User talk:Saxophonemn

Welcome!

Hello, Saxophonemn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck or looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Help Desk, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing!

If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page!

Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages:

Best of luck to you, and happy editing!

– Luna Santin (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of your contributions

Hi Saxophonemn. There is currently a discussion about your edits being made here. If you decide to participate in it, please be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I can elaborate further if you need more information. IronDuke 00:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, but edits like this one are utterly inappropriate. Please don't do that sort of thing. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I needed better references, sorry. Saxophonemn (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really the point I was getting at, actually. While a user doesn't exactly "own" the userpage associated with their name, they are generally assumed to have quite a lot of control over it; specifically, with a few noteworthy exceptions, it's best to assume that most or all content on it was compiled by the user or with their approval. Making an accusation like that is confrontational enough, but adding it to a userpage like so could be characterized in Wikipedia's culture as being downright hostile. Would you appreciate it if someone added a similar line to your profile page? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Luna. There's no need to criticize CJ as a person, just focus on edits you think are bad. And do take some to understand the culture here, please. There's a lot of flaming on the internet, but it's frowned on here. IronDuke 01:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely bringing to attention what he does besides Canadian politics. Again my apologies for not making proper citations. But I don't claim to be someone I'm not.--Saxophonemn (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sax, it doesn't matter if CJ claims to be someone he's not. This may sound weird, but credentials/background mean nothing here when it comes to editors, they only matter when it comes to citations. The message you're leaving on CJ's user page is inflammatory. The point is, we are all trying to edit in a collegial atmosphere. Sometimes that means we have to edit alongside people whose opinions we find hateful (and who find our own opinions hateful). What to do? 1) Try to keep emotions/opinions away from editing an posts on talk pages. Maintain calm. 2) Focus on making articles better, not trashing other editors. And again, with very few exceptions, you should leave other people's user pages alone, unless you are nearly 100% sure your additions will be welcome. "Proper citations" has nothing to do with it. Userspace =/= Article space. I'm not telling you this to scold, BTW, I'm telling you useful information that will help you continue to be allowed to edit here. And I'm happy to clarify anything if you have further questions. IronDuke 14:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then how would someone challenge another editor's mischief? My concern was the particular user had a hidden agenda that needed to be exposed so their edits can be understood in a greater context. Those were my chief concerns, because it felt like he was working where he had no business. I will never edit a user's page like that again as there appears to be more exciting ways to report/complain about a users deficiencies.--Saxophonemn (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You challenge another editor by challenging their edits. An edit is either good, or it is bad. Why the edit was made is not particularly relevant; just explain why the edit does or does not work. It doesn't matter if CJ has a hidden agenda, or even an open agenda (in my view -- not universally shared), he's allowed to edit wherever he wants, unless under specific sanction from an administrator or the abritation committee not to do so. And again, don't think about it in terms of complaining about another user's "deficiencies" (or don't do so out loud, anyway). Think about it in terms of improving articles. IronDuke 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JIDF

Hi Saxophonemn Please share your point of view, Please don’t use loaded words, Please--Puttyschool (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Made

Thanks to Malik Shabazz I was able to make an archive of m banning process.

Archive of my banning, the truth set me free!

You and Eleland

Hi, Saxophonemn, can you explain this edit? There is some discussion going on that you meant to imply you would like to see the destruction of the Palestinian people. I hope that's not the case, as it would be extraordinarily inappropriate and wrong to post, but perhaps you could clarify what you meant. Or, if you did mean that, perhaps you could promise never to write anything like it again. Thanks for your attention. IronDuke 16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peoples throughout History have challenged the Jewish people and disappear. It was an observation that the current status quo is hurting the Palestinians worse than the Israelis. Thus in a generation or so the notion of Palestinian Territories will be a bygone of History. --Saxophonemn (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I would like to urge you, in the future, to be as clear as you can when you make statements on talk about the I-P situation, and not make any that could be construed as an attack on any particular ethnicity. I understand you to be saying you did not mean to do that, but it's very easy to misunderstand these things, and people are often pretty on edge. I'd also urge you, per WP:SOAP, not to discuss politics on talk pages. Statements like "I think the Palestinians are wrong/right" or "I think the Israelis are wrong/right" are just going to lead to unproductive arguments and bad feeling. I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say we all need to focus on working together to make articles as accurate and informative as we can. Thanks again. IronDuke 13:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heading fast for a block here

I have very little tolerance for people who edit war over a BLP while that person is in a coma saying that their religious self-identification is inaccurate. I strongly suggest you go edit other articles for now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listen I followed WIKI policy I found the article that proves the truth. Just because she's in a coma, she became under the radar, I never implied she's not human. I can I self identify as Black? Seriously be a bit more objective.Saxophonemn (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss it all you want (within the limits set by WP:TE and guidelines/policies) on the talkpage. If you're correct, you'll convince someone else to make the change for you. If you do it yourself, that will be at least the third time in three days that you've made that change, and I will consider it edit warring, even though it's not a WP:3RR violation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This all revolves around the old and not quite settled issue of Who is a Jew?...The trouble is that large groups of Jews have taken up at least two different positions based on parentage, and there are perhaps more definitions out there. Orthodox interpretations lean a bit more towards heredity, while Reform envisions a more "religion"/ "faith" based concept of Judaism than a "people" or "race" or "nation" concept of Judaism. Personally, I feel the truth is somewhere in between - that Jews are a nation, but that there is a religion called "Judaism" that most of them follow (including Reform varieties of Judaism). — Rickyrab | Talk 17:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any reversals of any edits without getting more sources. I was ultimately surprised that my original edit went back, I had nothing to do with it. Yes there is an issue of who is a Jew, however not from my standpoint. From an outsiders perspective this is hard to grasp, and from a bias of not being Torah literate you will get Jews to have erroneous opinions. The analogy of trying to tell people that you're Black holds, except there are bona fide ways to become Jewish, and not Black.Saxophonemn (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, for someone who already has a definite opinion on an issue, the issue is already resolved. Anyhow, suppose one were to color one's skin, learn Black culture, and try to pass as Black. Would there be any way for someone to determine him/her not to be Black? (Well, maybe his/her two white parents, but, still, (s)he's well ingrained in their culture...) — Rickyrab | Talk 17:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matrilineality in Judaism Saxophonemn (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Gabrielle Giffords. 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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).

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

Request reason:

Well Sarek was pushing his POV, I showed an article which he must not have read, the article <http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141644> stated "Her paternal grandfather was a rabbi, but the fact that her mother was not Jewish defines her as a non-Jew according to Jewish law." I added this to the article, he seems to be sensitive (biased) that feelings are involved, I though encyclopedias were POV neutral. This really irks me, since I was blocked while in the process of explaining what was going on, he also didn't read my comment on the edit, and didn't fully explain himself. There is a huge discussion log, and after I got the article and others tinkered with the wording it appeared to be all set. Last time I checked Artuz Sheva was sort of like a mainstream media of Israel Saxophonemn (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You repeatedly made the same edit in the face of removals of that edit by others. That is what "edit warring" means. You are clearly convinced that you were right to do so, and your unblock request has explained why. However, Wikipedia's policy is "no edit warring", not "no edit warring unless you think you are right". JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Not sure how to fix this, there was no editwarring, as stated the page had two sections, one with an info box, which I never futzed with without ever sighting a new point or reference. The second point was in the article, in which the discussion went back and forth. And then it was agreed upon and the Sarek went back again and decided to go against all of the discussion because of his POV. I was told in the discussion not to deduce, but find an article. I maintain there was no edit warring, the matter appears confusing because of two edited posts. It's quite clear that what I stated was upto wikistandards, and other users even modified my wording. I apologize for not finding the valid reference sooner. What I see now is that I'm pushing the envelope of political correctness. Do have a neutral POV in this matter you'd have to admit that she's not Jewish according to everyone. It appears one of my edits stuck from my original point, so clearly the other editors agreed with me. Is it sensible that someone who had no role in discussion of a matter can come in and edit a page and threaten you because they didn't like what you did. From my standpoint I'm being bullied, for not towing the line that you can be whatever you want to be. Saxophonemn (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)Saxophonemn (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were asked not to add your edit to the article, and you added your edit to the article, reverting another editor to do so. Thus, the disruption and the block. It does not matter that your edit is accurate, if it is accurate - what matters is that you did not wait for a consensus to post your obviously controversial edit. And that's edit warring, and that's the reason for your block. Sarek may or may not be right about the material, but he's spot-on as far as the disruption goes. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

One more attempt at clarification, in the hope of helping you to understand the block (though not necessarily to agree with it) : I previously thought that you must not understand what "edit warring" meant, so I took the trouble to explain. However, I see that you still deny that you were edit warring, after the explanation. For clarity, here are four edits in which you placed substantially the same information (although phrased differently) into the same article: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. No matter whether the edits were RIGHT or not, repeatedly putting the same information into an article is edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the discussion page? It's not as if I come from nowhere and start moving things around I created an entire new section etc. I was told to get a source to back up my point then I did. Then Sarek decides that it was a malicious edit. The article is misleading without the qualifier, I was reading the news and it said Jewish Congresswoman, and I was wondering why I never heard of her, well it was because she wasn't actually Jewish according to a pesky document called the Torah. I wanted to have that in there so others could notice. We are moving into a a very unfortunate time in which we will have to label non-Halachick Jews as such. Saxophonemn (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of that matters, not one bit. The point of disruption, as James and I have noted, is that you added the same information to the article repeatedly. The accuracy of the information does not matter. Whether the article is improved with or without the information does not matter. The key issue, and the only reason you were blocked, is that you repeatedly added the information. That's it. It's possible that you're right - the article might be better off with your edit. But other editors disagreed, and so it's your job to discuss it with them rather than just continuing to add it back to the article. You're going to convince more editors that you are right if you discuss it before re-adding the information; to do otherwise is edit warring, as we've said very clearly here. When your block expires, please be more careful. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)'[reply]

Got it, it's just rather confusing seeing that usually this isn't a problem. In essence someone in the discussion page has to say something about the change being OK? Right now someone is mentioning that most of the sources agree, not that hard when they're all secondary sources from the same source. This warning has me more cautious of what not to do in the future, sorry everyone. Saxophonemn (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caution is good. It keeps me from doing a lot more stupid things than I already do... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal curiosity

Just for my own curiosity, should I be reading your username as "saxophonist from Minnesota"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted SaxophoneMan as a handle when there was character limit on AOL, and got stuck with this very unique monicker. I've been to 30 states or so, but not MN. I'll try a time when it's not so cold. ;) I'm almost certain you're not Spock's father, but I met one of his cousins. Saxophonemn (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I got SAREK one night on Bitnet Relay when SPOCK was already taken, and it stuck. :-) I play clarinet, but I played tenor sax for a summer production of Evita back in the 80s. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rutgers and BAKA

Heh. Small world. What I know was what the media reported, as I didn't know about the event after it happened. I don't know if there were any actual prepaid reservations needed; what I heard was that admission fees were voluntary but recommended. You probably know more than I do on this. But the Tea Party's attempt to make political hay out of it was a bit silly. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Judaism

WikiProject Judaism		An invitation to join us! If you are already a member of WikiProject Judaism, disregard this message.
		Hello Saxophonemn, you're invited to participate in WikiProject Judaism, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about all aspects of Judaism and Jewish Life. You can check out the Judaism WikiProject page for more information about the project and what our goals are. You can join by adding your name here. We hope to see you join us! ___________ -Invited on 1 July 2011 by Magister Scienta.

3O Request Declined

I have declined your submission at WP:3O as there appear to be more than two editors currently involved. As its name indicates, WP:3O is for soliciting a third opinion and should not be used if there are three or more editors involved in a dispute. You are welcome to consider other forms of dispute resolution. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in, when I made the request there were only 2.Saxophonemn (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]