User talk:Irrer

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Mariam83 (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Welcome!

Hello, Irrer, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Hi,

You've reverted Tunisia three times, your limit under the three-revert rule. If you do so again within the 24 hours from after the first revert you will be blocked from editing.

Bouha 11:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bouha,

I noted your opposition to my reverts and your preference for the latter version. I believe that the older version is far richer historically and generally better & more comprehensive than the newer and poorer version. I do not wish in anyway to worsen the content, which is why I have reverted it thrice. This, I am sure, is also your wish. I hope you did not interpret my reverts as arrogance on my part, far from it. As noted in my edits, I will not make any further changes for now. Please let me know why you believe the newer version is a better version. Thank you. Irrer 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Syria. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Gareth Hughes 11:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gareth Hughes,

Thank you for your message. I have not made any "unconstructive" edits to wikipedia, as evidenced by my edits to the Syria page, where I merely reverted to a version that includes Palestine alongside Israel. Removing any reference to Palestine, a country that is recognized by Arab states (as well as some non-Arab states) and one that is a member of the Arab League, is inaccurate and far from neutral. The establishment of Israel has not rendered the term obsolete. Denying the validity of the term is akin to those in the Arab or Muslim world who deny the term Israel. Your definition of neutrality=Vandalism is erroneous. Nonetheless, I am appreciative of your message& will not make any further edits to the Syria page for now. Thank you. Irrer 11:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now considering you a possible sockpuppet of a particularly annoying user because of the pattern of your edits. You are not yet blocked, but may well be if vandalism continues. — Gareth Hughes 11:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Gareth Hughes,

According to wikipedia, Vandalism is defined as follows:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

Unless I am mistaken, my inclusion of the term Palestine alongside Israel does not fall under this category, but was rather a good-faith effort on my part to improve the "encyclopedia" and use the term that most Palestinians use to identify their homeland. Nonetheless, I am very much appreciative of your courteous suggestion, and will refrain from making any further edits to the article for now. Again, thank you very much for warning me about the rules, and if I have misread wikipedia's definition of Vandalism, please do not hesitate to correct me. Irrer 11:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is identified as vandalism. Just look at how much you needlessly changed to make a point, most of it unrelated to your point. — Gareth Hughes 11:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Mr. Hughes, In fact, I made no changes at all, I reverted to an older version for the reason aforementioned. While I believe that Palestine should be mentioned alongside Israel, I will not, as mentioned above, make any further edits. I never attempted to "vanadalize" the article, and I don't believe that the version that I reverted to is in anyway a vandalized version of the current one. It is, in my opinion, a better version, one that is more representative of the Syrian Arab Republic. It is, however, incontrovertible that Palestine is not an obsolete term and should therefore be mentioned alongside Israle, especially in articles about ARAB countries that recognize Palestine and in Syria's case, only Palestine. Thanks again. Irrer 11:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

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).

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

Request reason:

I've been blocked for no apparent reason, and was not even warned by the blocking administrator. On the other hand, I made a complaint about a user by the name of Bouha 5, who is using several accounts, as reported here 6 and here 7yet that user has not been blocked, though the evidence is explicit. After checking Bouha's page history, I noticed that the administrator who blocked me protected his/her talkpage despite the fact that Bouha made a mistake that revealed that she/he is indeed using two separate accounts to edit wikipedia. She/he signed a comment as Drmaik then hastily changed it to Bouha. Caught redhanded! Yet the administrator that blocked me without a single warning, FayssalF, has overlooked this explicit violation and neglected his duty as an administrator by blocking me without warning, which is only permissible when one is vandalizing, which I have not done. Further proof of Bouha's wrongdoing is available at Drmaik's User contribution page 8 where his change to the talkpage in question is obviously archived, yet upon which the name Drmaik does not appear, as it has been replaced with Bouha, on whose user contribution page further evidence is available. I believe I am being targeted for personal reasons, perhaps the administrator is misusing his administrative power by not distributing it democratically. What I have attempted to do, without ever surpassing the 3RR, is correct inaccurate information. As wikipedia encourages its editors to be bold and prioritize content, I have not been modest in my amendments, though always respectful, and observant of the rules. I just checked the admin pages, and apparently FayssalF has dismissively mentioned this objection of mine, as though he knew what the outcome would be. It makes me wonder just how wikipedia is being run and whether there is any transparency to the whole administering system. I sincerely hope that users of wikipedia are at least given the benefit of the doubt, and not dismissed as mere "disruptors."

Decline reason:

Your request does not address the reason for your block, i.e., allegedly being an abusive sockpuppet. — Sandstein 22:48, 13 July 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.

Likewise, you do not address your corruption and incompetence. Further proof that the masses are simply incompetent. Realistically, I shouldn't have expected you NOT to betray an ingrained personal prejudice and incompetence.

RE:BERBER PEOPLE

wich one was your version?, thanks-Nochi 19:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) I don't have a version, I just kept reverting to yours, as it is the most accurate. I tried to make some changes at first, but they kept reverting them and I felt like I was waging a losing battle, as most of the editors who edit that page are obviously unfamiliar with the region and/or the Berbers. Before you came, the article was a source of continual anguish for me, as I knew it to be inaccurate and propagandistic. In that sense, you are a godsend. Thank you so much. Irrer 20:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]