of Zion for improving the coverage of ציון. Remember not to edit on empty stomach.

[edit] You reverts on 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

I'd like to discuss your recent revision of my reverts to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. I'll try to go point by point.

1. You removed the flag of Lebanon. The title of the article is 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, so it seems fully justified to me to retain it. I did not add it, I simply reverted the removal of it.
2. You reverted three points in the article where I clarified that the New York Times was reporting on an Israeli research group report that was released. Please refer to the article itself[1], which was already references in the article, which states "In a new report, an Israeli research group says Hezbollah stored weapons in mosques, battled Israelis from inside empty schools, flew white flags while transporting missiles and launched rockets near United Nations monitoring posts. The detailed report on the war was produced by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies, a private research group headed by Reuven Erlich, a retired colonel in military intelligence, who worked closely with the Israeli military."
3. You reverted the inaccurate figures of 20,000 to 30,000 tons of oil, where if you look at the article already cited[2], these numbers are effectively made up. The article lists 12,000 tons, and the other article I added[3] lists 15,000.
4. I added that 25,000 tons of oil had burned at the facility[4], in the attempt to explain why the numbers may have been skewed (together these are the size of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which was inaccurate prior to and after your revert).

I'm reverting your revert of my revert. If you'd like to discuss this further, please do as on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict talk page. Thanks. — George Saliba ^[talk] 07:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule at Masada. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Dmcdevit·t 11:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that you committed your fourth revert at 24 hours and four minutes. How fortuitous! I have asked Dmcdevit what incivility he spoke of. Stay tuned. - crz crztalk 23:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I read the 3RR noticeboard and saw Dmcdevit's statement as to what incivility is alleged. - crz crztalk 23:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): No response from Dmcdevit. 24 hours and four minutes is not 24 hours - and 3RR is a precise tool - so time served is enough IMO. Accusation of incivility is "pulled up by the ears", as we say in Russian. Request handled by: - crz crztalk 23:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the unblock. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

With a heavy heart, I have restored the balance of Dmcdevit's original block in order to seek consensus for an unblock at WP:ANI. My apologies. - crz crztalk 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed by the POV of some users concerned in their remarks. User:Patstuart's claims for "warrior and single purpose" for example are completely false. While I was blocked once for 3RR it was controversial since I saw that as a serious infringement of WP:BLP. At this time I was involved in the edit-war and accidentally reverted 4 times against someone working against consensus. There was no incivility and I believe you were right in cutting the ban to essentially 12 hours. 48 hours was inappropriate especially since I contacted user:Dmcdevit personally and also apologisied for reverting 4 times and agreed not to revert the article ever again - this even though I never violated WP:3RR. Amoruso 22:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I humbly apologise and apologised to user:El_C for deleting his comment back then here, it was not intentional and it got jumbled up with the request for unblock at the time (I did delete his recent comment over a dispute after he removed my NPOV tag which I found also quite offensive, but I feel we started on the wrong foot there). I find it really problematic that people with whom I engaged with content disputes like user:Palmiro and user:Steve Hart try to gang up on me, I guess it can't be avoided in wikipedia because of its nature but their comments should be taken with a pinch of salt. Steve Hart has made very offensive and incivil remarks against me also in a content dispute regarding Palestinian exodus: His grudge is derived from the content dispute at that article which he spent a long time reverting [5] - I see it as a gross violation of WP:CIVIL, and Palmiro has a personal grudge from many articles since I do no represent the Pro-Palestinian view with my contributions as in here [6] (you'd notice there's a group who believes any sourced information not abiding by their beliefs is not WP:RS which is a shame this is exploited). Other Pro-Paletistinian posters will obviously agree with them, while many users and adminstrators can show that I've contributed to wikipedia positively, created many articles (many of which had nothing to do with the conflict) and was/is a good editor. Amoruso 23:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

Note: Please check your block log linked below. If there are no blocks listed, or the latest one has already expired, then you have been autoblocked. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead. We cannot unblock you otherwise.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

• Amoruso (block log • ipblocklist • contribs • • [http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/p/b/Special%7EIpblocklist_2536.html unblock)
• Reason for unblocking:

I'm respectfully asking to be un-blocked again per confirmation that the user I engaged with is now a confirmed sock-puppet of a banned user. see details at ANI here where my unblocking or not is discussed [7] and here about the banned user [8]. The reason I want the unblock is not because of the time served I don't mind a break and I admit I was wrong in my behaviour, but I want the un-block to be registered because I WAS battling with a banned user and technically also didn't violate the WP:3RR and it's only right. Thank you.

---

Administrators: Replace this template with one of the following:

{{unblock reviewed|1=I'm respectfully asking to be un-blocked again per confirmation that the user I engaged with is now a confirmed sock-puppet of a banned user. see details at ANI here where my unblocking or not is discussed [9] and here about the banned user [10]. The reason I want the unblock is not because of the time served I don't mind a break and I admit I was wrong in my behaviour, but I want the un-block to be registered because I WAS battling with a banned user and technically also didn't violate the WP:3RR and it's only right. Thank you.|decline=reason -- ~~~~}}

{{subst:Request accepted|reason}}

Steve Hart now said this [11] - this I don't understand. He's quoting a user saying "I'm not particularly interested in staring into Amoruso's soul. I'm interested in understanding the purported reason for the removal of material" - not sure why. In fact, what happened there was a user who was confused by the WP:AGF and what is almost a Personal attack of user:Zero0000 against me which is exactly what user:Steve Hart is doing right now. In fact, I replied to the user several times and explained the content dispute. I didn't revert either for a long time until I found another verifiable source for something in the issue, posted it, and there was a consencus about it and no wars or any problem. In fact, what Steve Hart quoted is an example of how things should probably work in wikipedia as they were discussed and explained and used sources and civil language (from me) and admitting of one's possible error etc. Strange - here are the replies. [12] [13] I It's also troubling that HE is accusing others (some of the most respected good standing wikipedians and adminstrators of wikipedia) of bias when he was involved in the edit-war I posted above and which constituted 90% or so from his edits in the last months before he seemingly took a break from wikipedia... Amoruso 09:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Huldra, sorry you read it that way, I did not talk about the first 3RR. When I said consencus etc I was talking about this 3RR. Cheers. Amoruso 09:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alessandro Del Piero and the Catholic footballers category

he make The Sign of the Cross when he return from injury and also in the 2002 World Cup and many times after he scoring so please stop deleting from the Catholic footballers page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.139.194.147 (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] One by one respones to allegations of Steve Hart

I will reply one by one to the allegations made by user:Steve Hart here.

• removing the flag of Lebanon from the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Too bad Steve Hart didn't (hmm.) go a bit further and saw that the user who placed the Lebanon flag admitted he was mistaken. Lebanon wasn't a combatant in the conflict and therefore the flag was out of place. The editor who placed the flag removed it himself. [14]

• page move, moving Sirhan Sirhan (militant) to Sirhan Sirhan (murderer)

Yes, I did. Murder is NOT WP:WTA as far as I know concerning someone who murdered a whole family. Perhaps Steve Hart can explain us how is such a person a militant ? A militant could belong to an organization like HAMAS or Islamic Jihad MAYBE but this person was acting SOLO. So perhaps Steve Hart wants us to change the definitons of Criminal Law ? This page was not a page in contention and no edit war or reverts took place.

• deleting material properly sourced to BBC: [134], ABC News: [135], PBS, others; blanking text in references: [136]

Did I ? I would like to remind Steve Hart that Blanking = vandalism and that's harsh accusation incivil one and he should avoid that ASAP. This was according to policy, another banned user pushing this, not Timshifter apparently possibly (who got 3RR for this) but BlueDome (actually another sock-puppet of the banned user in question ) and policy explained here [15] and here [16] by many users. User was acting against consensus of atleast 4 users in good standing.

• a tendency of being uncivil on talk pages, e.g. [139] [140]

none of the two example seem to be incivil. Actually, the Paranoia remark seems very light-hearted and a WP:LOVE behaviour if anything, just jokingly. If someone got offended by it, I'd apologise of course. In fact, like Steve Hart said I (wrongly it seems) was particulary civil to him too even though he deleted material of mine. Seems strange allegation. [17]

• consistently removing warnings on own talk page, e.g: [141] [142], including removing an olive branch response by one editor addressed not to him, but to a third editor.

Ah, the ol' "don't remove from your page" think. Have you looked on other user talk pages at any chance ? Are you seriously pushing this allegation ? Note that the alleged olive branch response was made by user:PalestineRemembered a user now banned for 1 month for disruptive behavoiour on people's user pages. Seems Hart is missing a whole lot of information here. The timeshifter allegation was addressed already above - it was completely inappropriate and therefore removed.

• and finally, what I read, perhaps wrongfully...

Yes, you read that wrongfully. The topic on hand was how leads should be written for country articles. I suggested we try to reinstate some format into this in the name of WP:NPOV. I feel it's my right to discuss such issues with my fellow wikipedians at the project page ? There was no malice or ill-intent there, just concern to make Israel on par with other country articles.

Steve Hart notes that he was involved in a dispute with me back in August. That's true. In fact, this seems to be what it's all about. Steve Hart not just disputed but edit-warred over that page and reverted constantly and was also warned about it [18]. He also wanted to ban me from the head-start which was almost a threat and perhaps a violation of WP:BITE - "Frankly, I'm not sure you will be allowed to edit for much longer if you are to go on like this" and didn't seem to be concerned of WP:NPOV issues [19]. He says he already mentioned something bad about me in August right when I was a newbie but forgot to say I refuted his claims[20]. Finally, his repeated violations of WP:AGF saying that other users are biased towards me for political reasons even though this has just been contradicted by a good faith editor who disagrees with my political opinions completely and utterly.[21] Another proof of Steve Hart's agenda which revolved again over his war edit in August can be found again on this noticeboard. Steve Hart violated WP:CIVIL (I shall file him a complaint over that because it seems repetitve) by saying "Let me be perfectly clear: There's no reasoning with these guys. You will have better luck convincing a priest that God doesn't exist" [22] and making sure we all realise his crusade "One day someone's going to write him up and report him, and he'll be gone. Not even WP's forgiving policy enforcement is going to save him" (see same edit). <sigh>. Amoruso 11:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have pasted a copy of this reply on AN/I. If you object, please drop me a note and I'll remove it. -- Steve Hart 13:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. user:Patstuart, if you're reading this, I suggest you look at some of the articles I created which had nothing to do with the conflict and had to do with places in Israel or footballers and other issues. A single purpose account is offensive and in contradiction to about a dozen comments on that page who seem to think very differnetly from you. Amoruso 18:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: David's Tomb copyedit

Yeah, I did what I could with what was there[23]. I don't have access to much in the way of citable documentation with which to expand the article, but I'm more than happy to help out with touchups whenever possible. כול טוב, Tomer^talk 08:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)