User talk:Iloveandrea

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Julie Burchill. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. BencherliteTalk 13:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unacceptable. BencherliteTalk 13:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for creating the new United Kingdom Conservative-Liberal coalition government austerity programme article. Your efforts to improve Wikipedia is appreciated! Northamerica1000(talk) 06:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual edit at Public diplomacy (Israel)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

Per your recent edit of that article, which states (in Wikipedia's voice) "Hasbara Fellowships is a good laugh". Some of your recent edits seem eccentric, and it's hard to know if you are inserting a point of view into Wikipedia or just trying to amuse yourself. I recommend that you give up this plan, whichever it is, and try to work together with other editors to make reasonable improvements. User:Shrike has complained about your recent post on his talk, which compares an Israeli official to Goebbels and describes him as an 'unbelievably annoying slime.' If you continue with this kind of behavior, it is so blatant that it could justify an indefinite ban from editing any articles about Israel or the I/P dispute. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

This edit on my talk page is a personal attack against User:Shrike and uses the phrase 'hasbara slime' which can't be good even though I don't know the background. You are blocked for 48 hours, since this is only the latest in a series of attacks that you have brushed off as trivial. Use the {{unblock}} template if you would like to have this block reviewed by another administrator. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please be aware of WP:EW and the fact that you are at 3RR currently on Mr. King's BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 72 hours

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for Personal attacks and generally disruptive behavior. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

The ANI listed above has a small list of the reasons you have been blocked. By continuing to amp up the disruption and personal attacks, you have made it clear that the only way to prevent you from continuing to attack others is to block you. Other admins are free to modify the length of this block without permission, and just leave me a note on my talk page. Use the {{unblock}} template if you would like to have this block reviewed by another administrator. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss and seek consensus

Hi - Please when you return consider opening talkpage discussions and letting previously involved users know about your desired alterations - WP:Consensus additions are the ones that last - you clearly have strong opinions about these living people and we want to avoid that being implanted in the bios of living people - please read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP - thanks - Youreallycan 17:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This person is giving you excellent advice, Iloveandrea. It would be wise to consider it. You just came off block, and your first edit [1] is already worrying. Please take the time to engage rather than confront, and take the advice given. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that I also believe this advice to be excellent. Obviously your mind is excellent too, yet raw. Like coal, thousands of years before it is a diamond. That sounds pompous... I think you are like a penguin, who is a great swimmer. You can catch many fish. In addition, your white bottom and black top (tuxedo) is quite charming camoflauge. Kuddos to you, hawk of the sea.
But perhaps you can isolate your hunting to friendlier waters where my love for you is like a whale, smothering your slippery penguin body. Maybe I will even make a cute, little Jonah of you. Who's my Jonah in a tux?
You're my Jonah in a tux. I will always love you and feed you with the spermaceti found in my enormous head cavities. I think you and me should find a fun project together, like Hara Kiri or Palestinian political violence. Which do you like better, Japanese people disemboweling themselves, or Arabs blowing themselves up? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

You know that this is unacceptable [2] and I'm puzzled that you don't understand that this alone can get you blocked. It is easy to see that you care about the subjects you write about, but it is unacceptable to call people racists here, even if you believe it is true. Someone once taught me that you best communicate if you don't try to convince those that disagree with you, but instead persuade those who are undecided. You do this by choosing your words more carefully and not inflaming the issue. You convert others with logic and reasoning, not harsh words. If you think you need mentoring to learn how to communicate in a more civil fashion, ask for help. Let me be very direct: You are on thin ice here. If I see another comment like this, hateful and incivil, you will be blocked for a much longer time without warning. This is unacceptable and the incivility of it is not a subject for debate. I am hoping you are wise enough to simply listen and learn from this, as it won't be repeated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 09:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add something to this great advice, I don't mind personal attacks but I am bothered by people attacking my motives. My motive, like I suspect yours, is to have fun and make the world a better place. But on Wikipedia I want there to be a good encyclopedia that me and others can use to learn stuff about this world that we are each day making better with our actions and love and reactions and love-attractions.
Positrons and electrons either love or hate each other. There are arguments either way. But neutrons snuggle up against positrons and they make constant cosmic love on a particle blowing scale every single microsecond the electron is jealosely swirling on its green path of lighfe.
Neutrons vary by number. This is called an isotope, which I'm sure you are familiar with there properties and career in minor-league baseball.
But really, I don't like it when you call me a Zionist or part of a collective or a Kibbutznik or something. I don't think you are an irate deathcultist, just an editor trying to make the Wikipedia a better place in a way that I don't think is better. But we can both agree that Wikipedia is better when content is vetted by people who care. Care damnit! But we both have to care. And love. But I think you and me are on the same page with the love.
We are on the same page but opposite sides of the I/P page, but that don't mean the encyclopedia has to be burnt. The love machine is on high, but the oven aint next to flammables. There's children in this house and we love them just like we made them the old fashion way.
What I'm trying to say is, the dedicated editors in any part of the encyclopedia do most of the heavy lifting. We need to get better at it one day at a time, block by block. Building blocks, that is. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation

Hi there. Thanks for your post to my talk, earlier. I just wanted to offer a brief word you can take or leave re the current AN/I thread: My recommendation would be that you not respond. If you comment it'll just give the thing "legs", a longevity it doesn't merit. That said, I should also mention that I'll probably comment there later today myself, on your behalf. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there! It's OK: I'm staying out. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I want to tell you, though, that ... well, I see you don't have your e-mail activated, and I'd prefer to discuss a particular matter with you in private. Please either activate it, or email me via my user name at gmail.com. I believe it will be in the best interests of the project if you'll do that right away, and will take the opportunity to chat with me before you proceed with any other wiki-tasks that might seem pressing. I'll also state that while I do see the occasional need for it, I generally prefer that communication between editors stay on talk pages. So in the interest of appropriate candour, I'll be glad to disclose the topic and, indeed, the full text of the message I'm now composing, to any admin who wishes to see it. Sorry for the cumbersome nature of this request. It's actually a fairly innocuous matter I want to discuss with you, but one that I nevertheless do think is best addressed in this way. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If he wants to give you millions from Nigeria, DO NOT DO IT! Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's for the best that you've chosen not to respond, ILA: You're well on your way to a community ban, and based on your subsequent behaviour, I've both changed my mind that I might be able to help you avoid that, and lost all desire to do so. --OhioStandard (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Don't do this kind of thing. It's puerile and offensive and doesn't make the slightest positive contribution to editing the encyclopaedia. Please go and revert yourself, and stay away from similar levity in future. I'll regard anything further like this as dispruptive editing and will issue a block. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help loving Queen Rania. You are correct that the material "doesn't make the slightest positive contribution to editing the encyclopaedia"; I have removed it and apologised to L19V27. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm sure Her Majesty will appreciate your tact and restraint. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are being discussed on ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding possibly your possibly being a sock/meatpuppet of Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk · contribs · count). The thread is Luke 19 Verse 27. Thank you. Egg Centric 18:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second Intifada, Jenin

You made this edit. Can you please tell me what specific page you were looking at? I read though the document but didn't not find anything that says that of the fatalities in Jenin, most were civilians. Can you be so kind as to tell me what page of the source you were relying on to make this edit?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

AE--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please move you comments out of my section

Kindly move your comments to your own section thank you.--Shrike (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My section.Your answer is not "statement by shrike".--Shrike (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

In addition, should you later be unblocked, you are indefinitely banned from the I/P topic area, both articles and discussions, broadly construed. You would need to appeal that restriction separately from your block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counsel

I'm not a site administrator, but I do understand very well how this place works: The block and topic ban aren't necessarily permanent. I tell you that with some reservations, and only because you did make strong substantive contributions to articles. But you also made yourself extremely easy to block with all the other crap; you might as well have had a big notice at the top of your talk page saying "please block me". What I'd wanted to tell you previously, and in private, was that you don't understand the culture of this place.

It certainly takes a while to figure out, but that culture is very different from other online forums you may have contributed to previously. Anyway, I realise you're probably in no mood right now to deal with any kind of discussion. But get in touch when that eases, a bit, if you like, either here or via e-mail. Probably best, btw, that if you do choose to e-mail, that you do so from an account that doesn't disclose any personally-identifiable information. At least that's my own preference when I'm communicating online with strangers, but it's up to you, of course. Btw, don't try creating a new account; you'd almost certainly be caught out very quickly, and that would scotch any chance you'd otherwise have of returning to good standing. --OhioStandard (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other thing: It's understandable that you might feel hurt and angry by this. But if you do have any interest in returning to contribute here, the last thing you want to do is post a bunch of angry messages about how unfair this was, or why you shouldn't have been blocked. Using this page to blow off steam or accuse anyone else at all might feel good, but it would be wholly counter-productive re the possibility of having your privileges reinstated at some point. --OhioStandard (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I think much of their arbitration process, at least regards to me. Two charges were brought as a basis for the permanent ban. I felt one was deceitful, certainly at least wrong, while the other could have been put aside via AGF. By that I mean my laziness in never having read the official stuff on what constitutes a minor edit (almost no edit is minor, apparently). For example, I deleted some duplicate material from the Second Intifada and tagged it as minor (though technically I had changed the text, so not a minor edit); however, what was not mentioned was that I had also added an edit description stating that I had simply removed several words of duplicate material. No mention was made of that; he simply accused me of sabotaging the article and appears to have got away with it. It's only a technical violation, not a substantive one. Deleting a few words of duplicate material isn't minor? Well, there we have it. Smacks of desperation.

The first charge, the accusation of my mangling a source, was conceivably rooted in a mistake, though given what transpired I'm minded to now regard it as sheer fraud. Whichever it was, I dealt with that accusation conclusively. I am not bragging, for it was not a difficult victory: I simply quoted the pertinent B'Tselem report! I then patiently dealt with other allegations that others brought, despite them being outright lies and their being presented in an antagonistic tone (pains me to say it, but on the basis of this arbitration process it seems both are acceptable if you are 'pro'-Israel and have a clutch of sympathetic admins on board). What a waste of time the victory was though: the people issuing the ban didn't even address themselves to me, and completely ignored everything I had written. See for yourself: all the sheer lies thrown at me did not merit a comment; all the detailed refutations I had performed did not merit a remark; they just showed up, agreed with each other without discussion, and done with. What an absolute farce.

As I said, the "side charges" made against me by Shrike and No More Mr Nice Guy were sheer fabrication—demonstrably so and I indeed demonstrated that in detail, again in a polite tone of voice. I may as well not have bothered and just let fly; the facts and being polite seem to get you nowhere. Needless to say, such deceit by others did not so much as merit acknowledgement, let alone punitive action, from the admins involved. I also made what ought to be a serious point about Jiujitsuguy: why had he not pulled up the person who said that the B'Tselem report said "mostly militants" had been killed? I actually corrected to what the source actually implied; not only was Jiujitsuguy wrong, he is unconcerned about the person who actually did misrepresent the source. What can you say? The whole thing is a complete joke. Also completely ignored were my nearly four-thousand good edits. They pulled up a handful of edits that they didn't like, lied about some of those, while the 99% of problem-free editing may as well not have existed. Farcical, just absolutely farcical.

Another editor, Dennis Brown—well, he had been OK with me, but then made a real hash of things at the end: "I would say I'll stay away from Israel-Palestine articles". Perhaps his first language isn't English, though given his user page I find that an absolutely incredible possibility, but he gave a partial quote of something I said (he cut off the explicit reason I would not stay away from I/P; such a decision by pro-Palestinian people like me would leave the 'pro'-Israel crowd to run wild) and then introduced some ambiguity regarding that portion of my words that he did quote. I did not say I would stay away from I/P—another editor even noted that here!!! (See above). It it not my fault if he commits an absolute howler on what, let's face it, is a very simple sentence. Yet despite misundertanding what I wrote, and asking for clarification, he then did not bother to wait for a reply from me, taking the next available opportunity to accuse me of breaking my word on I/P to another admin. I'm minded to observe that it's OK for him to not do something he said he would (ask for clarification, then not give me the opportunity to provide it) and stand in judgment of me who had kept my word by staying away from George Osborne and Mervyn King. I feel as though I misjudged Dennis Brown, he really had actually been alright. Let me repeat: I had explicitly given an assurance to him that I would not stay away from I/P. How can I break my word on staying away from I/P when I'd clearly and explicitly said the complete opposite? I explicitly said I would not stay away from I/P. Goodness me.

My attempts to constructively engage with Shrike on the Netanyahus were also completely ignored.

I did at least think that once the complaints procedure hit a broad enough base of admin, the pro-Israel editors would be restricted in their shenanigans for me to be able to calmly face down their deceitful allegations.

Well, what a complete joke the whole thing has been. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've been writing an article on Polish socialism: if I posted it here, are you allowed to post it for me? The typing won't have been for nothing if you can't or won't, since I have acquired a new understanding of the topic during my reading, but seems a shame not to be able to share my new knowledge. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for not setting up a new account: you can be sure that I will! It will be easy enough to do so, and easy enough to get away with: just get hold of a new IP address, edit on subjects that I've not so much as touched before, and keep my nose clean. Simple. See you around. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:UK Greece solidarity.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:UK Greece solidarity.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Groat FYI

I think you were the one who added the conflict of interest articles re: the UT-Austin study (that actually DID find contamination, but was spun differently in the media). Anyway, the press is finally talking about not only Groat's conflict of interest, but conflicts of interest on the new "review panel." http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/08/15/review-panel-announced-for-controversial-fracking-study-chaired-by-former-oil-executive/ Smm201`0 (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:UK Greece solidarity.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:UK Greece solidarity.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 17:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your block appeal to the Arbitration Committee

We have carefully considered your block appeal, but our decision is to honour the community's original decision and to decline your appeal. I recommend that you read the terms of the standard offer, and that you comply with those terms.

For the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, AGK [•] 00:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standard offer

Hi Iloveandrea. In regards to the sockpuppet investigation. If you would like to attempt a return to normal editing, your best course of action is to undertake the steps at WP:Standard offer. Your new account User:LudicrousTripe started editing after only four months rather than the prescribed six, but the lack of problematic behaviour in the meantime leads me to believe that community support would be in favour of a return to normal editing, possibly with a topic ban still in place on Israeli-Palestine topics. If you are interested in pursuing this option, please post here or send me an email and I will open a thread at WP:AN and get the discussion started. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]