User talk:Crystalfile

Welcome!

Hello, Crystalfile, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dismas|^(talk) 15:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Crystalfile. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help_desk.
Message added Dismas. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you very much

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 could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you Crystalfile (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

prior accounts

Have you ever used a prior account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 22:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC) This is my first real account because it wouldnt let me edit some pages.[reply]

I guess we'll find out if that is true. But with the assumption that it is, all articles in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area are covered under a 1 revert rule. You already broke that rule today by reverting twice at Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. If you do not want to blocked from editing you should self-revert your last edit there. nableezy - 22:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only undid Sean once. He undid me! I explained on talk why its unfair.

The two reverts are this, which partially reverted this, and this, which was a straight revert of this. I honestly do not know why I am wasting my time with you, a "new" editor that makes a series of controversial reverts on a number of pages and feigns ignorance about even basic policies is, 99 times out 100, somebody that I should not need to waste time on. But I guess this will have to take a bit more out of my Saturday than I had hoped. Toodles. nableezy - 22:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have, once again, violated the one revert rule. If you do not self-revert at Yasser Arafat I will be reporting you. I'll give you as much time as it takes me to write the report. nableezy - 21:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is number 1? I thought I only did one undo? Thank you Crystalfile (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE#Crystalfire. nableezy - 21:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Crystalfile. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 21:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

August 2012

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been temporarily blocked from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 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."

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).

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

Request reason:

I did not understand the rules and was trying to be a good editor but someone blocked me. I now know the 1rr rule and will be very careful. Please unblock me as I am busy discussing an article at Al Azhar talk with Malik. Please be patient with a new editor that is trying hard.Crystalfile (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Also it says that "Discretionary sanctions may be imposed by any uninvolved administrator after giving due warning" and also "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Nobody warned me or explained me properly and now I am blocked. This is not right[reply]

Decline reason:

I shall not waste my time listing all the reasons why this totally disingenuous unblock request is totally worthless, but here are two of them: (1) before being blocked, you posted messages three times at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, so your plea that you were a poor innocent who hadn't been informed is empty wikilawyering; (2) your claim not to have known about the 1RR is somewhat discredited by the fact that visible on this page there is a discussion in which you actually argue about whether or not you had broken that very rule. Far from unblocking, I have seriously considered increasing the length of the block because of this absurd unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2012 (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.

Your lack of AGF is disheartening, James. Did you even stop to consider that this is a new account that does not know what wikilawyering is? There is a possibility that a new user does not know the difference between a partial revert and a revert with the revert function. To jump down his throat and even consider extending the block was unbecoming of an admin.Furthermore, the only reasoning that needed to be provided was "This is an AE block so you will need to request it at AE and not with this template." You seem eager to use your tools and all but you need to study up on protocol.

The only excuse you have is that you have a short fuse after working too many hours since treating a new editor like this is lame. If you believe he is a sock instead then just come out and say it instead of engaging in needless wikispeak with him. 71.35.154.200 (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you are ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic that that diatribe begins with a reference to a lack of assuming good faith. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple "Hi, Cnn/cpt/whatever" would have sufficed but the outing was unacceptable. It is pretty obvious who the comment was made by if you know each other like we do but every jerk randomly checking in didn't need to know since it is assumed to be private information.

As for my comment (rather less curt the usual I might add), you do not appear to have the patience to handle conflict on the project as an admin, James. Feel free to deflect but it looks to me like you verified it with your response. A little criticism shouldn't hurt your feelings.71.35.154.200 (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. Am I being punished for contributing at my own Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement at which someone said I behaved badly - and this is now evidence of me behaving badly? I didn't understand the rules and I don't know why everyone here is so harsh and intolerant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 10:54, 6 August 2012

First of all, you are not being punished. Secondly, the point was merely that your claims of ignorance were implausible, not that you are blocked because of contributing to that page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

When will they let me edit again? Why are they saying I did this on purpose. I said I didn't understand but now I do and will be careful. Thank you

Your current block is set to expire at 23:04 UTC on the 6th August 2012. Mdann52 (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts

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 could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you.

--Activism1234 23:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Im sorry. I will try to remember. Thank you fir being patient. Crystalfile (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a history of "working together" with these two propagandists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.243.6 (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

The WP:BLP policy prohibits you from reverting an edit made under BLP grounds without consensus. You just did that. See this comment. If you do not self-revert, I will be reporting you. nableezy - 13:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Please wait. I will be asking admin Malik for advice. Crystalfile (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can self-revert now and ask later. I am typing the report now, if you havent self-reverted by the time I am ready to hit save page then we'll see what happens next. nableezy - 14:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Crystalfile. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 01:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Crystalfile. You have new messages at Zad68's talk page.
Message added 14:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Zad68 14:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalil al-Mughrabi

You copied and pasted the text of your nomination from here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The murder of Yehuda Shoham less than three hours after that (admittedly misguided) nomination was made. I would love to "assume good faith" but it's quite hard for me to see how to do that. Is there some way you can help me understand how your nomination was meant to improve the encyclopedia?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem to be engaged in canvassing too, here and here. I just don't understand how you feel this is OK; maybe you'll be able to explain.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

תודה רבה =)

תודה רבה =) Exx8 (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AE

WP:AE#Crystalfile nableezy - 16:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Remember to sign your edits - very important on AE. Also put all your comments in your own section, as a reply to an editor (for example, @Nableezy or @Admin [name of admin]), rather than in other editor's sections. --Activism1234 18:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

A bit belated, but I wanted to say thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate that you took the time to comment, which shows that you have a genuine interest in helping the administrative areas of the project. To that end, I hope you continue exploring the site and trying new things, so that hopefully you'll find plenty of things you're enthusiastic about, all the while learning and growing as a member of the Wikipedia community.

Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! Im so sorry I havent answered yet, Ive been away from editing hear for a while. But I couldnt resist the fun :) Toodles. --Crystalfile (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mo Ansar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Holland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Further, editors with fewer than 500 edits may not edit material related to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. If you continue to do so you may be reported to arbitration enforcement. nableezy - 01:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you reverted my edits which were not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict?Crystalfile (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think material related to a rally about the Judaization of Jerusalem is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict you may try that belief at AE. I promise you that if you continue to edit material related to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, in any article, I will be reporting it. nableezy - 01:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean alleged Judaization. Anyway, my edit did not pertain to that but I understand that some wrongly conflate Israel with Jews.Crystalfile (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was about participants in a rally about the Judaization of Jerusalem. Again, if you want to revert that you can do that, and then you can try that some wrongly conflate Israel with Jews crap at AE. nableezy - 02:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And while we are here:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

You have a habit of seeking to add negative material to BLPs with dubious sourcing. That habit has to change. nableezy - 02:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you for your taking me under your wing and helping me become a better editor.Crystalfile (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]