Gregcollins11

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller 18:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Please don't use the plural when you are talking about one person (ie 'scholars' when you only mention 1 - and he wasn't a scholar anyway). And if you didn't know that the two people you quoted were closely connected to Rosenwald, one being funded by her and the other employed by her institute, than you should have. If you did, you should have made that clear as the average reader wouldn't realise the connection and would have thought they were independent. Doug Weller 18:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:NPOVN#NPOV issues at Nina Rosenwald. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Doug,

Thanks for the comments. I changed "scholars and journalists" to activists (although one might contest your definition of "scholar" -- Dr. Jasser has been an author or co-author of a number of books and has lectured widely at universities). I also deleted Toameh's quote. As you noticed, I also included "Gatestone-affiliated" in the intro.

Please let me know if there are any more problems.

Gregcollins11 (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been mentioned.

You have been mentioned (by me among others) on Gatestone Institute talk page.

The "Welcome" section, above, has good introductory material for the new user. Some users learn the hard way by jumping in and being corrected but it is preferable to read the links in the welcome statement. Let me also point out the rules for "single-purpose accounts:" WP:SPA. Also keep in mind that we collaborate in reaching a consensus: WP:CONSENSUS. I hope this helps. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Jason. I'm simply trying to provide a less inflammatory description of Gatestone. Gatestone, as well as all other institutions, are certainly open to criticism, but editors have the moral responsibility to disseminate accurate, non-incendiary information to readers. Gregcollins11 (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Greg please stop adding the words "cited approvingly" to the Gatestone article. Additionally the NYT published Soeren Kern in the opinion pages, which is not the same as citing a Gatestone report for a fact.

"Cited approvingly" would not need to be mentioned if the other editor stopped from posting incendiary claims about Gatestone without balance. I will continue to post "cited approvingly" until the editor ceases to do so. In addition, it doesn't matter if NYT cited Kern in the opinion pages. The fact is that NYT cited Kern as a reputable source on European politics. That is worthy of being mentioned, particularly in light of the efforts by the other editor to discredit Gatestone.

It is true that there are POV problems with the current version of the article, but the proper way to proceed is to remove those problems. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gatestone Institute. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim, thanks for the note. I am trying to be as reasonable as possible in trying to reach a consensus on Gatestone's page. Yet someone appears to want to smear Gatestone by adding in all negative content and taking out positive content. Where can I go to resolve this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcollins11 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You have made two edits to Talk:Gatestone Institute in the last two months. There is an active discussion there on the content of the page. Please comment there. If that discussion cannot come to a consensus then there are other avenues of discussion that can be opened. Woody (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I have made comments there, to no avail.

Jim1138, would you mind offering some help? I have been blocked from editing Gatestone's Wikipedia page, even though my edits were completely reasonable and factual, and even though another user (Snooganssnoogans) was clearly trying to discredit Gatestone by including biased information against the organization. The fact that I have been blocked and Snooganssnoogans has not is grossly unfair. I was willing to leave in negative information about Gatestone as long as more neutral information was also included, but Snooganssnoogans kept removing the neutral information. This does a fundamental disservice to Wikipedia readers. Please help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcollins11 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans keeps vandalizing Gatestone's Wikipedia page to paint the organization in a wholly negative light. I just edited the page again, which includes both neutral and negative sentences. But Snooganssnoogans keeps taking out the neutral sentences. Can you please suspend his ability to edit the page? He is violating Wikipedia's standards of editing integrity.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent edit warring, continuing long after being warned about doing so. I also see that in this edit you have openly declared your intention of edit warring to impose what you personally believe is the "right" version. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

{{admin help}} Wikipedia community, please help. I do not know whom else to contact. I have been blocked from editing Gatestone Institute's page, yet Snooganssnoogans continues to engage in an edit war to paint Gatestone in a wholly negative light. Whichever administrator approved my blocking made a patently unfair decision; s/he is allowing Gatestone's page to be edited by a biased opponent of the institute. In my previous edits, I have tried to be as reasonable as possible. I did not delete some edits by Snooganssnoogans that were negative; I simply added the lines "Gatestone has been cited by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc." and included quotations from Muslims defending Gatestone. Please help. {{admin help}}

• You're no longer blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, PhilKnight.

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).

Gregcollins11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am challenging the decision to block my editing privileges for the Gatestone Institute website. As I have said before, I have edited the page to include facts about Gatestone that had been removed repeatedly by Snooganssnoogans. It is clear that Snooganssnoogans has an axe to grind with Gatestone (why I have no idea). The edits I have made in the past included adding in "not-for-profit" in front of Gatestone's name; deleting "right-wing," while leaving in "conservative" to describe the institute; and adding in a sentence about the newspapers who have cited Gatestone repeatedly. The only reason why I have continued to edit the page is because Snooganssnoogans kept editing out my edits. In this light, it is patently unfair that while my editing privileges have been blocked, Snooganssnoogans's editing privileges have not -- particularly because the motivation of Snooganssnoogans' edits are clearly ad hominem. Please help.

Decline reason:

Actions of other editors are irrelevant when it comes to reviewing your unblock request. In order to be unblocked, you need to show that you did not in fact engage in edit-warring. You have not done so. A quick check of your contributions shows you appear to be removing reliably cited information, which would be inappropriate even if you weren't engaged in an edit war. Yamla (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2017 (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.

I have revised Gatestone's page because of repeated vandalism. I am happy to engage with anyone who disagrees with my edits. Wikipedia administrators, I am being as transparent and open as possible. Please be on alert in the event vandalizers continue to engage in edit wars with Gatestone's page. Gregcollins11

June 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: If you do not cease your tendentious editing at Gatestone Institute you are likely to end with a long term block or being topic banned. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2017 (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).

Gregcollins11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Wikipedia community, please help. I have been blocked again from editing Gatestone's page, this time by Ad Orientem. Gatestone's page has continued to be vandalized by the following users: Timothyjosephwood; Joshualouie711; Snooganssnoogans . As I have written multiple times, users are clearly trying to defame the organization. I have been been as reasonable as possible -- I am willing to leave in critical sentences about Gatestone on its page; all I have tried to do is replace "right-wing" with "conservative" (which itself is a huge concession, since Gatestone publishes liberals); included a quotation from a Muslim defending Gatestone; and added in a sentence listing the number of reputable organizations that have cited Gatestone. Yet the vandalizers continue to remove this sentences. This is unfair, not only to myself and Gatestone but also to other Wikipedia users.

Decline reason:

I see precisely one edit to the article talk page, back in March. Otherwise, you are simply edit warring and tendentiously editing, not even bothering with edit summaries. If you want to explain yourself, that's the place to do it, when this block expires. Or, you could simply agree to not edit the pages in question. But you're not going to be allowed to continue editing as you have been. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:34, 14 June 2017 (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.

Wikipedia administrators, please help. This has been going on for far too long. There is a clear campaign to vandalize Gatestone's Wikipedia page (please check out the page's Revision History page; the following users continue to vandalize the page: Timothyjosephwood; Joshualouie711; Snooganssnoogans). The organization, like all other institutions, should be open to criticism -- but it does not deserve to be defamed. These users are defaming the organization by editing out neutral sentences and adding in inflammatory ones. They are doing a gross disservice to Wikipedia. Please block their editing privileges.

Ad Orientem, why did you block me? Are you aware of other Wikipedia users defaming Gatestone's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcollins11 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

While blocked, your talk page should be used to make unblock requests, not request that other editors be sanctioned. Please note that if you wish to alert an editor, you must format the link like this: [[User:Example]] or {{User|Example}} (they're both basically the same). You must also sign your post with four tildes ("~~~~"). If you do that, it will send them an automated note that their account name has been mentioned. Otherwise, they'll never see it. But you should read our guide to appealing blocks and consider making another unblock request instead of pinging specific editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate. I will copy and paste the same message from above to Ad Orientem using the appropriate formatting: Gregcollins11 (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, why did you block me? Are you aware of other Wikipedia users defaming Gatestone's page? Gregcollins11 (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• In the future, don't use the {{Admin help}} template without asking a question. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I politely request be unblocked.

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).

Gregcollins11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Ad Orientem]] and other Wikipedia administrators, please help. This has been going on for far too long. There is a clear campaign to vandalize Gatestone's Wikipedia page (please check out the page's Revision History page; the following users continue to vandalize the page: Timothyjosephwood; Joshualouie711; Snooganssnoogans. The organization, like all other institutions, should be open to criticism -- but it does not deserve to be defamed. These users are defaming the organization by editing out neutral sentences and adding in inflammatory ones. They are doing a gross disservice to Wikipedia. Please either block their editing privileges, or unblock me. Gregcollins11 (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Gregcollins11 Gregcollins11 (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, if Ad Orientem, does not respond, can you please help? Gatestone's page is clearly being vandalized. Again, I have simply added in sentences that say Gatestone is conservative instead of right-wing; added in a comment from a Muslim in support of Gatestone; and have added a sentence that shows that Gatestone has been cited by reputable media outlets, including the NY TImes and Wall Street Journal.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for your own behavior, and that is what you should be talking about (see WP:NOTTHEM). You have been wp:edit warring at Gatestone Institute without discussing the edits and without leaving wp:edit summaries. Such behavior is unacceptable. I don't see that issue addressed in this unblock request. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2017 (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.

Gregcollins11 (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

jpgordon, the revision history section of Gatestone's edit page clearly shows it has been edited consistently to paint Gatestone in a bad light. There is a deliberate attempt to defame the organization. Once again, Gatestone should be open to criticism. But for Wikipedia administrators to fail to block other users for vandalizing the page does a gross disservice to Wikipedia users. Gregcollins11 (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, could you please respond

Hi Factchecker_atyourservice 20:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)