Shaheenjim

Re: Moses was White

I think you missed the point of Andy's whole comment on Money (The Office episode). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.59.90.2 (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: your edit to Pam Beesly

Agreed, I don't know why that was removed in the first place. -Mike Payne 05:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pam Beesly

Just FYI, I'm going to keep removing that sentence every time you insert it, and others are doing the same. It has no place here. -Mike Payne 20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Me, too. --EXV // + @ 01:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

justin, minor scrubs characters

hi would you be willing to comment on the Talk page for List of minor characters of Scrubs regarding your opinion on the toy unicorn Justin thanks--Jac16888 18:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lost

Unless you have specific sources for these connections that these are indeed connections and not coincidences, don't add them back. Thanks.--CyberGhostface 20:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to be more specific, since you've added it back twice since User:CyberGhostface's note: suggesting that there's a connection between the Lost character Jacob and the Biblical character Jacob is original research/speculation; lacking a citation for a reliable source that such a connection is plausible, such speculation will be removed. --EEMeltonIV 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that it is your responsibility to provide reliable citations for the information you are adding. See WP:NOR and WP:V. Further violations may result in a block. --Yamla 15:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, you may now be in violation of WP:3RR. --Yamla 15:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You have now been blocked for your violations of WP:3RR. --Yamla 16:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your change to Ben Linus and substantial concern about it. Please refrain from readding this information unless you can build a consensus for your version. --Yamla 23:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked (old)

You have been blocked for your continued violations of WP:NOR after multiple warnings. --Yamla 00:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock (old)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I added some information to an article without citing my source and people deleted it because they said it was original research. Which is wasn't. So I readded it, except this time I cited the source. And some crazy admin blocked me for violating the no original research policy. If I cited the source, then obviously it's not original research.

Decline reason:

For one thing, insulting the blocking admin is not the best way to get yourself unblocked. And I find edits such as this nonconstructive and incivil. — Kurykh 04:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note that this user was repeatedly warned about WP:NOR and WP:RS, both of which the user violated here. This matter was discussed on the admin noticeboard and found to be original research. --Yamla 15:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Further note that as a result of the warnings, I added a source. So clearly it wasn't OR. And the discussion on the admin noticeboard was small and shallow. - Shaheenjim 19:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reverts

Your blanket reverts to General of the Armies, which erase all of the material I added, is bordering on breaking the policy of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles not to mention that that sort of behavior is generally considered rude. I encourage you to discuss exactly what you have a problem with on the talk page before simply removing all edits not your own. Please don't start an edit war. -OberRanks 21:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My answer to your concern is here [1]. Put back the material if you like, but please dont blanket revert my material since Ive added nothing to the article which isnt sourced and verified. -OberRanks 00:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have now put it back in for you [2]. See how easy that was? -OberRanks 00:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

General of the Armies

Thanks for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMrDolomite&diff=158063429&oldid=157233320 your note on my talk page. I have incorporated the copyedit wording _and_ the {{otheruses4}} in a manner which clarifies the scope of that article, as well as directing readers to similarly named articles.

As some aside comments to try to improve your WP contributions and interactions with other editors, please try to assume good faith on the part of other people's edits. While the edit summary you left during the edit here was not very useful, at least the comment you left on my talk page provided some clues as to the content change you were thinking about.

However, as is obvious by the rest of this talk page, and the comment "Don't revert my edit again.", remaining civil is not as easy as one would think. Remember that neither you, nor I, nor any other editor has ownership of an article. We all have various watchlists and interests and try to improve WP content, formatting and structure.

I admit that I had not thought about other countries' ranks not being 5 star, and appreciate that once again the many eyes of WP editors caught that omission. However, what rank is the one to which you refer to in the statement, "General of the Army is not the only 5 star rank in the US army"?

Thanks — MrDolomite • Talk 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Re: your reply on my talk page

Um, no, General of the Armies is not a 5 star rank. Pershing wore 4 stars and could have made any insignia, and logically there are arguments that it since it is superior to the 5 star General of the Army (United States), then it could be interpreted as 6 stars. I must be misunderstanding somehow.

In this edit, good use of {{Otheruses4}}. It is a copyedit discussion if one needs to re-mention the name of the title of the article in the dab template text, but at least it should be crystal clear to readers. — MrDolomite • Talk 23:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Pam Beesly Edit

Good point, but she said "I am" after talking on the phone, which made me think the question was about the wedding: i think she would have said "I do" or something like that instead if her mother asked about whether she loved Jim or not, just my own personal opinion, since there's no obvious answer. You bring up a good point though, and thanks for pointing out the mistake.

-Ryan

Army General merges

Is there some centralized discussion on this? I can't seem to find any. --Hemlock Martinis 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge probably isn't the right word for what I did (even though I was the one who used it). Even before I made my edits today, the General (United States) article already covered all the topics that were covered by the other articles I changed today. I added information to the General (United States) article from other articles, but the information I added was on topics that were already covered by the General (United States) article. So even if I hadn't merged the articles, I still would've made the same changes to the General (United States) article. Then once the General (United States) article had all the information that the other articles had, there was no reason not to change them to redirects to the General (United States) article. - Shaheenjim 04:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion area for United States General articles

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Discussion_for_various_United_States_General_articles for a common discussion area. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a note to that section, questioning the redirect of Five-star general to Field Marshal. -- Narsil 20:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian military doings haven't changed much from Soviet times, so I would expect not, but I don't know for certain. Chief Marshal- I don't know. Have a look at the revision history of Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation for users who know lots about this, and also check out www.mil.ru - roam around the Ru section as well, maybe there's a rank section - and www.warfare.ru. Cheers Buckshot06 13:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read my first response. CHIEF MARSHAL - I DON'T KNOW. I am not a real expert, though I've tried to help with your other questions at General of the Army. I'd refer you also to the other sites I mentioned above. Cheers Buckshot06 12:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

House

Thanks for the plot synopsis of the latest episode of House, I was looking forward to it as I haven't had a chance to watch it yet :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.28.81.205 (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: General of the Army (Russia)

It was an edit from an IP that had previous vandalism history, and it looked like it was removing part of a perfectly valid sentence. If it's incorrect, you can go ahead and remove it. GlassCobra 16:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruption on General articles

I asked you not to do it again and you did anyway. Creating three identical articles, against a merger vote, is against policy specificaly WP:OWN and WP:CON. The matter has been reported to the administrators. I think you will find they will not be on your side with this but I guess we will see. -OberRanks 04:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

TY

Thank you for respecting the opinion and not reverting the reestablishment of the Lieutenant General (United States) article back to a redirect. Thats a very good sign that people are now working together. -OberRanks 08:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on General of the Armies

Just a warning - you very nearly got blocked for this statement. The three revert rule is not a loophole to be tiptoed around. Reverting repeatedly is considered disruptive irrespective of precisely how many edits you make in any 24 hour period. Instead, I have protected the article. However, as the other "side" were almost as bad, I have protected the article instead. But continue edit warring against consensus and you will end up getting blocked. I notice you are discussing much of this "General" business in other areas, and would suggest you continue to do so, as progress is being made. Neil ☎ 18:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

SJ you are really making yourself look bad here and I urge you to stop. Edit warring got the article protected and you are now on record as going to the protecting admin and asking that the other side in this dispute be banned from the site. You have also littered Wikipedia with statements such as "your edits make the article worse" and you threw in a personal attack by calling me "self centered". This is helping noone and seriously hurting you. I did similar things a year and a half ago and had to leave this site in shame, only now able to reestablish my name somewhat. Do not let that happen to you. I would suggest starting a section on the article talk page entitled "What I think is wrong with this article". List the points by number so they can be easily answered. People will then be happy to work with you. With that said, I wish you well, and I'm logging off. -OberRanks 20:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already described what I think it wrong with the article at Talk:General_of_the_Armies#First_sentence and Talk:General_of_the_Armies#Pershing. I see no reason to create yet another section to discuss the same thing. We're already discussing the same topic on several different talk pages in lots of different sections. - Shaheenjim 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Russian Marshals, Chief Marshals and General Majors

Please see Talk:Chief Marshal and Talk:Army ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation. --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bliss and March

Regarding Bliss and March, I'm not sure there's a single online source that references all that information. Essentially, the temporary ranks of general and lieutenant general were only authorized in the National Army, which was the conscript/volunteer force authorized by emergency legislation for World War I (the equivalent of the World War II Army of the United States). Only two temporary generals were actually authorized for the National Army, so when Bliss was replaced by March as chief of staff, Bliss was made a brevet general to maintain his four-star status for the duration of the war (which I guess made him a temporary temporary general). The National Army was disestablished on June 30, 1920 by the Army Reorganization Act of that year, and the general and lieutenant general ranks went with it. Pershing only got to keep his rank thanks to special Congressional legislation that commissioned him a permanent general in the Regular Army. See the following articles from the NYTimes free archive:

"Rank of General for Bliss and March: Former Gets Brevet Title for Services Abroad - Latter Becomes Chief of Staff", The New York Times, May 21, 1918

"House Committee For Two Generals: Pershing Wins Unanimous Vote, March by 8 to 7 on Non-partisan Decision", The New York Times, July 31, 1919

"Only Major Generals Now; March, Liggett and Bullard Lose War Rank", The New York Times, June 30, 1920

Bliss and March retired as major generals, but were advanced to general on the retired list in 1930, when Congress passed legislation that restored all retired officers to their highest wartime ranks. You can reference this in the individual Bliss and March biographies in Commanding Generals, or by consulting the NYTimes pay archive. Morinao 06:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, between September 3, 1919 and June 30, 1920 an active duty General of the Armies coexisted with active duty lieutenant generals and generals. Note, however, that the General of the Armies commission was for life, so even after Pershing retired in 1924, he was still carried on the active duty rolls. So General of the Armies also coexisted with general as an active duty rank from February 20, 1929; with lieutenant general and general from August 5, 1939; and with lieutenant general, general, and general of the Army from December 16, 1944; until Pershing's death on July 15, 1948. Morinao 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

General of the Armies

While one can argue that before Public Law 94-479 was passed in 1976 to promote George Washington to the rank the relative status of that rank with that of General of the Army was unclear, that law unambiguously states that "the grade of General of the Armies of the United States is established, such grade to have rank and precedence over all other grades of the Army, past or present." That leaves unresolved only whether Pershing's appointment as General of the Armies of the United States should be considered as equivalent to Washington's or not, since the law recreates the grade only for Washington. Indeed one could argue that Pershing's rank should be considered equivalent to General of the Army since otherwise he would be by date of appointment senior to Washington who was appointed to that rank as of July 4, 1976. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hard to say where General of the Army of the United States fits. It was never used at the same time as the ranks we'd like to compare it to. One might say that it along with General of the Armies of the United States and the rank of Major General Commanding the Army are all the same in that they were intended to be conferred upon only one officer at any one time, such officer subordinate only to the President himself. Note that the insignia of Major General Commanding the Army was three stars during the Civil War era. Alexander Macomb, Jr.'s 1829 portrait indicates that his insignia as Major General Commanding the Army was at that time a single wreathed star in gold, but he was not only the Major General Commanding the Army, he was the only active duty major general then. If we go with such a concept, it would be to best to simply note that the rank simply has as many stars as needed to differentiate it from other general ranks in use at the time. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but color change has been used as a rank indicator for the Army before, most notably in the Lt. Col. and Major ranks, where the difference was originally one of having the oak leaf match the epaulet or differ from it. It clearly was a different rank, and there were contemporaneous officers to Pershing who held the rank of General. Insofar as we use stars as a short hand for relative officer rank, Pershing clearly had more than 4 silver stars. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For Pershing, who knows whether he was 5 or 6 star, but Washington was clearly placed in a separate higher rank than General of the Army, so his rank can't be a 5 star rank in the sense of ranking generals by stars. Perhaps one could say that the rank transcends stars. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. "Stars" in the sense of n-star general is a just a shorthand for indicating relative rank, not a mechanism for generically describing the insignia which vary widely by time and place. I doubt anyone would refer to a Canadian lieutenant general as a three maple leaf general. Trying to read anything more than that is silly. Caerwine Caer’s whines 15:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps the British ranks need to be removed from 5 star rank and Category:British 5 star officers need to go to CfD. The British insignia do not use stars, and as far as I can tell have never used stars, yet somehow, someone decided stars would be a good way to class their ranks. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Da Yuan Shuai

As far as I am aware of the Rank of Grand Marshal or equivalent rank are not used currently in the Republic of China rank tables, so it is more of historical note.

Regarding the Grand Marshal rank for Imperial China and the People's Republic, the rank was proposed for Mao but never accepted, so it would be just a proposal; as for Imperial usage, that I'm not too clear on. Aldis90 (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

re: General Officer

Please do not delete messages from article talk pages as you did here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Seven Seas

I no longer believe that there was originally a list of seven seas. Seven is a mystical number in European culture and the phrase is probably just a fancy way to say "everywhere".

I didn't include the Aegean Sea because for purposes of the map and the list, I considered it as just part of the Mediterranean and not a distinct sea. The Mediterranean has many seas and the Adriatic, which I did include, is most separate from it.

I hope this helps. Thanks for your past and future work on one of my favorite articles.

Foobaz·o< 12:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no single "definitive" list of the Seven Seas. Virtually all major seas known to Europeans and Middle Easterners have been at some time or other, by some author or other, categorized as one of the Seven Seas. —Lowellian (reply) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the article is eurocentric and is rather neglectful of the usage of the term Seven Seas in Arabic and other Middle Eastern literature. It does mention Middle Eastern views, but the treatment is not as complete as it could be. —Lowellian (reply) 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that the Arabian Sea is often regarded as part of the Indian Ocean. —Lowellian (reply) 16:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Test pages

If you must create test pages, you will find it better to use names that start User:Shaheenjim/. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fox News Sunday

My source for that statement is the Nielsen ratings, which are published in the "dayparts updates" on Media Life and through the NBC press releases (sometimes ABC publishes them, too)... the cable ratings are published by TV Newser. I did some OR a few months back to figure out why the ratings are as low as they are (part of the reason being FNS has no lead-in morning show like the other networks), but since that stuff isn't condoned by Wikipedia I didn't put it in the article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is fourth of the five major Sunday morning talk shows (Meet the Press, Face the Nation, This Week, Fox News Sunday, and Late Edition). I thought that was self-evident, but sorry if I wasn't more clear. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC) x

General of the Air Force

Note my response to your comment at Talk:General_of_the_Air_Force_(United_States)#Contradiction. Worldruler20 (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

General of the Army

While General of the Armies does rank below General of the Armies of the United States and above General of the Army, General of the Armies, like General of the Armies of the United States, is a "Special" grade and is not listed as a grade that can be given just by congressional confirmation. The grade must also, once again, be established via creation of a law by Congress and signed by the Persident. It in extremely unlikely that Congress will create the grade once again as it was created to be given to one person and one person only. General of the Army is still a grade that can be used by law, General of the Armies and General of the Armies of the United States are not. Neovu79 (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Six star image

Hello - iirc, you are the one that has a copy of general MacArthur's promotion package? If so, could you place take a look to see if there is anything that can be used as a source for the six star image? See Talk:6 star rank#Six star image. Thanks! --Marc Kupper|talk 23:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy reply - I'll hunt through the history as one of the editors involved with General of the Armies a couple of years ago either had it or saw it. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Moon

I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to say "There are a lot of people on here with no common sense", just because other editors happened to have concerns about your edits. You are no doubt aware of the strict requirements for verifiability, reliable sources, and no original research for Wikipedia articles. The web site in question does not meet these tests, so we cannot use it as a source. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You said you don't know why I said people have no common sense if they revert my edit about the moon. That's a fair question. I'll explain. First of all, nothing in my edit was original research. Second, it was all verifiable. So neither of those critieria are cause to revert my edit. Third, as I said when I restored my reverted edit, if true information comes from an unreliable source, you should change the source, not the information. Or if you don't have time to find another source, you could just add one of those citation needed tags, so that someone else will find a reliable source. And fourth, the point of the reliable sources rule is to keep people from adding misinformation to Wikipedia. Now, the source I cited might be unreliable about some things. But the information that I added from that source was correct. Therefore the source was reliable enough for the purpose for which I used it. You have a tendency to be too quick to revert edits that add correct information. That makes Wikipedia worse, not better. You seem to be following the letter of the rules, without regard for their intent. That's a common mistake, and it's the worst stereotype of a bureaucrat. You need to use more discretion about when to follow the letter of the rules, and when to ignore them. Don't forget this rule. You aren't too bad, though. My comment was more about Wikipedia users in general than about you in particular. I've run into other users who are a lot more insistent in their attempts to make Wikipedia worse. Like these ones. - Shaheenjim (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, Paine's site does not meet the standards required by Wikipedia. Claiming my actions were bureaucratic in nature is misleading, factually incorrect, and merely deflects attention from the fact that the site cannot be used to support your text. The onus is on you - the contributor - to properly verify any facts you seek to incorporate into an article, and to supply references to that effect. (By the way, despite your expressed opinion of me, I'm quite familiar with and supportive of the principle of IAR. Keep in mind that it is not in any way a free pass, and that Wikipedia expects a higher standard yet again for core articles.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You said that Wikipedia's standards require a site to be better than Paine's. If that were true, then I'd agree with you. But it's not true, per the IAR rule. You may be supportive of the principle of IAR in some cases, but you're missing an opportunity to support it in this case. And that's why it's not misleading, factually incorrect, or a mere deflection to say that you're filling the negative stereotype of a bureaucrat. - Shaheenjim (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Gravitational pull

Do you think it would be Ok to change it to "almost" twice?Kevin McCready (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Greek mythology

xpost fm you

You recently made some edits to the articles for Twelve Olympians and Homeric Hymns because you thought it was strange that they were implying that Hesiod wrote of the Titans but not of the Olympians. They weren't implying that. He wrote about the Olympians, but he didn't use the term "the Twelve Olympians." That's a specific subset of the Olympians.

So I reverted your edits to those two articles. If you also made a similar edit to the article for Titans (mythology) then that should be reverted too. Although I think you might not've made a similar edit to that article, even though the edits you made to the other articles were about that article. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Twelve Olympians (edit talk links history) and Homeric Hymns (edit talk links history)and Titan (mythology) (edit talk links history)

0) I didn't think it strange, I found it to be confusing, contradictory, and poorly handled across articles. In short, the extant phrasing in both articles created a confusion... which I (in my ignorance) attempted to edit away. I made no changes to the Titans page, btw.

1) That's why the fact tag... in Homeric Hymns — I was looking for an expert to address the ambiguity and confusions... hope you fixed up the language so is preventive of another misinterpretation. Cross-topic integration is an important thing to keep in mind with writing between articles which link--and are likely to be cross read by our customers.

• ASIDE: The timing on these classical studies and/or antiquities articles is most often too weasel worded in general. Stating a date range like "7th cen. BC" is subject to wide misunderstanding... particularly when the timespan is BCE...
• better to augment with an appropriate parenthetical date range with appropriate "at the earliest", "before ...", "around ...", "no later than ...", and such non-academic plain language as educates etc.
• A certain amount of dumbing-down so stuff is readable (and understandable, because of context) by the general population is a good thing... our mission, I figure.

2) The distinction between Olympians and twelve Olympians is I suspect too subtle and specialized for reliance on such that the readers are following the specialist mindset. I follow it as someone with at least half-a-dozen mythology references on my bookshelves, but the average lay reader isn't going to have those, or my lifelong interests... so the article needs clarified if you mean to make the distinction. Normally, if worthy, that would and should require a separate article with prominent disambig crosslink at the page top. Somehow, I don't figure any article on Minor Olympians is coming any day soon... Is there a list article covering such? list of Olympians strikes out... but... THAT would be one good way to cover that need, and be encyclopedic to boot. We should have one, I conclude.

3) Most of us would agree that the Olympians disambig page, which links to that Twelve Olympians page also needs further separate delineation of your very technical distinction . That would also need handled on the 'twelve Olympians' page up in the intro so to set in place for us and to us in the general population such picayune specialty knowledge.

(before closing, I made a stab at some disambiguation on this... by altering the introduced and offending phrase I'd added to accommodate your technical distinction as I perceive it all... but by all means pee in it as needed if I'm off a bit with my guesswork) (I began that with a dablink para, but the topic needs handled in the article body--up high somewhere.) In short, wikipedia is not currently covering the distinction between the terms as you know them. I, on the other hand, am acting to clarify to all and sundry.

4) Consequently, I reverted your reverts of my three edits on 'twelve Olympians' as wholly lazy and in appropriate. A close examination therein will reveal the sole text change made was to work in Olympians (as just discussed above) because of the linkages issues (and ignorance... I really don't care if there were 12 or 200... but references to Olympians... should definitely connect and mention the twelve which are usually those connoted! The 1500 minor nature sprites aren't of general interest outside kids cartoons and Charmed scripts! <g>).

• The other changes I made were whitespace and formatting with the two bulleted lists, plus the fact tag... but since I was revamping format and material I specifically made stepwise iterative changes vice one biggie... which would have been what I did were it one of my normal topic areas. (My saves are generally substantial changes. 20 small changes by one editor is not something I like to see.)

5) Mutual respect would require better handling of my time involvement, and a closer inspection of the changes. Thanks, however, for the notice on my talk. Suggest with successive changes like that you evaluate them one by one, as they appear in the current text... note the use of a few typing aid templates and spacing out of cites made the diffs look far worse than the actual changes that occurred.

• The fact tag should have been cleared in a section edit locally.
• The best (and most courteous to all) way would be to comment it out, with a dated terse reason why it's inappropriate or handled.
• That sets the record in place for other people to see the diffs... and obviates the need for a separate talk handling the issue most of the time.
• In short, is a highly courteous practice when you realize literally dozens of people might be looking at diffs from their watchlists...

6) In the same vein as a better practice... Cites are a pain to work around with future diffs since far more seems to change if they aren't broken into linefeed terminated separate lines... The easiest prophylactic on that is to terminate all of them using '>' so it's on a different line. Repetitions of named cites, can do the same with '/>', though that seems unnecessary most of the time—unless two or three cites are used at the same point. As a general technical matter, wikimarkup's HTML is quite tolerant of whitespace padding before the closing of any HTML tag command.

• By the same token, breaking up the contents in cites templates onto some block of separate lines aids editing in the future (Text and refs aren't blending together) and shorten lines so actual changes can be seen more clearly.
• Lastly, '}}' in such can be spaced down with several linefeeds... creating separation. Adding extra pipes in a template is also harmless.

You'll want to recheck "the Olympians"... but the text, not a diff... This is a good case for needing a character block diff capability... being able to see whitespace changes as only an added linefeed, or so show the inserted words not processed in a line by line confused block where the whole shows red vice an inserted word AND the linefeed(s), etc., would have shown there weren't big changes there. Best regards // FrankB 17:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

exchange ii OR iii

I reverted your edits again. I'm not entirely sure what you were attempting to do with them. And I didn't follow your thousand word rant on the talk page either. What I do know is this: Your edit seemed to imply that the Olympians in general and the Twelve Olympians in particular were the same thing. I reverted your edit and explained to you that they were different. Then you made another edit that again seemed to wrongly imply that the Olympians in general and the Twelve Olympians in particular were the same thing. I'm not sure why you keep implying that, even after I've explained to you that it's not true. You might be right that the articles should be more explicit in its distinction between the Olympians in general and the Twelve Olympians in particular. But that's no reason to seem to imply that they're the same thing. - Shaheenjim (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you are making a distinction as if a scholar... not writing the article focused to and for the lay people —your writings need to explain EXACTLY THAT DIFFERENCE as I tried to do... to your dissatisfaction. Fine, I leave it in your hands, but the article or our overall coverage is missing the overall context. Olympians has to handle the rest of the pack —whatever scholarship calls them. Since your article is the closest detailed article with that title, and is further on point... IMHO, you're only doing a partial job. It's not satisfactory at all.

I've been "IN TO" to reading about mythology my whole life, and am pushing retirement age and until running across you, have never heard of the distinction you are making. Not many people have one, much less multiple mythological reference works, and my bookshelves have at least six. In short, you are living in a very different world than the one this encyclopedia is supposed to serve if you can write about any topic in the area I haven't ever heard of even once.

If you want to cover the Olympians and draw a distinction to the 12, by all means do so, but for pete's sake COVER THE DIFFERENCE. Recast the disambig article, and start with that title if necessary, but at least explain SOMEWHERE who the twelve are versus those who aren't. Sorry I can't be any clearer. Try thinking like a twelve year old reader finding the topic for the first time and see if you educate the lad. That's the connection you seem to not be trying to make, given the inadequate link from 'Olympians'. Best regards // FrankB 01:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Shaheenjim. You have new messages at VirtualSteve's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--VS ^talk 03:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Shaheenjim. You have new messages at Ckatz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Ckatz^chat_spy 16:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Orbit of the Moon

It's hard to follow a thread on three separate user talk pages and so replied on Talk:Orbit of the Moon#Concave or Convex? where the conversation can hopefully consolidate as it's about that article. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about

The half of the argument that was made here was moved to this page so it could be with the other half.

Just to notify you, I "whined" to the administrators, at WP:ANI#User:Shaheenjim. --Jeremy (blah blah) 20:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

block 3

Some of the relevant pieces of this conversation have been moved to archived pages, and some of them have been censored by the other side to spare them the embarrassment of people knowing how badly I beat them. So I'm copying them all here to preserve them. - Shaheenjim (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute on Talk:Daybreak_(Battlestar_Galactica)

Its the exact same ship and if I knew how to post a photo I would to prove it, other then that; I only have this forum(http://www.cnc-source.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7360&st=0) as proof (in it we discussed it and I posted a photo from the episode), also I would ask that you consider the odds that two different groups created the exact same ship model independently (given that the Kodiak is a distinct design, albeit not so distinct as to not fit in the BSG fleet)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsas (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That is still OR --Jeremy (blah blah) 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There comes a point sir where you can tell beyond a reasonable doubt that two things are one and the same; if I could place 2, photos of the ship right next to each other one from the original source and one from the episode, then all who see it could then tell its the exact same ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsas (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Post note on the forum site I sited earlier I edited my post (second down from the top) as to place an image of the ship from the episode and the original ship in question please look at them and tell me weather this counts as being one and the same.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Collinsas (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That is fine, but it is still original research by you and others. You are taking two images and saying "Look they're the same!" What you need is a cited fact from a reliable secondary source that is verifiable, which blogs, other wikis and other sources of user generated content is not. Find that stuff and you can include it, otherwise it is subject to deletion. --Jeremy (blah blah) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The rules against OR and requiring RS are meant to prevent people from posting misinformation. Obviously this isn't misinformation, so those rules don't apply, and it can be posted, per this rule. To say otherwise is to violate this rule. - Shaheenjim (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you sir--Collinsas (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Really, would you like to put that up to an RfC? I can pretty much guarantee you that they will tell you the same thing - that argument is bunk. That has been tried before and in each case the result was the same the data that was questioned was removed. --Jeremy (blah blah) 02:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on my experience on Wikipedia to date, I have absolutely no doubt that the people who comment will be little kids who will disagree with me because they're petty bureaucrats with no common sense. The Use Common Sense rule is a difficult rule to enforce. But that doesn't change the fact that if I managed to find someone in that rapidly shrinking segment of the population that does have common sense, then that person would agree that the information should be allowed to be posted. - Shaheenjim (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy, I think the problem here is that you are not considering the argument for inclusion or providing a reasonable argument for exclusion by weighing the facts at hand based upon the merits of the arguments presented. What you are instead doing is deleting things and then citing rules that all of us are already aware of, and then hiding behind those rules when someone calls you on it. Look at the spirit of the law AS well as the letter of the law, and don't indiscriminately apply the law without considering what things are there for. You will end up contradicting yourself. Provide a substantive argument for or against inclusion, and not just "this is OR, this is still OR, please cite, this is OR". Consider the article: Jesus. The first sentences state: Jesus Christ, is the central figure of Christianity and is revered by most Christian churches as the Son of God and the incarnation of God. Islam considers Jesus a prophet, and he is an important figure in several other religions. Notice that there is no citation. Is a conclusion drawn in these sentences? Yes. Is there a consensus that these conclusions are true? Yes. Is this then fact? Yes. Does it need to be cited specifically? No. Why? Because a consensus has been reached. This is one of the main purposes of a talk page. To reach a consensus. I am not arguing for or against the inclusion of the Kodiak issue...what I am trying to get across is that, by your desire to make things better or "right" by what you think is a justifiable citation of rules, you are actually denying others the same. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Your efforts are appreciated, but please attempt to consider other viewpoints and don't be so quick to slash and burn.

Shaheenjim, I think calling Jeremy a "petty bureaucrat" isn't helping, either.

IRelayer (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see the point you have made, but the conclusion you reached is faulty. The facts you state are all cited later in the article. WP does not require the lead to be cited, since it is simply a summary of the article that is to come. If you delve deeper into the article you are using as an example, you will find cited references that back up these comments. Additionally the subject of the history of Jesus has been subject of scholarly research and debate for two millenniums, this subject is a little newer and still subject to debate.

The conclusions presented here are subjective in that the contributor went out and looked at data he found on the web and came to a conclusion about that data and presented it here, which is OR. On the other hand, the addition that Stu Phillips music can be heard is not subjective since the credits of the show list his contributions. Its is like the famous baked potato in The Empire Strikes Back asteroid belt scene, it has been written about many times and can be backed up by independent sources that meet the WP Sourcing guidelines; at this time that cannot be said about the ship in question but I am sure that this will change once a site such as IGN gets a hold of this. Once that is done it can be properly included. --Jeremy (blah blah) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is OR doesn't mean it's subjective. Look it up. But you didn't address my point. I repeat:

1. The rules against OR and requiring RS are intended to prevent people from posting misinformation.

2. This isn't misinformation.

Therefore:

3. The rules against OR and requiring RS aren't intended to prevent people from posting this.

4. IAR says you shouldn't use a rule for a purpose for which it wasn't intended.

Therefore:

5. You shouldn't use the rules against OR and requiring RS to prevent people from posting this.

If you object to my argument, be specific. Say which of those 5 points you disagree with, if any. - Shaheenjim (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

From this picture (http://pnmedia.gamespy.com/planetcnc.gamespy.com/fms/images/potd/2294/1237774356_fullres.jpg), you can clearly see that it IS the Kodiak from the game Command&Conquer: Tiberian Sun. Spectre01 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is the CC Koidak, the resembense is remarkable. No we cannot put that in. Here's why: Wikipedia is build on the five pillars, three of them being reliable sources, verifiability and no original research. Those are policies, which everyone must follow. WP:IAR is also policy, but still governed by the fove pillars; it is only there as a last resort, and this case is not there by a long shot. Common sense is not even a guideline; it only represents a state of mind.

The CC Kodiak is not on it's own; in the Miniseries, we saw the Serenity soar over Caprica. It is mentioned because the producers acknowledged it, which made it notable. But no such thing has happened here... yet. As it is, this is an observation. Until the media or the producers point this out, we cannot put it in the article. As it is now, it's a ship from a video game. On it's own it is not a reason for inclusion. Wait until there is media coverage, or the episode's podcast is out; if it mentions the ship, we can put it in. — Edokter • Talk • 23:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was unable to post as I was at work. This was going to be my next point, and you stated it dead on. --Jeremy (blah blah) 23:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the music was specific to this episode: The original BSG theme only appeared two times during the series, in the first episode of the Mini-series where it was acknowledged as the Thirteen colony's national anthem and here at the end as the Galactica is being flown into the sun. --Jeremy (blah blah) 23:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You still didn't address my point. In my post at 17:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC), I asked you a very specific question. I described my argument in five points, and I asked you which of those 5 points you disagree with, if any. You have failed to respond, again. I suspect it's because you can't respond, because you know damn well that all 5 points are correct. In addition to flagrantly violating Wikipedia's Use Common Sense rule, you are also now in violation of Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy, which says that instead of edit warring, you should discuss your objections, and say which part of your opponent's argument you disagree with. So I'm going to ask you one more time. Say which of the 5 points of my argument is wrong, or shut up. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am at work, I will respond later. --Jeremy (blah blah) 03:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you were going to directly answer my question, you could do that at work. It'd only take a single character. You could've just typed the number of the premise with which you disagree. But you didn't. It sounds like your response is a prelude to another evasion. Save it. I'm not interested. - Shaheenjim (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I actually like to follow the rules as set forth by my boss. You should take a lesson in rule following, starting with WP:Civil.

As for the five standards of inclusion, lets me say it again so you will understand:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

I have been saying this over and over and you still will not listen. When you draw a conclusion that is not backed by a reliable secondary source you are engaging in original research. The common sense article is an essay and not a policy guideline. Using common sense would dictate that if the data you are presenting does not meet the five standards you must not include it.

As I have also stated, the pictures do appear to be the same ship, and as Edoktor and I have both stated until this is confirmed you cannot include it. Read my post above to see that I have also said once there is significant coverage in a reliable secondary source that can be verified, you can include it. Hell, I will even put it in myself and properly cite for you when that time comes. --Jeremy (blah blah) 05:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it unlikely that your boss said that you're allowed to go on Wikipedia, read someone else's post, and give the response "I am at work, I will respond later." but that he said you're not allowed to go on Wikipedia, read someone else's post, and give the response "2." Perhaps he said you're allowed to say "I am at work, I will respond later" but you aren't allowed to make long posts. But a long post is not required. All I've asked you to do is post the number of my premise with which you disagree. You could've done that without a long post. But you didn't. As I expected, you have failed to my direct question, again. Since you refuse to observe Wikipedia's dispute resolution process by discussing your objections and saying which part of your opponent's argument you disagree with, I'm readding the material to the article.

As for your "point" we're all aware of the rules against OR and requiring a RS. We all know that this material violates those rules. But that's irrelevant to this discussion, as I have explained several times. Common sense does not dictate that if the data you are presenting does not meet the five standards you must not include it. Not when the five standards weren't intended to prevent you from including data like yours, and especially now when there's the IAR rule. I'm aware that you think it can be included once it has a RS. No one is disputing that, and I'll ask you to stop wasting everyone's time by repeating things that are not disputed. The question is whether it can be included before it has a RS. And the answer is yes, as I've explained, in an argument so perfect that you weren't able to explain which part of it was wrong. - Shaheenjim (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the answer is an unambiguous no. We can add it once it is sourced, not sooner. Otherwise it remains unverifiable. Please stop reinserting it until a source becomes available. If you want to put the infotmation somewhere, go to the Battlestar Wiki, they would welcome this information. — Edokter • Talk • 13:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Edokter. My comments were to Jeremy, but I'll address you separately now. In your recent edit you said "IAR does not apply here." In your comments above you said "WP:IAR... is only there as a last resort, and this case is not there by a long shot." Elaborate on those statements. Where did you find the guidelines you're using about when IAR does and does not apply? My understanding is that it applies in any case where the rules prevent you from making Wikipedia better. In this case, the rule against OR and requiring RS are preventing us from making Wikipedia better, so it seems to me like IAR would apply. If you're aware of some other requirement for application, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Or is it your allegation that the rule against OR and requiring RS do not prevent us from making Wikipedia better in this case? Is it your allegation that adding OR information without a RS doesn't make Wikipedia better, even if the information is obviously and undisputedly true?

Also, the rules OR and RS would object to this. The verifiability rule does not. The information is obviously verifiable by looking at the pictures that Collinsas provided. - Shaheenjim (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

IAR does not apply because adding this information does not improve Wikipedia. And while looking at a picture may seem to verify that the ship is Kodiak, noone can verify the origin of that image, so it fails verifiability. Adding OR information without without a source is never an improvement. And yes, we do put verifiability over truth. — Edokter • Talk • 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it your position that this information is not obviously and definitely true? Or is it your position that adding information that is obviously and definitely true doesn't improve Wikipedia if it's OR and doesn't have a RS?

And you can easily verify the source of the images by watching the TV shows from which they came. In that sense it'd be exactly the same if it did come from a RS. - Shaheenjim (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, no matter how true it is, it needs to be verifiable. Right now, it isn't due to the lack of reliable sources. It is as simple as that. Now please stop pressing the issue. — Edokter • Talk • 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed a comment that violated WP:Civil from Shaheenjim. --Jeremy (blah blah) 20:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking me to verify the images, fine then here are 2 videos; 1) is the GDI intro from TS the kodiak first appers at the 2.10 mark, and 2) is a clip from daybreak with the kodiak in it.

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpIKvUIKiTM

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHL-wKkNtBo&feature=player_embedded

--Collinsas (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

All that material is fan-submitted, so unfortunately unusable. Just be patient; I'm already reviewing some potential sources, so there is hope yet. — Edokter • Talk • 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

E! has an interview with RDM, you might look there as well. --Jeremy (blah blah) 04:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

One guy censors dissenting speech that was a response to that guy's ally's attempt to suppress dissenting speech. Oh, the irony. Not to mention that deleting someone's comment is a pretty uncivil thing to do in the name of civility. Well sorry Jeremy, but this still isn't a dictatorship, despite the fact that apparently you also wish it was. I've restored my comment, and I'll direct it to you now too.

I just explained how you could verify it, despite the lack of a reliable source. If you have a problem with that explanation, you should say what it is, specifically. And you didn't answer my questions from my first paragraph. And I will not stop pressing the issue. If you don't think people should be able to express opinions different from yours, then move to a dictatorship. Wikipedia isn't one. - Shaheenjim (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy either. I have explained the importance of verifiability through reliable sources multiple times now. If you do not want to accept the way we work here, you are free to leave. — Edokter • Talk • 14:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That very page to which you just linked says, and I quote, "[Wikipedia's] method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion." I'm pretty sure that article was not intended to be used to suppress discussion, which is the purpose for which you seem to be attempting to use it. I have no problems with Wikipedia's rules. I merely object to your misinterpretation of those rules, and fortunately for me, you aren't in charge, so that's no reason for me to leave.

It's true that you have tried on multiple occasions to explain the importance of verifiability through reliable sources. It's equally true that you failed. On multiple occasions I have explained that there is a problem with your reasoning, and asked you a direct question about it which you have been unable to answer. If you have a problem with my explanation of your problem, feel free to state it. But if you can't find any hole in my hole in your argument, then you have no case. - Shaheenjim (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You still have not provided a reliable source. No ammount of reasoning in the world is going to change that. For the last time: Any fan-submitted information is not reliable, therefor it cannot be used. — Edokter • Talk • 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge that I didn't provide a reliable source. But my position is that we shouldn't need a reliable source in this case. Therefore, whether or not I've provided a reliable source is irrelevant. Now, if you want to dispute my position, you're free to do so. But when I asked you a question about why you dispute my position, you were unable to answer it. That doesn't make your case look particularly strong. I'll ask my question again: Is it your position that this information is not obviously and definitely true? Or is it your position that adding information that is obviously and definitely true doesn't improve Wikipedia if it's OR and doesn't have a RS? - Shaheenjim (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Conversation on Jerem43's talk page

It's my understanding that you're supposed to warn someone before asking the administrators to block them. So consider this a warning. Don't delete my comments again. - Shaheenjim (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made no requests to have you blocked, but now I will for the threat you just made against me. --Jeremy (blah blah) 14:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't alleging that you'd requested that I be blocked. I was warning you because if you delete my comments again, I'm going to request that you be blocked. If you want, you can whine about that "threat" to an administrator, but I'm pretty sure it's not grounds for blocking. - Shaheenjim (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take the time to look at the policies regarding civil behavior. You comments on the BSG:Daylight part 2 talk page have been less than civil in their content. Per the WP:Civil policy comments such as these can and will be deleted without such actions being considered censorship or blanking. The people you have been engaging in have tried, repeatedly, to maintain a professional tone in the conversations, while you have not. We are not saying that your points are wrong, but how you are going about this is, all we are asking is for you to wait until the time that such assertions you are making are confirmed by a reliable, third party source that verifies what you believe to be true.

Your comments on my page also confirm your inappropriate behavior and do nothing but harm yourself, so please assume good faith when dealing with others and scale back on the tone and content of your posts. --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on civility is meant to remove threats, profanity, and personal attacks. None of that applies to my comments. But there are some parts of Wikipedia's policy on civility that apply to you. It says, among other things, "to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks... It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment." Looks like that's another policy that you're breaking. What is that now, four? IAR, Use Common Sense, Discuss your concerns rather than engage in edit wars, and now the policy on Civility. Are you going for a record? I have repeatedly asked you to point out which part of my argument you disagree with. You have failed to do so. You're the problem here, not me. - Shaheenjim (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Administrators' noticeboard

I need some assistance with this contributor in regards to the Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) page and the inclusion of a simple statement about a ship bearing the resemblance to on found in the game Command and Conquer. Myself and and another editor, Edoktor, removed this entry as original research, but did leave the option open for its addition once a reliable source has confirmed that it is in fact an Easter egg.

Shaheenjim has argued that it should be included despite this, using "ignore all rules" as a basis for his argument and stating that common sense says it can be added.

The problem is not the argument, but the way in which he has been doing so. He has repeatedly violated WP:Civil when making his point.

My issues with him include:

• Profanity
• Accusatory tone
• Personal attacks on myself and others
• Making threats on my talk page
• Overt hostility
• Abusive language
• Rude and offensive comments

Because I did not wish to refactor his comments, twice I removed his comments on the talk page because of these issues while leaving clear notes or edit summaries explaining my actions. I have also left a message on his talk page regarding this, once telling that I will report him for the threat, and a second message to him in regards to the civility issue. His response was to delete one of his hostile remarks and leave another in its place (diff). I was mistaken, he had moved the comment when he cut and pasted the discussion to my page. The comment was still a violation of civility. I have been trying to maintain my composure in this matter, however I did loose my temper and leave a curt message in reply to a comment he had made on the article talk page.

I realize that I have not been a saint in the matter, but I have tried to present my argument using policy based reasons for my position and maintain a professional and productive tone in my correspondence on the page.

I would like an opinion on that matter from a neutral observer who can help sort the whole mess out, and will gladly accept the conclusions and actions of those who do look into the matter.

I would also like to note after reading his talk page that he seems to have a history of problematic interactions with other contributors with whom he disagrees.

--Jeremy (blah blah) 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's my side: I'll summarize my side of the argument, since it's been a pretty long discussion on the talk pages. Someone tried to add something to an article that is obviously and definitely true. No one is disputing that it's obviously and definitely true, but some people (like Jeremy here) are saying that it shouldn't be added anyway, since it's OR and doesn't have a RS. I said that the rules against OR and requiring a RS are intended to prevent people from adding things that are false. But since this addition is obviously and definitely true, those rules weren't intended to prevent it from being added, and it can be added to the article per the IAR rule and the Use Common Sense policy. But Jeremy here has some problem with using Common Sense. I have asked him, on several occasions, which part of my argument he's disputing, as you can see here. But he refuses to respond. That is, he refuses to follow Wikipedia's policy on dispute resolution. Instead he just wants to have an edit war, repeatedly deleting the edit without discussing why he thinks it should be disputed.

And now, in addition to refusing to discuss his problems with my reasoning, he's started deleting my comments, claiming that they're in violation of the policy on civility. They are not. I haven't ever used profanity, or made a personal attack on him or anyone else, or been hostile, or used abusive language, and it's not surprising to me that he didn't give any examples of those allegations. He's also claiming that I'm making "threats." The only threat I made is to ask an administrator to block him if he continued to violate Wikipedia's policies. That's hardly a threat that warrants me being blocked. And I've only accused him of things he actually did, or been as rude and offensive as was warranted based on his conduct.

The latest development is our discussion on our own talk pages, rather than the talkpage of the relevant article. I invite you to read it here. I think it speaks for itself.

Finally, he's claimed above that I deleted one of my own remarks and left another in its place. If you look closely, you'll see that I didn't delete anything, I merely merged the comments from both of our talk pages by inserting his first comment in between my first and second comment. - Shaheenjim (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm disputing something. Essentially, we don't know whether it's the same ship, or a different ship that was made to look the same. I've posted on the Talk page to this effect. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, putting "I haven't ever used profanity, or made a personal attack on him or anyone else" in the same post as "Jeremy here has some problem with using Common Sense." is just too obvious. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you alleging it was profane, or a personal attack, or both? If the former, then which part? And if the latter, then that's not what personal attack means. If you're attacking someone on the substance of the issue at hand, that's not considered a personal attack. A personal attack would be if I attacked his looks, for example. - Shaheenjim (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

::::While we're on the subject of wikilawyering, would you care to comment on this remark of yours? Based on my experience on Wikipedia to date, I have absolutely no doubt that the people who comment will be little kids who will disagree with me because they're petty bureaucrats with no common sense. In particular, please explain why you think it is not a "personal attack against Jerem43 or anyone else". SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Scratch that, it's pointless. Blocked for 72 hours (considering previous block record) for disruption, personal attacks, and edit warring. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note to reviewing admin: I'm citing the people who comment will be little kids who will disagree with me because they're petty bureaucrats with no common sense and Jeremy here has some problem with using Common Sense as specimen examples of personal attacks. This revert is the only edit-warring this editor has recently taken part in, to my knowledge. Talk:Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica)#Kodiak and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Shaheenjim provide, I believe, adequate evidence of tendentious editing. Length of block was after consideration of prior blocks (24h for 3RR and 48h for NOR violations). Lastly, I consider myself to be uninvolved because my only contribution to the content dispute has been to provide outside input as to how I think wikipedia policies apply to the dispute in question - I certainly haven't edited the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

72 hour block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing, including personal attacks and edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Some administator has been posting libel about me. When I called him on it, he blocked me, allegedly for disruption, personal attacks, and edit warring. You can see the history at Wikipedia:ANI#User:Shaheenjim. I should be unblocked. First of all, because I wasn't disrupting anything. Second, because I didn't make any personal attacks. When someone attacked my edits, I defended them, including saying why the other guy was wrong. My edits were made in conjunction with the Use Common Sense policy, and when someone disputed them, I said it's because they don't have common sense. That's not a personal attack. It's an attack on their position, which is relevant to the dispute at hand. And third, I wasn't edit warring. The other guy was. I was discussing the conflict on the talk page, per Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy, and it was the other guy who was edit warring and not engaging in a discussion. There's no reason I should be blocked. I suspect that the admin only blocked me because he's upset that I called him out on his libel. Which brings up the fourth reason I should be unblocked, which is that admins aren't supposed to block people as a result of disputes in which they are taking part. - Shaheenjim (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Note that the history I cited refers to one discussion on Jeremy's talk page, where I demonstrated quite clearly why I wasn't the problem, and Jeremy was. Jeremy has subsequently censored that discussion, but you'll still be able to find it in the history. - Shaheenjim (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Note that the blocking admin responded to my request for an unblock at Wikipedia:ANI#User:Shaheenjim. In it, he alleged that a single revert, along with discussions on the talk page, is edit-warring. Obviously an allegation that laughable is evidence that it's a pretext, and his real motivation is retaliation, since he's involved in the dispute. He also cited two prior blocks. First of all, note that two or three alleged violations over the course of years of productive editing is nothing. And second, those other two blocks were both ridiuclous too. In one I was blocked for violating the 3RR, even though I only reverted 3 times in a day. And in the other I was blocked for allegedly posting OR, even though I posted a source, so obviously it wasn't OR. - Shaheenjim (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Posting an enormous screed which attacks other editors, including the blocking admin, and claiming that "per common sense" overrides Wikipedia policies, is perhaps not the best manner to request an unblock. Declined. Black Kite 01:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Declined, for obvious reasons. Black Kite 01:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I wasn't claiming that common sense overrides Wikipedia policies. Common sense is one of Wikipedia's policies. Seriously, was I the only one who read that? And I'm not going on the offensive attacking other users. They're attacking me, and I'm merely defending myself. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This doesn't justify the edit warring or personal attacks. Focus on your actions, not those of others. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

My point was that there was no edit warring or personal attacks. Not on my part, anyway. - Shaheenjim (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wrong, see [3] and generally Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Shaheenjim.  Sandstein  12:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

That certainly wasn't edit warring. And it wasn't a personal attack either. It was an attack on the substance of the issue. An attack that was subsequently proven right when I was blocked, and is being proven more and more right with every administrator who upholds the block. Let's see if I can prove it again. - Shaheenjim (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

[4] may not be an edit war, but it IS an incivil personal attack. The rest of the discussion is moot, since there does not appear to be any effort to address this sort of incivility. All you seem to do is deflect discussion away from the real issue, which is your incivility. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Please read the guide to appealing blocks - and please consider withdrawing or rewriting the above unblock request. In its current form, it is unlikely to achieve any positive result for you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get myself unblocked. I never was. I don't care whether or not I'm blocked for 72 hours. I'm trying to prove a point. And it's working. When you claim that a single revert, coupled with discussion, is an edit war, you're proving that you're a little kid who is a petty bureaucrat with no common sense. Every admin that upholds your block is proving that the description applies to them too. It's not a personal attack. It's an attack on the substance of the issue, and it's absolutely right. - Shaheenjim (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please consider this theoretical situation. Assume that there are four editors (call them A1, A2, A3, A4) who prefer version A of an article, and four other editors (call them B1, B2, B3, and B4) who prefer version B of an article. Now suppose that A1 changes the article to version A, then B1 reverts to version B, then A2 reverts, then B2 reverts, then A3, then B3, then A4 and B4. Assume that while these reverts go on, the editors all discuss on the Talk page why they think their version is right.

I hope you can see that the above situation is an edit war, even though each editor makes only one revert, and each editor takes part in discussion. The central point is this: when an editor reverts a revert that is the subject of an edit war, that editor is taking part in that edit war. A subsidiary point is that an edit war does not stop being an edit war simply because discussion takes place.

Regarding your comment above about making a point, and not wanting to be unblocked: please do not abuse unblock templates to make a point. In addition, please do not repeat the personal attacks for which you were blocked. Instead, just wait for the block to expire, and after that please contribute to Wikipedia's collaborative editing environment by not making personal attacks and not getting involved in edit wars. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In your theoretical situation, a single revert might be an edit war. But the situation here was different than that. In this situation, my side was discussing things on the talk page, and the other side wasn't. They repeatedly refused to answer my question about which part of my argument was wrong. Because they couldn't answer the question, because they knew damn well that I wasn't wrong, but they were too petty to admit it. I was following Wikipedia dispute resolution policy, and they're the ones who weren't. And if the other side wasn't discussing their position, then my side was justified in changing the article to our version. Especially if I only did it once.

And I'm not abusing the unblock templates. All my requests for unblocks have been totally legitimate. The fact that they get denied doesn't mean I'm abusing the block/unblock process. It means that the admins are.

And as I've said several times now, these aren't personal attacks. They're attacks on the substance of the issues. If the so called "edit war" is about how to apply the Use Common Sense rule, then saying that the other side has no common sense applies to the substance of the issue. If they're following the letter of the rules rather than the spirit, which is what bureaucrats do, then saying that the other side are bureaucrats applies to the substance of the issue. I'm not breaking Wikipedia's policy on civility. Although you are. It says, and I quote again, "to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks." - Shaheenjim (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There are very few situations in which it is considered acceptable for an editor to see an edit war and get involved in it by reverting an edit. For example, it is always considered acceptable to remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious information regarding a living person. There is also a generally accepted understanding that, if one editor is repeatedly changing material against consensus, multiple editors may each revert that edit once or twice- this situation is commonly associated with vandalism or disruptive edits. If you look up the three revert rule you'll see the exceptional circumstances listed.

Unfortunately, your situation isn't one of them. This was a good faith content dispute, i.e. a situation where each "side" was trying to improve Wikipedia, and felt that their preferred version constituted an improvement. More than one editor had offered an opinion on each "side", and there was no clear consensus. This is exactly the situation where discussion should take place, and reverting should not.

Regarding your assertion that you have not made personal attacks. Policy clearly states that you should comment on the content, not the contributor. Saying that an editor has no common sense, or is a little kid or petty bureaucrat, falls neatly into the category of remarks made about an editor, not about content. The fact that you repeat the terms and try to apply them to more admins is certainly a bold defence, as it's consistent with a belief that you are quite correct and innocent in your actions, but you might want to consider that ultimately it's the Wikipedia community, not you, that has the power to decide what is acceptable and what is not, and that you might just be on the wrong side of the fence in this case. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this dispute should've been handled by discussion, rather than reverting. And as I said, several times now, the other side refused to discuss it and answer my question. They were the ones breaking the rules, not me.

Regarding personal attacks, the content wasn't the issue. The issue was the interpretation of the rules. In that case, there's nothing wrong with attacking someone's interpretation of the rules. It goes to the substance of the dispute. Let me be clear, if I haven't been already. I believe that I was quite correct and innocent in my actions. I don't lack for boldness. If some Wikipedia administrators want to block me despite the fact that I'm right, they're free to do that. But it doesn't make me any less right. In this case, the wrong side of the fence is the popular side. It's certainly not the first time. - Shaheenjim (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it is theoretically possible that you might be mistaken, and that calling someone a petty bureacrat or a little kid might actually be a personal attack after all? If so, what would you consider adequate proof? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My edits were clearly in keeping with the spirit of the OR and RS policies, but against the letter of those policies. The dispute was about whether we should follow the spirit of the policies or the letter of the policies. Petty bureaucrats are known for following the letter of a policy, rather than its spirit. Some people disagreed with my edits. Which means they were following the letter of the policies rather than their spirit. Which means they're like petty bureaucrats. It seems to me like that's an attack on the substance of the issue, rather than a personal attack.

If you can find fault with any single sentence in the preceeding paragraph, then that'd be proof that I'm wrong. But you can't.

If someone did a demographic study of the Wikipedia administrators and found that a significant percentage of them (say, at least 30%) were over the age of 30, then I suppose that would be proof that I was wrong in my claim that Wikipedia is run by little kids. But I don't think that's what the study would find. Plus nobody'd ever do the study anyway. - Shaheenjim (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there's nothing wrong with the fact that most of the administrators on Wikipedia are little kids. It's inevitable. It's a volunteer position, and grown ups don't volunteer for positions like that. My only problem is that the few adults in administrative positions on this site don't do more to keep you kids under control. It's a failure of oversight, not a failure in the hiring process. - Shaheenjim (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that I am not communicating more clearly. In relation to the statements that an editor has no common sense, or is a little kid or petty bureaucrat, I am trying to think of a demonstration that you would accept as proof that those statements are considered disruptive and unacceptable on Wikipedia. This is important because otherwise you may continue to make these or similar remarks in the future. Blocking is intended to prevent disruption, and one of the ways it is supposed to work is by encouraging the user in question to realise that their behaviour is considered unacceptable and must stop.

That clearly isn't happening here.

Indeed, considering your block history and your attitude to it, your response to being blocked seems to be to tell yourself that you've done nothing wrong and that it is all the fault of other people. This implies that you're going to continue doing whatever you think is right, without regard to community norms or policies. That path leads to further disputes and ultimately to an indefinite block or a ban, and I don't want to see you following it any further.

What I'd like to see is an acceptance on your part that the community has standards that users must respect, in order that we may collaborate in a collegial, co-operative editing environment. More importantly, when multiple administrators tell you that your conduct is outside the bounds of what is considered acceptable, you should take that message on board and make an effort to ensure that your conduct isn't disruptive next time you find yourself in a content dispute.

For what it's worth, I also disagree with your assessment of the content dispute behind these conduct issues. Your position was at odds with both the letter and the spirit of WP:OR and WP:RS policies: you decided, based on information in unreliable sources, that you knew the truth, and that you didn't need any source to verify your desired content. The dispute was not about whether to respect the letter or the spirit of the policies, but about whether verifiability or truth should decide what content would go into the article. Policy is quite clear on that matter. And as I pointed out elsewhere, it is inappropriate to cite WP:IAR in a good-faith content dispute, since both sides obviously feel that their preferred version constitutes an improvement over the other.

One final note. By now, a kittle kid or petty bureaucrat would probably have either prevented you from editing this page, or extended your block (based on a repetition of the behaviour that caused the block). At minimum, they would probably leave you to follow the self-destructive path you've been following. They certainly wouldn't be spending this much time trying to help you understand that, welll... you were wrong, but it's okay to be wrong. A kid probably wouldn't understand that, and you can't explain what you don't understand. Sorry I'm not better at explaining SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

First I want to distinguish between Wikipedia's policies, and the average administrator's interpretation of those policies. I have no problem with Wikipedia's policies. I'm a fan of using common sense, ignoring rules when they prevent you from making things better, and not overreacting to constructive criticism. Those are Wikipedia's policies, and everything I've done has always been in accordance with them.

On the other hand, I am resolutely opposed to the average administrator's interpretation of the policies. I am going to continue doing whatever I think is right, and I fully expect that it will lead to further disputes and ultimately an indefinite block or ban. I'm ok with that. Let me demonstrate something to you. Suppose, hypothetically of course, that you were doing everything right, but you were posting on a site that was run by a bunch of little kids who are petty bureaucrats with no common sense. Suppose that they insisted that if you want to keep posting on the site, you should also stop using common sense. What would you do? Maybe you'd stop using common sense. But if I were you, I'd just do what you thought was right, and if those little kids wanted to ban you from their site, so be it.

As for the spirit of OR and RS, you seem to be implying that they're meant to ensure verifiability. I have no problem with that. The edit I was making was OR, and it didn't have a RS. But it was verifiable. The edit was a result of information gained from watching the relevant shows, and you could easily verify it by watching the shows themselves. I'm not opposed to the requirement of verifiability, rather than truth. And neither was my edit.

And it is not inappropriate to cite IAR in a good-faith content dispute. It may be true that both sides feel that their preferred version constitutes an improvement over the other. But one side is wrong. There is no moral equivalence between right and wrong. Discussion will reveal that, as it revealed that I was right in this dispute, when the other side was unable to answer my questions.

Finally, don't underestimate little kids who are petty bureaucrats. Some of them are quite capable of behaving as you're behaving. - Shaheenjim (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Suppose, hypothetically of course, that you were doing everything right, but you were posting on a site that was run by a bunch of little kids who are petty bureaucrats with no common sense. Suppose that they insisted that if you want to keep posting on the site, you should also stop using common sense. What would you do?

Leave the website. The decision is a no-brainer and frankly I'm surprised you even asked.

All communities have their own rules and enforcement mechanisms. In a sense, a community may be defined by the rules and mechanisms it adopts. Anyone who isn't willing to obey the rules can expect to come up against the enforcement - and, ultimately, to be expelled from the community.

Where you fit into this picture is your decision. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There you go. Sounds like you're coming around. Although I'm not sure you're aware of it. - Shaheenjim (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not "coming around" (unless your intended meaning is an obscure one). Our approaches to your example are very different. I would have no desire to waste my time in a community whose rules were unnaceptable to me, and I'd leave as soon as I ascertained that fact. Your stated decision, by contrast, is to continue doing what you think is right until you get banned. Translated back from the world of our hypothetical example into Wikipedia terminology, this sounds like you see a ban as inevitable, and in the meanwhile you intend to continue with actions that you know the community views as disruptive and/or personal attacks. I'm left wondering what mistake I could have made in my reasoning. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite block

Despite the continuing personal attacks against blocking/reviewing admins, and admitted abuse of the unblock template, I think it might be best for admins not to further sanction this editor. The ideal outcome is Shaheenjim seeing that their conduct was outside the bounds of what we want in a collegial editing environment... but for now, I'll gladly settle for no further damage being done to their standing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree in view of [5] and have indef-blocked the user (see rationale at [6]). I do not object to this block being removed or shortened by any admin who believes this user is ready to contribute productively.  Sandstein  23:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I unfortunately have to agree with your decision. It seemed that the discussion at User_talk:Shaheenjim was incapable of reaching any other conclusion. I also agree with the unblock provision. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In view of your comments at [7], which I read as a statement of intent to continue your disruption until you are banned, I have blocked you indefinitely as a preventative measure.  Sandstein  23:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel: In your most recent edit, you made three mistakes. First is that you are coming around, but you don't realize it. Initially you seemed to be implying that I should do what the admins told me to do (abandon common sense). Now you're saying that if you were in a similar situation, you wouldn't do what the admins told you to do. That is coming around.

But your second mistake is that you aren't coming all the way around. That is, you seem to understand that your prior position was wrong, but you don't yet understand that my position is right. You seem to have attempted to adopt a position in between, by claiming that you'd leave the (hypothetical) site as soon as you found out that its rules were unacceptable. That'd be an overreaction. There are lots of great things run in stupid ways. Most countries come to mind. You shouldn't get so distracted by the way they're run that you lose sight of the value they have. You should distinguish between the thing itself, and the people running it. Love your country, but not your government, as they say.

Your third mistake is to see the community here as a whole. It's made up of individuals, with conflicting views. Even among the admins, there are probably a few grown ups, and a few people who have common sense. So although the majority of the admins might view my use of common sense to be disruptive, and think they're a violation of Wikipedia's policies, many people wouldn't make those mistakes. Collinsas, for example, whose response to my comments on the original dispute at Talk:Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) was simply, "thank you sir." The rule against personal attacks is meant to eliminate unnecessary attacks that are irrelevant to the substance of the dispute. But if the dispute is about how to interpret the Use Common Sense policy, then obviously whether or not someone has common sense is a legitimate point of discussion on the substance of the dispute, even if it is a personal issue, and it should be allowed. That's a result of the Use Common Sense rule with which most admins have such trouble.

Then there are your past mistakes. You said I was edit warring, when I wasn't. I was discussing the dispute, and it was the other side who refused to discuss it, while I made only a single revert. Clearly not my side that was edit warring.

You said the edit was unverifiable, when it could actually be verified quite easily by watching the shows that were the source for the OR.

And you seemed to have failed to understand that the majority of admins here are little kids who are petty bureaucrats with no common sense. I think this demonstration has proved that beyond any shadow of a doubt. You, the admins who declined my unblock requests, and finally Sandstein there, never addressed the substance of the dispute. Never addressed the fact that the attacks were on the substance of the issue, rather than personal. You just saw someone attacking the admins, and tried to silence them. The whole time, from the original dispute on Talk:Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) to the dispute about whether or not I should be blocked, I've been in favor of discussion, and the other side has tried to silence me. From when the other side on the original discussion reverted my edit while refusing to answer my questions, to when Edokter told me to stop pressing the issue, to when Jeremy actually removed one of my comments from a talk page, to the blocks and the decline of their unblock. Censoring one's critics is evil, certainly, the purview of dictators. But mostly, it's just petty. You're the one on the wrong side of the fence here. - Shaheenjim (talk) 03:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Some admin permanently blocked me because he claimed that I said that I'd give the admins a good reason to block me. But that's not what I said. What I said was that I expect that some admin would block me for no good reason. Again. Looks like I was right. Again. You may unblock me now. Note that here the blocking admin said, "I do not object to this block being removed or shortened by any admin who believes this user is ready to contribute productively." - Shaheenjim (talk) Today, 4:07 pm (UTC−7)

Decline reason:

No indication that the user has acknowledged the issues that led to the block, or that they intend to adjust their behaviour. Ckatz^chat_spy 23:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You've had five unblock requests rejected. Please stop, as excessive use of the template is discouraged. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Good thing my usage isn't excessive, then. If someone never should've been blocked in the first place, then it's not excessive to make as many unblock requests as it takes to get unblocked. And the fact that you weren't able to dispute the reasoning in my most recent unblock request is a pretty good demonstration of the fact that I never should've been blocked in the first place. - Shaheenjim (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I quite clearly acknowledge that an admin's misinterpretation led to the block. Either that, or his stated reason was a pretext, and the block was merely retaliation for my statement that many of the admins on this site are petty. Which would've proved that point. And there's no reason for me to adjust my behavior, since the block wasn't a result of my behavior. - Shaheenjim (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Same as the last four or five reasons, protecting. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

An admin denied my last unblock request, saying that he did it for the same reason as the last four or five reasons. That seems bizarre, in light of the fact that I'd only made two unblock requests for that block. He was probably confusing it with unblock requests for the previous block, which was a different issue. The fact that he didn't realize that makes me suspect his ruling on whether or not I should be unblocked was premature. Especially since the last four or five unblock denials from the previous issue contradicted each other. And since I explained in my last unblock request why the previous denial was wrong, and he wasn't able to address it. So now, you may unblock me, for the reason cited in the original unblock request of this block: the block was a result of an admin's misinterpretation of my statement. Note again that the blocking admin said he doesn't object to someone removing the block. - Shaheenjim (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have wasted too much of too many admins' time with your complete refusal to get the point. You have now wasted your last unblock request. —Travis^talk 01:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Comment I would like to say a word on behalf of Shaheenjim. There is no doubt that this editor has often been at odds with Wikipedia administrators. And there is no doubt that this editor has sometimes belittled those same administrators. So it is easy to see why some administrators are "at their wits end" as regards Shaheenjim. This editor, however, has oftened raised interesting thoughts and has participated in lively discussions with myself and others that have served to open the minds of others. Some of you may not like nor appreciate Shaheenjim's brand of youthful enthusiasm in editing this encyclopedia; however, from the perspective of an editor who is non-admin, this all appears to me to be a bit of overkill. Just a little question: If Shaheenjim were to show remorse for his negative statements about the general adminship, could this be a way that leads to unblocking this editor?  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  18:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment While I was quite surprised at the block I'm also satisfied with and support it. Paine, I don't think remorse is needed but rather maturity though remorse could be evidence that maturity happens. While I valued Shaheenjim's contributions to articles there were incidents where huge chunks of time would be spent dealing with his hyper-rationalization and nit-picking. For example, at the time of his block we were going round-n-round over the definitions of two words^{[See 1, and apparently 2]}. I was not aware of it at the time but the same round-n-round was going on with admins and other editors attempting to promote a collegial editing environment^{[See this talk page and the ANI]}. The indefinite block was a last resort as Shaheenjim was unwilling to work with the admins and editors. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Marc Kupper. Also, the purpose of the block was understandably named as 'protective', so I would be surprised if the admins felt that an apology about his negative statements about them addresses the main issue: at least as relevant is Shaheenjim's treatment of other editors and users and the scarcely-productive lengthy results (links above and at A, B, and C), and now also his apparent use of of a sockpuppet to circumvent the block. Terry0051 (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to comments made by Marc and Terry: I was involved in some of those discussions, and as I am presently working on an article to clarify the notability of the Moon as a full-fledged planet, then I should take some responsibility in this. There is a strong possibility that I instigated much of the content of those debates, and then left Shaheenjim pretty much on his own. I have been arguing this position on UseNet for many years, and I suppose I just tired of the whole thing for awhile to pursue more general editing. I did not keep up with those discussions, and when I look at them now I see a frustrated Shaheenjim who feels beset upon by the "establishment". Perhaps I should have stuck around and supported Shaheenjim. The point is, that if admins feel so strong about Shaheenjim's negative disposition, then maybe they should block me, also. I feel responsible, because it is as if I lit the fuse and walked away, far enough away that I only barely heard the bomb (block) go off.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  19:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• PS. I still think that a block in this case is uncalled for. The administration is effectively saying, "If we can't find a way to reason with you, then we'll block you." Where does such a policy lead? It seems to me to be a road spiraling downward to tyranny. Shaheenjim is not a vandal. Shaheenjim is a concerned editor with different and revolutionary ideas. If Wikipedia must be "protected" from this, then we must all do away with our revolutionary ideals. I for one refuse to do so. Unblock Shaheenjim, or suffer the results of oppression, censorship and the marked appearance of tyranny! ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^{`.</sup>  10:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• PPS. I would also appeal to Shaheenjim to find a way to make amends. This sort of major issue is never onesided, never without its wrongdoings from both sides. Shaheenjim, you can do no good while you're blocked. Look for a realistic way to come to the middle of this, and perhaps the administration will also do so.  <sup>.`}^) Paine Ellsworth^{diss`cuss</sup> (^<sup>`.}  10:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I totally support this block for all of the reasons listed above and, in addition, due to the extremely negative and immature attitude this user has shown again and again. Shaheenjim is well known at the General of the Armies article and the General (United States) article for causing a very big mess by merging several U.S. rank articles without consensus as well as removing any edit that was not his own [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. In the end, after threatening other users, he openly stated that he would beat the 3RR rule by waiting more than 24 hours to revert edits [15]. He also approached administrators attempting to have the opposing parties in his dispute banned from Wikipedia [16]. This is clearly not someone who is willing to work with others and, at this point, I am beginning to think there is a very real possibility that we may be dealing with someone who is connected to the Roitr vandal account. The block should stay. -OberRanks (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I am Shaheenjim, editing from a different account. For the record, I was not Geologician or Roitr, but I find it amusing that you thought I might be. I'd like to thank Paine Ellsworth for his comments, although I should note that I have no remorse at all. Everything I said was right, as evidenced quite clearly I think by the fact that the other side was totally unable to respond substantively to any of my points. Sometimes this sort of major issue is onesided, without its wrongdoings from one side. And Paine Ellsworth need not feel guilty about not sticking around, because I would've behaved the same way even if I had someone else's support at the time. - 2603:9000:E40B:7500:DEC:744:ACB4:9765 (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)