User talk:Rm125: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:56, 8 September 2009

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! --Bourge^talk 09:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't leave messages here

Since seldom visit tghis 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]

RfC

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.--brew crewer (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.--brew crewer (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. --brew crewer (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]

Last warning

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]

Non-templated welcome

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, --brew crewer (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,--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, wiki-pal --Rm125 (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

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]

Your recent edits

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]

edit warring

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]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Template:Z10 The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 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, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 08:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

Rm125 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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. Mango juice^talk 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]

Now I start to recall how he set me up

[PA's removed - WMC] --Rm125 (talk) 09:35, 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]

First point

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]

Sorry I am falling asleep

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]

RESPONSE TO Mangojuice LETTER

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]

[3]. I see you have ignored my advice to slow down William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 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]

Request to unblock based of false reasons

{{unblock}} to

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).

Rm125 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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.

--Rm125 (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy threats and Wikipedia moral obligation to confront them

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. Mango juice^talk 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION

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. Mango juice^talk 01:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 208: / Line 208: @@
 :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. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|<font
 color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 21:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)</font></small>
+::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.  [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 01:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 {| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
@@ Line 216: / Line 218: @@
 |-
 | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 == Regarding illegal reversal of Nableecy on Al Aharam page (Part 1) ==