User talk:Factomancer

Ommatoiulus moreletii

No worries, I was going to start that one myself but you beat me to it. Nice work! Melburnian (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiLove is good

← George ^talk has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Baruch Goldstein

Thanks for your improvement to the Baruch Goldstein article. By adding these bits, you actually aid those people in publicizing them. I don't think that was your intention... --Shuki (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Shuki, exposing evil for the world to see is the best way to fight it, like sunlight keeps out darkness. Hiding it from public view and normalizing it is doing these guys a favour. Factsontheground (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that 'exposing evil' is on the top of your list. At least keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia that strives for NPOV and does not tolerate many things including NN events. Even if this event really occurred, there are no celebrations, only a few seconds of one guy dancing (who is he?) and nothing to attribute to 'settlers' at all. Should we include every instance of Jews dancing to WP? --Shuki (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you guys ever get sick of playing that card? Factsontheground (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And what is that? To demand that your editing be NPOV and you not apply a double standard to everything about Israel and the Arabs you? --Shuki (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ha. You know what I'm talking about. Factsontheground (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Banned User

Hi FotG. The comments and edits you are replacing on Munich (film) are actually from a banned user. You might actually have seen, in my edit summary, where I write "banned user." I don't have the diff to hand, but what you are doing, no doubt inadvertently, can be seen as meatpuppeting for a banned user. I'm also curious how you came to that particular article? In any case, if you wish to make the same edits the banned user did, and stand behind them, I'm fine with that. Just please don't restore talk from him. This has been a long-term aggravation for me; trust me when I tell you you don't want to become a part of it. Cheers. IronDuke 12:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. See [1] for a discussion of why we don't allow banned users to post. I didn't mean for the above to sound ominous. I doubt anything seriously bad would happen to you for proxying for a banned user, for good or ill. And how did you come to that page again? Did you say? Thanks. IronDuke 12:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Last question first: no no problem at all how you got to that article. Thanks for answering. Unfortunately, I can't go into details about this particular user/stalker. Suffice it to say, it's a tax I pay for editing here. IronDuke 15:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

spear civilians

Well spotted at Gaza War :) Bjmullan (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem

I tend to agree with GregorB that the article has been bowlderized and gives a POV presentation of the spying allegations after its rewrite. But I'm not interested in taking on the material again right now. Perhaps in the future, there could be an article on Israeli spying in the US that covers those allegations. But that would have to be developed in user space before making its debut and be based solely on RS discussing the issue to have ny chance of survival. Though even then, its unlikely. Instead, we get wonderful articles on non-existent subjects like Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip) that are kept by bloc voting without regard to whether they are truly notable. Anyway, thanks for thanks and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 14:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah junction stabbing

This afd in which you participated is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 12.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:TPO

I will suggest that if you are going to cite WP:TPO as policy when reverting other people's contributions, that you at least familiarize yourself with the contents first. According to WP:TPO, comments can be removed appropriately for various reasons, including: "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism." Breein1007 (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Kennedy AfD

Please stop reverting Mbz1's edits. You're not accomplishing anything. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Factsontheground (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Temporary topic ban re Mbz01

I don't blame you for starting this, but we need to separate the parties and calm this down, so...

(copied from ANI)

As an uninvolved administrator - I am temporarily banning the "involved parties" here from responding to each others' contributions or talk pages, interpreted broadly, for the next 24 hours. Without regard to origin of the dispute it's being perpetuated beyond reasonable limits. I would like to STRONGLY DISCOURAGE further snipes on ANI but this venue remains open for discussion without threat of sanction.

(end of copy)

Mbz01 is the user looking at sanctions, but we need all the involved parties to stop poking each other for a bit.

Thanks.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Good decision, George. Read and understood. The whole thing is a big distraction anyway. Don't forget to tell Breein1007 about the topic ban too, I wouldn't want to see him banned. Factsontheground (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Israeli settlement graph

Hello, Factomancer. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum

Regarding this edit and this edit,

Please do not use talk pages for intimidating editors. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What was the point of warning Factsontheground now for two edits made 5 days ago, which preceded the SPI determination that the suspicious edit pattern was merely coincidence and that you and the IP are unrelated?

The edits were not AGF - but they're old. Dredging up 5 day old comments for a warning like this isn't helpful either.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It is even not about AGF. I posted here before I removed the edits from the article's talk page because they have absolutely nothing to do with the article, never should have been posted there in a first place, but the user reinstalled them right back. Oh well...BTW what do you think, Georgewilliamherbert, should the messages stay in the article's talk page, or they should be removed simply because they do not belong there? --Mbz1 (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As a rule - if you're in a conflict with another editor, you are the worst possible person to be removing comments as inappropriate, anywhere other than on your own talk page.

You are biased because you're in conflict with them, and you doing the removals tends to increase conflict and drama rather than reducing them.

You two are not the only editors. There are many others, including many admins, reading the same talk pages. If there's a clear problem and comment needing removal, let them do it. 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The comments were relevant to the article because a mysterious IP suddenly showed up with no editing history yet a precocious knowledge of Wikipedia policies and started edit warring on that article to restore Mbz1's version as well as attempting to discourage other editors such as George. Assuming it was a sockpuppet or meatpuppet was only common sense, and I still think it could be one.

By the way, Mbz1 and GWH, why should I assume the good faith of an editor that defended posting hate speech from a site like Masada 2000 in Wikipedia? I believe that Mbz1 demonstrated a racist anti-Palestinian agenda in her defense of Gilabrand's hate speech and I don't see why I should have to assume the good faith of somebody who has demonstrated none and has made repeated personal attacks against myself and other Palestinian editors for no apparent reason. Factsontheground (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record. Factsontheground saying: "Mbz1 demonstrated a racist anti-Palestinian agenda in her defense of Gilabrand's hate speech" is the same as to say that an attorney of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is demonstrating that he is supporting murdering thousands of innocent men, women and children by Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That will be enough with acusations of racism aimed at anyone, please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, don't you think your comment would have looked much better, if you put it like that: "Factsontheground, that will be enough with accusations of racism aimed at anyone, please."--Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, George, I just want to move on. This whole conflict is really boring me. Factsontheground (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Art student scam

On March 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Art student scam, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi. I thought you should know that you're part of the discussion at WP:AN/I#Mbz1 is at it again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Malik! Factsontheground (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring coupled with incivility on Defamation (film). Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This user is asking that her block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I wasn't edit warring, I was discussing my changes on the talk page. I only made 2 reverts, let alone 4. I wasn't being uncivil whatsoever. In fact I was the target of multiple personal attacks. This block is massively disproportionate.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I wasn't edit warring, I was discussing my changes on the talk page. I only made 2 reverts, let alone 4. I wasn't being uncivil whatsoever. In fact I was the target of multiple personal attacks. This block is massively disproportionate.  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I wasn't edit warring, I was discussing my changes on the talk page. I only made 2 reverts, let alone 4. I wasn't being uncivil whatsoever. In fact I was the target of multiple personal attacks. This block is massively disproportionate.  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I wasn't edit warring, I was discussing my changes on the talk page. I only made 2 reverts, let alone 4. I wasn't being uncivil whatsoever. In fact I was the target of multiple personal attacks. This block is massively disproportionate.  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Diffs that contributed to my decision to block:

• 1R edit summary: "Undo vandalistic removal of sourced content"
• 2R edit summary: "Restoring sourced material removed by vandalistic blanking"
• talkpage edit: "Gilisa and Mbz1 stop behaving like vandals and restore the sourced material that you have blanked!"
• talkpage edit: "'And how exactly did it cause to that my post removed?' Sorry, but that is not proper English. I can't understand you."

There are others.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Mbz1 was refusing to discuss her changes and simply removing material. That is vandalistic. Besides, Mbz1 has treated me with nothing but contempt and personal attacks and she is openly racist against Palestinians, defending the inclusion of hate speech from Masada 2000 in Wikipedia.

Here are some of her personal attacks against me:

• "Better safe(sic) your time to come up with a new conspiracy theory" - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=348323422

• "At least you got blocked fighting for the right cause" - [2]

• [3] - Reverts my signature for no reason

• [4] - intervenes in a harassing way in an issue that has nothing to do with her

• [5] - "Factsontheground, you might be right in something. All your reports on the different boards should be ignored, as one would ignore an importunate fly"

• [6] "Trolling as usual?" - in reply to a civl comment.

It is just unbelievable that you administrators haven't lifted a finger against Mbz1's constant abuse against me but you block me for minor issues at the drop of a hat!

And that final comment is perfectly civil! I really cannot understand what Gilisa meant. It _isn't_ English.

Breen1007 told me to "get over myself" and that I had "half a brain". Why isn't he being blocked for personal attacks!????Factsontheground (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Because "get over yourself" isn't a personal attack, and he didn't say that you had only half a brain.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a personal attack, actually. And how is asking Gilisa to clarify himself a personal attack then? Factsontheground (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it from your conspicuous silence, "Sarek" that you cannot justify yourself. You are clearly acting out of hatred, not logic. Factsontheground (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is openly racist against Palestinians

As a Palestinian editor I have had to put up with constant abuse, incivility and personal attacks from Israeli editors who wish to eliminate any criticism of their nation from Wikipedia by harassing Palestinians until they leave.

The ringleader of this abuse has been Mbz1. She started attacking me after I complained about her friend Gilabrand inserting anti-Arab hate material from the Masada 2000 website into Wikipedia.

The ANI thread shows how little the Wikipedia community cares about anti-Palestinian racism. For having the temerity to complain about being treated like a subhuman I was "trout slapped" by an administrator.

Since then I have been repeatedly, constantly attacked and Wikihounded by Israeli editors and treated with utter incivility. When I complain about the personal attacks to administrators they treat me with contempt and refuse to do anything about it, despite the policies that firmly state that nobody in Wikipedia has to put up with personal attacks.

And now I have been blocked from Wikipedia for honestly telling another editor that I can't understand him.

I am told that "Get over yourself" isn't a personal attack, but "Sorry I can't understand you" is. This is despite the fact that other people have had trouble understanding Gilisa.

Yet another lie. Yet more double standards. Yet more anti-Palestinian hate.

Here is just some of the incivility and abuse I have had to put up with:

Breen1007

• [7] - "Get out of my talk page and stay out"

I have every right to request that other people do not comment on my talk page. It is my talk page, and there is significantly more lenience given to editors in their own space. In terms of the reasoning for the sharpness of my tone in that edit summary (not that I need to provide it by any means - but in case anyone is curious)... you posted a template warning on my page that is supposed to be used for new editors who are unaware of the rules. You know very well that I know the rules and have been editing here for long enough not to need templates. You had your reason for giving me that template, and I didn't appreciate it. Furthermore, the explanation you added about an administrator (Malik) warning me against making edits to Yasser Arafat were plain and simple false. Malik did not say anything to me about my edits on Yasser Arafat; this claim was incorrect. I did not want to have false statements about me on my talk page. For that reason, I removed them. It's as simple as that. Breein1007 (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• [8] - "Get over yourslf"

Gilisa

• [9] - "You discuss it with yourself"

• [10] - "I do not accept your editing anyway"

• [11] - "Oh, and don't falsify what others write"

JzG

• [12] - Unsupported accusation of canvassing

Mbz1

• "Better safe(sic) your time to come up with a new conspiracy theory" - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=348323422

• [13] - Reverts my signature for no reason

• [14] - intervenes in a harassing way in an issue that has nothing to do with her

• [15] - "Factsontheground, you might be right in something. All your reports on the different boards should be ignored, as one would ignore an importunate fly"

• [16] "Trolling as usual?" - in reply to a civl comment.

• [17]. Called me "lies on the ground".

Nothing happens to any of these people who abuse me constantly. But when I treat them like they treat me I am blocked!

Wikipedia is like some kind of caste-based system where the chosen people get to treat the rest of us like shit, and are protected by the hypocritical admins at every turn.

Justice?

You made two reverts, and were blocked within 15 minutes of being reported. Meanwhile, five days ago I reported NMMNG for four reverts within four hours, and the case is still open. Just how loud do you have to shout to attract an admin's attention? Or does it help to know the right people? RolandR (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Palestinians don't get justice on Wikipedia. Factsontheground (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

See? That proves Wikipedia is a mirror of the real world.RolandR (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing

I just removed your access to your talkpage for the remainder of your block. When it's restored, I suggest more content contributions and less assertions that everyone on WP is a racist out to get you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)