User talk:REmmet1984

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, REmmet1984, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Shrike (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. REmmet1984 (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Carasso

Thanks for your recent edit on this article. When you make an edit like this, you should indicate in the Edit summary why you made it or what evidence you have for it.

In particular, why do you think that "prominent" does not describe his status in the Young Turks? -- after all, he became the member of parliament for Salonika. Do you have evidence that he was or wasn't a founder of the Masonic lodge? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Whether or not you are a new user (and the evidence of your edits suggests you are not) is irrelevant. Your edits clearly indicate an unwillingness to edit collegially here, including attacks on other editors and abusive edit summaries. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

If you really innocent disclose from what IP you operated better to do to it is write directly to WP:ARBCOM#BASC.Also read WP:CIVIL.Good luck.--Shrike (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASC is for ban appeals, not block appeals. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, indefinite blocks may also be ultimately appealed to BASC, but the blocked user must first appeal to the community by using {{Unblock|your justification here}} (which is added to one's talk page). AGK [•] 21:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my comment was unclear. However as this account appears to be a sock anyway (see Tnxman307's blocking log), it turns out to be irrelevant in this case. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was right in my assessment write directly to the WP:BASC.Don't make any more sockpuppets.There of course could be coincidences as in Israel there are only few ISPs and they all dynamic range.--Shrike (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2011 (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).

REmmet1984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Clear partisan behavior. No due process. Nableezy, an editor with an apparently inglorious history, after contacting admin in secret, has gone on to strike out all my comments, and delete all my edits as "a sock of ZionistSufi". Amazing, seeing as I was accused of being three separate sockpuppets, with no evidence (Historicist, Ledenierhomm, and ZionistSufi). I accept I wasn't the most civil, but I received conflict and abuse from my first edit and merely responded in kind. REmmet1984 (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed by CheckUser as a sock puppet of EvilZionist (talk · contribs), who is the same as ZionistSufi (talk · contribs). We're not fooled. –MuZemike 05:14, 7 September 2011 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

REmmet1984 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ha. Lies. How in the hell is it "confirmed" when it's not true? I have nothing to do with either of those users. This whole system is rigged nonsense. Still, the longer these attack pages stay as is, the clearer it will be to neutral observers that Wikipedia has a problem here. REmmet1984 (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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=Ha. Lies. How in the hell is it "confirmed" when it's not true? I have nothing to do with either of those users. This whole system is rigged nonsense. Still, the longer these attack pages stay as is, the clearer it will be to neutral observers that Wikipedia has a problem here. [[User:REmmet1984|REmmet1984]] ([[User talk:REmmet1984#top|talk]]) 05:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC) |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=Ha. Lies. How in the hell is it "confirmed" when it's not true? I have nothing to do with either of those users. This whole system is rigged nonsense. Still, the longer these attack pages stay as is, the clearer it will be to neutral observers that Wikipedia has a problem here. [[User:REmmet1984|REmmet1984]] ([[User talk:REmmet1984#top|talk]]) 05:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC) |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=Ha. Lies. How in the hell is it "confirmed" when it's not true? I have nothing to do with either of those users. This whole system is rigged nonsense. Still, the longer these attack pages stay as is, the clearer it will be to neutral observers that Wikipedia has a problem here. [[User:REmmet1984|REmmet1984]] ([[User talk:REmmet1984#top|talk]]) 05:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}