Hello, MarciulionisHOF, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Shrike ( talk) 14:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi MarciulionisHOF! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 16:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Kingsindian ( talk) 13:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the question you wrote at the Teahouse, it seems that you are taking this too personally Marc. You are also using a personal attack toward @ Kingsindian: and @ Shrike:. There's a policy about making attacks like this. I suggest that before you go off saying that someone's a fascist, you should think about what your writing. You made a big problem for nothing. Also don't accuse editors of writing threats when there was clearly, never one made. Mirror Freak 16:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@ MirrorFreak:, are you a native to the English language? MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 19:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Um...Yeah. I also know Spanish. Why? Mirror Freak 19:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@ MirrorFreak:, I haven't called anyone anything here (Have I? Where?), yet, you say I have. I'm sure you know that in fascism, the leading "party" does the best it can to silence its opposition. Can we agree that this is standard under fascism? MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 19:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure that there are fascist on Wikipedia. But look, the dude was just letting you know before hand. For example: A mother tells here son not to touch a stove-top that is on. She's telling the child beforehand not to touch the stove. Is this Fascism? No its not. Dude, are you native to English? Mirror Freak 19:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you mean about calling people a fascist. I see that you did not, it was my error. Can we drop this discussion? No one meant to be rude to you. Again I apologize for my error. Mirror Freak 12:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Posting an copy of Courtyard with Lunatics and linking it to another editor's comment ( [2]), referring to the posting of a standard notification on your talk page as 'fascistic' ( [3]) and over-reacting when someone warns you that they'll go to AE unless you revert yourself ( [4]) probably aren't the wisest ways of conducting yourself if you want to carry on editing in the ARBPIA area. ← ZScarpia 14:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi MarciulionisHOF. For your future reference, if you make a request at WP:3O, the place to do it is in the Active disagreements section, not by overwriting the instructions as you did in this edit. I've fixed that one for you and no further action is needed. Regards, -- Stfg ( talk) 19:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I see that you like using cheese metaphors, especially blue cheese and cheddar. I found several meaning for them being used as expressions, none clearly applicable to the situations where you are using them. Can you explain please? WarKosign ( talk) 06:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Your user page was mentioned at ANI. It appears there are several images on your user page with links, and some of those links may be seen as commentary on other users. Please review WP:POLEMIC and remove everything that refers to other users in a manner that suggests criticism. Wikipedia has enough problems as it is—things would be even worse if editors were able to keep clever denunciations of their opponents. There have been many cases where material like this has led to the deletion of a user page. Re the underlying issue: You might try engaging with other editors by thoughtfully responding to their comments, preferably by asking questions. Wikipedia has many highly intelligent and knowledgeable users and it is useful to learn as one contributes. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, I have no issues with anything the user writes on his page. Though I am not the only user being talked about, so, whatever. It is a harmless enough activity. I simply ignore this user 90% of the time, and have told him so. My only problem was the article space reverts of my edits. But that has been solved now. Ending the drama would be beneficial to everyone. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Bishonen: I've added a few notes from the past month.
Clicking another complaint about him, I noticed one highly polemic statement outside September 2014 which is hard to ignore:
Truthfully, "planning a methodical slaughter" is as egregious as it gets (Nazi allusions don't help either). MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 12:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
'I've seen about 50 interviews with Palestinians in Gaza and all of them basically said the same thing: 'we support fighting Israel.'
The section title is blatant POV pushing. 'English people in WW2 were unanimous in supporting attacks on German people' is how it translates: you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic what is a natural national consensus to defend oneself against what is perceived as a hostile occupying power. So? Most people are patriotic. 94% of Israelis support the IDF, most Gazans support Hamas. Secondly all that information is in English sources. One doesn't document the obvious, and the page already has too many editors trying egregiously to make wikipedia a forum for one POV
Marciulionis, baseless imputations of antisemitism are a particularly serious kind of personal attack. You have made several of those against Nishidani, here and on WP:ANI, and have been unable to give evidence for them when challenged. The diffs you have offered above and elsewhere are quite un-substantive. For your own sake, I suggest you refrain altogether from commenting on Nishidani in the future, since you can't seem to do it without assuming bad faith. In any case, the next time you call him an antisemite, whether outright or by sly imputation, without providing evidence (real evidence, not a lot of irrelevance), I will block you from editing. Btw, I notice that you hint in the post above that Johnuniq, too, might have "battleground issues with Israel related editors". That is also unacceptable. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC).
@ Fram:, let's make this simple.
Cheers, MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 13:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Please don't create redirects from unregistered userpages to your own userpage, like you did here. That page isn't yours, and anyone wanting to register that username can do so and shouldn't have some completely unrelated history on his user page. If you need to link to your "note", simply use the full link. Fram ( talk) 06:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
You are very fast to link to the ARBPIA decorum section. Could you at least try to have some basic human dignity yourself, and not refer to recently killed persons as "a few nobodys playing dressup in a tunnel" and "a few nobodys in a tunnel." Such language does nothing but further inflame the situation. Fram ( talk) 07:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, MarciulionisHOF. I don't follow your edits, but I try to keep an eye on your pages (both user and talk); I feel a certain responsibility, since I originally warned you about personal attacks. (Your user page indeed remains a problem btw.) This is just to explain how I came to notice Fram's comment about decorum above and was led to take a look at your recent contributions. I'm blocking you for
lack of judgement and sensitivity in
these
comments on
Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, compare Fram in the section above. From your replies to Fram, it appears you can't understand what's wrong with referring to recently dead people as "a few nobodys in a tunnel"
and "a few nobodys playing dressup in a tunnel"
. You respond: "What are you talking about? Are they high ranking notables such as Yahiya Ayash or Muhamad Dahlan? (No) The point of discussion is whether this belongs in the
WP:LEAD."
It really alarms me that you don't apparently see, or at least don't address, the point, which was to do with dignity and language, but simply refer back to what your point was. You reply as if you think it's all right to talk in a contemptuous, dehumanizing way about individuals who just died, as long as they were not high-ranking notables.
Please note that I wouldn't have blocked if this was an isolated incident; it's in IMO the last straw as regards poor judgment and lack of proper responsiveness from you in the past few weeks. An illustration is for example
this discussion on my own page. (An interesting detail there is the way you persist in accusing people of bad faith, even though you are called on it several times, and promise to study the policy explaining what "bad faith" means, and to not use the term again before you understand it. But still it goes on.) I don't know if it is that you fail to understand what people say to you, or if you pretend to not understand, which would bring
this meta page into play. It makes no difference which it is, as both competence and good faith are required to edit Wikipedia. I thought of an indefinite block (which would not have been intended to be infinite), but that's not a good place to start. You have been blocked for one week. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bishonen |
talk
12:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC).
MarciulionisHOF ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits -- I have, (1) on talkpage, (2) in discussion about including/excluding information, used brevity to describe: 6 unnamed militants who died while mishandling explosives in a tunnel; as 'nobodys'. This is to say, news outlets don't consider them important enough to name them, and information about their deaths should be relegated to the body of the article rather than the lead.
I have also made a collaborative compromise suggestion:
In my one month of contributing on English Wikipedia, a couple editors show a habit of making personal attacks and clear insensitivity to Israeli views. I am more than willing to adjust to Wikipedia norms, but at least Bishonen (the one finding 'indefinite' disruption in my brevity) has pursued them unevenly. If "<Jews> planning a methodical slaughter" or a "drafted inside some Israeli ministry.:)" got a waste people's time. [11] What is a newbie left to think? To summarize: I have adhered to better standards than the ones enforced by Bishonen and will continue to pursue improving on this further. A block here and not at the other instance serves as punishment rather than prevention of future disruption. MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 15:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't think you entirely understand why you were blocked, and in this context, I concur there seem to problems of competence, as well as other problems, such as extending good faith. In this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight ( talk) 16:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
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.
Talk page access is given to blocked editors to make unblock requests, and not for other purposes. In this context, I have reset your block, and revoked talk page access. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I see why you raised the Opposites question on the Teahouse. If you want help crafting a response for the article talk page, I am happy to help craft one that addresses your concerns.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 19:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
This situation should also be particularly sensitive to providing a neutral point of view, by giving information about differing perspectives / viewpoints. Meaning that you may need several sources to express the information from a neutral point of view.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 17:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
In https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Rafah_massacre&diff=next&oldid=630102782 you seem to have stuck a link in the middle of my comment. I'm sure it was unintentional. -- GRuban ( talk) 20:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Igorp lj, I promised to notify you. Though there was no direct reply on my querry, [14] two AE executives is enough input for me. See block-log update. According to this, it is appears preferable that future allusions should be ignored. MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 06:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
-I have received your email, but Gmail warns me that :"This message may not have been sent by: MarciulionisHOF@gmail.com". I am not familiar with this kind of message. I will appreciate it if you confirm here that you sent this email, and I'll immediately reply to. Ykantor ( talk) 16:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
As a result of this AE thread and in accordance with discretionary sanctions authorised by this arbitration case, I am topic-banning you from the Arab-Israeli conflict. This means you may not edit any article in the area of conflict, nor may you discuss or allude to the conflict anywhere on Wikipedia, including your own userpage. Violations of this restriction will result in blocks. This topic ban is indefinite, but you my ask for a review after six months. You may also appeal this sanction to WP:AE and/or to the Arbitration Committee. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
People don't have to like each other here, and they do not have to agree. But a certain degree of collaboration is required, even with opponents. Please do not use highly pointy edit summaries when removing text from any page, including your talk. In this edit your edit summary consists of http://rogueoperator.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/fascism.jpg which shows an image that is completely out of step with standard procedures at Wikipedia.
Also, what is the purpose of WT:WikiProject Israel#Holocaust comparisons? In this recent edit, you added a subsection titled "Fascism update". That shows a serious misunderstanding of what has happened, and what should happen. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Yunshui
雲
水
10:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Welcome to Wikipedia! I am conducting a quick survey about newcomer support and I would like to hear about your experience so far. Your response will go a long way to help us build a better experience for newcomers like yourself. The survey will take you around 10 minutes to complete.
To learn more about the study, visit this link: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Co-op
To take the survey, visit this link: https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_2bnPZz0HelBaY85
Thanks!
Hello, MarciulionisHOF, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Shrike ( talk) 14:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi MarciulionisHOF! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch ( I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot ( talk) 16:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC) |
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Kingsindian ( talk) 13:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the question you wrote at the Teahouse, it seems that you are taking this too personally Marc. You are also using a personal attack toward @ Kingsindian: and @ Shrike:. There's a policy about making attacks like this. I suggest that before you go off saying that someone's a fascist, you should think about what your writing. You made a big problem for nothing. Also don't accuse editors of writing threats when there was clearly, never one made. Mirror Freak 16:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@ MirrorFreak:, are you a native to the English language? MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 19:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Um...Yeah. I also know Spanish. Why? Mirror Freak 19:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@ MirrorFreak:, I haven't called anyone anything here (Have I? Where?), yet, you say I have. I'm sure you know that in fascism, the leading "party" does the best it can to silence its opposition. Can we agree that this is standard under fascism? MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 19:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure that there are fascist on Wikipedia. But look, the dude was just letting you know before hand. For example: A mother tells here son not to touch a stove-top that is on. She's telling the child beforehand not to touch the stove. Is this Fascism? No its not. Dude, are you native to English? Mirror Freak 19:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I see what you mean about calling people a fascist. I see that you did not, it was my error. Can we drop this discussion? No one meant to be rude to you. Again I apologize for my error. Mirror Freak 12:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Posting an copy of Courtyard with Lunatics and linking it to another editor's comment ( [2]), referring to the posting of a standard notification on your talk page as 'fascistic' ( [3]) and over-reacting when someone warns you that they'll go to AE unless you revert yourself ( [4]) probably aren't the wisest ways of conducting yourself if you want to carry on editing in the ARBPIA area. ← ZScarpia 14:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi MarciulionisHOF. For your future reference, if you make a request at WP:3O, the place to do it is in the Active disagreements section, not by overwriting the instructions as you did in this edit. I've fixed that one for you and no further action is needed. Regards, -- Stfg ( talk) 19:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I see that you like using cheese metaphors, especially blue cheese and cheddar. I found several meaning for them being used as expressions, none clearly applicable to the situations where you are using them. Can you explain please? WarKosign ( talk) 06:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Your user page was mentioned at ANI. It appears there are several images on your user page with links, and some of those links may be seen as commentary on other users. Please review WP:POLEMIC and remove everything that refers to other users in a manner that suggests criticism. Wikipedia has enough problems as it is—things would be even worse if editors were able to keep clever denunciations of their opponents. There have been many cases where material like this has led to the deletion of a user page. Re the underlying issue: You might try engaging with other editors by thoughtfully responding to their comments, preferably by asking questions. Wikipedia has many highly intelligent and knowledgeable users and it is useful to learn as one contributes. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, I have no issues with anything the user writes on his page. Though I am not the only user being talked about, so, whatever. It is a harmless enough activity. I simply ignore this user 90% of the time, and have told him so. My only problem was the article space reverts of my edits. But that has been solved now. Ending the drama would be beneficial to everyone. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Bishonen: I've added a few notes from the past month.
Clicking another complaint about him, I noticed one highly polemic statement outside September 2014 which is hard to ignore:
Truthfully, "planning a methodical slaughter" is as egregious as it gets (Nazi allusions don't help either). MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 12:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
'I've seen about 50 interviews with Palestinians in Gaza and all of them basically said the same thing: 'we support fighting Israel.'
The section title is blatant POV pushing. 'English people in WW2 were unanimous in supporting attacks on German people' is how it translates: you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic what is a natural national consensus to defend oneself against what is perceived as a hostile occupying power. So? Most people are patriotic. 94% of Israelis support the IDF, most Gazans support Hamas. Secondly all that information is in English sources. One doesn't document the obvious, and the page already has too many editors trying egregiously to make wikipedia a forum for one POV
Marciulionis, baseless imputations of antisemitism are a particularly serious kind of personal attack. You have made several of those against Nishidani, here and on WP:ANI, and have been unable to give evidence for them when challenged. The diffs you have offered above and elsewhere are quite un-substantive. For your own sake, I suggest you refrain altogether from commenting on Nishidani in the future, since you can't seem to do it without assuming bad faith. In any case, the next time you call him an antisemite, whether outright or by sly imputation, without providing evidence (real evidence, not a lot of irrelevance), I will block you from editing. Btw, I notice that you hint in the post above that Johnuniq, too, might have "battleground issues with Israel related editors". That is also unacceptable. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC).
@ Fram:, let's make this simple.
Cheers, MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 13:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Please don't create redirects from unregistered userpages to your own userpage, like you did here. That page isn't yours, and anyone wanting to register that username can do so and shouldn't have some completely unrelated history on his user page. If you need to link to your "note", simply use the full link. Fram ( talk) 06:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
You are very fast to link to the ARBPIA decorum section. Could you at least try to have some basic human dignity yourself, and not refer to recently killed persons as "a few nobodys playing dressup in a tunnel" and "a few nobodys in a tunnel." Such language does nothing but further inflame the situation. Fram ( talk) 07:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, MarciulionisHOF. I don't follow your edits, but I try to keep an eye on your pages (both user and talk); I feel a certain responsibility, since I originally warned you about personal attacks. (Your user page indeed remains a problem btw.) This is just to explain how I came to notice Fram's comment about decorum above and was led to take a look at your recent contributions. I'm blocking you for
lack of judgement and sensitivity in
these
comments on
Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, compare Fram in the section above. From your replies to Fram, it appears you can't understand what's wrong with referring to recently dead people as "a few nobodys in a tunnel"
and "a few nobodys playing dressup in a tunnel"
. You respond: "What are you talking about? Are they high ranking notables such as Yahiya Ayash or Muhamad Dahlan? (No) The point of discussion is whether this belongs in the
WP:LEAD."
It really alarms me that you don't apparently see, or at least don't address, the point, which was to do with dignity and language, but simply refer back to what your point was. You reply as if you think it's all right to talk in a contemptuous, dehumanizing way about individuals who just died, as long as they were not high-ranking notables.
Please note that I wouldn't have blocked if this was an isolated incident; it's in IMO the last straw as regards poor judgment and lack of proper responsiveness from you in the past few weeks. An illustration is for example
this discussion on my own page. (An interesting detail there is the way you persist in accusing people of bad faith, even though you are called on it several times, and promise to study the policy explaining what "bad faith" means, and to not use the term again before you understand it. But still it goes on.) I don't know if it is that you fail to understand what people say to you, or if you pretend to not understand, which would bring
this meta page into play. It makes no difference which it is, as both competence and good faith are required to edit Wikipedia. I thought of an indefinite block (which would not have been intended to be infinite), but that's not a good place to start. You have been blocked for one week. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bishonen |
talk
12:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC).
MarciulionisHOF ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits -- I have, (1) on talkpage, (2) in discussion about including/excluding information, used brevity to describe: 6 unnamed militants who died while mishandling explosives in a tunnel; as 'nobodys'. This is to say, news outlets don't consider them important enough to name them, and information about their deaths should be relegated to the body of the article rather than the lead.
I have also made a collaborative compromise suggestion:
In my one month of contributing on English Wikipedia, a couple editors show a habit of making personal attacks and clear insensitivity to Israeli views. I am more than willing to adjust to Wikipedia norms, but at least Bishonen (the one finding 'indefinite' disruption in my brevity) has pursued them unevenly. If "<Jews> planning a methodical slaughter" or a "drafted inside some Israeli ministry.:)" got a waste people's time. [11] What is a newbie left to think? To summarize: I have adhered to better standards than the ones enforced by Bishonen and will continue to pursue improving on this further. A block here and not at the other instance serves as punishment rather than prevention of future disruption. MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 15:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I don't think you entirely understand why you were blocked, and in this context, I concur there seem to problems of competence, as well as other problems, such as extending good faith. In this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight ( talk) 16:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
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.
Talk page access is given to blocked editors to make unblock requests, and not for other purposes. In this context, I have reset your block, and revoked talk page access. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I see why you raised the Opposites question on the Teahouse. If you want help crafting a response for the article talk page, I am happy to help craft one that addresses your concerns.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 19:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
This situation should also be particularly sensitive to providing a neutral point of view, by giving information about differing perspectives / viewpoints. Meaning that you may need several sources to express the information from a neutral point of view.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 17:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
In https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Rafah_massacre&diff=next&oldid=630102782 you seem to have stuck a link in the middle of my comment. I'm sure it was unintentional. -- GRuban ( talk) 20:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Igorp lj, I promised to notify you. Though there was no direct reply on my querry, [14] two AE executives is enough input for me. See block-log update. According to this, it is appears preferable that future allusions should be ignored. MarciulionisHOF ( talk) 06:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
-I have received your email, but Gmail warns me that :"This message may not have been sent by: MarciulionisHOF@gmail.com". I am not familiar with this kind of message. I will appreciate it if you confirm here that you sent this email, and I'll immediately reply to. Ykantor ( talk) 16:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
As a result of this AE thread and in accordance with discretionary sanctions authorised by this arbitration case, I am topic-banning you from the Arab-Israeli conflict. This means you may not edit any article in the area of conflict, nor may you discuss or allude to the conflict anywhere on Wikipedia, including your own userpage. Violations of this restriction will result in blocks. This topic ban is indefinite, but you my ask for a review after six months. You may also appeal this sanction to WP:AE and/or to the Arbitration Committee. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
People don't have to like each other here, and they do not have to agree. But a certain degree of collaboration is required, even with opponents. Please do not use highly pointy edit summaries when removing text from any page, including your talk. In this edit your edit summary consists of http://rogueoperator.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/fascism.jpg which shows an image that is completely out of step with standard procedures at Wikipedia.
Also, what is the purpose of WT:WikiProject Israel#Holocaust comparisons? In this recent edit, you added a subsection titled "Fascism update". That shows a serious misunderstanding of what has happened, and what should happen. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Yunshui
雲
水
10:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Welcome to Wikipedia! I am conducting a quick survey about newcomer support and I would like to hear about your experience so far. Your response will go a long way to help us build a better experience for newcomers like yourself. The survey will take you around 10 minutes to complete.
To learn more about the study, visit this link: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Co-op
To take the survey, visit this link: https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_2bnPZz0HelBaY85
Thanks!