User talk:GeMiJa

Proof Of Concept Requested

I would like something prooved. GeMiJa 19:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what is it that you would like proved? -lethe ^{talk +} 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to make the proposition offline? GeMiJa 17:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like a private communication with a Wikipedian, you can go to that user's userpage, and click on the "Email this user" link. For example, mine will take you to Special:Emailuser/Lethe. From there, you can email me, if you would like to ask me for a proof. I don't really consider email to be off-line, but I'm not going to meet you at a bar, if that's what you had in mind. Email is the best I can do. Though if you would like a mathematical result proved, isn't it better to have more than one opinion? Well, I guess you have your reasons. -lethe ^{talk +} 17:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You never replied to my email -lethe ^{talk +} 02:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:The Hanged Man (tarot card) are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:The Hanged Man (tarot card). Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Public private trust, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Your last edits provided references with the author listed as someone matching your username. You cannot promote your own work in this way. Furthermore, the linked articles are not published by a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking as outlined in the policy WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Public private trust for deletion

The article Public private trust is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public private trust until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Public private trust. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RolandR (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public private trust. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Undo - There is a lot here that I am not comfortable

The content below was entered by myself in the Roe V Wade page, and it is the most valid argument for the legal justification of abortion!

It is pathetic that the legal institutions and those responsible for communicating public policy are incompetent to herald the legitimate position for this argument!

It is not in your interests for what reason?

Does it bother you that it details a position with which you disagree or do you simply refuse to acknowledge its origin?

I am tired of playing games of avoidance with ivory tower news institutions and legal journals who refuse to yield to their own personal self interests and grant recognition to an outsider! a laymen in their trade!

What is the appeal process here?

The legal premise for abortion was presented in Blackmun's opinion with the statement, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." ^[1] Accordingly, Blackmun's statement indicates that a state is obligated to its citizens, who receive protected rights at birth, per the 14th amendment. Hence, it is deduced that abortion is legal because a foetus does not qualify for equal protection until a birth requirement is satisfied. Consequently, it is deduced that a foetus without legal protections is the private property of the mother, wherefore a "right to privacy" follows as a secondary, and not the primary, foundation for the legal right to abortion in the Roe V Wade decision. ^[2]

^ Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1972). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-01-26

^ Jaet,George M.,[1] "Political Hotwire - A Constitutional Review of Abortion" : The 14th amendment directly implies that a citizen receives wrights at birth; thus, the point of inception whereby the state concerns itself with an obligation to reprise a violation to a wright to life begins for a citizen at birth. ... The premise for equal protection, as being based upon a requirement of birth, was clearly understood and forwarded within the opinion of Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, in the statement, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." [2] "Debate Politics - A Constitutional Review of Abortion"

GeMiJa (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses reliable sources as the basis for its articles, period. Blog posts and arguments from your own logic are not reliable in our context and cannot be used. If you want to get your thoughts or the thoughts of that thread writer published in a law review, then we can include it. Till then, we cannot. NW (Talk) 23:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A direct quotation from the Blackmun opinion which rebuts a third argument alleging a state obligation to protect a pre-parturition life IS NOT MY OPINION. The deductions from the birth requirement and equal protection within the 14th amendment are direct, but none has bothered to deduce them. I am not a lawyer and an expectation that any journal would entertain my treatises, which I have been putting forward for more than six years, is ridiculous. My domain is political forums and legal representatives of anti-choice movement have long been exposed to my treatises, such that their current legal direction is towards legislation based upon an onset of sentience, which is directly extracted from my arguments. In vernacular, the main stream has not invited me through the front door, but my contributions are well known. GeMiJa (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello GeMiJa, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Genocides in history has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Moderators Are Politically Biased

Wow , the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle is produced by partisan pundits who , for a lack of understanding and clarification , despise and choose to slander non aggression principles as a basis of public policy .

GeMiJa (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categorical Negligence Of Contributors To The Stupidity Offered By This Article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

The basis of Blackmun's opinion is surmised by the following statement from his opinion that is flagrantly buried by idiocy of the left and right : Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." .

The statement is a ruling LOGICALLY consistent with US 14th amendment that individuals receive citizenship at birth and that the criteria of birth is required for equal protection . The Roe v Wade decision indicated that , post viability , parturition ( live birth ) was a relative standard and that state interest could begin at that point and that states could proscribe abortion in the 3rd trimester .

The right to privacy is an incidental justification for abortion , as it follows directly from the fact that the fetus , without constitutional protections , is the private property of the mother . All foetal protection laws are IN FACT offences against the mother , albeit elevated penalties can be exacted based upon the nature of a crime ; however , the foetus is not a legal victim until birth . GeMiJa (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

GeMiJa (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines you've clearly missed

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other admins: User has a very sparse history, but one that is full of not mere advocacy of WP:FRINGE content, but posting without even the consideration that it might be wrong. Their first post was asserting (as if undeniable fact) that Hermes was responsibile for Hurricane Katrina because of the I Ching. After that, we have citing Rationalrevolution.net (a rather Zeitgeist-ish site) in a screed about taxes. Now, granted, that was over a decade ago. After this, they mostly focus on politics, pretty much issuing edicts. Then they go on citing the Quran to argue that it's genocidal, eventually declaring all admins to be politically biased because they didn't get their way in an article. After this, they return to politics, as before, this time making claims about how sourcing works that are contrary to reality.

Then they advocated the white genocide conspiracy theory on the basis of scientific racist thinking. Then they attacked someone for removing that post, while continuing to advocate the white genocide conspiracy theory.

Unless this user indicates that they will rethink their approach to the site and find less contentious topics (which I seriously doubt will happen), they don't need to be editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Previously , I disagreed that social science research network was not a valid source as it is an on-line journal as it solicits referees to ensure its publications satisfy scholastic merit , as regards a public private trust - https://politicalhotwire.com/threads/public-private-trust.71567/ , https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/public-private-trust.846489/ , or for abortion https://debatepolitics.com/threads/constitutional-review-of-abortion.419940/ , versions of which have been included in SSRN , among others .

Previously , I was directed to use the talk page to bring forth issues of concern and did so in this situation ; however , Ian.thomson did not like my comments which contested that white genocide conspiracy theory is as much a conspiracy theory in itself because it implements a defacto character assassination to ascribe that any perceiving that mass immigration from homogeneous , numerically over represented globally ( not minorities in any sense but granted that preference ) , non japhetic populations , as being " white supremacists " , and Ian.thomson sought to undermine a basic discourse on the issue presented on the talk page . Such actions by the moderator are themselves egregious and it should be made known that it represents anti-racist racism .

As for other talk entries , the qurayn is filled with hate speech with 1400 years of homicide by doctrine to prove it and those pandering objectivity as an excuse for ignorance need to understand it is not a sufficient excuse . As the qurayn and its qurayshism do not apply outside of hejaz any more than the torah applies outside of israel ( no adherent of torahnism believes it does as it is self incumbent for preservation of the patriarchal lineage of eponymous isaac ) - see fictional ishmaelism .

I recently contributed to the talk page on non aggression principles and related that the theory inconsistent with basic diction and an oxymoron , which is consistent with an inclusion in the article itself that the theory implements circular reasoning .

I did apply creative license in talk pages regarding katrina though i do not recall the exact reason , though symbolism , portents and hermeneutics are some of my interests .

Whether my contributions are frequent is not relevant . The only relevant issue is whether wikipedia is to allow this moderator to apply heavy handed reprisal to satisfy an illegitimate bias for the oxymoron of political correctness , where censorship and character assassination are the typical tactics .

GeMiJa (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request itself demonstrates the block is correct. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:29, 4 October 2020 (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.

[Roe-1] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1972). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-01-26

[2] Jaet,George M.,[1] "Political Hotwire - A Constitutional Review of Abortion" : The 14th amendment directly implies that a citizen receives wrights at birth; thus, the point of inception whereby the state concerns itself with an obligation to reprise a violation to a wright to life begins for a citizen at birth. ... The premise for equal protection, as being based upon a requirement of birth, was clearly understood and forwarded within the opinion of Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, in the statement, "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." [2] "Debate Politics - A Constitutional Review of Abortion"

[1]

[2]