User talk:Farkur

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Farkur! Thank you for your contributions. I am TheGeneralUser and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an anti-Israeli bias. I have a strong bias against dishonesty because it is wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though you are of the view that there is a significant intersect? "Some people who support Israel are profoundly stupid, misinformed, morally corrupt, neofacist, despicable racist scum, who I assume have been indoctrinated and radicalized by the immense amount of hateful and dishonest nonsense available on the internet written by astoundingly unethical hate filled ultranationalists and ethnoreligious crazies." - Sean Hoyland Ankh.Morpork 14:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think I'm being dishonest?--Farkur (talk) 05:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern of your edits suggests that you are a sockpuppet of AndresHerutJaim. That editor is not allowed to edit in the topic area. Sockpuppetry is an attempt to deceive or mislead other editors. It is therefore dishonest. There is no legitimate justification for an editor who has had their editing privileges revoked to use sockpuppetry. The proper course of action is to follow Wikipedia:Standard offer. The presence of sockpuppets means that there are 2 distinct populations of editors, one set who have to follow the rules and face the consequences of of their actions and another who can violate the rules without any consequences because they can simply create another account. Having a set of rules that can only be effectively enforced against a subset of editors has destabilized the topic area for years. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you I'm not a sockpuppet. And the misbehavior of an editor is not enough reason to remove useful contributions to Wikipedia, sock or not sock.--Farkur (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Banning policy and contemplate whether topic banned editors can reliably distinguish between "useful" and "harmful". In my experience they can't and that is often why they have been topic banned. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Civil War

Hi. Are you sure Libyan troops participated in this conflict? This claim is not supported by the main article. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One-revert restriction

Articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict broadly construed are subject to a one-revert restriction (sometimes abbreviated 1RR). That means an editor cannot undo other editors more than once during any 24-hour period. For details, please see WP:ARBPIA#Further remedies. For information about revert restrictions in general, including the definition of a revert, please see WP:3RR.

Your recent change to Marwan Barghouti was a second revert within 24 hours. Please undo the change ("self-revert") so as to comply with the one-revert restriction. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Farkur. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 19:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

1RR again

You have also violated the 1RR at Mohammed Dahlan. Please self-revert or you may be reported. nableezy - 12:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]