User talk:85.64.76.29

Important notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Note that, per these sanctions, new and inexperienced users are not allowed to participate in internal or formal discussions on the subject. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last year I was emotionally exhausted since I dedicated myself to participate in the discussions and try to read as many Wikipedia policies and rules to produce the highest-quality sources and information and present my opinions in the most straightforward way. But since then I've come to understand that I'm automatically at a disadvantage against the ArbCom sanctions and some other, invested Wikipedians, some of which I think have an extremely high probability that they are antisemite and biased. So I don't know if I'll find the time and energy to go through any discussions at noticeboards and such. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022[edit]

CLARIFICATION FOR FUTURE REFERENCE: I CALLED ONLY A SINGLE USER (NOT "OTHER EDITORS" PLURALIZED) ONCE (NOT "PERSONAL ATTACKS" PLURALIZED) AN ANTISEMITE. NOT EVEN ONCE DID I REQUEST MY BLOCK TO BE LIFTED BEFORE IT WAS DUE, AND I MADE SURE IT WAS CLEAR I WASN'T REQUESTING THAT. AT THE TIME OF POSTING THE "PERSONAL ATTACK" I WAS WELL AWARE IT WAS AGAINST THE ESTABLISHED POLICIES AND GUIDELINES OF WIKIPEDIA, AND I MADE SURE TO STATE THAT MULTIPLE TIMES. THAT "PERSONAL ATTACK" WAS LINKED TO IN THE ADMINISTRATORS' NOTICEBOARD. AS OF THE TIME OF WRITING (MORE THAN A MONTH LATER), NO ADMINISTRATOR (NEITHER RICKINBALTIMORE) HAS REACHED TO ME, NEITHER PUBLICLY NOR IN PRIVATE, REGARDING MY REQUEST THAT I POSTED HERE AT THE TIME I WAS BLOCKED. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE #1: WHEN I WROTE "I CALLED ONLY A SINGLE USER [...] ONCE [...] AN ANTISEMITE", THAT IS INCLUDING EVERY EDIT I HAVE EVER POSTED TO WIKIPEDIA, FROM THIS IP ADDRESS, FROM EVERY PREVIOUS IP ADDRESS I HAVE USED, AND FROM ANY USERNAME I POSSIBLY EVER HAD ON WIKIPEDIA. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE #2: WHEN I WROTE "EVERY EDIT I HAVE EVER POSTED TO WIKIPEDIA", THAT IS INCLUDING UNDER EVERY NAMESPACE IN WIKIPEDIA, INCLUDING THE MAIN ARTICLE NAMESPACE AND TALK PAGES. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I understand your decision, and it was completely expected. May you please find some time and inspect the user nableezy too? I've tried to get help from administrators in the NPOV noticeboard last year when I got into editing the events of May 2021, but I was prevented completely from editing due to the ArbCom sanctions and it seems as if nothing happened with users who seem to me to be civil POV-pushers. Last year I invested hours upon hours sitting at the computer trying to transcript sources and organize links and present my stance as well as possible and back it up with Wikipedia policies as much as possible and didn't lose my temper (umm maybe I did a little bit? but I didn't do anything that necessitated blocking me, so I didn't get blocked); today I refrained from editing and absolutely lost my temper... This is not a request to appeal my block! (Even if you did look into this and found that you have no interest in doing anything in the matter, I would be happy if you would at least inform me if you've decided not to do anything.) Thank you. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is it exactly you think Im doing that is "antisemitic"? You think calling IDF released images propaganda is antisemitic? If Hamas released images hoping they would be used on the internet to further their goals Id call it propaganda too. Thats a function of who is releasing the media and what their aim is. You think any professional army on this planet when releasing copyright free media with the explicit aim of reaching a wider audience is not propagandizing? Well, ok, thats fine for you to think, but my thinking otherwise doesnt make me a racist. I havent said one thing about Jews anyway, you think saying something about the IDF and its media arm automatically means somebody is racist against Jews? How do these things even correlate to you? nableezy - 18:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you put me on a watchlist for edits in talk namespaces or something? Why are you even commenting here? Regarding your specific arguments: you seem to me to be a civil POV-pusher who abuses Wikipedia policies to death; my argument which I put in the talk page for the last week's events regarding primary and secondary sources still stands and is directly relevant to what you wrote now here, and to expand: everything needs to be taken in context; Hamas is to be considered a primary source by default and only if consistently found to be unreliable and containing of opinion and deliberate omissions of *relevant* (different than *important*) objective facts regarding each occurence it supposedly backs/documents should it be reconsidered as either an unreliable source of information or a source of deliberate misinformation (i.e. disinformation), which is another imortant distinction in itself; the IDF, and any other source anywhere, is to be ideally evaluated in the same way, and treated with the same default consideration. TL;DR: "You think any professional army on this planet when releasing copyright free media with the explicit aim of reaching a wider audience is not propagandizing?" I disagree with the premise of this question; furthermore, the media in Israel which are considered secondary sources (read about freedom of the news in Israel here) claim that the evidence released by the IDF and/or the Israeli government regarding the claim that the PIJ killed the children in Gaza is true. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you pinged me. As far as your response here, I think I got it. You feel that the Israeli government and its army should be given a deference and that Hamas should not. Thats cool, I do not. That does not make me a racist. I dont really care what I seem to you, I didnt even care enough to report it when you made outright attacks without any logical basis. Oh no, somebody on the internet dislikes me. Ah well. was my reaction. But you do have to follow our policies here, among them WP:NPA. nableezy - 18:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"You feel that the Israeli government and its army should be given a deference and that Hamas should not." I don't think I totally understand what you're saying here, but if I do, it's probably not at all what I meant to say. "But you do have to follow our policies [...]" I said expressly the opposite: "Hello. I understand your decision, and it was completely expected. [...] This is not a request to appeal my block!". 85.64.76.29 (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Talk:Operation Breaking Dawn[edit]

CLARIFICATION FOR FUTURE REFERENCE: SEE ABOVE. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To charge them with antisemitism is utterly disgusting. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Now all you have to do is apologize and withdraw your antisemitic accusation. Further, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I very much disagree with you that "to charge them with antisemitism is utterly disgusting"; I am not at all sure whether I agree that I should apologize to them, I may or may not be (currently I'm almost sure I'm in the good regarding my situation with nableezy and they're in the bad, regardless of my breaking of Wikipedia's civility policies). In any case, what I have experienced from them I interpret as civil POV-pushing and bad faith, so I can't find a good reason to change my mind regarding whether I should apologize to them. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to edit Wikipedia, you cannot engage in personal attacks on other editors. Period. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about actions I did; you are both requesting me to apologize for actions I already did. I never said I didn't break Wikipedia's civility policies; I just said I don't think I have to apologize since, as I interpret it, I'm in the right. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then your block will stand. And if you continue when your block ends, you'll likely be blocked again for a longer period of time. Think it to yourself all you want, but don't say it here, period. WP:CIVIL is a policy you MUST follow. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May you please have a look at the first message I left you? Thanks. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 85.64.76.29! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Do you know about the advantages of getting a free account?

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a minimum number of days and made a minimum number of edits. If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (85.64.76.29) is used to identify you instead.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Dr.Pinsky (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To err is human. However, in the future, you must follow our policies WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:BRD. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 85.64.76.29 (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.