User talk:Bonnieisrael

Re:Rasmus Faber Personal Data

I have answered you on Talk:Joel Leyden. Rasmus (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus hello. I did not see any comment. Could you please be kind enough to place it here. Thanks. Bonnieisrael 17:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The heading has been changed a few times since then, but you can read it here or here. Rasmus (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmus, thanks for your kind and prompt response. Bonnieisrael 20:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response

You talked about opening up an RFC on Tom Harrison because of his block of Israelbeach. I plead with you not to do this, and I have three reasons for it.

Israelbeach made a legal threat, and has not actually withdrawn it. He said he is not pursuing any legal action, but he hasn't said that he will not, and in fact, his language specifically left open the possibility that he would purse the action in the future, so the *threat* of that action remains in place.
This whole thing has been escalating out of control, between the two RFCs and the legal threats and people being rude to each other. Why not just stop and take a breather?
Filing an RFC against an admin for his admin actions is a very serious thing, and it will put you and Israelbeach in an especially negative light. I don't think you want to get that kind of attention.

Thanks, Mangojuice 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mangojuice, thanks for your kind, intelligent and rational comments. But I must correct you on one item. I did study law and without any reasonable doubt Israelbeach declared that he would not take any legal action against a Wiki member. He stated that if he did he would "refrain" from editing, according to Wiki policy. What more does one want? Blood? There was no rational reason for Tom Harrison to block Israelbeach. What he should have done was request a clarification if this issue was not clear to him. Nope. He added more fuel to an existing fire instead. I agree that we should all "stop and take a breather" and start focusing on creating and editing articles, working as a team for Wiki's future. Blocking, as Tom Harrison did in this affair, was the wrong move at the wrong time. Best wishes, Bonnieisrael 21:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between (A) bringing legal action and (B) threatening to. I think it's clear Israelbeach isn't doing (A), at least not right now. But (B) is just as disruptive to Wikipedia. I think your definition of "legal threat" is slightly different from mine, and probably different from Tom's, but it doesn't really matter. I think the point is, if the comments Israelbeach left were directed at me, I would feel bullied, and the effect would be to discourage me from editing the article in question. Hence, he was blocked for 24 hours. If he was actually pursuing legal action, he'd be blocked permanently. The truth of the matter is, a 24 hour block is no big deal, it's just there to stop disruption from going totally ignored, which helps to control it. I do agree that the block added more fuel to the fire, but so did the threat, and so did the comment that lead to it, and so on. Hopefully the fire will die out, though, if no one feeds it. Mangojuice 21:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woggly

Thanks for informing me of the RFC re: Woggly. I've only had one brief exchange with that editor, a couple of years ago, and I don't believe I have anything to say about the present contentions. --Christofurio 13:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Woggly

Hi. You have failed to sufficiently establish a key and necessary criteria in the RfC process, and it is in fact overdue. Rather than delete it immediately, I have extended it by 12 hrs in order for you to provide the additional evidence required. Thanks. El_C 01:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block

I've been informed that another admin has unblocked this account. Please note that if you make any comment to or about Woggly, or about Israelbeach, or make any edits to the article(s) that caused the dispute, you will be blocked again. This is a project to write an encyclopedia, and people are welcome to open accounts here if and only if they're willing to contribute positively to that project. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that since being unblocked, your only contributions to Wikipedia have been to vote against the deletion of two articles that are clearly very dear to Israelbeach. Voting in the name of a blocked user is classic sockpuppet behavior: if these are the only contributions you intend to make, don't be surprised when other users suspect you of being a sockpuppet. If you are indeed a real person with a mind of your own, and you really do wish to take part in the Wikipedia project, I appeal to you to make some useful contributions that are not related to the Israel News Agency. --woggly 06:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an interesting note from an adm who "retired." Bonnieisrael 09:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel News Agency (Google hits)

I saw on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency (3rd nomination) that you were supporting the article based on how many Google hits "Israel News Agency" gets (66,100 by my search result [1]). Keeping in mind that I submitted a keep recommendation on this article, is 66,100 Google hits really a lot for a news agency? Here are some other news agencies' Google hits:

"reuters": 159,000,000
"associated press": 133,000,000
"agence france-presse": 8,980,000
"united press international": 7,440,000
"islamic republic news agency": 389,000
"jewish telegraphic agency": 354,000
"macedonian press agency": 257,000

I also question why you would mention that "Israel and every free democracy needs the INA and other media which transmit direct feeds from their respective governments." Is there a comparable entity in the USA that transmits direct feeds from the American government? Is there more than one such entity? --Metropolitan90 06:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind letter and support of the Israel News Agency.

67,000 articles about the INA is a lot for a non-profit, part-time effort by Israeli journalists working for the INA since 1995. As the INA clearly states, it kicks into action during "times of crisis" in Israel. We are now at war. We need every pro-Israel, government press office accredited news organization to get their messages out. Please note that in the AfD vote, many votes came from the Islamic community - tragically supported by a few Israelis and user Danny. And people question why Israel loses the PR media war when are boys in uniform and are civilian populations in our northern and southern towns and cities are being fired upon? I see that the INA is now listed in Deletion Review. Israel needs your continued support and that of others who believe in our existance as a Jewish, democratic state Bonnieisrael 14:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut it out

This: [2] is edit warring, to say the very least. Grow up. --woggly 05:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woggly, I'm very grown up. I am not stalking anyone here at Wikipedia. Woggly - for the record - what or who was the subject of your last ten edits? Bonnieisrael 16:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

After your e-mail to Jimbo (kept on our OTRS system as ticket #2006050410010238), I gave you a second chance and unblocked you, but warned you to keep away from the whole Israelbeach/Woggly dispute. Since you haven't kept away, I'm reinstating your block. (Also, your edit to Operation Just Rewards is a copyvio from http://info.jpost.com/C002/Supplements/CasualtiesOfWar/2006_07_13.html.) Thanks for visiting. - jredmond 15:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds very much like censorship. To determine and dictate what users can and cannot discuss in a civil environment? User:Bonnieisrael illustrated an abundance of tolerance and civility. Her block should be removed without delay. Israelmfa 10:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, call it "censorship"; I'm still not unblocking. Her edit history speaks for itself. - jredmond 15:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not "called" censorship, it is censorship. Yes, her edit history does speak proudly for itself. But so does the censoring history of User:Woogly, User:Slimvirgin (what kind of sexually exploited name is that?) and yours. Your blatant gagging of people preventing them to speak out on civility on topics that can only improve the quality of Wikipedia, illustrates an atmosphere found in Iran, China and Syria. User:Slimvirgin lobbied you to tape Bonnieisrael's mouth and you did not have the guts to stick with your original and wise unblock. Be your own person and many of us will have more respect for you. And you will have more respect for yourself. Best wishes. Lennys 21:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

No reason given (but see below)

Decline reason:

No, I'm afraid not. Your words sound fine at first reading, but your actions betray you. You are unable to edit in co-operation with other editors. That makes you an unwelcome presence here. The rest of the business - sockpuppets, meatpuppets (see above), other such abusive editing - convince me that you don't correctly understand Wikipedia's purpose. On that basis, you must remain blocked and I wish you a nice life outside of our site. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:00, 6 September 2006 (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.

Sometimes people make mistakes

But mistakes can be avoided if one confirms and verifies an accusation. That I have been called a sockpuppet, and blocked as being "suspected" as a sockpuppet is nothing less than harassment. I spoke with Danny Wool. I have a female voice. I am not Israelbeach. And I have no problem going open with my identity. My real name is Bonnie and you can write to me at bonniedon@gmail.com. By doing so you will now have my IP address and if you are an administrator who also ID's themselves - I will provide you with my last name and telephone number. Sometimes people make mistakes. Woggly has made many. And her obsession with Israelbeach has cost her dearly. There was no reason for her harassment of Israelbeach and stalking him here on Wikipedia. But this is now history. I am no sockpuppet. And those who allowed Woggly to block me owe me an apology. So if you still want to censor me, you will need to find another excuse other than "suspected sockpuppet." I want to continue contributing to Wiki, as my edits transcend the Israelbeach issue. Email me, let's talk. Best wishes,Bonnieisrael 17:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Redvers you are either a coward or a sockpuppet of Wool or Wale. You fail to address the block - that is an accusation of being a sockpuppet. No evidence. No checkuser. Not even a bother to email me to verify my identity. The difference between you and I is that I am ready to disclose my identity for purposes of accountability, as real editors in the real world do. While you censor behind a username. My words are real. My identity is real. I work with dozens of other editors in the real world here in Tel Aviv. I do not fear. You do. You fear me and Israelbeach. You fear the truth. As Israeli Prime Minister Olmert recently said to Hezbollah leader Nasrallah: "I walk around as a free man, while you hide in a bunker." Bonnieisrael 20:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Lahav is no sockpuppet

I know Debbie. She lives in Tel Aviv and works in an academic institution. Was there a checkuser performed on Debbie, if so where is it. Whoever vandalized her page and blocked her did so with no evidence. An apology is due. Is this how we work at Wikipedia? :< Jerusalemrose 08:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]