User talk:Embargo

Re Embargo

Salam, I sure will ask if I need help, thank you very much and long live the Moqawama.

Re:help

Salam. I don't have enough time to do this like you . You can ask Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} to help you. He's an admin. I can help you with Hezbollah article because I have been active there since July. --Sa.vakilian 06:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striver

Hi Embargo, sorry for the late respons, i just wanted to thank you for the Barnstar you gave me. Thanks :) --Striver - talk 23:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Hassan Nasrallah

Mad? One doesn't have to be mad or angry to revert your page vandalizing, no. And before you get too carried away with the "find another Arab to harass" business, you might want to take a look at my edit history for both Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah, and note that the vast majority of my edits are preventing people from adding "terrorist" labels to the pages, and things of that nature. Tarc 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandlaim

Is it normal this ip 155.219.241.10 hasn't been blocked? Did you see the contributions? Embargo 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was warned. No disruptive edits were made after that. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying

I replied to your comment on my user talk. I would appreciate it if you replied to my reply. Krynnish Conspiracy 18:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

With regards to your comments on User talk:Viridae: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He blanked your userpage because it has got a provocative user box on, which I think you should remove, please read WP:USER. Your personal attack warning was because of the manor in which your talked to Viridae, swearing is not needed on wikipedia RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You userpage had been blanked again. There has been much discussion of this issue and it has been overwhelmingly decided, per WP:USER (not allowed to have hostile or inflamatory messages on yourt userpage) and WP:NOT (wikipedia is NOT a free webhost, you are therefore not allowed to treat it as such) that inflamatory content such as that has no place in wikipedia. Viridae ^Talk 11:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know a thread has been started at the administrators noticeboard regarding your userbox issue, it can be found here. Your comments would be welcomed RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support for parties in an armed conflict

Salam! Kaifa holok?

I'm a bit worried about people showing support for either party in an armed conflict, however noble the cause of either party. Generally the wikipedia projects try to be as neutral as possible.

I understand you might have strong feelings either way, but we're trying to cooperate between all peoples, and if at all possible, I'd like to leave armed conflicts off of the wiki. Does that make sense?

If you have any questions, or would like to discuss, you're always welcome to reply on my talk page.

Thank you, Chokran, for your time. :-) --Kim Bruning 12:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embargo. I remember i blocked you for 24h because of provocative userpage after warnings. I know you've reduced your userpage to just the Hezbollah infobox but if you have a look at this and this you'd understand that the issue is pretty serious. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fayssal", I removed what you considered to be offensive when you blocked me. I have not been contributing to Wikipedia because now I know what you people are. I did not harm anyone, I did not hurt anyone. Why do you want to take it to this point? Why do you want to provoke me? How is the content of my userpage offensive? Is it because I pointed out to Israeli hostilities? People have userpages with "Hezbollah=Murder Incorporated" userboxes.

Should the content of my userpgae be removed, every other userpage with "I support the State of Israel" and "Hezbollah=Murder incorporated" userboxes must have these userboxes remover, if you want to be logical.

I left Wikipedia and I'm contributing very little because I know what you people are made of. Israel is a terrorist state in the eyes of half the world's population. Leave me alone, leave me unprovoked. I am quiet and peaceful but you people want to drag me all the way.Embargo 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embargo. We are here to avoid problems. We are not creating problems. As you've seen through the links i left above, other people have already removed the stuff from their pages. We are made of flesh same as everybody but we have a policy that Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. We are not inventing the rules but we are applying them. Of course, no admin is against you because you support Hizbollah but as admin Kim explained above, it is about leaving armed conflicts and nationalistic views off of the wiki. One important thing that you may not have known yet is that some people would consider your edits as biased because they would think you are not a neutral editor and all that because you got an infobox of a paramilitary organization. So why not avoid all the headache. Isn't Assalamatou khairoun mina al 3ilaj? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edit Hizbollah article so often and some would believe that i am a Hizbollah sympathizer. Maybe! But do i carry any infobox re to that? Do i have to tell people oh you are damn wrong, i am right. I support the truth, etc? You do not have to. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, could you show me where to find these other userboxes you mention? Maybe we can't get everything right in one go, but at least we can speedy delete those, right? --Kim Bruning 23:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate on "Hezbollah=Murder incorporated" userboxes

Could you please let me know which users have "Hezbollah=Murder incorporated" userboxes on their userpage? I'm more than happy to have a look into these RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had deleted those images long long time ago (August 2006) in fact. Check this. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is that you keep the infobox with This user supports armed resistance and remove the rest. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users with Hezbollah = Murder Inc.

− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Twas Now for the info. I've just removed them. I am removing the hostilities part of the infobox Embargo as i mentioned above. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A polite request

Userboxes in general have been discussed at length at this site and political userboxes have been especially problematic. Sometimes people have tried to exploit them by canvassing for support at discussions. More often, in an edit war, a userbox gets construed in bad faith. I've seen the simple statement "This user is a Christian" morph into an elaborate accusation that the user is a Christian fundamentalist whose contributions to Wikipedia are fatally flawed by a drive to reconstruct the site by an ideological agenda.

If it's possible to separate your userbox from the political context, I'd agree with If a soldier pointed a gun at my unarmed brother and threatened to shoot, may I throw a rock to give my brother a chance at escape? but I'm very unsettled by a potential If the rock misses and my brother dies, may I strap explosives to my body and detonate them in a plaza full of unarmed people? A userbox is too brief a format to establish that distinction. If you wish to disclose your political point of view on your userpage, a few thoughtful paragraphs would be much better.

I have a POV of my own to disclose here: my uncle was one of the last people to escape from the World Trade Center. He watched his boss die. He saw body parts fall out of the sky. Regardless of who you hold responsible for that disaster, it gives me views about civilian deaths...views I consider equally whether those deaths occur in New York City, in Baghdad, or in Jerusalem. I am also (because of 9/11) a United States war veteran. I didn't kill anybody. Instead I helped save over 100 civilian lives. I don't necessarily agree with my president's decisions and, based on my own experience, I understand how anyone on earth can feel the urge to take up arms if they believe their own family is threatened.

I couldn't possibly encapsulate that much in a userbox. If I tried I would expect a lot of conflict from people who notice that little bit and make broad guesses that squeeze me into stereotypes I don't fit. I hope you'll consider this respectful response and replace that box with something more useful and meaningful. Sincerely, Durova^Charge! 20:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of userpage

Please be aware that I did not delete your userpage, it was an administrator that did that. The user box you added is simply way too provocative. Someone else has sorted the 'Hezbollah = murder' userboxs so they shouldn't be appearing now. We did put on a toned down version of your user box to your user page but that was deleted, would you consider toning it down so Israel aren't mentioned? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not in anyway trying to provoke you, infact, I think you've done a really good job in hunting out all the political userboxes and deleting them. There is an on going discussion at the administrators noticeboard which can be found here regarding you userbox, please take a look at the responses, and as I've previously said, feel free to make comments. I agree that your userpage cannot remain protected indefinately RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage is protected for one week. I suggest you contact the protecting admin if you want it unprotected before that point. Viridae ^Talk 05:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in on Userboxes

I just noticed that you had already decided to use a toned down version of the box. In that case, please disregard my last edit. Still, best wishes and happy contributing. Charon X/talk 03:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

It's good to see you're deciding to tone down your userbox. I campaigned and someone else removed the Hezbollah = Murder Inc. userboxes. I think these two options are good for you:

This user supports armed resistance.
This user supports resistance to hostility.

The first does not imply any hostilities, but mentions arms, and the second is the opposite. I think it is fair to either mention "armed resistance" or "resistance to hostility", but using "armed resistance to hostility" might still anger people. Neither mentions Israel, and both link to Hezbollah.

Anyway, I hit the random page link and it ended up on a Lebanon-related article: Grand Lycée Franco-Libanais. It turns out that article needed a lot of work, so I made this big change.

Take care!! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "This user supports resistance against Israeli hostilities" will still be too much. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shi'a

If you find a more appropriate pic, you are wellcomed to propose it. --Striver - talk 10:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism

I have recently discovered that you did vandalise my userpage. I hope you won't repeat this act of vandalism. Thanks --ja_62 16:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this was not vandalism, Embargo was simply removing a user box with a political statement which is against WP:USER. This was due to a discussion on the administrators noticeboard which can be found here, regards RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, Embargo is not administrator, second, he had not written anything in edit summary on my userpage and third, the announcement of my personal opinion, that I support free and independent state of Israel is not a political statement against WP:USER - it's just expression of my positive political posture towards some state - just like if someone places on his userpage tag {This user supports Republican party} or {This user believes that Karl was funniest of Marx brothers} I don't agree with vandalising of my personal page by some guy completely unknown to me, without word of notice. --ja_62 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologise

I accept your apologise and I'd like to ask you for accept my apologise - I was very touched by changing my userpage without explanation, and so I did use too strong words in first affect. I did not mean to offence you, since I did not know that you believed that my userbox is against rules. --ja_62 09:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inayat Bunglawala

You might be interested in this. Not sure if you're familiar with this issue, but the media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain was recently accused of sending death threats to an American right-wing blog. The bloggers self-investigated and ultimately could not prove their allegations, but because of a single mention of the incident in Ynet, some users here feel that it warrants mention in this man's Wikipedia page, citing WP:RS. I contend that it runs afoul of WP:BLP, as it was an unsubstantiated allegation and extra care should be taken with such matters in pages of living people. Thoughts?

My listing of this on the BLP noticeboard. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (scroll to #158)
A mediation case brought by others. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-19 Inayat Bunglawala

Tarc 13:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be polite and keep good relationship with the others. I think you can achieve your goal by jedal Ahsan instead of using some irritating words.--Sa.vakilian 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me. I revert that award . I wanted to remove personal attack. God bless you . --Sa.vakilian 04:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't attack me and I can't explain more here. You can send a mail to me and I answer you.--Sa.vakilian 17:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on edit for Yazid requested

You did not explain the removal of the section on "non-religious views of Yazid" section. Was there a citation needed? Why remove the whole section? Was there inflammatory or incorrect material? Are ONLY religious views of Yazid allowed. Curious. --jadepearl 03:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?

Excuse me? Please show me a discussion where it says your userbox stays. In the future, please refrain from making personal attacks, such as the statement, " And next time, please do not add userboxes to my userpage with an unknown ip". That is a false statement and an innapropriate accusation. The action taken was made in Good Faith and in also by Being bold. If I feel your userpage is in violation of policies, I will try to remedy the situation. If it provokes you, I apolagzie perhaps you should read up on WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL and perhaps even WP:AGF. Thanks -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for the record [1] was the revision i removed. The version you replaced it with, I have no issue with. There is a big differente between "This user supports Hezbollah to Israeli massacres"(version i removed) and, "This user supports resistance to Israeli hostilities."(version it was replaced with). I stand 100% by my orignial removal as it is 100% innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have issue as long as you keep accusing me of stuff just to make a big stink out of it. You, by your own free will did not even replace what I removed? I have no issue with its current reading, I will state that again. I have NO ISSUE if it states, "This user supports resistance to Israeli hostilities." Again I will state, I have issue with, "This user supports Hezbollah to Israeli massacres" I dont care who is against who, statements like that are innapropriate. I dont what relgion you are, where you come from, what you beleive etc etc. Openiny stating that you support the massacer of people is innapropriate. Again, the current wording at the time I wrote this is ok and I have NO issue with it. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is another warning, statements like, "you might see my page has been vandalised, most probably by you" is not an appropriate comment. This comment adds no encylopedic value to a discussion and could be construed as an attack on a particular editor. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things you fail to understand

X supports Y is not harming to anyone.
X supports Y against Z's MASSACRES is annoying and disrespecting other contributors. It creates a bad atmosphere and dealing w/ it is time consuming. Read What can I not have on my user page? for more information.
You wrote If users have the right to express support for Israel and contempt of Hezbollah. Wrong. You have the right to support whoever you want but do not disrespect others by saying that the commit massacres. We removed every userbox which mentioned that Hezbollah is a murderer and Israeli massacres is no different than that. This must come to an end.
You wrote Avoid double standards...and stop provoking me into insulting you. I am not provoking you BUT you are the one provoking other people because of your userbox. No one is insulting you.
You wrote Bias to your Sephardic brethren is flagrant. Sephardi are people just like you and me and it is your bias when you make a difference. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you concentrate on editing instead of spending all the time arguing about a userbox? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Sephardic Moroccan Jew

This is what i was talking about at the section above (i.e. things you fail to understand). You presume that i am a Sephardic Moroccan Jew. This means, according to your logic, that my actions are biased and that i was unfair to you as you are a supporter of Hezbollah!

First, i am an Arab Muslim Moroccan and my personal name (Fayssal) may tell you a bit about that. Second, i removed all useboxes that mention Hezbollah is a murderer long before you created your account. Third, i am editing wikipedia and fulfilling my tasks as an admin and know that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and the main task is editing. Your account spent most of the time dealing w/ the userbox instead of concentrating in editing. Fourth, you have the right to keep a userbox as long as you are not bothering anyone. So why do you insist keeping Israeli massacres on it while asking about the removal of Hezbollah is a murderer. Isn't that considered a double standard? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THAT userbox

This discussion has been had many times. Please change it back to a more politically neutral version. Viridae ^Talk 22:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you have made no attempt to change it despite being politely requested to do so your userpage is blanked. You know quite well that this violates WP:USER and WP:NOT. THis is not the place to make hostile political statements. Viridae ^Talk 22:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you insisited on re-adding it in an unchanged site you have lost the right to edit your userpage. You were very politely warned and you know quite well that it was a violation of WP:USER and WP:NOT. Viridae ^Talk 00:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many many times already but Embargo doesn't care. He thinks its 'cute' to have the hotlink from hostilities to go to massacre. 148.63.236.141 23:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be Adopted

Salam. Apparently you are not familiar with wikipedia:policies and guidelines. I'm familiar with wikipedia and know how should we deal with other wikipedians. Can I help you with editing wikipedia as an adopter.--Sa.vakilian 03:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Slim Helu

As much as it may annoy you, Carlos Slim Helu is Lebanese and frequents his native country every few months. Refrain from vandalizing the page if you will.Emбargo 20:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

please be civil, i've vandalised nothing and you know that quite well. with regard to helu, it was my understanding that country is to indicate nationality...or at least source of wealth. both of which--at least in this case--are derived from mexico. if my assumptions are incorrect, it doesn't annoy me at all to be corrrected. --emerson7 | Talk 20:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sure you wouldn't mind providing sources. Hari Seldon 18:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your userbox

Why don't you edit some articles instead on worrying about your userbox? It is clearly against WP:USER, and unless your trying to make a point, it should really be unimportant to you. I would suggest leaving the userbox out completely and get on with helping the encyclopedia Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks

You are now running very close to getting a block for personal attacks for comments like these [2] [3]. How about doing what ryanpostlethwaite suggested and editing the encyclopedia. Viridae ^Talk 01:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pro-Shia/muslim admins

sorry embargo, i dont know any such admins. you should ask User:Striver Yahussain 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral userbox

I am beginning to wonder why it is so important that you mention massacres at all in your userbox? Just say you support Hezbollah, that is all you need. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated personal attacks despite warnings. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

If anyone should be blocked, it should be emerson7. Why was I blocked anyway? Because I insisted that Carlos Slim Helu is Lebanese, has the Lebanese passport and visits his country many times each year, despite what a Swiss Jew wants to convince himself?

Decline reason:

You were blocked because of personal attacks, and you didn't cite any reason why this block was in error when posting the unblock request. Picaroon 21:41, 17 March 2007 (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.

I clearly mentioned personal attacks in the box. The latest was probably [4]. "Jewish garbage wants to provoke and uses IP to edit - Shows how low this people are", and the series surrounding it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When will it expire? Emбargo 21:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 weeks. There's consensus behind it on AN/I. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, he succeeded in provoking me into getting blocked. Emбargo 22:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no justification for responding in the manner you did. It has also been agreed on WP:ANI that if you continue to make offensive edits and leave offensive edit summaries, you will be blocked for a period of 6 months. -- Nick ^t 22:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...or permanently. Raymond Arritt 16:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which will most certainly occur if you keep attempting to evade your block. I've reset the clock, even though that probably adds less than a day extra. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than that though, please stop restoring that userbox. It clearly serves no useful, collaborative purpose, and is merely disruptive. Polemical statements are disallowed by WP:USER, and you have been repeatedly asked to cut it out. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

I have blanked infammatory content from your user page. Wikipedia user pages are not appropriate places to express your support for attacks on any country. Please do not restore it.Proabivouac 23:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought we'd reached a compromise where all sides agreed not to fight out their wars on wikipedia. I know it's a hard thing to do. What went wrong? Can we improve? --Kim Bruning 22:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed this userbox debate from afar, and thought that a box with a generic statement of supporting resistance to hostility was appropriate, as long as it did not specify a target or mention arms. Proabivouac's edit is quite out-of-bounds. Tarc 18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Hezbollah is obviously quite controversial. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a forum for unregulated free speech. What benefit accrues to the encyclopedia if any version of this userbox is allowed to stay?Proabivouac 23:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC) (You forgot one thing : Wikipedia is not censored.-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 01:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed, this is clearly not appropriate, I'm going to remove the userbox again - quite simply fails the userpage guidlines Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC) (What? There is nothing wrong with it, it is just a userbox...by the way i have about 50 of them on my Userpage and i see you even have some on yours.-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 01:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It fails nothing of the sort, unless we see a mass removal of "I support the sate of Israel" userboxes as well. There is mass hypocrisy afoot regarding this particular userbox. Tarc 00:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't, its against guidlines. Leave me a list of other users (on my talk page) that you think have similar userboxes and I'll look into them Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any user page that contains a userbox depicting the Star of David [5] will give you a good start. If it is forbidden to express support/sympathy/connectivity to one side, then the same should be forbidden of the other side. Tarc 00:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use common sense with regards to what is merely disapproved of (political userboxes) and what is seriously inapproriate and grounds for removal (userboxes espousing violence, such as this one). If someone says "I support Hezbollah's social programs," no one would have much of a problem, even if they might be taken aback. Supporting violence is rather different. A userbox which says "I support Israel's bombings of Lebanese villages" would be similarly inappropriate, no? So to avoid all this mess, why not just grow up a little and do away with political userboxes? Picaroon 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certain Western nations list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and use their mass media to support this perception, but that does not make it true. Would we remove "This user supports the United States Declaration of Independence" since that document supports armed resistance? (And since more people in the world probably view the U.S. negatively than those who view Hezbollah negatively?) Would we remove "This user supports the legacy of Che Guevara" since Che partook in armed revolution? Embargo's userbox does not mention support for unjustified violence. Rather, it is a statement that this user supports those who would defend themselves when attacked. Who among you, besides the pacifists, would not support defending their nation from hostility (not necessarily doing so yourself)? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? It's inflammatory (witness this thread,) and it's not about Wikipedia. The end.Proabivouac 07:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "use common sense" did not get through to you? Was it the "use," the "common," the "sense," or some combination thereafter? Picaroon 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aivazovsky — has an anti-Hezbollah userbox. In general, userboxes saying "this user opposes X" are useless and deleted. Positive statements (like "this user supports the removal of X") are what we want. Either way, it will come out being inflammatory.
User:Cerejota/Bombing Lebanon to the crunchy, Hezbollah nougat center — entire page is inflammatory
User:Michael Shrimpton — mentions "Hezbollah terrorists", which is inflammatory
User:Mahdi7 — says there was "disproportionate use of force" in the war of "Hezbollah Vs Israel"
User:H.yahya — makes inflammatory comments about Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Christianity, "Mohammedanism" …

Deal with them, my anti-terrorist wiki-league of gentlemen. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of those links don't seam to encroach on policy, the rest do and I'll sort them out, its nothing to do with being anti-terrorist, its about whats allowed and what isn't on wikipedia - political statements are against WP:USER - it's quite simple Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know what would be an acceptable phrase for this user box's image. Would a simple "This user is a supporter of Hezbollah" be non-polemical enough to pass WP:USER? If not, then I cannot see how any "This user is a supporter of X" boxes, where X is a political party, nation, or organization. If one goes, then they all should go. If one is allowed to remain, then a box expressing generic sympathy/support as in my example above should be allowed to remain as well. Tarc 15:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a supporter of hezbollah seams fine, it is not campaigning for anything, or does not cause hostillities, it simply states something that the user supports, I would appreciate other views on the matter though, as it still gives a political message Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, I hereby direct you to WP:FISHING and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Picaroon 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely invalid comparisons, but hey, bronze star for effort. I'm trying to find out just what the acceptable text for a Hezbollah userbox is, and there is nothing wrong with looking to what is acceptable for other political/polemical subjects. The same criteria should apply to all; not one for militants and one their opposition. Tarc 22:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As no one has thought to answer the question I'd posed above, I ask again: What benefit accrues to the encyclopedia if any version of this userbox is allowed to stay?Proabivouac 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It identifies where a wikipedian's interests lie, and likely what type of articles they plan on contributing to. Just as the million-and-one other boxes do. I spend a fair bit of time here on POV issues in Islamic-related pages such as Hezbollah. Perhaps when the dust settles on this, I'll add the box to my own page. Tarc 23:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything it suggests that he views Wikipedia as a battleground.

This sort of information only ensures that many users will be angry at Embargo and prejudiced against his edits before he types a single word. I wouldn't consider that a benefit.

I have another question: do you consider that factionalization on Wikipedia along national and/or religious lines is a good thing ("at least we know where we stand") or a bad thing?Proabivouac 23:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I see people stating on their userpage that their favourite animal is the raccoon, I instinctively assume they are going to make POV edits to raccoon-related articles. Such raccoon-mongering has no place in Wikipedia userspace. Any rationale person will realize that chimpanzees are the best animals! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac, perhaps Embargo sees declarations of support for Israel to be just as anger-inducing. Wanting to see a uniform response to this issue is not running afoul of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; it is simply a desire to see fairness for all beliefs and positions, without crossing the big "polemical" line. I'd hope that a vanilla "This user is a supporter of Hezbollah" box could satisfy all parties involved here, as it is a fair compromise between the original incarnation of the box, and banning it outright. Tarc 13:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short list of users whose pages I found provocative. No one has questioned their neutrality, even though the content of their pages heavily implies they view Wikipedia as a battleground and are most probably inserting their point of view in their edits. Unfortunately, I refrain from inserting mine, since facts and history back my ideology.

User:Canadia. This remark got him blocked for 24 hours. 1 Something I wrote, much much lighter than that remark got me blocked for 2 weeks.

User:Etherialemperor User:Snickerdo User:IZAK User:Guy Montag User:GreatGatsby User:MathKnight Note this user's page. He writes under a photograph of an Israeli armored bulldozer " This dozer saved many lives." If I had a photograph of a Hezbollah rocket with "This katyusha saved many lives." written under it, I would be blocked.

My case is quite different. They support a state that commits terrorism each day, I support a movement that resists to this state. No logic in this world anymore. Emбargo 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User:DavidYork71. Is this userpage any normal? I can see why you pigshits would allow this kind of userpage, and attack my userbox. God forgive you. Emбargo 00:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to chill a bit with the rhetoric and name-calling...it makes it difficult to take your side in this, and I do believe that that the banning of Hezbollah user boxes and the allowance of Israeli-themed ones is a bit unfair. Tarc 04:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These people's bias and lack of ethics justifies the name calling. Emбargo 09:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I sort all these issues out, will you get back to the encyclopedia instead of worrying about 1 little userbox? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 09:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my userbox is nothing compared to the content of these users' pages. The counterpart to supporting resistance is supporting the agressor. You should have sorted these pages out long ago, with or without my userbox. A proper offer would be that you sort every userbox supporting anything and I stop worrying about mine. But still, I saw how you people deal with things. A consensus has been reached twice, the second time with adminis-traitor Viridae. As soon as the userbox was back on my page, another idiot removed it. Viridae refused to restore it and remind the idiot that it was approved. I guess that will be the case if we did reach another consensus. Emбargo 15:30, 28 March 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Shouldn't my block be expired by now?

Decline reason:

No, there s about 2 days left. You were blocked on the 18th for 14 days. — Viridae ^Talk 23:16, 1 April 2007 (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.

Sorry to butt in, but are you sure? The block shows that it was set at March 18th at 16:12 UTC, so shouldn't it expire April 1st 16:12 UTC? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

By all means, the block should be lifted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?

Why is my userpage still protected? Emбargo 03:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ask the admin that protected it. Viridae ^Talk 09:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ask you? Emбargo 18:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I think you really need to slow down a bit, have a read, and maybe figure out that you aren't exactly helping your case much with comments like that. Tarc 21:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only people who are going to answer are those that have your page watchlisted. So either wait for one of us to answer, or ask the admin that protected it. Viridae ^Talk 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly." Emбargo 08:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone's a dick, it would be Viridae. Was this a personal attack? Emбargo 08:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embargo, you really need to calm down a bit, especially when you've just come back off a block for personal attacks. May I ask why exactly you want your userpage unprotecting? What are you going to put on it? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 09:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embargo, I'm an admin, I get all sorts of abuse for my actions so I don't really care what you call me. However it might be pointed out that it wasn't me who referenced WP:DICK. Viridae ^Talk 23:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to express support for a certain party in a userbox, as do most users on Wikipedia. Emбargo 20:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Pope Benedict XVI, you will be blocked from editing. Anietor 19:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late April fools' practical joke. Emбargo 20:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very funny one. See WP:BLP.

I am curious as to your intention here Is it your belief that Hitler Youth were not indoctrinated with antisemitism?Proabivouac 02:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Hitler Youth were indoctrinated with German nationalism, which naturally came with antisemitism among other kinds of racism. Is that a problem? Emбargo 09:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for my userpage to be unprotected. The admin who protected it is refusing to unprotect, but "gives his blessing" to unprotect it. Who is going to do so? Emбargo 23:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your restored box lasted a grand total of 31 minutes. Why didn't you just use a more generic and non-threatening "This user is a supporter of Hezbollah" caption? An admin deleting version that would be on shaky ground, IMO. Tarc 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No they wouldn't, any statement of support of Hezbollah is against WP:USER due to the controversial nature of the group Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see it go up for an official ruling than take your word for it. No offense. Tarc 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email me and I'll send you something Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage Trolling

Re this edit, please do stop trolling. Thank youProabivouac 23:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you create an inappropriate page, such as Sexuality in Judaism, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 15:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't a warning. Sexuality in Judaism is not an inappropriate page, even if it bothers you that the Talmud encourages pedophilia and sodomy. Emбargo 15:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment here: I took a look at your talk page before actually issuing the final warning, and it seemed you have a history of vandalism and trolling. This page seemed to fit right along with that trend. Even if the Talmud does contain those quotes (which I seriously doubt), there is no reason whatsoever to go posting about it on Wikipedia from an obviously biased point of view with the apparent intent to attack Jewish people. I was not the one who deleted the page, anyway - I'm not an administrator. So clearly I'm not the only one to see your contribution as harassment. (Reason for deletion was listed as: "POV fork, wp:npov, arguably g10 attack") Please review our policies at WP:NPOV, WP:CSD, and WP:CIVIL before creating more pages. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 21:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before seriously doubting the quotes were taken from the Talmud, you can at least check the Talmud.

The Sanhedrin tractate, 55b clearly states "A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his."

The Ketubot 11a tractate of the Babylonian Talmud states "When a grown man has had sexual intercourse with a little girl (footnote reads "less than three years of age") or when a small boy (footnote reads "less than nine years") has had sexual intercourse with an older woman, or when a girl was accidentally injured by a piece of wood — in all these cases their kethubah (ammount to pay) is two hundred zuz."

One footnote in this section reads "If they had sexual intercourse before they were three years and one day old the hymen would grow again, and they would be virgins."

Many many other examples of this perversion. If you don't believe it, buy a Talmud from the bookstore or wherever and see it yourself. Emбargo 22:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued trolling

Embargo, I ask you once again to cease trolling from your userpage.Proabivouac 07:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Proabivouac, I ask you to stop calling it trolling. Maybe you should deal with User:Matt57's page before mine. Emбargo 22:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the salem witch trials. Viridae ^Talk 23:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your userbox

I have once again removed your userbox as it is against WP:USER, please do not reinsert the userbox. If you do not agree, please take the issue to dispute resolution. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said, take it to dispute reolution if you don't agree Ryan Postlethwaite 16:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. You have a problem with it, you go take it to dispute resolution. My userbox is not inflammatory in ANY way. "This user supports George W. Bush" exists. As well as "This user supports Yisrael Beytenu" and "This user supports (anything)". Leave it alone and don't take it this far. Don't think you won't be accounted as admin for what you're doing. Emбargo 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user support islamic resistance - wikilinking to hezbollah is clearly a polemical statement, against WP:USER. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, explain why if you will. Emбargo 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah are seen as a terrorist organisation by a number of countries still, saying that you support islamic resistance by them is clearly offensive to people who have been killed in their terrorist campaigns, regardless of how you, a supporter of them feels about them, the fact is, supporting hezbollah in any way on wikipedia is clear innappropriate. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist campaigns? More people view the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel as terrorist states than those who view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. These countries have committed more harm than any country or any organization around the world and in history. No matter how you feel about Hezbollah, keep it to yourself. More people are bothered by seeing "This user supports George W. Bush" who has killed millions, than those disturbed by seeing support for Hezbollah who defends its lands against Israeli butchery and racism and atrocities, mainly because of the UK and the US. Take it to arb com. Emбargo 16:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said it all your self there, Hezbollah who defends its lands against Israeli butchery and racism and atrocities - Israelies would be highly offended by your userbox, anyway - IT IS a polemical statement. I've no opinion on Hezbollah myself, but it is a fact that many countries list them as an official terrorist organisation, unlike the UK and USA that no-one officialy lists as. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Embargo, you take it to ArbCom if you really feel every single editor who has removed your userbox is wrong. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you do that. You're the one who considers Hezbollah a terrorist group and you're the one who has a problem with my userbox. Take it to ArbCom. Emбargo 17:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Please see WP:USER and WP:ANI#Userpages Vs WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:POINT again and again. Wikipedia is not a weblog or a free web host. Please use What can I have on my user page? as your guide. Thank you. -- Avi 15:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR violation

Please be aware you have reverted your userpage 6 times in the last 24 hours, far more than the 3 revert rule allows. Please make no further reverts to your userpage. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:08, 18 April 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

3RR does not apply when one reverts edits to his own userpage, especially when the userbox in question is still being discussed.

Decline reason:

Yes. You're right about WP:3RR not applying to userpages, however, precedent set by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war and more recently Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein have established that "users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute.". So if you want to be unblocked for not technically violating 3RR, you'll be instantly reblocked for bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. The onus for seeking dispute resolution clearly falls on you, and since you show an unwillingness to seek arbitration yourself BEFORE reverting your userpage edits, you will not be unblocked. -- Netsnipe ► 19:29, 18 April 2007 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Again, 3RR does not apply when one reverts edits to his own userpage, especially when the userbox in question is still being discussed. I will not restore the userbox until it is decided that I keep it. Stating support for a certain party does not bring disrepute to Wikipedia. Allowing most to support Israel and forbidding others to oppose it and support its enemeies does bring disrepute to Wikipedia and enforces theories stating WIkipedia is just another tool for pro-Israeli propaganda, and full of pro-American pro-Israeli Islamophobe administrators.

Decline reason:

The block is justified and tossing around personal attacks such as calling administrators "pro-American pro-Israeli Islamophobes" does not lead me to believe you are sincere. Please wait out your block and return as a constructive editor. - auburnpilot talk 20:48, 18 April 2007 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

This was not a logical argument to decline my block. You may have misunderstood the reason why I was blocled. I was blocked for reverting edits to my userpage. They were constantly removing a userbox that is being discussed, and I was restoring it because it is still being discussed. Calling the admins pro-Israeli and pro-American islamophobes is not a personal attack especially when true. I was blocked for violating 3RR (??!) and I have said I'm not going to restore it until consensus is reached.

Decline reason:

This page has been protected to prevent abuse of the unblock request— - auburnpilot talk 21:31, 18 April 2007 (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.

WP:NPOV issues

This edit worries me Embargo, and this is not the only edit you've made which gives your own point of view on a subject, please remember the NPOV guidline in future editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop fighting

I came across your page when wandering in Wiki and I am saddened by the division you seem to have been fostering with it. Please consider taking on a more conciliatory tone towards your peers. If you do I believe that perhaps a consensus on the issues you have brought up can be reached as opposed to a prolonged war. Also consider your motivation for being here:

"Honestly examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault, get your views across, or be the one in control? Perhaps secretly inside you even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation. This may not make you a bad person, but to everyone who is busily trying to build something great, you become an impediment. People get frustrated, rancor ensues, the atmosphere changes, and the whole project suffers. Are you here to give, or to take?"

I am not saying you should leave by any means, merely reassess your feelings about what wikipedia is about. fighting will only bring out the worst in everyone, as evidenced by this talk page and others. Feel free to talk to me about this on my talk page. I will become your best advocate and many others will as well if you can show that your motivations are to create the best encyclopedia in the world, not to force others to bend to your political will. Trying to help Cronholm144 22:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you expect me to do that when Wikipedia is based on double-standards? Why is supporting Israel, Zionism, Likud, Yisrael Beytenu and Kadima allowed on Wikipedia and supporting Hezbollah isn't? Emбargo 00:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Wiki itself is not based on double standards, what you refer to is wiki's userpage policy and the important thing to recognize is that wiki is an imperfect and, in my opinion living, organism. As such, there will be double standards, hypocrisy, errors, mistakes, etc... but the nature of wiki is change, right?, hopefully change for the better. So, keeping that in mind I will try to address your concerns.

Okay so if I understand correctly you have posted/created a variety of userboxes that have been perceived by the community as inflamatory and offensive. Now, you have argued that there are users who have similar boxes that both inflame and offend you. correct? You argue that there should be equality across the board. Admirable indeed. However arises from problem two factors, ignorance and bias, which I will admit to on many issues, by the way. You, and anyone else in the community, are similarly not free of bias, as evidenced by the reference to massacre/murder in some of the userboxes in question. I think you know why these are against policy as the words themselves contain a bias. However the statement "I support Hezbollah" is indeed very similar to, "I support Israel" in terms of potential for misinterpretation. I believe that as the policy stands now both of these are in the same camp, whether that should be exclusion or inclusion is a different matter. Now I think the battle you are fighting is similarly two fold in nature. First, you came into this discussion with a clear agenda and a history of testing the boundaries, which discredited you in many people's eyes from the beginning. Second is the fact that the majority of english speakers here on wiki believe in western values and bring western views to their comments. Both problem can only be overcome by you being proactive as opposed to reactionary. As sad as it is there is going to be some bias here and if you are going to be effective here you are going to have to learn to work within that biased atmosphere as an agent of change. This way you can restore your reputation and your voice will gain more weight. Your current attitude only serves to deepen the cultural differences you have with the other editors here. As I see it, the best way to resolve the double standard you describe is to clearly define the policy concerning the posting of Wikiboxes. This policy change can be made by you on the wiki policy pages and once something is decided on you can post boxes as you please. But as it stands now you have angered enough people to restrict your ability to immediately resolve this dilemma. I can act as a proxy, if you wish, in putting forward proposals in the correct forum. I will only do this if you agree to control your emotions and genuinely work with me or somebody (like tarc) towards a policy shift.

I really believe that this can be resolved without conflict and that all concerned can come out of this better off. Cronholm144 03:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Sorry for being so wordy

I was reading your talk page again and I noticed that never replied to Durova's comment which I think is a wonderful suggestion for a way to express your opinion without using the userboxes until this userbox issue has been resolved.Cronholm144 05:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that the appropriate venue for a discussion of policy and proposals is the village pump WP:VPP WP:VPR. By the way, Jimbo does not determine the policy around here, the community does. He does carry weight as the founder and an admin, etc..., but he cannot act unilaterally. So the best way to get things changed is to appeal to the community, not to him.Cronholm144 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you haven't made a proposal on any of the relevant pages and that you continue to ask Jimbo for a reply. I have already commented on this issue but I just want to let you know that my belief in your intentions is being eroded quickly. You continually use aggressive wording in your comments and ignore all attempts at placation. It almost seems that you are just a troll seeking to stir up trouble. Please let me know if I am wrong. I hope I am...--Cronholm144 04:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Jimbo is not the head of wiki "Florence Devouard is the Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am a trustee (board member) of the Wikimedia Foundation. Within the English Wikipedia I have a certain traditional role under our community system of governance, a role which of course changes over time as the community institutions grow and strengthen. This role is not assigned by the foundation, but by the community and our traditions.--Jimbo Wales 20:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)" from the horses mouth. I think it has been establish that he will not comment on this issue on his talk page.

Your comments at User talk:Jimbo Wales

You really need to stop trolling on Jimbo's talk page, you keep commenting to stop the automatic archiving of the page, then you create a new thread, Jimbo isn't going to comment on this, and I suggest you take it somewhere else. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello Embargo.

I would like to email you about your recent problems with wikipedia. Could you please leave a message on my talk page, with your email address. Thanks (Jones234Jones 06:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Unsourced material, "vandalism"

Embargo, please do not call the good faith edits of respected editors "vandalism," as you did.[6] Please do not restore unsourced and religiously opinionated material to Wikipedia.Proabivouac 10:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your comment in this edit summary is racist, and against WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN. Any further racist comments on other editor's religious affiliations would result in blocks. Please be civil, and settle any edit disputes using the talk page. Thank you. --Ragib 22:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embargo has already been warned and blocked for this behavior,[7][8][9][10] but has not improved.[11][12][13][14] This entire talk page consists of little more than complaints and warnings. I think we are long past the point at which we might have still imagined that Embargo would transform into a productive editor.Proabivouac 22:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do wrong? Proabivouac, don't you have anything else to do? Monitoring my edits is kind of pathetic, man. Emбargo 23:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidences of incivility on you edit summaries

You have just been blocked for a period of 1 month hoping you'd cool down and refrain from being incivil as per your edit summaries 1, 2, 3. As per my block rationale summary, you are again asked gently to refrain from behaving in such ways or leave. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Husseini1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Husseini1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 17:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]