User talk:Kebman

Welcome!

Hello, Kebman! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (My edits) @ 07:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

User Age[edit]

@I dream of horses: So I think there is another user with the same name that is also mine, and that I may have registered over it, or it was overwritten, or whatever. That's how I lost my contributions. Or rather, my previous account. I think it was either KEBman or kebman. This is of course Kebman. :p Would be fun to get my real account back, if at all possible. --Kebman (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found the root of the problem. My old account has indeed been renamed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kebman~enwiki If I could get it back, I'd be really happy.--Kebman (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if there's a solution to this? -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it before, but this is the talk-page of my actual account. Wish I could get access to it again, as I think this is due to the account merger. I was also booted from the Norwegian user page during this process, and thus I've also lost contribs there as well. :/ KEBman (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And now I even found my old password. I think it was due to mixups of different accounts on different projects, and problems with large and small letters to boot. Confusing! :D Kebman (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Barbara Lerner Spectre are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts and feelings on the matters. They shall be summarily ignored. Have a nice day. --Kebman (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kebman, "summarily ignoring" User:Jayjg's note is less cute than insightful. You were just reverted on Talk:Islamophobia by Objective3000, and your rant on Talk:FrontPage Magazine is equally unencyclopedic. Please review WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a bit of the old censorship are we? Well, I didn't think highly of you before, so I guess I'll think even lower of you now. As for "unencyclopedic", it refers to the article, not discussions on how to improve it - and it is in dire need of improvement. But instead of improving it, or even discussing how or if it can be improved, you choose to "revert", or in effect censor criticism and suggestions. In contrast to you, I was ready to stand bare chested with the public arguments being made. You, on the other hand, are so embarassed at the criticism that you'd rather hide it than answer it. I smell bias and cowardice. I smell hypocrisy. --Kebman (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Islamophobia, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And many other talkpages. Wikipedia talkpages aren't free fora for your opinions on Islam. Your sneering response to similar warnings above is noted. If you do anything like that again, expect to be blocked.. Acroterion (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise your threats only proves me right, though? Those weren't my "opinions on Islam". They were opinions on the Wikipedia article about Islamophobia, and how the article is incredibly biased. If you can't take criticism and suggestions on how to improve, then what is your site worth? If you then censor input about your articles, instead of debating them or trying to figure out how to improve, then what kind of values do you really stand for? --Kebman (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages aren't for indulging your opinions under the guise of article improvement. You are misusing talkpages for forum-style debate and soapboxing. Applying a veneer of "this article stinks" doesn't change that. Any more behavior like this [1] [2] will bring sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. But I can of course not stop you from wielding your power. Kebman (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per persistent inappropriate discussion on article talkpages, and responses in "April 2019" and "May 2019" above. Note: you are welcome to appeal your block, but if you include further personal attacks, such as here, your access to editing this talkpage may be revoked. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Whoa! Aren't you allowed to even disagree with an administrator now? Come on, that's way too harsh. I never intended to cause damage or disruption. My intent was to improve Wikipedia articles. You disagree with the way I did that. Fine, I'll of course correct my behaviour to stay in line with the criticism. That is not what I disagreed with. I disagreed with the treatment I've been getting, and I still don't think it's right to force people to agree to such poor treatment of contributors for mere criticism, especially the threat of censorship and expulsion. This place is built upon the willing participation of volunteers, of which I've been since 2005 though I've only been a member since 2006. On several occasions I've also supported Wikimedia Foundation monetarily, and asked my friends - some of whom are even members of Parliament in Norway - to do the same. On top of that I've also written a university assignment to your benefit, detailing it's relevance despite how some universities have valid concerns about its use within academia. I would love for Wikipedia to stay inclusive even for people you might not agree with all the time. That is a prerequisite of a free, open, inclusive and not least democratic society, after all. Thus I think the block should be lifted, if for nothing else than to prove me wrong. Kebman (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This has nothing to do with your disagreeing with anyone and everything to do with the fact that you seem to be here to push an agenda. This is a collaborative project where everyone must work together regardless of our political/social views in a civil, respectful manner that reflects certain basic human rights. If your views prevent you from doing that, you will not be able to edit here. I think that your only pathway to being unblocked includes a formal topic ban from (at least) edits related to Islam and anti-Islam subjects. While donations or lack thereof have no bearing on your activities here, if this block means that the Foundation will not get your money, I don't think they will mind. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2019 (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.

You appparently don't understand the reason for the block. Posts such as this one[3] are a form of hate speech. Yes, it's a quote, but you've endorsed it and posted it to an article talk page. But there's a very simple solution that should get you unblocked. Accept an indefinite topic ban from any edits dealing with Islam or Muslims. How does that sound? Doug Weller talk 11:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)}}[reply]

I think it would also have to include a topic ban dealing with Muslims and an agreement not to post rants such as this one.[4] This all seems very simple as you don't edit that much in any case and mainly in other areas. 11:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! For more background, as I understood, I was being reprimanded by Acroterion, who said that "Any more behavior like this will bring sanctions." I was under the impression that I wouldn't be blocked as long as I didn't write more rants, and I will of course never do that again in the future.

As for hate speech, that is a very serious allegation. Guilt by association or endoresement is not grounds for arrest, especially not in the USA, whose main jurisdiction this website falls under. You will have a very hard time convincing a court of law that the words of Mr. Hitchens are hate speech, and in that case you'd better arrest Dawkins and perhaps even Sam Harris too.

As for Islam itself, I haven't uttered a single word against it, and I wish all Muslims well! I'm far more concerned with Western politics on the matter, using things like Islamophobia and the threat of deplatforming and bans to keep critics in line. On that topic, since Wikipedia is a private organisation, you're of course in your full right to define that as you wish, and ban and block at your pleasure, though I sincerely hope you will pardon me this time.

But you're right. Those rants of mine that you referred to, they didn't help at all. I will submit to not ever writing something like that again on Wikipedia. I don't think I'll be writing much about Islam or Muslims either, though I'm well-educated on the matter, so if you wish to give me a block on that topic too, then I suppose I'll just have to accept that.

Thank you for your time! Kebman (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For your above information to be reviewed, you will need to formalize it in another unblock request, which will be reviewed by someone other than me. You sort of allude to it but you will need to specifically affirm that you will accept the suggested topic ban(or whatever it is you will accept). 331dot (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please use the word topic ban rather than block. And obviously I was not talking about hate speech in a legal context. Doug Weller talk 18:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement[edit]

Kebman wrote: "Wikipedia is overrun by Left Wing extremists who want to change reality into their own image instead of protecting the truth."[5] Regardless what else he wrote, I agree with that passage. ⸻Nikolas Ojala (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]