Welcome!
Hello, LibiBamizrach, 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! —
Ynhockey (
Talk)
10:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
MA never said those things and i see the same propoganda machine that caused to attack iraq for false allegation of WMD development, working here to vilify MA. every sane person that read the translation can see that this is what happening, the problem is that most people don't have time for that. so i'm trying to put the facts straight. we don't need any more wars in the middle easy that are based on lies. Eyalmc ( talk) 15:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Smolanim masrichim... tss tss... lo yaphei! Shalom, Hope&Act3! ( talk) 18:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Just so you know, I don't mind Israeli citizens at all as a description. My aim was just to cut down on any chance of accusations of POV on that article. WikiuserNI ( talk) 22:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I seem to find myself the mastermind of an Israeli conspiracy to defame Hamas on Wikipedia. This is just surreal. Frotz ( talk) 23:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
An accusation of hounding has been made against you on my talk page. I think there is some evidence that you may have been keeping an eye on SD's edits. I'm not accusing you of hounding at this point but I would urge caution when reverting in particular. If you haven't been involved in prior discussion and suddenly show up to revert someone you have had issues with it looks like hounding. -- WGFinley ( talk) 15:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Please carefully review the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) page, which outlines the consensus on this subject. Changing articles without discussion against this consensus is disruptive, and could result in sanctions being applied against you. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
Hello Philknight. I do not think you will answer me but I will put it here just in case anyway. Because you already showed that you just ignore me when I ask you questions. Look above for when you gave me this ARBPIA message and I asked for clarification. And also look above where you gave me edit advice and I commented about how I will follow the name convention, you ignored it. So then now when I edit on article ACCORDING TO name convention you claim to enforce, you block me? Hello? You read my edit summary? You even looked at this name convention or you just Nableezy's puppet do exactly what he tells you? In name convention it says case #6A you can use Samaria if it quote verbatim from reference. This is EXACTLY what I did. And you block me? What inappropriate use of admin tool. You should undo this and think careful to review your actions before you do them next time. LibiBamizrach ( talk) 15:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Please
do not attack other editors, as you did here:
User talk:Sandstein (
diff). If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Sandstein
20:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
After becoming aware of your editing after the message you left on my talk page (see above), I have examined your contributions. As a result, I have blocked you indefinitely for two reasons.
First, your contributions, which began on September 8, show a unusually high familiarity with Wikipedia processes and terminology from the outset: [2], [3] (with an interesting reference to WP:CLEANSTART), [4], [5], [6], etc., to only mention diffs from your first two days of contributions. I also came across this discussion, where you make reference to Factomancer ( talk · contribs) having changed their name from "Factsontheground", which however happened in March 2010 ( [7]). This makes it almost certain that this is not your first and only Wikipedia account. In view of my findings below, it is also highly likely that you are a banned or blocked editor trying to evade your sanctions, or a veteran editor attempting to evade accountability for your actions with this or your other account. This means that your use of this account is an abuse of multiple accounts.
Second, your contributions show that you are here with the sole purpose of changing articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to make them represent a particular position in that conflict or to portray that position more positively. Some of your edits were probably individually justified in the light of applicable policies, but taken as a whole, this mode of editing (called "POV-pushing") is incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia to write a neutral encyclopedia. The following edit, apart from being individually problematic (you deliberately inserted unsourced information into an article), is particularly indicative of this: [8]. You did not change your mode of editing after PhilKnight's arbitration sanctions warning on 28 September 2010 or after your subsequent block. Consequently, I find that your contributions are on the whole disruptive, rather than constructive, with respect to the project's purpose, which requires me to block you.
You can appeal this block as described at WP:GAB. Should an administrator reviewing any appeal consider unblocking you, I ask that administrator to submit the matter to a community forum for review. In the unlikely event of the block being lifted, I intend to make you subject to a topic ban under the provisions of the WP:ARBPIA arbitration case. Sandstein 20:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok after I saw on your page Sandstein what you say about me not request to be unblock, I want to post here now that I do want to be unblock. But you said up above very clear that you will not unblock me and I have to go through arbcom and then you will topic ban me anyway, so what's point of me even saying it here? I explain above and also I see user Mbz1 said on your wall repost of what I said, about how it's wrong why you block me. You block me based on me knowing name change of user Factomancer, but I explain with link to where it says that on Wikipedia. And I am definitely not any sockpuppet, already SPI was opened against me by suspicious users before, and it came back negative and closed. So what more do you want from me to do? You linked, WP:BURDEN, how am I suppose to prove now to you that you are wrong? LibiBamizrach ( talk) 16:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC) And to respond to you claim that I POV pushed by insert intentional false information with no reference, it's not the case. If you look at that history, you see that an IP deleted this information right away without putting on talk page or putting fact-tag to say please find reference, he just delete it, even though it might be true. So I revert his delete, and added in myself fact-tag so someone can find a reference. You really believe this is bad editing and POV pushing? If so then I need to learn a lot about Wikipedia because to me I think it was the right thing to do. But maybe I am wrong. Please give me chance to learn and edit this site based on the rules. LibiBamizrach ( talk) 16:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Why nobody is answering? Hello Sandstein can read this please? LibiBamizrach ( talk) 21:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, LibiBamizrach, 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! —
Ynhockey (
Talk)
10:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
MA never said those things and i see the same propoganda machine that caused to attack iraq for false allegation of WMD development, working here to vilify MA. every sane person that read the translation can see that this is what happening, the problem is that most people don't have time for that. so i'm trying to put the facts straight. we don't need any more wars in the middle easy that are based on lies. Eyalmc ( talk) 15:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Smolanim masrichim... tss tss... lo yaphei! Shalom, Hope&Act3! ( talk) 18:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Just so you know, I don't mind Israeli citizens at all as a description. My aim was just to cut down on any chance of accusations of POV on that article. WikiuserNI ( talk) 22:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I seem to find myself the mastermind of an Israeli conspiracy to defame Hamas on Wikipedia. This is just surreal. Frotz ( talk) 23:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
An accusation of hounding has been made against you on my talk page. I think there is some evidence that you may have been keeping an eye on SD's edits. I'm not accusing you of hounding at this point but I would urge caution when reverting in particular. If you haven't been involved in prior discussion and suddenly show up to revert someone you have had issues with it looks like hounding. -- WGFinley ( talk) 15:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Please carefully review the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) page, which outlines the consensus on this subject. Changing articles without discussion against this consensus is disruptive, and could result in sanctions being applied against you. PhilKnight ( talk) 17:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
Hello Philknight. I do not think you will answer me but I will put it here just in case anyway. Because you already showed that you just ignore me when I ask you questions. Look above for when you gave me this ARBPIA message and I asked for clarification. And also look above where you gave me edit advice and I commented about how I will follow the name convention, you ignored it. So then now when I edit on article ACCORDING TO name convention you claim to enforce, you block me? Hello? You read my edit summary? You even looked at this name convention or you just Nableezy's puppet do exactly what he tells you? In name convention it says case #6A you can use Samaria if it quote verbatim from reference. This is EXACTLY what I did. And you block me? What inappropriate use of admin tool. You should undo this and think careful to review your actions before you do them next time. LibiBamizrach ( talk) 15:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Please
do not attack other editors, as you did here:
User talk:Sandstein (
diff). If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Sandstein
20:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
After becoming aware of your editing after the message you left on my talk page (see above), I have examined your contributions. As a result, I have blocked you indefinitely for two reasons.
First, your contributions, which began on September 8, show a unusually high familiarity with Wikipedia processes and terminology from the outset: [2], [3] (with an interesting reference to WP:CLEANSTART), [4], [5], [6], etc., to only mention diffs from your first two days of contributions. I also came across this discussion, where you make reference to Factomancer ( talk · contribs) having changed their name from "Factsontheground", which however happened in March 2010 ( [7]). This makes it almost certain that this is not your first and only Wikipedia account. In view of my findings below, it is also highly likely that you are a banned or blocked editor trying to evade your sanctions, or a veteran editor attempting to evade accountability for your actions with this or your other account. This means that your use of this account is an abuse of multiple accounts.
Second, your contributions show that you are here with the sole purpose of changing articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to make them represent a particular position in that conflict or to portray that position more positively. Some of your edits were probably individually justified in the light of applicable policies, but taken as a whole, this mode of editing (called "POV-pushing") is incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia to write a neutral encyclopedia. The following edit, apart from being individually problematic (you deliberately inserted unsourced information into an article), is particularly indicative of this: [8]. You did not change your mode of editing after PhilKnight's arbitration sanctions warning on 28 September 2010 or after your subsequent block. Consequently, I find that your contributions are on the whole disruptive, rather than constructive, with respect to the project's purpose, which requires me to block you.
You can appeal this block as described at WP:GAB. Should an administrator reviewing any appeal consider unblocking you, I ask that administrator to submit the matter to a community forum for review. In the unlikely event of the block being lifted, I intend to make you subject to a topic ban under the provisions of the WP:ARBPIA arbitration case. Sandstein 20:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok after I saw on your page Sandstein what you say about me not request to be unblock, I want to post here now that I do want to be unblock. But you said up above very clear that you will not unblock me and I have to go through arbcom and then you will topic ban me anyway, so what's point of me even saying it here? I explain above and also I see user Mbz1 said on your wall repost of what I said, about how it's wrong why you block me. You block me based on me knowing name change of user Factomancer, but I explain with link to where it says that on Wikipedia. And I am definitely not any sockpuppet, already SPI was opened against me by suspicious users before, and it came back negative and closed. So what more do you want from me to do? You linked, WP:BURDEN, how am I suppose to prove now to you that you are wrong? LibiBamizrach ( talk) 16:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC) And to respond to you claim that I POV pushed by insert intentional false information with no reference, it's not the case. If you look at that history, you see that an IP deleted this information right away without putting on talk page or putting fact-tag to say please find reference, he just delete it, even though it might be true. So I revert his delete, and added in myself fact-tag so someone can find a reference. You really believe this is bad editing and POV pushing? If so then I need to learn a lot about Wikipedia because to me I think it was the right thing to do. But maybe I am wrong. Please give me chance to learn and edit this site based on the rules. LibiBamizrach ( talk) 16:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Why nobody is answering? Hello Sandstein can read this please? LibiBamizrach ( talk) 21:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)