Hello, Is not a, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!

I see you find your way around. In case of questions not answered by the above, please ask here, I will watch. Happy editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda Arendt, for your warm welcome!

is a 14:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Is a" reminds me to double check the agreement of my subjects and verbs. The name "is a" was not available (because users are called "isa", etc.), so I chose "is not a". is a 00:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put redirects at user talk:is a and user:is a. is a 11:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be very familiar with some aspects of the discussions at issue as well as with Wikpedia policies. Have you had an account on Wikipedia before?
Do you have a conflict of interest regarding articles related to Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) welcomed me with a helpful list of Wikipedia policies, which I have studied. I have seen you having the same discussions about WP:BLP at several pages, so I think that my time is better spent discussing how to improve articles at appropriate talk pages, than typing back and forth with you here. So let's discuss things elsewhere. is a 10:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "WP:RS says what I want on a BLP" routine does not seem to be getting anywhere, once again, at neoconservatism ([1] and talk [2]) and at Victoria Nuland [3]. is a 11:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit filed a request for a sock-puppet investigation, accusing me of being a sockpuppet of wixifixer (talk · contribs)/wikifixer and possibly being Robert Kagan himself, and perhaps an IP! [4] This investigation was quickly closed by the clerk Mike V. is a 16:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Neoconservatism. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP specifically empowers editors to revert 4+ times, regardless. I see that a study of WP:BLP was recommended when you could not become an administrator, just as VM has requested that the other restorationist read WP:BLP. Given this past, making further suggestions or reminders to you about WP:BLP does not seem an effective use of my time.

You should read the talk pages of the relevant articles and WP:BLPN to assess consensus.

is a 16:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A false assertion of BLP problems is not going to stop you from getting blocked for WP:3RR. It might work once but it won't work repeatedly, especially with a high-profile discussion continuing at WP:BLPN. The question here is not one of absolutes; instead it is a fine point of Kagan's own preference versus the rest of the world's labeling of him. Wikipedia usually sides with the rest of the world in such cases. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is no evidence of Kagan having been a liberal or socialist or social democrat in his biography, nobody who knows anything about neoconservatism can soberly call Kagan a "neoconservative".

Your words about the rest of the world seems to be made in ignorance of the discussions on talk pages, to which I again refer you. Please post again here only after having read them. is a 17:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clean hands

Politics is a science. You can demonstrate that you are right and that others are wrong.

— Jean Paul Sartre, Dirty hands

is a 23:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

For the unimpressed

@Gamaliel:

[redacted]

It is very late and I don't have time to write more. Feel free to copy this partial response. I can write a bit more tomorrow. is a 00:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion here you are blocked for 24 hours and I am imposing an indefinite one-way interaction ban preventing you from any further contact with User:Ubikwit. Gamaliel (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "discussion" seems more like a monologue. You state that you failed to find the website listed by the ADL or SPLC, and therefore my comment was a BLP violation - as if they jointly covered every anti-semitic person or organization! Will you get busy blocking other editors at WP:BLPN and Talk:Robert Kagan who have observed that blaming Jewish money for subverting US foreign policy for the state of Israel is evidently anti-semitic?

Here are opinion pieces from professional journalists charging the blog-site with anti-Semitism, some already cited in the article. (Please read the quotes from the site in these articles.)

• "A reminder that anti-semitism has no place in debates over Israel: The consequences of a website that spouts anti-Semitism entering mainstream discourse on Israel and Palestine.". Armin Rosen. The Atlantic Monthly, Jul 14 2012 [5]
• "Salon.com partners With purveyor of anti-semitic material Mondoweiss", The Algemeiner, Staff author, July 23, 2012. [6]
• "Against anti-Semitism, self-defense is no offense", Ben Cohen, Jewish News Service, [7]. July 21, 2014
• "Mondoweiss and anti-semitism dead?", M. J. Rosenberg, Tikkun Daily, [8] March 16, 2014.
• Tobin, Jonathan S. "Anti-Semitic Hate for Kids … and Adults", Commentary, July 8, 2013.

is a 07:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC) 23:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel:

Would you ask for a review of your administrative actions in the ANI thread, please, particularly since you made your demands after my bedtime and since Collect (talk · contribs) may have made some comments. I would of course be happy to strike through any offending remarks not yet removed.

I do not think that I can ask for a second opinion here, forthrightly, without violating the one-sided interaction ban you imposed. is a 18:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC) is a 23:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on WP:ANI. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Don't put words into my mouth, pretending to quote me when you are instead misrepresenting me. See this diff for the infraction. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I copied and pasted from the text, giving the diff. Those were your words, and you did change the meaning of the sentence to favor your POV.

is a 00:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you just remove my quotation of you [9], which had a link to the full statement?

Is that allowed?

How is quoting you (with a diff) a personal attack?

Have you considered removing your own unsubstantiated allegations?

is a 00:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]