User talk:MagicKirin11

Welcome!

Hello, MagicKirin11, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Glenn Greenwald does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Irn (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm Irn. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person on Talk:United Nations Human Rights Council, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Irn (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to United Nations Human Rights Council

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Greenmaven (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to United Nations Human Rights Council. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is MagicKirin11. Thank you. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MagicKirin11 reported by User:RolandR (Result: ). Thank you. RolandR (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Roland you hate Israel, so remove yourself from the discussion.MagicKirin11 (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a political advocacy platform

MagicKirin, there is no BDS conspiracy on Wikipedia. Anti-Semitism is dealt with appropriately. In just the last week, the user ScientificEthics was blocked indefinitely for alleging a Jewish conspiracy on Wikipedia.

I will be very honest with you: You are not cut out for editing Wikipedia—unless you change your attitude drastically. You are here to advance a specific point of view and for no other reason. There are a number of places where that would be acceptable: your temple's Israel action committee, a pro-Israel organization, a personal blog, etc. An encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, strives for neutrality and consensus among its editors. We work within a set of guidelines specific to the Arab–Israeli conflict (see WP:ARBPIA) so as to ensure accuracy and fairness in the editing process. You are expected to follow that example by assuming the good faith of other editors, reaching consensus with other editors, and using only reliable sources to reference content. If you think every violation of the neutral point of view policy is against your side, you are probably not grasping what neutrality means. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest with you than. It seems obvious that what you consider NPOV is a anti-Israeli point of view. The fact that you ignore Sean;s anti-semetism is proof of that. I put comments on the talk pages.Maybe you are not cut out to be an administrator.MagicKirin11 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator and don't want to be. But I can tell you that your battleground mentality does you no good for your cause. The best thing you can do for Israel is edit related articles within consensus and strive for verifiable content. Getting yourself blocked indefinitely (which will be the inevitable result of your continued editing style) by trying to achieve a partisan agenda helps nobody. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First I am making comment primarily on the talk pages, second mind your own business if you are not administrator. I don't see why I have to justify myself to you or the other three.MagicKirin11 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2013 (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).

MagicKirin11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am being blocked because I am puting suggestions on talk pages that anti-Israeli editors don't like. this is out and out racism by Wikipedia. MagicKirin11 (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2013 (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.

But the reason given by the original block is bogus. May i also point out that I had no administrator warning and there was no disruption as I was on talk pages primarily. So you and the other admin are violating wikipedia rules for blocking without discussion. Tell me why i should respect your decision?MagicKirin11 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to remember that article talk pages are NOT there to make your own personal/political commentary, or suggestions to edit the article according to those beliefs. Article talkpages are there to discuss the inclusion or exclusion of SOURCED information in the article. If any comment made on a talkpage violates our core principles, or is not there to help the article progress, it may be removed. Article changes are based on consensus, and there's no room for soapboxing, false/ridiculous accusations of racism (after all, that word has an ACTUAL meaning), or even more ridiculous suggestions that another editor has ulterior motives.

Based on a quick perusal of your edits, the original block is indeed valid - and since blocks apply to the person and not the account, the extension to indefinite (not infinite) is obvious. You can fix it, but you'll need to a) stop editing Wikipedia via any method until this block is removed, and b) go back to square 1 and re-read all the policies and guidelines you agreed to when you clicked "Save page" for the very first time. This is a private website: there's no such thing as free speech ES &L 11:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are full of it, this is a block based on racist administrators and editors, as I have sown I can get around and I will.MagicKirin11 (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations of racism - especially considering you have no knowledge of the ethnicity of the person on the other end of the keyboard - will lead to you having no chance to ever be unblocked. It took me all of 45 seconds to see that you were personally responsible for your block - your edits are obvious. You'd be wise to read WP:GAB, WP:AAB, WP:5P and remember that this is a community that you need to try and be a part of, or else your career here will be short ES &L 10:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind why you asked a rude question on my talk page via one of your sockpuppets? Epicgenius (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]