User talk:LibiBamizrach

Welcome!

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

ahmedinejad

MA never said those things and i see the same propoganda machine that caused to attack iraq for false allegation of WMD development, working here to vilify MA. every sane person that read the translation can see that this is what happening, the problem is that most people don't have time for that. so i'm trying to put the facts straight. we don't need any more wars in the middle easy that are based on lies. Eyalmc (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

But yet your name is supposedly Eyal. And do you deny how he says the evil Zionist regime will be defeated and all of Israel will be the Palestinian state, not the Jewish state? This is ok with you I guess? Lo anita li aval... ata medaber ivrit? LibiBamizrach (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I live in israel. I'm actually for a bi-national state. I don't like the fact that israel is a Jewish state, and if there was a democratic vote on that I would vote to redefine it. I love israel, and I have a family and great friends. I'm don't like MA, and i know he doesnt like israel. but I don't think he's planning to attack israel.Eyalmc (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

But you do not know Hebrew? Why do you love Israel if not because it is Jewish state. Smolanim masrichim... LibiBamizrach (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

hebrew is my primary language. Ve'ani lo kaze masriakh, rak lefamim ksheani shoeakh lehitkaleakh kama yamim...I love israel because I was born and raised here, my friends and family are here. Is it so hard to understand?Eyalmc (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You think in a binational state a Jew like you would have a nice life? Ata chai baseret ach sheli. Chatima tova lecha. LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that. Quite sure actually. Shana Tova! Eyalmc (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Smolanim masrichim... tss tss... lo yaphei! Shalom, Hope&Act3! (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents, 2010

Just so you know, I don't mind Israeli citizens at all as a description. My aim was just to cut down on any chance of accusations of POV on that article. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It is nice to hear the clarification. LibiBamizrach (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The great Israeli conspiracy to besmirch Hamas on Wikipedia

I seem to find myself the mastermind of an Israeli conspiracy to defame Hamas on Wikipedia. This is just surreal. Frotz (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it seems unreal hahaha, but it's what happens here on this site I have seen. Just do not let it discourage you and keep going to fight against POV pushing people who try to ruin the encyclopedia. :) LibiBamizrach (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hounding Allegation

An accusation of hounding has been made against you on my talk page. I think there is some evidence that you may have been keeping an eye on SD's edits. I'm not accusing you of hounding at this point but I would urge caution when reverting in particular. If you haven't been involved in prior discussion and suddenly show up to revert someone you have had issues with it looks like hounding. --WGFinley (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok thank you for the notice, I appreciate you teach me about these rules so I don't get in trouble in future. I left you a message also on your page. LibiBamizrach (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, LibiBamizrach. You have new messages at Wgfinley's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notification

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. PhilKnight (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok Philnight can you please just clear this a bit more, I did not fully understand maybe some of the language in the note. Does it mean I am getting warning now for something wrong? Or you just say that in future I might get warning if I do anything bad. Who gets this message from you everyone? I mean everyone who edit about Israel or Palestinian? LibiBamizrach (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Translation of the above, in simple English: If you dare to edit any page that certain other people have edited, and use any terms that they have declared "taboo," Wikipedia will kick you out.--Geewhiz (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope it is not true, so far it seems ok, I mean I see some people edit war very much to delete things when they WP:DONTLIKE and it does not match with their own personal WP:POV but nobody is kicked out yet. I am hope admins will make sure these people who break rules will be messaged to make stop, maybe block or something to encourage them to change. LibiBamizrach (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I share your hopes. --Geewhiz (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi LibiBamizrach, You may want to read my wikipedia story. It is a long, and a sad story with many links to follow, but it might help you to avoid some unwanted complications of your editing of Wikipedia. Otherwise welcome, and happy editing!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing advice

Please carefully review the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) page, which outlines the consensus on this subject. Changing articles without discussion against this consensus is disruptive, and could result in sanctions being applied against you. PhilKnight (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok Philnight thank you for this link, I actually already see it before after another user today told me that this edit I did was wrong. Now I follow the name convention as it says, only putting Shomron (Samaria) when it is said in the reference in quote. LibiBamizrach (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

48 hour block

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. PhilKnight (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

This block was wrong as explained here.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Philknight. I do not think you will answer me but I will put it here just in case anyway. Because you already showed that you just ignore me when I ask you questions. Look above for when you gave me this ARBPIA message and I asked for clarification. And also look above where you gave me edit advice and I commented about how I will follow the name convention, you ignored it. So then now when I edit on article ACCORDING TO name convention you claim to enforce, you block me? Hello? You read my edit summary? You even looked at this name convention or you just Nableezy's puppet do exactly what he tells you? In name convention it says case #6A you can use Samaria if it quote verbatim from reference. This is EXACTLY what I did. And you block me? What inappropriate use of admin tool. You should undo this and think careful to review your actions before you do them next time. LibiBamizrach (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In future you should try to establish consensus on a the article talk page. Your edit to the article was against the spirit of the naming convention, and then your response was unhelpful. PhilKnight (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My response was unhelpful? This user harasses me I have every right to tell him not to post on my talk page. And you use this as justification to block me, except that response was after the block. You say it was "against the spirit of the naming convention". Did you read it? You still ignore now (for 3rd time) that I explained my edit was exact what name convention asked for. See case #6A. I don't know how many time I can repeat same thing before I get response. You did not tell me why it is apparently against spirit of naming convention. When in fact, it is exactly what name convention says. Quote from reference. LibiBamizrach (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The intent of clause 6A is that when there is a need to quote a continuous piece of text from, say, an official statement, the mere appearance of "Judea" or "Samaria" in the quote will not impede it. It is not by any means a blanket excuse to use these words whenever an editor sees fit just because it's possible to find a source which uses these words in the same context. An attempt to misconstrue it as such by wikilawyering is still a violation of the naming condition.—Emil J. 18:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You accuse me of WP:WL because I supposed misunderstood something? Wow ok very nice WP:AGF there. And anyway, how you know that it's what it means? From my reading it says nothing like what you described, how you get to decide what intent was? When I read it it means that if you quote "verbatim" from reference it is ok. How you know that's not the intent? LibiBamizrach (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Bickering with the admin isn't going to accomplish anything. Read the guide to appealing such blocks wikilinked in the notice if you believe it is unjustified. And the admin said here that you should have sought consensus on the talk page while at the talk page he essential said that consensus there would not matter since it could not override the wider consensus. I don't know what the double speak is about but the best option would have been to make your statement at the article talk page before any contentious reverts and when it was inevitably brought to your attention that it was contentious you should have looked for clarification on the previous arbitration case over at that page.

So all of that aside, there is a learning curve so it is rough. That is understandable. Any successive appeal will probably need you to accept that you are partially to blame. I don't think completely at all but that isn't the important issue if you wish to dispute not being able to edit for a couple of days Brewcrewer did make a statement that has some validity of course.Cptnono (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• I saw a talk page where a user who says that he has been shadowing you in order to contradict your edits had written to you, "In fact, this is fun. I think I'll go through the rest of your contributions to see where else you have been introducing bullshit and propaganda and calling it writing encyclopedia articles." As you probably already know, Wikipedia can be a nasty place. You might want to look at the comments of a former Wikipedia administrator named Kelly martin [1] The fact is that there are several dedicated bullies who get away with murder by the expedient of always being exquisitely polite and never technically violating a rule. I believe that some of them actually attempt to drive editors with whose politics they disagree to a level of exasperation where they will write or do something that will get them blocked. When puzzled, ask an editor more experienced and knowledgeable than I am how to go on. For example, you can remove discussions from this page. Try to keep some perspective on this process, and to edit in such a way that your struggles with highly politicized and highly aggressive editors will not get you blocked. Because the work you are doing is very important.AMuseo (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi LibiBamizrach,

Just a very brief note to inform you that I mentioned the immediately preceding comment from AMuseo, and this discussion, obliquely in the middle of a long rantcomment I made here. No action is required on your part, but I wasn't sure whether it's required that I inform you for politeness' sake. So I am informing you. Regards, --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:Sandstein (diff). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Sandstein  20:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

After becoming aware of your editing after the message you left on my talk page (see above), I have examined your contributions. As a result, I have blocked you indefinitely for two reasons.

First, your contributions, which began on September 8, show a unusually high familiarity with Wikipedia processes and terminology from the outset: [2], [3] (with an interesting reference to WP:CLEANSTART), [4], [5], [6], etc., to only mention diffs from your first two days of contributions. I also came across this discussion, where you make reference to Factomancer (talk · contribs) having changed their name from "Factsontheground", which however happened in March 2010 ([7]). This makes it almost certain that this is not your first and only Wikipedia account. In view of my findings below, it is also highly likely that you are a banned or blocked editor trying to evade your sanctions, or a veteran editor attempting to evade accountability for your actions with this or your other account. This means that your use of this account is an abuse of multiple accounts.

Second, your contributions show that you are here with the sole purpose of changing articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict in order to make them represent a particular position in that conflict or to portray that position more positively. Some of your edits were probably individually justified in the light of applicable policies, but taken as a whole, this mode of editing (called "POV-pushing") is incompatible with the purpose of Wikipedia to write a neutral encyclopedia. The following edit, apart from being individually problematic (you deliberately inserted unsourced information into an article), is particularly indicative of this: [8]. You did not change your mode of editing after PhilKnight's arbitration sanctions warning on 28 September 2010 or after your subsequent block. Consequently, I find that your contributions are on the whole disruptive, rather than constructive, with respect to the project's purpose, which requires me to block you.

You can appeal this block as described at WP:GAB. Should an administrator reviewing any appeal consider unblocking you, I ask that administrator to submit the matter to a community forum for review. In the unlikely event of the block being lifted, I intend to make you subject to a topic ban under the provisions of the WP:ARBPIA arbitration case.  Sandstein  20:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• This is so not right. You claim you block me because you know I am evade old ban account? What complete bullshit is that! When you talk about me know Factomancer is Factsontheground, hello, can you read? In the comment there I explain very clearly how I knew, because I read the page that explain the interaction ban between Factomancer Mbz1 and Gilisa and there it say in very clear English that user Factsontheground changed name to Factomancer. This is proof that I am evade ban on other account? Very weird logic definitely, not sensical in any way. But you know, if this is the kind of website that allow dictators to ban user for no good reason and even go so far to say "if you want to appeal and get unban, you can try but I will just make your life miserable by give you topic ban in that case", then I do not want to be part anyway. My contributions show that I am here with sole purpose of editing article about Israel, yes. This is what I am interest in and have great knowledge about, not other topics. I don't think there is rule that say every editor has to agree to edit many different topics. Is there? If so, I guess you have to go ban a lot of other people who do same thing. You claim that I edit with POV, it is not the case and I deny categorically. I edit to maintain good quality of this website and the example you showed there is complete bullshit misconstrue. If you look properly at history you see that some other editor DELETED that information saying it's unreference. So I put it back in, with edit summary, saying instead of delete right away, let's put in reference tag to allow people to search for it. This is perfect within rules. They MADE that reference tag for reason is it not truth? If what I did is call POV pushing and warrant you indefinite ban me, then again, please do not be hypocrite and go ban all other users who you see do same thing. I can give you a list to make it easier. There are lots and tons of them. Anyway, it's fine. I'm not going to waste my time helping improve this website anymore if this is how I am treated. People show me no appreciation for my hard work! WAHHHHH! I cry some more now. Goodbye LibiBamizrach (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok after I saw on your page Sandstein what you say about me not request to be unblock, I want to post here now that I do want to be unblock. But you said up above very clear that you will not unblock me and I have to go through arbcom and then you will topic ban me anyway, so what's point of me even saying it here? I explain above and also I see user Mbz1 said on your wall repost of what I said, about how it's wrong why you block me. You block me based on me knowing name change of user Factomancer, but I explain with link to where it says that on Wikipedia. And I am definitely not any sockpuppet, already SPI was opened against me by suspicious users before, and it came back negative and closed. So what more do you want from me to do? You linked, WP:BURDEN, how am I suppose to prove now to you that you are wrong? LibiBamizrach (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC) And to respond to you claim that I POV pushed by insert intentional false information with no reference, it's not the case. If you look at that history, you see that an IP deleted this information right away without putting on talk page or putting fact-tag to say please find reference, he just delete it, even though it might be true. So I revert his delete, and added in myself fact-tag so someone can find a reference. You really believe this is bad editing and POV pushing? If so then I need to learn a lot about Wikipedia because to me I think it was the right thing to do. But maybe I am wrong. Please give me chance to learn and edit this site based on the rules. LibiBamizrach (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you use the account Rm125 (talk · contribs) in the past? nableezy - 16:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No and I don't think I ever even talked to that editor or interacted in any article. I do not recognize this name. If you want, open another SPI against me just like other editor already did. Everyone so attacking about SPI here as if it is tool to banish people you don't like. I never did anything bad to you Nableezy. But whatever you can open SPI if you want it will just be another proof in my court. LibiBamizrach (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I just asked a question, it wasnt meant as an attack. Your language reminds me of that user, but I dont see the need to open an SPI. nableezy - 17:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Why nobody is answering? Hello Sandstein can read this please? LibiBamizrach (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is answering because nobody has a reason to read this page or to answer. Your statements above are unconvincing, see User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/November#User:LibiBamizrach. If you want to contest your block, the instructions for doing so are at WP:Appealing a block.  Sandstein  23:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)