This user may have left Wikipedia. Rm125 has not edited Wikipedia since 20 September 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Welcome!
Hello, Rm125, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Bourgetalk 09:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since seldom visit this page. Please discuss directly on article page.I will eventually see this page of coarse but don't count on it. Thanks --Rm125 (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By adding the tag you are listing the article twice at the same RfC page. It is already listed so please stop adding the second tag. nableezy - 04:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is about different issue. As discussed on the page--Rm125 (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is your 3rd revert on Haaretz. Please stop trying to push in the material through editwarring. You will be blocked if you continue. nableezy - 16:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are talking about. Please go to the article discussion page. I already asked you guys once. This page is for social activities only.Please tell Malik and other.If you have a problem please let me know. I might make a special arrangement.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rm125#Please_don.27t_leave_messages_here--Rm125 (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats nice, but that is not what this page is for. And please read WP:CANVASS and do not do it anymore (like this). nableezy - 18:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nab: Please stop. You haven't stopped bullying this newbie from his very edit. He mentioned it to me, and only me, so its not WP:CANVASS, which by its very definition requires the notification to multiple Wikipedians. Try WP:BULLY, for wikilinked guidelines.--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 18:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brew, please stop encouraging a user who has done nothing but edit war in problematic, to say the least, material, some of which was in violation of WP:BLP (which you joined the editor in trying to editwar into an article). You want to be helpful then give the newbie some actual advice on how to edit responsibly, but just justifying the behavior is not right. nableezy - 18:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's two blatant lies, Nableezy. Please strike them both. This comment discouraged edit-warring, not encouraged. And none of my 40,000 WP edits included an edit to the Haaretz article, making an edit-warring accusation silly. Please stop with these blatantly false attacks.--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 18:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about trying to war in BLP-violating material on Jonathan Cook (note that every single person at both BLP/N and the talk page agreed the material was inappropriate). Neither of those are lies, so I will not be striking either of them out. You see a potential ally to help defame those whose views you do not like, so here, as with Historicist, you try to downplay the clearly problematic behavior. You want to be helpful? Explain to Rm125 what is wrong with violating WP:BLP (something I hope you have learned by now), or how to try and write in a neutral tone. That would be helpful. nableezy - 18:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. You spend way too much time here fighting. You can waste time here, but find another sucker for your nonsense. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 20:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you spend way too much time playing the lawyer protecting those whose behavior is repeatedly an issue. I have been meaning to ask you brew, how long ago did you know Tundrabuggy was a banned editor? Were you shocked that somebody who you backed up for so long turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user? Or were you just disappointed an ally was finally caught? nableezy - 20:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nableezy and Brewcrewer, I'm sure you'll both agree this doesn't belong on Rm125's talkpage. If he asks you to continue, then please ignore this post, but otherwise I suggest we leave this discussion.Jeppiz (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nabelcy, by now everybody realizes that wikipedia improvement is not what you after.You are just looking for sticks to hit everybody who doesn't share your views. You remind me of this Cook thing from my first day on wikipedia? One a first day I am sure you used to be a newbie too. Are you born to Wikifamily? No, you came here like everybody else and learned you ways slowly. I hope you had a better greeting then I had from you.You came to Aftonbladet Israel controversy article like ton of breaks smashing everything. We had a good thing going there and managed to keep things civil and respectful there till you came following me and forcing your way like bull in a china shop--Rm125 (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your block and the warnings you received over your behaviour, you have went right back to edit-warring at Haaretz and to removing sourced content without discussing it at Aftonbladet-Israel controversy. Your behaviour is just as disruptive as it was before the block and you will be heading for a new one if you don't change your behaviour immediately.Jeppiz (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeppiz,please slow down.I understand that you are upset. Frankly don't understand why. Whould you tell me?Show me what and where is the sourse you clain I removed. Once I see what do you mean I will be happy to respond.I like to be disciplined but please what you are punishing me for.
Another favor. I already asked to discuss everything on article discussion board. I don't come here often so please let's go to appropriate article. Another advice, Jappiz. Please try to discuss in calm, culculated way-it is better for everybody. After all we all people and nobody enjoy this language of warnings and pushing around.Doesn't work for me. I am a reasonable person and respond to reasonable arguments. If you can try to cool down and relax you will see how nice and effortless our work here can be. I can assure you I do my editing with care and consideration. Talk to the point and I will respond. Promise. --Rm125 (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey RM125, Noticed your work around here and I'm impressed. It is both intelligent and mostly in accordance with NPOV. You have the markings of a good Wikipedian. One thing I'd like encourage is that you hold back from reverting more then once a day, especially now that you're a new editor. There are plenty of articles that are not well written and include bad information, but we can't get all hung up at every misjustice. Patience is a virtue that will get you a long way here. If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to ping my talkpage. Best, --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 03:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for advice.Will be in touch. There is some shortage of civility and good manners here.Some are sad-no sence of humor. Some just like to warn people any chance they get.Normal situation in strict totalitarian homes. It is really scary.I have this nightmare since I started here; Every time I pass a Hollywood sign I see WARNING! instead of HOLLYWOOD. LOL.In any case I better be carefull not to talk too much. Wikipedia KGB is watching every step.. --Rm125 (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just chill like they do best in LA :) Btw, you don't have to put your signature in your edit summaries. As a matter of fact, the signature doesn't "show" in edit summaries. Best,--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 06:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, wiki-pal --Rm125 (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having been critical of some of your moves, I would like to point out that your recent edits to the Aftonbladet-Israel controversy have been very good and helpful, thank you for that.Jeppiz (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are all right. Looking forward to cooperate.Thanks, --Rm125 (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rm125, you are continuing to edit war at Aftonbladet-Israel controversy. You just made your 4th revert. Please do not continue doing so or you may be blocked. Thanks, nableezy - 23:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are also edit warring at Al-Ahram. I am preparing a case to have you banned from editing articles in the Arab-Israeli conflict area if you persist with this behavior. nableezy - 00:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you have been reported to the 3rr noticeboard, you can see this here. nableezy - 05:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about what happened. I tried to stave off the block, but to no avail. There's a very strong possibility that in the near future other admins will be patrolling that talkpage and they would treat everyone fairly, but this is what we have to deal with at this time. In any case, you were edit-warring. I hope you come back in 24 hours all chilled and with a better grasp of Wikipedia's aversion to reverting. You would make a good editor. Please take lesson from what happened and focus more on communication at the talk page. I hope to see you again soon. Best, --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 08:36, 7 September 2009 (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).
This is the first time I see this board.( I just tried to post it but I was blocked at the same time) I never knew that such thing exists. The only reason I found out is because Nablezy provided a link. I am a new editor however I am getting abuses since day one. I don't know if I can say it on this board but I will say what I feel. Whatever the rules are this is no way to greet a newcomer. There must be some kind of ethics here. since day one-without knowing and understanding what I am doing and acting sincerely I was approached by devastating and cruel attitude. Not only Malik Shabbazz never greeted me as a new Wikipedian and offered some minimal welcome they greeted me like in a war zone. I admit I am new here and not very computer literate I am also not a native English speaker, English is my third language, however this is not the reason I mention this. There MUST be some kind of system how the senior editors treat new comers. This is incredible that any organization abuses the new person whose only desire to be helpful and make a contribution. I ask you: What kind of committee is responsible for greeting new people here? Whose responsibility it is to make sure there is some kind of volunteering "mentor" for the newbie. I ask you: Who is responsible in this organization to make sure that a new person feels nurtured and encouraged to contribute?Or you just looking for abusers and bullies whose only advantage is because they know their way around? I ask you: Who is responsible for a desperate calls for help from new Wikipedians who don't know how the system works?Are the experienced editors who see and don't help) like Malik Shabbazz an Nablesee can get away with this? When you have an car exident and people who have opportunity to help are obligated to help. This is MORAL obligation. Why it is not practiced on Wikipedia? Who is responsible for improvement of this kind? Or may be just technicalities you are after ? I ask you; Why those 2 serious moral abusers ( yes abusers) Malik Shabbazz and Nableezy knew that I need help ( look at Haaretz discussion board) and laughed among themselves writing down my mistakes and at the same time trying to "bury" me and deceive me. Yesterday I was awake ALL NIGHT because of their abuses and threats. Many times they reverted me for false reason. I can show you that the link the provided is totally irrelevant and nobody checked it. Now I have a DETAILED information about recent Al Aharam edit. I can show that it is complete fraud what he did. I would like your permit to to email you this and I am sure Nableezy will be and banned, mot me Technically I am probably at fault, I admit ( frankly I don’t know exactly why but I assume there is a reason}” but morally it is absolutely deplorable. I have many questions to ask somebody responsible. Yesterday they threatened me they will ban me for ever without providing the reason. I even posted on Haaretz discussion board and I wrote it down. Please look and you will read my thoughts. You can ban me( not you personally but in general) or whatever but you will never get respect from me because of the abuse I experienced here. Shame on those who treat people in this manner. I will leave my email here. I would like to speak with someone with experience and authority here. I would like to have a 'mentor'-somebody who can help me to get started properly . I would like somebody to contact me so I can show how ( without me agreeing) they have led me into a trap so I would be banned and more. Sorry I talk too much but I talk from the heart. I needed to tell you what is going on. I respectfully ask for somebody knowledgeable to contact me otherwise I would like to try to contact the founder or other big cigar in this organization. My email is r2000la@gmail.com Please email me and give me an advice of how to try to answer all those questions I asked you here..
Thanks for your time.--Rm125 (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
I took about 45 minutes reviewing this situation in detail. Wikipedia does have a guideline for how to treat new editors: Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers. What is expected is that newcomers are treated welcomingly be extending them the courtesy of an assumption of good faith, and that when they make mistakes or violate policies, we talk to them about before using a block, which is a last resort. Unfortunately, not every editor obeys that rule, and it is not a rule backed up by penalties except in truly egregious cases. I think you have had a very poor welcome to Wikipedia, starting with self-serving and inaccurate accusations of vandalism from Malik Shabazz, who later (amusingly) tried to warn you not to call good-faith differences of opinion vandalism. So I don't blame you for feeling like Wikipedia has a crappy welcoming committee.
Ok, that said, Wikipedia expects newcomers to be responsive to concerns raised by others and to read and obey behavioral policies when you are linked to them / informed about them. Yes, even when it comes from people who are your opponents in a conflict. You have been informed about the 3-revert rule before several times, and you were warned to stop reverting before Nableezy reported you at WP:AN3, which he did only after you performed yet another revert. And note that even brewcenter, who has been the most welcoming, did advise you to slow down on the reverts.
I am willing to unblock you if you simply promise not to make any more reverts to any page for the next day. And in the future, it might help if, when you don't know what to make of one of these "warnings", if you simply ask someone (me, for instance) what to make of them. Mangojuicetalk 16:25, 7 September 2009 (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.
There MUST be some kind of system how the senior editors treat new comers - yes indeed there is; well less a system that a collection of guidelines and habits. For example, if a newcomer turns up and starts edit warring they might get a message such as Hello Rm125, you are continuing to edit war at Aftonbladet-Israel controversy. You just made your 4th revert. Please do not continue doing so or you may be blocked. If the newcomer then simply ignores the message and continues reverting, the inevitable happens William M. Connolley (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and can I also point you to WP:CIVIL? Your comments above about other editors guarantee that you won't be unblocked. Remember, whilst you obviously do possess the WP:TRUTH and everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily morally bankrupt, you aren't allowed to say so William M. Connolley (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about my comments but have you checked theirs? I was told that I lamed hin that he is an anti Semite, I am clueless. I am decieving,I don't know English,and many more things. Asked me to leave Wikipedia and go to another language and many more. I got more but I didn't know of special board that you guys monitor foregners like me. It didn't take you long to check it up did it? Have you checked his reversions without any reason and reversions that while perfectly justified reverted for the FROUD reason ?Again and again. I have records. Do you care to look at or you already formed your mind? I know you are busy but if you warn a person WITH FALSE justification may be there is something to look at.I have records and I want an opportunity to show that some or majoruty of complains of his are false. Is there something you call a review or second opinion or some kind of dialog? As you know if police arrests you for the wrong reason you go home. Is there any chance for me or the judge ruled and it is final? I have a prepaired case for you to review. I am talking about facts and unjustified reverts. Everything is documented to you care to look?--Rm125 (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to report incivility from others, please provide diffs here William M. Connolley (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William, I would like to email you some information about the above matter. I would like to email you directly instead of postiing here since it is very sensitive and confidential. I don't want it to be a common knowledge. let me know if it is possible. If not provide me with another avenue to act. As I say this information is important and needs to be addressed by somebody senior ( I assume you are but I am not sure) please educate me on procedure, Thanks--Rm125 (talk) 10:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a button on my page labelled "email this user". Or wmconnolley@gmail.com will work William M. Connolley (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want people to show you any respect at all it would be wise not to call them bastards. nableezy - 09:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't repeat your personal attacks here. If you repeatedly use this page to attack other uses, I will lock it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William, I know you have the ability to ban me and all that but the truth is more important to me than that. Please look at this [[1]] You can not invite people to be " uncivil" and at the same time demand civility. Unfortunatly I got all but civility from this individual. William I must speak the truth here, so please understand.
[[2]] Based on this link I respectfully ask to leave this in place. Another option is to post this massage on his personal page. I think you will find it within reason since he approved of any uncivilized language. I really appreciate if you concider my request( I know this is unique situation, but justice need to be done here.I would never call him bast-rd unless he specifically approved it in writing.William I hope my request is not baseless
( As you can see I never use this word before) Respectfully--Rm125 (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
N explicitly permits incivility towards him on his talk page; that is his choice. He cannot permit incivility to third parties there. Have you read WP:TRUTH yet? You use the word a lot William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sory you are making fun of the word 'truth' The link you gave me is homoristic. When I use the word "truth " I don't mean subjectively. He placed a massage on his talk page and when he claims I insulted him it is a lie. You refer here to the entirely different pricsiple: Every man has his truth to which I agree. Please understand the context I used the word with. It was clever but not to the point, William, but it was fanny :) --Rm125 (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I couldn't place anything on his page since I was banned.Second point this post was posted on my PERSONAL PAGE.I don't mind this massage either. I even don't personally consider this word offensive( this is just my opinion)
So both him and me agree on that. Good. At least we agree on something.
Now there are 2 question here.(1) Since he asked to be insulted and got it why he complains about it? This is after all one of his traps I am talking about. This is the whole point and many more points I will provide soon. But we need to agree on that first.
(2) Based on previous understanding why you refuse to post the my remark back? This is my private page after all?--Rm125 (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
N permits incivility towards himself on his own talk page. Not anywhere else. This is your personal page but no, it isn't immune to wiki rules. See WP:USERPAGE quite likely William M. Connolley (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you then place it on his own page,since I can not do it?It will mean a lot to me. Unfortunately I am banned otherwise I woul do it myself. BTW are you OK with my request about being my mentor? Please agree. I promise not to bother. I am an engineer myself so I know and respect your time...--Rm125 (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You see I am cought in an embarsing situation here. On one hand he asked me to be frank and uncivilised so I called him a bastard. I thought this is fine. Otherwise I WOULD NEVER DARE to call him that. Now after setting this trap I am banned. So I am stuck here. My question is simple. I am paying price for this misanderstanding-and I am totally green wikipediam. Him- this guy Mableezy is the one who set me up enjoying the freedom and laugh at me. And he is the senior wikipedian who knows the rules. My question is this: Where is justice? I am new here. I was decieved by a professional. This person used my naivete to call him bastard. Now I am paying for it wiyth banning and sleepless noight . Right is 5:08 AM in LA So you call it justice? May be for some, but not for me.You even don't send him a warning to remove it from his page.. What are waiting for? Another naive and sincere person would find this trap and find himself in my shoes. William, with all understanding something needs to be done about it. What is your suggerstion? I am sure you can solve it in 2 seconds time. Please do the right thing, because I have only one hour to sleep left.. I urge you.All the best.--Rm125 (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see here he is upset with me calling him bastrd( a left out on purpose)
If you want people to show you any respect at all it would be wise not to call them bastards
On the other hand on his talk page he asks for it:
"Notice: Civility does not exist on this page. If you feel the need to say something uncivil to me feel free to do so. Personal attacks too, though if you say something be prepared to either back it up or have a large collection of insults hurled at you. Be forewarned that I give as good as I get, actually better."
This is a clear contradiction, You can not ask for being ubcivil and at the same time complain about this . This is what I call a trap, I think my point is logical and reasonable.
I would like the editor to restore my post to original location on my page. Alternately if there is a problem we can place me massage on his page too. Please consider my request before I email my main arguments. Thanks--Rm125 (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William, unfortunately I need to get some sleep It is lA and the time is 4:30 AM I have a full day in front of me. Look you look like areasonable person, a scientist with clear mind. I am looking for a mentor here in wikipedia. Would you object if I bother you sometimes with questions? I think you can provide me with unswers I seek. I promice not to bother you too much but if you can watch over me a bit it will make a lots of difference. You look like a native speaker, experienced Wikipedian and I will be honored to have a mentor as yorself. I even don't care to be banned for a week if you agree. Of course I will send you the email I've promiced in any case. let's shake hands and go to sleep?--Rm125 (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William I really need at least some sleep. I will send everything tomorrow by email. Meanwile please consider my requesr. All the best--Rm125 (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. You need to sleep. Come back in 12h and we can talk again. Chief piece of advice at this point is: slow down William M. Connolley (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William, thanks -I do. I will come back, but please think about the issue above. I know you are an honorable man and a just man. As you see I went thouugh lots of injustice and humiliation on this board-unjusifiebly. As you see nobelcy invites uncivility and abuse to his talk page ( see above). I on the other hand -I invite fairness and clarity. One thing I don't care on my personal page is "political correctness". I encourage and demand "moral clarity" on my talk page. Every man is entilted to his opinions whatever they are. I respect people who clearly state theirs and are willing to stand by their opinions and clarify them. Another important value is willing to admit one's mistake and say it clearly and honorably-not run away from responsibility.
You can see that when I nade a mistake in the past. I admited it-period. This is a matter of honor to me. I heard people here saying that even if something is not true they don't care because Wikipedia rules doesn't forbid it and they are going to use is as they like. This is rotten. This is evil. This is disgusting and I don't care if Wikipedia rules allow it. If we are not standing for truth we stand for nothingness and will fall down with Wikipedia and all our civilization. The time has come to stand for something and this something is simple truth. Evil likes to hide in dark places. Truth needs to be shown to all. I wish it to all of us. All the best--Rm125 (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mangojuice, I would like to respond to your letter to me.
"I took about 45 minutes reviewing this situation in detail. <<Sorry to take your time. If you take couple of more minutes you will see that most if not all their reverts are frouds and I can prove it>>>Wikipedia does have a guideline for how to treat new editors: Unfortunately, not every editor obeys that rule, and it is not a rule backed up by penalties except in truly egregious cases. I think you have had a very poor welcome to Wikipedia, starting with self-serving and inaccurate accusations of vandalism from Malik Shabazz, who later (amusingly) tried to warn you not to call good-faith differences of opinion vandalism. So I don't blame you for feeling like Wikipedia has a crappy welcoming committee.<<< Thank you of being a man to admit the obvious. To hear a simple truth on Wikipedia is seldom experienced treat>>>
Ok, that said, Wikipedia expects newcomers to be responsive to concerns raised by others and to read and obey behavioral policies when you are linked to them / informed about them. Yes, even when it comes from people who are your opponents in a conflict. You have been informed about the 3-revert rule before several times, and you were warned to stop reverting before Nableezy <<< If you can see on my talk page it says I normally don’t come here bercause they made a circus out of it! I wellcome you to read my request. (2) you can see clearly from his other warnings that I sincerely thought they are empty ones. He purpose was to DECIEVE me -not to improve Wikipedia. Look the way he presented the threat- very vague and looked general and not specific. There are Wikipedia rules and there are MORAL rules. No matter how many rules you have here there are MORAL rules to be observed in ANY organization. I REFUSE to except an organization that put moral rules as unimportant. When a politician caught going to prostitutes he resigns not because it is against the constitution but against a MORAL principals, duh! And those people are MORAL criminals even if they did everything by the book witch they didn‘t.>>> reported you at WP:AN3, which he did only after you performed yet another revert. And note that even brewcenter, who has been the most welcoming, did advise you to slow down on the reverts.<<< Yes I agree. He is a nice man, a sincere man and a true asset for Wikipedia-and I say it not because he was good to me but seeing how fairly he treats his opponents. Unfortunately he was the ONLY one who greeted me properly. I think if you would REWARD people with SPECIAL HIGH PROFILE AWARDS for being nice and patient and considerate you would improve Wikipedia greatly and keep good and smart people coming instead of MORAL ABUSERS like Shabbazz and Nableezy. This is one of the topics I am going to discuss with a founder or another influential person here.>>>
I am willing to unblock you if you simply promise not to make any more reverts to any page for the next day.<<< The block by itself, frankly is unimportant as such. Principal is what important to me. What important to me is to make a difference. What important for me is to fight the abuse. What important to me is to make sure that newspaper like Al Ahram is known for what it is -a mouthpiece for Egyptian government-not a RS as nabelzy is fighting for- go to Al Ahram and look. Fights were won in a Soviet block and one man and one idea defeated the evil( look up Sacharov, Valensa, Sharansky), Me? Banned from wikipedia? You make me laugh. I am in the West. I have a freedom of speech-who can defeat me? Nobelzy and friends? No way . >>>And in the future, it might help if, when you don't know what to make of one of these "warnings", if you simply ask someone (me, for instance) what to make of them. Mangojuicetalk 16:25, 7 <<< Yes, thanks for offering. You are a real gentelman. It is a good thing that I was banned. It was the easiest way to get to know 2 perfectly reasonable people here (You and William) Atherwise it is a pretty depressing thing to be here I must admit. I definitely will be in touch with you-thanks. Looks like William also is willing to consider to help me -he even gave me his email, You can find my enail here too. let’s be in touch. I have a very interesting ideas how to improve wikipedia and keep MORAL OFFENDERS AND ABUSERS OUT.- very elegantly and you will absolutely love to hear it.
Thanks for your productive remarks, your offer and your time
P.S. BWT I have an amazing information regarding nobelzee and I already emailing it to William. If you don’t mind I will email it to you too if you provide your email.
--Rm125 (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are writing too much and reading too little. I already have William M. Connolley (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THanks for your critic but I don't understand what you have done, please clarify. --Rm125 (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So William, if I understand you correctly I (excuse my my language) need to shut up?
Keep it quiet kind of thing? Don't bother anybody with your arguments? This is what you mean?
For example when I read :
And in the future, it might help if, when you don't know what to make of one of these "warnings", if you simply ask someone (me, for instance) what to make of them. Mangojuicetalk 16:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)"
All I can say is to provide the above conversation(on the same page Between nobelcy and yada yada about "canvassing" You can read it yourself above. So looks like I am in a hole here. When I go to a fello wikipedian to ask something I am accused of 'canvassing" Can I win here?No!Take abuse and shut up! this is what I hear.
William after all this when you know that this is false allegation (canvassing allegation is false) you just want to sit under unjustified ban and keep quiet? If you want to investigate thing farther it is one thing but if you simply want me to seat quiet and take abuse it is totally another.
I provided some (small part ) of nobelzy abuse of my edits on Al Ahram. Why don't you start your investigation from there? I provided 4! posts with summary of my work on Al Ahram article. You have ALL the information in front of you. Why insteads of telling me to sit quietly you wouldn't go point by point and find if what I say makes sense? This generalities will not advance this case. I want investigation and I think my request is reasonable. Start from Al Aharam and we will move farther.
If you don;t have time please appoint somebody else.You can not tell a rape victim to keep quiet. I think thoriogh investigsation of the matter is due. I respectfully insist that the editing war on Al Aharam will be thoriouly investigated and the results exposed to all in a methodical way. Otherwise the whole process is a mockery of justice. I propose to ask a Wikipedian with legal backround to step up to the matter. William, plese don;t try to quiet me and take the abuse. I AM A RAPE VICTIM AND I DEMAND JUSTICE. Respectfully. --Rm125 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2009 (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).
If you see the warnings that I got from nobelsy you will see that almost each one of them is irrelevant. Please see the reasons for his revert again and again. In many cases he doesn't give a reason at all!!! While I discussed the particular point throaty on discussion board I respectfully ask you to check it point by point. Unfortunately NO EDITOR WHO BANNED ME BOTHERED TO LOOK IN DEAIL WHAT ALL THIS ABOUT. Nabelcy doesn't base his reverts on anything substantial HE TOtALLY INNORES WIKIPEDIA APPROVED GUIDLINES and presents it as legitimate for somebody who didn't look into it. He takes advantage of the fact that nobody has the time to look deeper into reasoning. How can you base your opinions on general observation without looking at the details? If the court system would look at it this way every citizen would end up in jail. I demand closer look and looking at specifics. I think we can not allow generalizations and lazy jumping to conclusion. I demand a serious investigation of nobelcy abuses. If you can not help please refer this to a board of at least 3 or four experienced individuals to look at the details. It is outrageous that you decided this case by just generally looking none WHY he issued these warnings in the first place. THOSE WANNINGS ARE ILLIGAL. How can you accuse me when those warnings are illegal in the first place? When a police arrest a man and there are allegations the judge rules on those allegations or looks into each other to see if there is any justification in the first place? Why don't you give this to Wikipedian with legal background who can see this nonsense through? This is elementary legal practice. Everybody knows this-even not legal professional. This is important foundation for ANY dispute of this kind. Please remove my ban because you simply have to accept this principal otherwise everybody will do whatever they please
Decline reason:
You are still not addressing the reasons for your block. It doesn't matter why one edit wars, it matters that one edit wars. Don't do it again. lifebaka++ 23:54, 7 September 2009 (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.
Nableezy threats and Wikipedia moral obligation to confront them[edit]
THis is the quote:
It doesn't matter if is sndp or whatever party . The article is NOT anout this or that party. What matters it is not in the artivle and it is original reseaerch. If you are going to revert perfectly lagitimate edits you will be reported.If you can show that the quotes or information I provided is not soursed or the quotes are not accurate then show it. You can argue your points but to erase somebody's work and relevant references is not allowed. You also threatened me here [[4]] sayingi “it will be very easy to get you topic-banned in the not so distant future”
I started to record your threats in order to make sure you are held accountable
"And it will be very easy to get you topic banned in the not so distant future if you keep acting the way you are. Record this one too. nableezy - 01:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)"
This is just part of this but I have more What you are doing by banning me is a terrible injustice--Rm125 (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a threat, that is a statement of fact. Your behavior on a number of pages constituted gross disruption. One of the ways of dealing with such disruption is a topic ban. See WP:ARBPIA. The Arab/Israeli conflict area has in the past been the subject of a number of arbitration cases. The one linked above describes the consequences of such disruption. Those consequences can include blocks, topic bans, even being banned from editing Wikipedia as a whole. You really need to examine your own behavior and try to see the error in your ways. Being blocked, as unpleasant as it can be, should be a way of forcing you to figure out what it is that you did wrong and ensuring that you dont do it again. Your insistence on making this about me is not helping you at all. It would be very easy for you to be unblocked at this point, Mangojuice wrote exactly what it is you need to do. But you have refused. Trust me, if you do continue acting the way you have been acting you are going to end up either topic-banned from editing areas that you are too emotionally involved in or banned from Wikipedia as a whole. That is not a threat. I cannot ban you, I am not an administrator. But I can present evidence as to why you should be banned. I have not done that yet in the hope that you will mend your ways. You are not giving me a whole lot of reason to continue to hope. nableezy - 21:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, it would really be helpful if you would stop mentioning all the bad things that can happen to Rm125 if he doesn't comply. If there's going to be any chance to rehabilitation here he HAS to stop feeling attacked. That said, Rm, Nableezy is correct that you should read WP:ARBPIA and understand that there's some stuff there that applies to you and could land you in further trouble. Mangojuicetalk 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of comments about edits at Al-Ahram. Click "show" to view; hidden to avoid obscuring the discussion of the user's conduct. Mangojuicetalk 01:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Regarding illegal reversal of Nableecy on Al Aharam page (Part 1)[edit]
This is a QUOTE FROM BBC
“In the run-up to polling day, opposition newspapers such as al-Ahali, al-Wafd and al-Ghad have been highlighting demonstrations against Mr Mubarak and echoing condemnations of his 24-year hold on power. In contrast, state-linked papers such as al-Ahram, al-Akhbar and al-Jumhuriyah have largely ignored or trivialized the opposition.”
This is what YOU FALSEHOOD insist on and you try to revert me many times and put again and again on the article“
Al-Ahram has largely ignored the opposition parties to the ruling National Democratic Party and has not published much direct criticism of the Mubarak government.”
YOU ARE LYING, NABLEEZY Just because you revert me and push your FALSEHOODS it doesn’t make you are right By opposition the article means OPPOSITION NEWSPAPERS not “ the opposition parties as the ruling [[National Democratic Party (Egypt) as in your “clever” and FALSE and DESEPTIVE arguments”
It should read this way:
State linked Al Ahram has largely ignored the opposition newspapers such as al-Ahali, al-Wafd and al-Ghad which demonstrated against Mubarak 24-year hold on power.
Your distaste for democracy is well known. You can call me biased. Yes I am. I am biased toward decency, and NPOV. How many times are you going to revert me and promote falsehoods? Stop. This is shameful. No one believes this nonsense.
Summary:
Instead of false:
“Al-Ahram has largely ignored the opposition parties to the ruling National Democratic Party and has not published much direct criticism of the Mubarak government.”
Will change to:
State linked Al Ahram has largely ignored the opposition newspapers such as al-Ahali, al-Wafd and al-Ghad which highlighted demonstrations against Mubarak 24-year hold on power.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4199054.stm
Well, since you appear to want to prove something here let me try and explain a few things. Opposition papers is refering to "al-Ahali, al-Wafd and al-Ghad" which have been highlighting demonstrations against Mr Mubarak." What it says about al-Ahram is not that they are ignoring the opposition papers but that they are ignoring the actual opposition to the government. The opposition to the government is the opposition to the ruling party, which in Egypt is the National Democratic Party (Egypt). That is what the source is saying. nableezy - 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it something wrong with this?:
State linked Al Ahram has largely ignored the opposition newspapers such as al-Ahali, al-Wafd and al-Ghad which highlighted demonstrations against Mubarak 24-year hold on power.
This what I am talkimng about don't put words in my mouth, nabelzy. I gave very detailed explanation everything is black and white here.--Rm125 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RESPONCE TO nablezee AL AHARAN FALSEHOODS (point2)[edit]
ALL opposing- not just one ruling party ( how about 14 parties?)
In your revert you said
“no they say the ruling party which is what that is, please dont blanket revert I made a lot of fixes to what you copied and pasted without saying which source gave what”
You claim that : “You do not understand what original research is, so stop trying to cry that adding a detail is original research. When the BBC says the ruling party of Egypt that can be replaced with National Democratic Party (Egypt). Since you do not know what you are talking about read up so that you will know what you are talking about. nableezy - 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
And it will be very easy to get you topic banned in the not so distant future if you keep acting the way you are. Record this one too. nableezy - 01:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)”
“In the run-up to polling day, opposition newspapers such as al-Ahali, al-Wafd and al-Ghad have been highlighting demonstrations against Mr Mubarak and echoing condemnations of his 24-year hold on power.
In contrast, state-linked papers such as al-Ahram, al-Akhbar and al-Jumhuriyah have largely ignored or trivialised the opposition
What are you talking about? What nonsense! BBC is talking about OPPOSITION NEWSAPERS not RULING OPPOSITION PARTY that is not even MENTIONED (HELLO!) in BBC piece. You INSERTED NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY YORSELF. Youself, Nableezy. THIS IS original research issue. HOW MANY TIMES I NEED TO EXPLAIN TO YOU?
You claim there is only one party, LOOK at this quote!
“Fourteen of Egypt's political parties have the right to publish their own newspapers, receiving a small subsidy from the government and sometimes receiving foreign interest as well. However, if they are receiving small subsidies and they enjoy very little censorship, again state domination has made its presence well known.”
Nableezy we are loosing patience with you here. Please straighten up!
You misunderstand the BBC source. When it says "trivialised the opposition" they are not talking about the opposition papers which have not trivialized the opposition. "The opposition" on its own means the opposition to the government. nableezy - 21:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You invented a name of the party ( You claim it is the ruling party (original research) then you claim (in al aharam article) there is only one party (the one you brought out of nowhere by original research) then you justified by claiming that the article means it because this is the only relevant party in opposition in Egypt( original research, original research, original research) then you claim there is only one party in Egyptian opposition(original research) but I showed you there are at leasr 14 plus some banned parties like Muslim Brotherhood (not even relevent just to show you don"t know what you are talking about) --Rm125 (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy- Who owns whomAL AHARAM FALSEHOODS (PART3)[edit]
You reverted my:
“The controlling stock of Al-Ahram is owned by the Egyptian government The editors of Al-Ahram are appointed by the president Mubarak, and as appointees, they enjoy little censorship by the government. Since it is a state-owned newspaper, “it is understood that their loyalties remain with the state“. and as reported by BBC , “have largely ignored or trivialized” the opposition to the current Mubarak regime. Al Aharam is given a “certain leeway, given it avoids certain taboos—meaning government criticism is avoided since it selects and compensates them.”
To: “Al-Ahram is owned by the al-Ahram Foundation and is one of the largest circulating newspapers in the world.”
By claiming: }Government ownership: clean up to actually conform to the sources”
Nice try describing Egyptian “democracy” Nobleezy
Conform to the sources? Hardly
You insist “Al Aharam is owned by Al Ahram foundation. “
What a great piece of information! Who could believe that!
Let’s see:
NY Times is owned by NY Times foundation
LA Times is owned by LA Times foundation
Haaretz is owned by Haaretz foundation
Chicago Tribune is owned by Chicago Tribune foundation.
What a great description Nabelezy. So much better then to say
“The controlling stock of Al-Ahram is owned by the Egyptian government The editors of Al-Ahram are appointed by the president Mubarak, and as appointees, they enjoy little censorship by the government. Since it is a state-owned newspaper, “it is understood that their loyalties remain with the state“.
Of course it is too long .It can not possibly describe Al Ahram accurately.Why not just say
“AL AHARAM IS OWNED BY AL AHARAM FOUNDATION”
Nice and elegant. And of course it is accurate. After all AlAharam is OWNED by AL AHARAM foundation?
You asking me who owns this “ AL AHARAM foundation”
But SSSSSSHHHHH-don’t tell anybody
N-NN-AAAA-bleezy how do you like it?
The other part of the quote is also FALSE AND MISLEADING
BTW this is the original quote
The Egyptian government owns a controlling stock in three major daily Egyptian newspapers: Al-Ahram, Al-Akhbar, and Al-Gumhuriya. The editors of these dailies are appointed by the president, and as appointees, they enjoy little censorship by the government. But because they are appointed and working in a state-owned newspaper, it is understood that their loyalties remain with the state. They are also given substantial leeway, given they avoid certain "taboos"—meaning government criticism is avoided since it selects and compensates them. The largest of these newspapers is the Al-Ahram, and it is the largest Arabic newspaper in the world; the Al Ahram Regional Press Institute has now been established, which helps Egyptian and Arabic journalists learn more current trends in journalism as well as graphic arts and legal issues associated with this practice, according to the International Journalists' Network.
Egyptian government owns the controlling stock of Al Ahram The editor of Al-Ahram is appointed by president Mubarak, and as appointee, he enjoys little censorship by the government. Since Al Aharam is a state-owned newspaper, “it is understood that its loyalties remain with the state“ It is also given substantial leeway, given it avoid certain "taboos"—meaning criticism of the government is avoided because it ‘selects and compensates them.”
Nableezy will you back off?--Rm125 (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source you provided: This newspaper is owned by Al Ahram Foundation. I also included that the majority stake is owned by the Egyptian government (The Egyptian government owns a controlling share of the stocks of the paper and appoints the editors). I also included the line about censorship (As appointees of the state little censorship is exercised over them, though it is widely understood that direct criticism of the government will not be printed). What exactly is not clear? nableezy - 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You totally ignored everything above.And you want to be taken seriously--Rm125 (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AL AHARAM IN THE ARAB WORLD OR IN THE WORLD? FALSEHOOG (PART 4)[edit]
Nableeze claims Al-Ahram, is “one of the largest circulating newspapers in the world.”
The direct quote is
“Al-Ahram, and it is the largest Arabic newspaper in the world”
NABLEEZY . This is one small postion of your ways on wikipedia. Not many people have the time to go after you and see what you are about. This is really a small porsion of your "contributions" to wikipedia. Unfortunatelt responsible editors are busy and can nor expose you for all you are. Who have the tine to look inside your mind. Not many. However you must be exposed for what you are.
You are cousing harm and if I were an editor in charge would be banning you long time ago for your manipulations. I hope people can see this and react. Free spech is a wanderful invention. as I said before: Evil likes darkness, but truth needs to be shown the daylight.
I looked very well and I don't see "Al-Ahram is owned by the al-Ahram Foundation"
may be you you don'r read well but I can see clearly. This called original research if you don't mind. --Rm125 (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please go to Al Ahram article and see all the edits I and nabelcy did. See who reverted whom. Plese see my 4 posts on the matter.I think my request is reasonable. This is an open book and everybody can see it. Look this information uo and please comment. I want every body opinion the more the better. I don't think Wikipedia will investigate this so I hope odrginary falks can see through this. I don't know if it is canvassing or not- if it is against Wikipedia policy then don't do it but if you can please do. --Rm125 (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here I just found another watning from him Is it justified?
You are also edit warring at Al-Ahram. I am preparing a case to have you banned from editing articles in the Arab-Israeli conflict area if you persist with this behavior. nableezy - 00:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Rm125, you need to immediately stop playing the victim and listen. First, I reviewed your edits at Al-Ahram and frankly, you were being disruptive. I don't have a lot of background on this topic, but I see that you were objecting to one phrase Nableezy had written, yet you reverted his entire edit, which did more than change just one thing. When he reverted you and asked you not to "blanket revert" (which refers to a revert of a series of edits without properly considering all the changes, which is exactly what you did), you simply ignored that and made another blanket revert. Do you want to improve the Wikipedia coverage of Al-Ahram? Then listen up now and take this to heart immediately before you spiral completely out of control: no one is going to listen to you if you cannot calm down and act like someone we can work with instead of just fight with. I am happy to help you, as I said, but you need to make simple requests or simple questions. For instance, instead of this extreme diatribe, full of personal attacks, venomous comments, and inappropriate comments like that you are a "rape victim", you could have simply said:
Mangojuice, could you please look at my edits on Al-Ahram and let me know what you think about what Nableezy has been saying about them?
And I would have been happy to look. I think you have some points that could stand to be addressed, so I hope you will calm all the way back down to zero and discuss them calmly, patiently, and one at a time, and see if you can't find some way to work with the other editors here.
I understand you are angry about being blocked. But this is no excuse for incivil behavior. If you make one more incivil comment here or one more personal attack here, or if you restore the ones I have hidden in the archive box to plain view, I will extend your block indefinitely. Mangojuicetalk 01:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to ATTENTION letter from Mangojuice. And to William M. Connilly[edit]
Dear Mangojuice this is the letter I received from you regarding nabelze abd Al Ahram:
<< This is the letter in its entirety>>>First, I reviewed your edits at Al-Ahram and frankly, you were being disruptive. I don't have a lot of background on this topic, but I see that you were objecting to one phrase Nableezy had written, yet you reverted his entire edit, which did more than change just one thing. When he reverted you and asked you not to "blanket revert" (which refers to a revert of a series of edits without properly considering all the changes, which is exactly what you did), you simply ignored that and made another blanket revert. Do you want to improve the Wikipedia coverage of Al-Ahram? Then listen up now and take this to heart immediately before you spiral : no one is going to listen to you if you cannot calm down and act like someone we can work with instead of just fight with. I am happy to help you, as I said, but you need to make simple requests or simple questions. For instance, instead of this extreme diatribe, full of personal attacks, venomous comments, and inappropriate comments like that you are a "rape victim", you could have simply said:
Mangojuice, could you please look at my edits on Al-Ahram and let me know what you think about what Nableezy has been saying about them?
And I would have been happy to look. I think you have some points that could stand to be addressed, so I hope you will calm all the way back down to zero and discuss them calmly, patiently, and one at a time, and see if you can't find some way to work with the other editors here.
I understand you are angry about being blocked. But this is no excuse for incivil behavior. If you make one more incivil comment here or one more personal attack here, or if you restore the ones I have hidden in the archive box to plain view, I will extend your block indefinitely. Mangojuicetalk 01:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)<<end of the letter>>>
Dear Mangojuice I was happy to get your ATTENTION letter to me. Before I will start to address you arguments and demolish them one by one I want to let you know that I appreciate your time and good will and attempts to address the problem. I know you are sincere and even offered your advice in the future to newbie immigrant like me with English as his 3rd language. This is the reason I was disappointed by this patronizing tone and your assumption that my willingness to hear advice from experienced Wikipedian as some kind of invitation to lecture and to teach me morals. May be I am not exactly speak the Quinn English but I perfectly capable of reason and common sense. Constructive criticism is one thing but constant “cooling me down” putting me on my place and patronizing is another. Your “preventive threats” like “If you make one more uncivil comment here or one more personal attack here, or if you restore the ones I have hidden in the archive box to plain view, I will extend your block indefinitely” are repeated in almost every post to me with some fancy variations from you, William and others. This must stop. I will not tolerate this verbal abuse not from you and not from others. You can not preach calmness and tolerance and with the same breath issue a threat. This “threats culture” on Wikipedia must stop. It doesn’t make people “calm” and “ patient” as you yourself suggest but makes them angry and defensive-qualities you undoubtedly not trying to encourage here.
I agree with you -let’s “ calm all the way back down to zero and discuss them calmly, patiently, and one at a time, and see if you can't find some way to work with the other editors here”
Let’s start from the start. This is what you say in your letter:
“First, I reviewed your edits at Al-Ahram and frankly, you were being disruptive. I don't have a lot of background on this topic, but I see that you were objecting to one phrase Nableezy had written, yet you reverted his entire edit, which did more than change just one thing. When he reverted you and asked you not to "blanket revert" (which refers to a revert of a series of edits without properly considering all the changes, which is exactly what you did), you simply ignored that and made another blanket revert.”
First I admire you honesty that you “don’t have a lot of background on this topic”
You don’t need any background but you DEFINATELY need to pay close attention to all details I already provided and even chewed up so much it is ridiculous. Unfortunately you haven’t gotten the point of the debate, nor thoroughly understood it and jumped to conclusions just by quick glance- and this is a point to consider here.. This is pity because you came up to the plate with the purpose of neutral review and in fact even being sincere observer you missed it entirely as I suggested previously
I am not sure you are aware of it so I will respond to points in your letter “patiently, and one at a time” again. But please pay attention this time because I repeating myself again and again here.So shall we start with your permission, Mangojuice and William??
Relax gentlemen, kick off you shoes, turn off your TVs , Ipods and patio grills- pay close attention.[edit]
Lets start from setting the start point ( I do it not only for you but anybody who reads it)OK? So..
This is how Al Ahram article looked like before I came to edit it:
Some background. As you know Egypt doesn’t have freedom of press and all media is controlled by the government and Mubarak and many journalists are jailed. Blogs and newspapers are under strict censorship. Editors are appointed and fired by Mubarak himself.
‘’’(A)’’’ I have carefully researched the issue of Al Aharam censorship and how it works ( for more then 3.5 hours!) Got all relevant references and wrote ‘’’accurately’’’ in a way that can not be disputed-you can check for yourself- all legitimate info and backed up .
‘’’(B)’’’ Here is the next edit .nobleezy changes to [[9]]
Claiming ‘’’ “Government ownership: clean up to actually conform to the sources” ‘’’
Let’s see what he did and if it is making sense here:
(a) He changed from “The controlling stock of Al Aharam is owned by Egyptian government” which is exactly how it is said in the reference to “Al Ahram is owned by Al Ahram Foundation and one of the largest circulating newspapers in the world”
The difference between “The controlling stock of Al Ahram is controlled by Egyption government” and Al Aharam is owned by Al Aharan Foundation is HUGE.
The first sentence implies that the newspaper is not independent. The second is consealed information to hide this inconvenient fact. For example; LA Times is owned by LA Times Foundation, Chicago Tribune is owned by Chicago Tribune Foundation This is a “clever “ trick to hide the fact that it is owned by the Egypt regime.
(b) If you look at the reference he provided ( originally brought by me but used properly) there is no “Al Aharam Foundation. You can look carefully yourself-there is nada,. Zilch. Zero. On the other hand there is something else” editorial content of the newspaper is controlled by the Egyptian Ministry of Information” But of course this is not what he looks for.
So what we have here our dear investigator, Mangojuice? May be it is ‘’’“original research” ‘’’or I am too green newbie who is just “being disruptive”?
{c)Now he says that “The Egyptian government “appoints the editors” False again. According to the source he provided ( note he just uses my reference just for show) It doesn’t say so. The reference says : “The editors of these dailies are appointed by the president, and as appointees, they enjoy little censorship by the government” exactly as I put it ( When you are talking about president you are talking about president for life in Egypt. Mubarak rules already 28 years in Egypt [[10]]
So what do you have here? In common language it is a lie but Wikipedia calls it “ original research”
That’s right Mangojuice, it is “original research” according to Wikipedia. My humble remark here: When you mention research- it means only mine. Nableezy’s is ‘’’not’’’ a research. It is mockery and “clever” manipulation.
(d) Now he adds : “though it is widely understood that direct criticism of the government will be printed.” Lets look at his source ( In fact this is source provided by me but I used it correctly)
Are you still looking? Please stop. You are wasting your time, There is nothing to look for. Nada. This “research came straight from the creative brain of nobeleezy who “knows what to do” Yes ladies and gentlemen, it is typical of nableezy to come up with “creative ideas” for Wikipedia..
Mangojuice of course haven’t noticed. What for? Lets just relax people. Lets just .“calm down and act like someone we can work with instead of just fight” And if you are not “I will extend your block indefinitely”
So lets summarize this point; Should we call it “original research”? kind of weird to use “research” in this context. How about a “cheap propaganda” ?
I hope Mangojuice can come up with an appropriate name worthy of Wikipedia.. J
Let’s continue to point e)
(e) Now he says the following: “Al Ahram has largely ignored the opposition parties to the ruling ‘’’National Democratic Party’’’ and has not published much opposition to the Mubarak government.” ( the reference is BBC- once again the reference that I provided but used properly)
Here is the quote from BBC reference that he rely on :
“In the run-up to polling day, opposition newspapers such as al-Ahali, al-Wafd and al-Ghad have been highlighting demonstrations against Mr Mubarak and echoing condemnations of his 24-year hold on power. In contrast, state-linked papers such as al-Ahram, al-Akhbar and al-Jumhuriyah have largely ignored or trivialized the opposition.”
The first sentence “Al Ahram has largely ignored the opposition parties to the ruling National Democratic Party” is false for several reasons. (f) There is no NDP whatsoever in the reference provided. I believe it is called “ original research” Mangojuice? My misteK?. Hardly. But I am open to dialog with you based on your “research” .
I tried to reason with him ( nobelsy) but it is like to talk to the wall. Here [[11]] and here [[12]]
(g) In discussions )above he claimed that NDP is the party it refers to and the reason being-it is the only opposition party when in the previous reference! There is a quote
“Fourteen of Egypt's political parties have the right to publish their own newspapers,”
Clearly there are more then one party. Just to show you-he doesn’t want to hear. He just wants to post whatever he wants according to his views- not NPOV. He uses the fact that people don’t pay attention to details (Including Mongojuice and William) and just take position on the first glance. They think that because somebody is new-he automatically is wrong. As you see here it is NOT the case. I will continue even farther.
(h) This is what he says” and has not published much opposition to the Mubarak government.” and erased my much more sourced original:
“and as reported by BBC , “have largely ignored or trivialized” the opposition to the current Mubarak regime“.
There is a big difference between “ignored” and “trivialized” and “not published much”
(i) For somebody who makes fun of my English and send me to the wikipedia “in the language I know” It is very strange to see a sentence like this”
“ has not published much opposition to the Mubarak government.”
I sought newspapers publish articles and editorials and opinions- not “opposition”
This is an analysis of his “raping” my contribution to Wikipedia and to add an insult to injury justified it as “Government ownership: clean up to actually conform to the sources” as a reason for revert
Now I ask you my dear Mangojuice does it convince you that he is “ clean up to actually confirm to the sources.” Clean up he did- from relevant and well researched information to cheap manipulation and harassment. As to “ actually confirm to the sources” I think we already have an idea…J
YOU WERE DUPED MYFRIENG MUNGOJUICE_IT”S TIME TO ADMIT TO IT MY FRIEND
Fraud- if you want you can call it original research. He could possibly check the source ( not on line) And he would not do it even if he had the book in front of him, I can bet $100 there is not such thing in the book. Want to bet Mangojuice?
Invented by Wiki genius- needs to write a special patent how to dupe Wikipedia
Senior editors. Something like’
How to rewrite any article in Wikipedia without research. ,without justification “Wiki-rape” your opponents under watchful eyes of the most important and knowledgeable Wikipedia editors ,get away with this and live to tell your bodies”
Lets see here. He says: “no they say the ruling party which is what that is, please dont blanket revert I made a lot of fixes to what you copied and pasted without saying which source gave what”
(h) I already made a presentation regarding National Democratic Party and showed that this argument it totally nonsense and it never mentioned in references [ see ref (e) and (g)
Plus I tried to reason with him ( nobelsy) but it is like to talk to the wall. Here [[22]] and here [[23]]
I also discuss an Al Ahram issue above Points 1-4)
As to “I made lots of fixes” this is nonsense all of them frauds or cosmetic ( BTW it applies tome too; I made nore then one fix too. Why he feels he is justified ti revert me on this basis but I don’t posess the same right? THE INJUSTIC CRIES TO THE SKY!
And Mongo juice? Of course he takes the vandal and “Wiki rapist” position by saying “When he reverted you and asked you not to "blanket revert" (which refers to a revert of a series of edits without properly considering all the changes, which is exactly what you did), you simply ignored that and made another blanket revert”
When hen he undid me I also made several edits.( legitimate not cosmetics and frauds, but Mangojuice ignores it totally-shame!) I also provided ALL of the references here.He never provided a reference-just manipulated mine. He just performed a fraud here as I showed clearly. So my conscience is clean. I was justified 100%- not less. He was a fraud from the beginning to the end.. Mongo juice “investigation is an insult to injury!
CONCLUSION : Mangojuice William M. Connolly“ investigation“ is “ADDING INSULT TO INJURY”[edit]
I have spent lots of time here to explain my points and I did it the hard way- typing with one finger for many hours. I hope the editor who reads it respects this fact and the fact that I tried to make my presentation as easy as possible to grasp for some first time visitor.
My purpose was as following:
(1) I wanted to show who nableezy really is. He is a wiki abuser I am sure once you go through my presentation you came to the same conclusion yourself
(2) This is just one episode of his dealing and very typical. I can not possibly give you all the information-it is too much typing and I already made a point
(3) I want to encourage ordinary people look deeply into others editing. Most don’t do it and there are people like nableeze all over. Unless you expose them you will be duped every time. Look at this as an example. SENIOR WIKI EDITORS DON’T CARE AND WILL NOT HELP YOU! They just want “to come things down” and not to get bothered! As you can see here Mongojuice as a seniour editor didn’t care to do a serious investigation. BLAME THE VICTIM I S THE NORM!
(4) I hope there is the way to change things for the better in Wikipedia . I will be in touch with a founder and some influential people here on Wiki in the near future to propose some improvements to Wikipedia. I might need some more time since I am new but I believe we can change things from the bottom. If good people unite good things can happen! Don’t get discouraged!
Massage to Mangojuice and William M. Connolley[edit]
Nango don’t feel offended. I am not politically correct man but I am a sincere man. I am straight talker and like the same thing in others. Take it as a man. I am always open to hear things out and never reject constructive criticism-on the opposite. William, when I am talking about truth this is not what I mean WP: TRUTH as you cleverly suggested. But the truth I presented above. May be you the authority on Wikipedia William M. Connolley but I am not sure if you are an authority on the issue of truth.. After all you avoid my points when inconvenient and when you need to make a principal stand you run away . Isn‘t it William ? [[24]]
This is the quote from Mangojuice letter.:
“I reviewed your edits at Al-Ahram and frankly, you were being disruptive. I don't have a lot of background on this topic, but I see that you were objecting to one phrase Nableezy had written, yet you reverted his entire edit, which did more than change just one thing. When he reverted you and asked you not to "blanket revert" (which refers to a revert of a series of edits without properly considering all the changes, which is exactly what you did), you simply ignored that and made another blanket revert”
I took the time to comment on the whole thing in a very thorough way . This is a sign of respect to both of you. I hope you don’t try to ban mr for speaking truth to power. I really wanted you to understand your mistakes lazy argument without much substance and show you that just because I am an immigrant with limited English skills ( English is my third language after Russian and Hebrew along with little German and Arabic) I even used a word processor in order to make myself understood better so you don’t send me to my own country ( sorry my own language Wikipedia) which nobelzy and osome did Don’t try to patronize me. Talk to me on the eye level. Don’t threaten me. I feel offended. This is unjust. I believe we need to rise above this level of discussion. I made couple of technical mistakes since I didn’t count my undos. I haven’t been informed you have some kind of board where you report on people like me. Some people use those tools to hart-not to build a community.Pay attention senior editors Do justice! I hope we can rise above this low level. Clarity is everything here. Everything must be shown to new Wikipedians- not be out of sight. Evil hides in dark places but truth needs to be shown clearly and plainly for people to see. Your obligation as a senior editors is to improve Wikipedia by welcoming new people with abilities and help them and nurture them. You chose to protect offenders and abusers who known sneaky ways on wikipedia. You haven’t taken a honorable pass. You need to reflect on that and be honest to yourself. You might offer some more excuses. Stop. Enough is enough. I came from a totalitarian society ( former Soviet Union) and many of my relatives died in Soviet gulags. Truth comes to light eventually, It always pays to stick to the truth. Not WP:TRUTH that William suggested but the truth that comes from the center of your being. The truth that comes from your soul. This truth you can not defeat, gentleman, even if you try hard. No matter how many people you block and ban on Wikipedia -it shines through . Shame on those who tries to intimidate newbie immigrant on Wikipedia! I live in the USA and I have a freedom of speech unlike those unfortunate in Saudi or more appropriately for our discussion in Egypt. I made this presentation also for them since those who hide the truth are promote injustice. like here [[25]]
I have some ideas how to improve things but for now I am intend to discuss it this a founder but I want to take a necessary time to learn all the issues since I am too new here.. In a couple of months-it is another story. f you have a question you are invited to respond. You are wellcome to respond in the next section. Everybody is invited to comment ( please comment only in the next section designed specifically for this purpose. my email is r2000la@gmail.com If you feel that it is not safe for you to respond freely( you right some people will go after you as followers as it happened to me) you can email me instead . Don’t be intimidated by KGB control here Anyone can email me instead if you want.to.
You mean message not massage, right? :)
Can we renegotiate, William? LOL , Look I normally don't give away massage for men; This is not my style… but for you...since we belong to the same club and you are my private couch and closest confidante and since I like your chutzpah... I promise if you come to LA you can get a fancy one from me. You are lucky-it so happened that one of the fanciest massage parlors here owe me. So hurry up get you afdgss to LA- you got yourself a deal!
BRW you still owe me ( remember the “b_stard:”issue? Can I post it on his talk page please? :)
P.S. But if I am lucky and you mean a message I will be happy to post ii on your talk page :)
--Rm125 (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Place for discussions and response from other Wikipedians regarding this “investigation“[edit]
I think your commentary above is patronizing and slightly racist. I wish you would stop casting aspersions on Saudis (or Egyptians). I see that since you've come back, Nableezy has been very patient in explaining to you how things work around here, and all you do is insult him. Shame on you. Tiamuttalk 09:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, while you may think you are fighting a WP:BATTLE of good against evil, if that's indeed the case, this is not the place. Tiamuttalk 09:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"slightly racist" ? Very interesting terminology. Sorry to "patronize" you but how did you come to this interesting observation? Is "slighly racist" has the same meaning as " slightly pregnant"? And what is the evidence that I am "patronizing"?This is all you can come up with? Sorry for "patronizing" but are you serious?
--Rm125 (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a issue of WP:BATTLE at all. All my arguments are based on facts, however your allegations of being "slightly racist" are baseless and your shaming me has no basis in reality.He doesn't like to mention this fact, I agreed and the issue is closed.Please read all the discussion not just part of it.He is sensitive about it and I respect it. I gave you a compliment before. Remember? If I recall the compliment was that although I don't agree with you -you make a good argument. Remember this? If not dig it up. In this instance you didn't see the whole argument. I still respect you as before- my opinion hasn't changed but you messed up on this one, Tiamut.Plus you didnt make any point regarding the issues raised. I know why. because you can not find any false point in my responce. All the best Don't see every slightly sarcastic word as an insult- it is just my sense of humor. I respect everybody including you ( I have a reciept to show on that, don't I ?)--Rm125 (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing,Tiamut. Why would you defend your friend here? He is his own man and has a forum ( he actually is very active) I don't think he needs your help here. Let him speak for himself.I asked opinions about the issues of Al Ahram not opinions about somebody friends.Why don't you comment on Al ahram article and point rased? This can be a contribution. All the best--Rm125 (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Tiamut, it just hit me (sorry I am little bit slow sometimes)the reason I came to edit Al Ahram in the first place is BECAUSE OF YOU. Thats right1 You and nableezy and you other friend ( I am not sure but I can check) were very persistand abaur Amireya and Jonathan Cook articles in Al Ahram. I was amazed at your insistance of Al Ahram being "reliable sourse" You know better of course as you admitted but your claim--Rm125 (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC) was that it is OK per Wikipedia rules. Look I don't want to ambarass you and say that you "really" think that Al Ahram is a free newspaper-you don't, but this is the only reason I went there. I just wanted to make sure there is a reliablr information that Al Ahram is a mouthpiece of mubarrak-not a free mewspaper and therefor a reliablr sourse. I am going to fight hard ( in a nice and by wiki rules) to put things in order on Al Al ahram article. I am already half through and I even hope that you can change your mind (baselessly I might add) But in the mean time we can respect each other as in sports.If 2 boxers fight it doesn;t mean they are enemies. I suggest to adopt this attitude and there is no need to take it personal and follow me from article to article All the bast --Rm125 (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, just to let you know, I have no intention of getting involved at J Street or any other page you may have a difficulty. But I can give you my take on the situation.
There are two things wrong with your edit that I can see. First, the New York Times is clearly a good source, but the fact checking required for what they published does not include checking the truth of what Ben Ami was claiming, just whether he was being accurately quoted. Also, from the context, I think Ben Ami is referring to the Jewish 30-something post-Holocaust generation; he's not talking specifically about the staff of J Street. (It would be off topic anyway, his views on the Jewish public is what the article is interested in.) Also, he is clearly exaggerating when he says "all", he's just trying to say that the generation is breaking with tradition and giving a couple of common examples. So I don't think you have sufficient sourcing to back your claim that J Street's staffers are all intermarried and doing Buddhist Seders: it's not even supported by Ben Ami's statement. But even if it was, Ben Ami's statement is not a reliable reflection of fact, it's just his opinion, an accurate rendering of what he said in an interview.
Second, even if the NYT source says what you think it says, there's the issue of emphasis. Placing that claim in the lead means it is heavily emphasized: it is given as much weight as all the other text in that first paragraph. See WP:UNDUE. If it were properly sourced, your claim could go somewhere in the article, but trying to insist that it goes in the lead puts a burden on you to convince others that this is an essential fact about J Street that needs to be covered up front, even before its self-stated agenda, and frankly I don't think that's possible.
As for how Malik Shabazz has treated you in this exchange, I think he's been fair. He's brought up many of these points; he didn't pick up on the fact that Ben Ami isn't describing the J Street staff per se, but he does point out that this is merely a quote not a fact in this edit summary, and in his talk page comments he brings up the issue of emphasis and relevancy of the information -- he doesn't discuss this in terms of material in the lead having greater importance, but that is a subtext to what he's saying. On the other hand, you were being rather condescending and dismissive towards him. I think you have this idea that Malik is nothing more than a barrier to progress, but (1) I don't think that's true, and (2) if you treat him that way, it'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy. And you were in fact edit warring, technically, though I believe you were trying to address Malik's edit summaries, in good faith. Still, you need to stop re-adding material when it is reverted. Go to the discussion page after one revert, not after three. Even if Malik's grounds for reverting you were shaky, it is unreasonable to expect him to come around to your way of seeing things so quickly. Mangojuicetalk 05:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for "team working", see WP:TAGTEAM. Basically, edit warring is not allowed, even as part of the majority, but calling others a "team" and accusing them of working in concert is the kind of thing editors most typically do when they can't accept the truth: that others users may, independently, dislike one's edits, and that this is probably cause to reexamine those edits. So try not to think of it that way. Mangojuicetalk 05:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they are on EVERY page I go and talking between them about me?I think it is conviniant to defend people who know their way aroun .it kind of safe this way,no?
I kinda get the message already.You never looked at my arguments.Some objectivity...
Talk pages are for improving articles, not for long rambling comments about what you learned about other people. Please read WP:TALK. This edit had nothing to do with J Street so I removed it. Please stop commenting on other editors. Dont comment on where they are from, what religion they are, what they smoke, what they eat, what they drink, how much money they have, how many girlfriends they have, anything at all. Restrict your comments to the articles. nableezy - 22:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STOP posting personal information about people on article talk pages, if you continue to do so I will be asking for administrator assistance (also known as a block). nableezy - 22:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rm125, this post is not cool, for mutliple reasons. But an important one to me right now is that this is yet another example of how you make assumptions about people's ethnic and national identities in order to dismiss or disaprage them/their arguments. You've done it with Malik Shabazz, and you've done with it Nableezy before, like when you were calling him "Saudi" repeatedly [26][27], [28] and Talk:Al-Ahram#To a Saudi gentelman - when he isn't, and when that has nothing to do with article content, and even after he asked you to stop. I'm asking you too now to stop making such references because they are uncivil, personal attacks that don't lead to productive editing environment. One more time, and I will file a report about what has been, since you have started editing here and up to now, a persistent problem. Tiamuttalk 22:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to chime in and support this, Rm125. There is no gain -- none at all -- from discussing what are or what you believe to be editors' ethnicity/religion,. etc. The only thing you can accomplish is to weaken your own points. IronDuke 00:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IronDuke, I never discussed his ethnicity/religion. What happened is simple. We discussed EGYPTIAN newspaper Al Ahram and I saw his country's (Egypt) flag on his page.Why he puts his country's flag there? He was offended because I made a mistake and thought it is Saudi flag. Then the whole hell went loose. He started to accuse me of all kinds of things. You see, we discussed Al Ahram, we had an argument and he got affended for no reason. I never said anything wrong about him. Now he makes a lots of noise and claims to be offended. ( BTW long ago I APOLOGIZED fot this-is was long time ago- now he digged it up. If you look at his page- he looks like a guy who doesnt care about PC but here he is as sensitive as balerina from Russian Bolshoi.[[29]] --Rm125 (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RM, thanks for responding. When I see "To gentelman from Saudi", I get concerned. For me, where someone is from can only be a positive (in the sense that if they bring more to the table than male middle-aged white American computer geeks, who are, respectfully, over-represented on WP), then we all benefit. You never need to discuss someone's ethnicity, not for any reason. If their edits are problematic, great, just say so. Where they pray or where their parents were born has no bearing on anything. I see you've just been blocked. I can't comment on the merits of it, as I haven't examined yourr edits in detail, but I can suggest that you use it as an opportunity to rethink your approach. Whether you mean to or no, you are antagonizing your fellow editors. Do you think that's the best way to get an article in tip-top shape? If you are genuinely interested in editing collaboratively here, I will try to help you, if you want it. IronDuke 05:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's always a sign that you have nothing of substance to contribute when you start insulting other editors instead of speaking about content. Unfortunately, it seems to be a habit you fall back on very often.
Calling me a Muslim doesn't insult or offend me, but—for the record—it's incorrect. As I told you yesterday, a short look at my User page would disabuse you of that notion. Still, you would rather try to insult me than learn a few facts. In any event, those facts are irrelevant to my ability to edit with a neutral point of view.
If you continue down the road of insults and personal attacks, I can assure you that you won't like the consequences. I will report you and it's likely you will be blocked. Yet again.
At this point, three editors who are "regulars" at J Street and two uninvolved editors have advised you that Ben Ami's off-hand comment isn't important, and that including it in the article gives it undue weight. But you know better. You are right and everybody else is wrong. Your alone know The Truth.
Please listen to what other editors are saying. There's a reason everybody else disagrees with you, and it's not a vast left-wing conspiracy. — Malik Shabazz(talk·contribs) 23:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look your tactics is clear to me. You are trying to accuse me by putting words in my mouth. When I trying to answer you , you accuse me of something again.You are just trying to "build my case and catch me on something". Somebody who doesn't follow might think it is true. I refuse to engage in those provocations anymore. Your team want to get read of me and this is the reasom. I refuse to be drugged into this game of yours. Have a good day.
Now, did you complain about me some how on any board? You have to tall me if you did. I don't know where you guys going and what you are complaining about. I have a right to know if there any kind of complain against me or your team is building a case against me as previously without me knowing.--Rm125 (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
stop transcluding templates where they do not belong[edit]
Dont put {{User:Nableezy/Header}} on WMC talk page again. You have no idea what you are doing so dont continue doing so. nableezy - 01:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are right, I didn't have an idea. I am totally computed illetarate. I have a computer guy who takes care with my computers at the office, but I hate to bothere him asking. It was fanny once I put your "notice" on board I couldn't find your country flag, Chicago flag and your marijuana link with the "pot quote" on the page. I wandered where are all those icons gone. To my horror i realized it went straight to William's page on the top. Is is fanny that only when you pointed out I looked it up and found it -to my horror- on William's page. Amazing!Now I am sure he is angry at me because unintemtially I made him a "pot head". Can you imagine? If you kindly wouldn't notice my mistake I would spoil his reputation all over internet! Hopefully he understands that it was unintemtional and stupid misreK. Those computers are something else-without realizing what I am doing I messed it up. Thanks to you I realized my mistake. Now I know how it works. I would like to have some icons on my pagy too. Not- no icon with marijuana- I gave up on pot long time ago. Pot makes people stupid and stubborn.I had a neigbor who got into institution because of marijuana. I know it is banned for a reason so I don't want this icon on my page. What I ask you-can you assist me with icon of Los Angeles on my page? I love LA. It is a cool city and fan to live.Great weather-not too much rain and ugly wind.. you don't need pot to have a good time. Please help me with this icon. I appreciate it. I also would like to put an American flag on my page, because I am a proud Anerican. Thanks for your kindly suggestion. All the best, --Rm125 (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I see no reason to bother warning Nableezy over his use of the f-word, directed at no one, out of frustration because you seem so intent on bring it up over and over again, nearly a week after it happened.
You are extremely close to having your block reinstated because of your complete inability to adjust your behavior to Wikipedia expectations. Specifically:
After hearing from Malik Shabazz and Nableezy about your edits to the lead of J Street, not to mention myself, you continued to edit war over it: [30], [31]. This is a violation of Wikipedia:Edit war.
Instead of accepting those opinions as legitimate, you continue to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of acting in collusion: [32][33].
Under the terms of WP:ARBPIA, which you have been previously warned about [37], I am imposing the following sanctions on you.
You are on civility parole indefinitely. If you make any comments which (1) are personal attacks, (2) are incivil, (3) are intended only or mainly to mock, irritate, or provoke others, or (4) any comments which are in substance about other editors rather than about editing issues, you will be blocked.
You are placed on a revert restriction indefinitely: you may make no more than one revert per page per WEEK. If you do, you will be blocked. Be advised that WP:REVERT can apply to edits that don't exactly return a page to a previous version, but rather, any edits that have the effect of undoing another editor's edits. I realize this puts you at an inherent tactical disadvantage in edit wars, but that's the point.
Be aware that knowing violations of these terms will probably be met with an outright ban against you editing any and all topics relating to the Middle East and Middle East politics.
If you wish to appeal the bans, after your block expires, please go to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. If you have any questions about the terms, ask me - do not test the limits with your edits. Mangojuicetalk 04:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mangojuice, if you see some of the comments they are related to the time prior to the previous ban. Regarding J Street you claim I engage in edit wars. Well, pay attention at the article.Yes I reverted, but Malik reverted too without any resoning.How come their reverts and undos are legit and my is not? They made more undos then me and I am the violator? If you can reverse someone without any justification and you are against a team ( they work together on many articles) this is questionable.Look at what THEY say:"But apparently, badmouthing A-rabs is okay these days. I see it on the TV every day. We da new niggas bro! That's why he keeps confusing Malik Shabazz with us " Did I badmouth Arabs? This is nonsense! They use all kind of words like FUCK and you justify them and totally ignore their insults. ALL THOSE ALLERGATIONS ARE RELATED TO THE TIME PRIOR TO MY BAN therefore it is not applicable-you can not use it twice against me.Don't you see?You are totally ignore them but try to get me every chance you get.You even don't give me a chance to explane. I respectfully ask you for second opinion. Please ask Willam. M Connolley for his opinion. I sent him couple of messages explaining my points of argument. What's amaizing to me is that you TOTALLY ignore my posts and justify a person who uses the word fuck. You justify him by saying that he is "frustrated" by my behaviour" Mangojuice please let me ask for a second opinion. I think this is a reasonable request. Please don't avoid me and give me an answer this time. --Rm125 (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mangohuice, have you seen wwhat Malik Shabbazz said to me to provoke me? This:"First, stop being condescending and trying to teach me about Judaism. I probably know as much about Judaism as you do, chaver Rm125"
Mangojuice to shut somebody up is easy- you have to push one button but in order to see through you need to go a little deeper.I ask once again for a second opinion. --Rm125 (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to post {{unblock}}, you know how to use it. After the block expires you may go to WP:AE to appeal my decision. However, be aware that the sanction is being placed on you because of your behavior and allegations that others have also behaved badly is irrelevant to your case. Also, I suggest you drop the claims of being provoked. It's irrelevant: you are not given leeway to be incivil so long as you are adequately provoked, that would be an endorsement of flame wars. Mangojuicetalk 19:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I think I am wasting my time, frankly.You apply a very questionable argumentation.On one hand you are picking my dirty laundary every chance you get. On the other hand you keep the others blameless no matter what. I know that people get "elected" here based on their 'popularity" not necessary their sense of justice. I don't try to be "smart" here but you are making fun of WP:TRUTH amd WP:common sense. Hovever in the real world people use certain standards and The concept of reciprocity and other principles of western civilization. You can not have 2 parties but only apply your criteria towards one party. You either judge is one against another or don't do it at all. I don't intend to go and argue with you on details. It is worthlrss and time consuming for me. I didn;y come here to fight anybody. From the first day I was greeted by threats and wornings. No matter what you say you can not tell me that this "organization" is wellcoming. If I'll go to this board people will not go deeper and understand what's it all about-exectly like you-and will jump to conclusuons. People who have a life don't have time to go there. I am not get paid by the government-I am in business for myself.It will be cheaper for me to send my secretary to go to all those boards but I don't wan't to pay her for this. She is very high paid lady and does very good job. This is not even my purpose. I came here out of curiocity to see what this all about. I omce emailed one link from Wikipedia to one of my "big head" friends and he laughed at me and told me that this is not very reliable. I didn't know that at the time.. this is the whole story.I should of believed him. I still think there is a value here since it is very easy excess to many links and you can read lots of thingd in very short time.Plus it is a good way to learn English for me- much more fun.Unfortunately I don't have too much time to spend- I wasted too much time already, but I might come sometimes occasionally. Many pages have value mostly for people without any backround or naive. People who are little bit more deep buy books and read research and such things. The problem that there are many ignorant and lazy people who take Wikipedia literally. Unfortunately this is most of humanity today. I met mzny ignorant people here and was frankly very surprised.Even people from the west who have the freedom to get all communication and free press think that Al Ahram is a free newspaper. On the other hand I talked with the blogger from Egypt who is under constant survalence by the secret service there and he was very welcoming and told me a lot about whats going on inside Egypt from point of veiw of a dissident. Here you have an Egyptian from Chicago who claims that Al Ahram is as good as NYT and claims thar Egypt is a free country. I hope you have read "1984" by Orwell. If not please read it-very educational. All the best, Mongojuice--Rm125 (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If by "rant" you mean "A rant or harangue is a speech or text that does not present a well-researched and calm argument; rather, it is typically an attack on an idea, a person or an institution, and very often lacks proven claims." you have another guess coming, Mangojuice. I gave you a detailed responce letter on your talk page,please read. So if you accuse me of not presenting a "well researched" argument you see clearly (on your talk page) that it was the opposite-You are the one who doesn't present " well researched" argument but base your opinion on your "whatever" logic. --Rm125 (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer you reverse yourself based on my letter as a man and not go "to the "outer space" and avoid responsibility and waste of time. Do the right thing, Mangojuice and lets move forward from this mess-I am not enjoying this-do you? All the best. --Rm125 (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in communicating with you further. You are making disparaging comments about me and I don't see why I should bother responding to you. The sanctions stand, they're wise, I'm open to review, and I'm sure the community will back me and happy to discover if that's true. I have seen no sign from you that you are actually open to anyone else's opinion: anytime anyone says anything you don't like, you just attack them, loaded with empty statements like your opinion on your "whatever" logic or Now it becomes pathetic not to mention a constant complete lack of respect of my judgment. If you don't respect it, get someone else's, end of story. Mangojuicetalk 22:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I kindly remind you that you are allowed to make only one revert per week per article. You've already exceeded that today on 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy. I'm not going to report you, although someone else might, but please refrain from any further revert to this article or to other articles.Jeppiz (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jonathan Cook. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Cook. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
