User talk:Mariam83

It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively. The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended. See block log and lists of suspected and confirmed accounts.

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Berber People. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Please use the Talk:Berber people to discuss your feelings, and share any information you feel is relevant to the subject.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Irashtar (talk • contribs) 13:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I second Irashtar on that. The right way to deal with material you find questionable is to tag it for needing a citation, using the {{fact}} or {{cn}} templates. (Use whichever you like. They both produce this: ; "cn" stands for "citation needed".) If, after a reasonable period -- a good month, at least, I'd say -- no citation is forthcoming, then deletion might be in order, but even then you should act with care, and best would leave a note on the talk-page about the material and your plan to remove it unless it is referenced. Be especially careful with material that is likely to be contentious. Sometimes small, unannounced deletions are okay. Summarily blanking a whole article, though, or even a whole paragraph of an article, on the grounds that you believe it to be biased is not okay.
From your edit-summaries, I gather that, firstly, you are under the misconceptions that if the Berbers are indigenous then they are "Black" (as being "African"), which would make the same true of the region's Arabs to the extent that they are descended from Berbers, and that, secondly, you find this unpalatable. As to the first, it's nought but a silly notion of "Afrocentrists", not taken seriously otherwise. In other words the Berbers are "White", and being indigenous to a part of Africa does not make them "Black". As to the second, you may not edit Wikipedia according to what ideas you find palatable or not.
The less charitable interpretation of your actions and edit-summaries is that you are merely a trolling vandal. Be warned that if you make further undiscussed blankings of this kind, now that you've been warned against it, they will be treated as vandalism, and so will this first round, in hindsight. If you persist, you will be blocked.
-- Lonewolf BC 16:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"to the extent that they are descended from berbers?" this is really quite amusing. As a native, the berbers are quite a distinct people apart and most certainly white in origin. I have no patience to edict this rubbish of a project at the moment, but will in future. And these article are being edited and hawked by afro-centric eccentric crazies who believe that Sudan is part of North Africa and that Egyptian civilization should be considred sub-saharan. Lonewolf, I need you to cite sources in making such sweeping statements.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(I've moved the just below to here from being mistakenly put on my thereby-created and soon-to-be-deleted-again userpage. -- Lonewolf BC 07:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Dear lonewolf,

you are making an inaccurate and sweeping statement by stating that all Arabs descend from Berbes in North Africa, a reality that all naatives know to be false. In fact, you are contradicting the article itseld, as the number of Berbers is listed, and is miniscule in comparison with the populations of those countries. Certain biased and unrepresentative sources are often cited, and findings based on a small group of people from Mauritania are then aapplied to the vast region (more than twice as large as europe) that is north africa. This prroblematic practice is not in keeping with wikipedia's five pillars. The first two pillars are blatantly violated: To remind you : "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory, nor is Wikipedia a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the sister projects Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikisource, respectively."

None of the material on the pages that I've tried to clean up and make more neutral and objective is encyclopedic but rather is subjective. One person's opinion, Shahada, is presented as fact. this cannot be the case, if wikipedia is to be taken seriously. Thank you..and if you wish to talk please let me know Mariam83 05:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR and Tunisia

I thought you should look at the above policy: you seem to have contravened it by reverting others' edits 4 times in 24 hours (at Berber people), but I won't report you as you haven't had a warning about it yet.

On another issue, it seems you're misunderstanding the sources that you're deleting in Tunisia (please don't delete sources: also the one you supplied doesn't contradcit the one from National Geographic). It's talking genetics, not identity. It-twansa 'arab, mathammach chekk! And also, what you're adding about Tunisian Arabic probably mainly belongs there, rather than in this article. Some things you're adding there also seem to be inaccuarate: qahwa (apart from any endings) is the same in Tunsi and 'arabi. Inshallah nitfahhmu. Bouha 12:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bouha, the article from the national geographic is based on a sampling of 100 or so subjects from the mauritanian, southern moroccan region, not from tunisia or algeria or Libya and as you may know, the region is enormous, more than twice as large as Europe. Thanks for the info, I didnt know about the rules but the berber article is highly inaccurate for the reason i just mentioned. The Kabyle of algeria have nothing in common with the so called berbers of mauritania, a sub-saharan african country. I added the language information and i think it is okay to leave it there. It is important to point these complexities out =) also, I'm not quite sure what you are saying about identity and genetics, but until a study is done on TUNISIAN people, then we cannot use results of mauritanians, who do not in any way resemble tunsiians, and apply them to Tunsiians. I hope you understand that wikipedia's five pillars aim for encyclopedic accuracy and if we were writing about Germany we would not use a study from Greece =) thanks, hope to hear from you on his!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, This is from the link you deleted:

"Wells and Zalloua are finding similar results among samples taken in Tunisia, site of ancient Carthage and the largest of the Phoenician colonies. "Less than 20 percent of the genetic lineages found could have come out of the Middle East," Wells continues. "They're showing the markers of aboriginal North Africans."" The research was done really looking at Phoenician influence, but the 'less than 20%' presumably comes more from Arab population movement than Phoenicians, though I don't know of a genetic study that says this.

By the way, could you put comments on my talk page, rather than my user page. Don't worry, I'll move them. It takes a little time to discover how things work here, and I hope you don't get discouraged, and that you stay here. I don't think there are many Tunisians active on English wikipedia. Bouha 13:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey..yes, I need you to tell me who the subjects are that were used, the number of people, where they were from, where they lived, how, where etc.? was it a sample from the middle class in Carthage? or the souks in Tunis? It says, from Tunisia, sites of ancient carthage, but if the sample comes from djerba =) then we know it's an entirely different ballgame, also, we need to know the SUBJECTS- in complete detail, no ambiguity..but i understand how you feel, as most peopel consider "science" the new religion. You should recall however that that study was financed by a millionaire from Lebanon, and I cannot therefore vouch for its authenticity, as I am sure it was rather targeted, I also don't need an ambiguous paragraph like that, i need as i said the subjects. There are also plenty of sources , so who is to decide which point of view to present? I have a source that links Northern Tunisians with Italians, am I to cite that? and if I do, will you delete it and cite yours? =) that is the problem.. but I thought you were talking abou the other source that is often applied incorrectly and by the way, are you tunsiya? you are right, there are I believe very veryyyy few tunisians, Arabs and generally people from the southern mediterranean countries and that may be why these articles are grossly inaccurate, and not at all neutral- and the reason why I keep deleting the paragraph is because it makes a sweeping judgment that I KNOW to be false as a native =) and breaks all of wiki's pillars, namely: "Note that all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view and must include only verifiable information, with no original research." yet when one writes, "while all consider themselves this, they are actually that" and i say, based on what? and they tell me, "oh, 40 bedouins from djerba" No, let us be realistic here..so, this is what I want to hear about from you. Thanks abouha..I take it your a girl? from Tunisia? If so, help me!I do not have the patience.. lol Mariam83 13:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(Mariam83 first blanked the the page at this point, at 08:35, 19 June 2007, but it was restored with the next post. -- Lonewolf BC, ed.)

Berbers and talk-pages

I've moved your comments about the Berber article from my talk-page to that of the article, as being of broader interest than just between you an me. Issues about an article usually should be discussed on the talk-page of that article.

Also, when posting to any talk-page, it is customary to place a comment opening a new topic at the bottom of the page, not at the top. (Comments in response to material already on a talk-page generally go just below what they respond to, which might be somewhere higher up the page.) I strongly advise you to adopt a less vehement and more civil tone in your posts. Lastly, although you seem to have stopped, do not email me any more.

-- Lonewolf BC 16:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(After further blankings by Mariam 83 and full or partial restorings by others, Mariam83 blanked all postings hereabove at 07:52, 20 June 2007. -- Lonewolf BC, ed.)

Blanking talk pages

You are correct. I checked Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and it says there that a user is permitted to remove messages from his or her talk page if he/she has read those messages, but archiving is preferred. As I wrote previously, if the messages relate to a current dispute or discussion, you should wait until the issue is resolved before you remove the message. YechielMan 05:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I see..thanks :-) It's only my third day, I didn't even realize I was causing an "edit war".. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion warning

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Demographics of Tunisia, you will be blocked from editing. Furthermore, there was consensus on the talk page which you ignored. And why did you blank your talk page half an hour after saying sorry for doing so? If you carry on the way you are, deleting sourced inforamtion that you don't like, you will be blocked, I'm afraid. Bouha 07:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you mistakenly presume to know. I merely thanked the person for the gesture..I in no way planned to obey a contributor and not the rule or my own conscience. Mariam83 07:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

How many times must I point out to you the unverifiability of the source that you provided? I am going to complain about you to higher echelons, for you seem rather limited in comprehension. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you keep reverting the blanking of my own page, I am going to report you at once. I am not at all engaged in an edit war, I am merely engaged in a war with morons who rather than reason have chosen to administer rather nearsightedly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

how dare you accuse me of apologizing for deleting my own talk page? I never apologized, I demanded that the intruder show me a rule, and the rule allows users to delete their talk pages, which I intend to do instantly. What is more, there was nothing on the Demog of Tunisia's talk page, and I pointed out to you, though you seem rather challenged, that your propagandistic insertion contradicts the NUMBERS! In a country of 10 million, 130,000 berbers does not account for the entire population. If you were at all familiar with the complex way in which society functions, particularly in this region, you would know that possibly only very poor, and hence Beber participants were used in this study. You may think you are powerful because you've the ability to block me, but I will fight you till the end. Again, you might wnat to use your reasoning before editing. In this case, simply looking at the numbers would suffice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks

This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bouha 08:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you bouha..I appreciate your input. You might also want to warn collounsbury, as he vehementaly attacks anyone that disagrees with him on his talk page. As a newcomer, I can only benefit from advice. I have further looked into the studies that are often cited on articles relevant to this region and have found the culprit. As i have tried to explain, the large region is diverse and inhabitants of morocco and countries that have traditionally been labeled sub-saharan , i.e. mauritania and western sahara, have no relation to inhabitants of distant coutnries like tunisia, algeria or egypt. On the Berber page in particular, this vastness was overlooked rather feebly and inexcusably. Rather than research the region, the writers chose instead to insert personal views and twist the evidence to suit their vision of a fictional reality. I have made some minor changes, annoatated evidence, that will help the reader understand why to an outsider with little comprehension results seem "debatable" while to one even slightly familiar with the place, they make perfect sense. Thank you again for the warning and best wishes Mariam83 08:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and please feel free to revert this talkpage to an earlier version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Berber people. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. -- Rhobite 11:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have used the page and fully explained why I made the changes I made. Besides which, the other users keep reverting the article though I only added annotated evidence from the sources THEY cited! I dont even think they are reading them. I dont suppose you read the articles before warning me? Why cant I revert if they are allowed to revert when I have only added EVIDENCE from the SOURCES? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I warned Lonewolf too. I'm not being partisan here. If either one of you reverts the article again you will be blocked. Rhobite 11:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Collousbury is reverting on his behalf. The article, as it stands, is inaccurate, manipulates language propagandistically and presents fiction as fact, all the while floundering the five pillars. Mariam83 12:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

While consensus is important on wikipedia, it comes after facts. The fact is, I only added annotated evidence from the sources the article uses. The additions that I made solved the problems perfectly, as they proved my point with numbers, from the sources THEY used. Why these contributors object to evidence from the very sources they cite is beyond me, but I am certain that this is not the sort of behavior wikipedia expects from its contributors. My impression is that they are personalizing what should be impersonal. They seem bothered because I have "dared" to change what was blatantly fictitious. I made very minor and objective edits, the numbers and DETAILS dispelled any ambiguity. How can I get someone to review the changes? The article as it stands in inaccurate. I made the changes in good faith..I am frankly surprised by their responses. Mariam83 12:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The user Coullensbury has violated the 3 revert rule. He has written elsewhere that his concern is not the article but my actions. He is reverting because I have reverted Lonewolf's articles. He wrote it himself. I find this laughable and SAD. Why is the article's INTEGRITY being jeopordized ? This encyclopedia does not belong to them..yet they are behaving as though I've no right to edit. The problem is I have made very minor changes. I included the number and origin of the donors, because the region is VAST, more than twice as large as europe, and after doing this, the seemingly contradictory (to the ignorant) but perfectly reasonable findings make sense...they didnt make sense before the origins and numbers were included. Yet they are reverting to a version that refers to the second study that uses subjects from vastly different regions "debatable"!!!! is this is absurd?! this most certainly is not objective! perhaps it is "debatable" to them because it does not conform with their wishful thinking. I am confident that if the edits are reviewed, that they will stand. Mariam83 12:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I asked you to be nice, but your harassment of another user has led to me blocking you for 24 hours. When the block expires, you may edit Wikipedia freely again. If you continue to harass others here, you will be blocked again and for longer. — Gareth Hughes 15:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you monitor content rather than behavior. That user has mistreated other users in the past by the way, as is evidenced on his talkpage. What is more, he is corrupting admins! I have asked a number of admins to review the edits that are "contested" though I doubt anyone has even bothered to read the material. I have yet to hear from anyone about the content! All I keep hearing about is my behavior! How infantile..and how very unwikipedian..
Mariam83 15:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Really..this is a hopeless project. This is not kindergarten. The content is what should be scrutinized, not one's behavior in the face of such nonsense. And your comment about my "running away from a crime scene" is absurd lol! Do you even realize how absurd you sound? You can't be serious. I am going to delete everything else on this page because it is my right and you have no right, not even as an admin, to rewrite the rules. Mariam83 15:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I stopped editing and I tried to explain why I made the changes that I had made. The changes that I made to the Berber page in particular did not even warrant an explanation as I merely added numbers from the sources cited, not by me, but by others. Why should one discuss annotated numerical evidence from sources cited by others? Why should I accept their deliberate manipulation of the figures and the insertions of personal opinions?! WHY DON'T YOU MONITOR THAT INSTEAD? Erring administrator! Mariam83 15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistent blanking of warnings makes you look bad, that's all I'm saying. That's why I've just protected your own talk page. I apologize for letting you continue to rant here. I had given you a chance because I thought you were genuinely trying to put across a valid point. You clearly threw that in my face. It is most definitely the case that edit-warring and harassing users are to the detriment of articles. We expect editors to work with others to find consensus on the talk pages of articles and to bring in others to help meet consensus. When your block expires, you will be expected to edit harmoniously with others. Because of today's activity, any future blocks may be applied after a single warning and may be for longer periods. It will take your talk page, here, slightly longer to emerge from protection than your general block. If you let me, or another admin know, we can unprotect this page earlier so that you can reply to comments. Thank you. — Gareth Hughes 15:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(After many more blankings and restorings, meanwhile, Marian83 blanked all postings hereabove back to the last note on blankings, at 03:47, 21 June 2007. -- Lonewolf BC, ed.)

I've just blocked your sockpuppet User:Khalidmn indefinitely. I am going to give you one more chance by not extending your block. Please behave and have some time to read our core Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines before you delve into edit warring and incivility. For now, i am intending to keep our off-wiki communication between us. So this make it 2 chances in fact.

Please note that contributors are intended to assume good faith and discuss calmly in a civil way. We disagree most of the time here but we respect eachother. You can't just come and create havoc. It is disrupting. There are other alternative ways to male yourselves being heard w/o attempting to harass people. Good luck. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:07, 20:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire, your edits are disruptive. You already evaded your very first block [1] after making this egregiously rabid attack on another user [2]. You should have known by now that this type of behavior [3] is, to say the least, unacceptable here regardless of the nature of the content disputes. — Zerida 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking my talkpage. As I am sure you are aware, the "edit war" was begun because numerous users appeared to be working in tandem with one another to block all and any possible reinterpretations of their afro-centrist POV/Original definitions of terms such as Maghreb, North Africa and their refusal to allow the inclusion of figures and facts to contested sections of contested articles. I tried to reach a compromise with them but I felt that I was being ostracized and that all leverage was being used againt a newcomer such as myself. My question for you is: Who decides what is legitimate or accurate in instances where different sources are available that lead to different conclusions? and why should contributors such as Zarida be given the right to decide whether certain tags are appropriate or not? Surely this is not the way things are run around here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(Marian83 blanked all postings hereabove back to the last blanking-note, at 05:28, 21 June 2007, having already over-written Zerida's post with the one following -- Lonewolf BC, ed.)

As mentioned on my message above, you should have first tried to get yourself familiarized w/ how stuff work here. Your talk page is full of warning messages. Of course you have the outmost right to delete them indeed. We offer everyone these functionalities and spaces. Don't forget that fact.

You have been asked gently and sometimes harshly to take it easy. You cannot fix what you believe is wrong in 72 hours. Take it easy and breathe, look for alternative ways to make yourself heard. You are editing wikipedia and that means that you are able to do some simple research efforts, right? You say you have done just that. So why not have a break of something like 72/22/2 hours trying to read about the system here. Do some research. It would surely save you and me and maybe others some good time. We have 1.7 articles and we don't think we have time to waste of conflicts. Wikipedia guides you through your lifetime here. It is an encyclopedia and it would be stupid if an encyclopedia can't offer the optimal amount of guiding new users. Wikipedia:Introduction is very interesting. It is in the tutorial where it says ← Wait! Before you start, have you seen the Introduction?. Do you have any idea about how it works? No. Have you asked for help? Never- only when you got yourself stuck. Right? In other words, you should have known how to listen to the admins who are trusted by the community to do some additional tasks such as protecting a page when an bitter edit warring seems to have no end. It is up to the admins to judge whether a user has to be blocked or not. It is up to an admin to maintain order helping keeping the system run smoothly. In case a user feels being unfairly mistreated, Wikipedia offers a wide variety of appealing ways. If you feel/think/believe the blocking admin action(s) appear(s) fraudulent or whatever, you have all the right to defend yourself and that's why i left this space open for your comments.

I urge you also to stop emailing me. It doesn't help as you have a very confrontational way of dealing w/ simple things. I can't deal w/ that. I am sorry. You think you are right? Great, prove it gently! In your last email, you claiming that i blocked your sock or whatever w/ no sound reason. Aha! You thought that you contacted someone because you felt unjustice. Fine. Isn't that meatpuppeting? You accuse me of protecting the Maghreb article because Collusburry incited me to do so! You say how you to make an argument which is fine but you failed to know how to check the User:X contributions. Please bear in mind that the user you are talking about contacted me 20 MINUTES later after i protected the article. So stop emailing me for the time being until you get rid of your allegations and accusations. You already have the link to the guidelines and policies in my email. It was this same community who worked on making them policies and guidelines. Never the community agreed 100% about any policy or guideline but i am sure they agree 100% when it comes to cases involving incivility, tendentious editing, harassment, assuming bad faith, using false claims to accuse and harass admins, meatpuppeting....... Please save the time of arguing and change your behaviour.

P.S. Not to forget. Since you have mentioned Zerida, i am suspecting now that you have something to do w/ User:Serenesoulnyc. I'll try a CheckUser then. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about and this tone of yours is most unbecoming of an admin, in fact, it is against wikipedian etiquette for an admin to point fingers in a dispute. Furthermore, you have shown preferential treatment to Collunsbury, whom as I've stated, appears to know you very intimately. If you had taken the time to actually read the talkpages of these articles rather than blindly take orders from contributors on whom you bestow favors, i.e. collousbury, you would probably not have written in such a censorious tone and you would instead have noticed the other users persistent violation of the 3RV rule, and their deliberate hijacking of certain articles.

Here is some information for your benefit as an "admin"-

Three users appear to be engaged in some sort of "edit warfare" directed at countering any legitimate, sourced changes that I might make. The three users in question are: Coullsbury, Lonewolf BC and Bouha. They have been persistently deleting edits that I have made ( minor sourced edits to highly POV material) to contentious excerpts. They have wholeheartedly rejected cited additions, as these seem to contradict the articles' POV, propagandistic content. Historical interpretation has no place on wikipedia yet the articles read like opinion. Furthermore, the articles are teeming with value judgments and manipulation of language. I intend to report you, as I feel you are abusing your privileges as an admin. Lastly, I only emailed you because it is my right as a contributor to email an admin that I feel has committed an error. If you are referring to my second email, that was, naturally, a response to your very long and rather abusive email. Do not think that your status as an admin entitles you to observe the rules only with the unfamiliar..nor does it, if I may, give you the right to bestow favors on your "mates" (collusbury.) I am going to file a complaint against you and the three users involved. Another thing- this is the second time you accuse me of being someone else. Again, you fail to show me the evidence. As I have informed you, Khalid is a friend that I contacted following my initial experience here on wikipedia, which I found most bizarre and problematic. And let me remind you that it is my right to invite a thousand people here if I please and to point them in the right direction. Unfortunately, however, it is you and your "mates" rather than I who are abusing not only the editing system but also special privileges, in your casea administering, to replace facts with PROPAGANDA, VALUE JUDGMENTS AND HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION. AS THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, MY EDITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVERTED, AS I SIMPLY ADDED CERTAIN FIGURES TO CONTENTIOUS SEGMENTS TO PLAUSIBLE AND SUSPECT ARTICLES. MY FACTUAL ADDITIONS, WHICH WOULD HAVE ONLY FURTHER AIDED THE READER IN COMPREHENSION, WERE DELIBERATELY REMOVED BECAUSE THEY BROUGH THE ARTICLE TO HEEL! You are doing a fine job colluding with these hijackers..but I intend to report you, as you are not only abusing your privileges but also compromising wikipedia's integrity. Again, it is wrong of you, as an admin, to pigeonhole me as you have in your first email and as you have, regrettably, once again here. Finally, contrary to what you'd written me, you did indeed lock the Maghreb page before even voicing warning others, and you failed to use your admin privileges in an equitable manner. In fact, on your talk page, collusbury specifically refers to you as "mate" and asks you for a "favor".."to help him out." p.s. This unfounded accusation concerning zaruda is, once again, attributable to an overzealousness in protecting those you are on friendly terms with. Mariam83 05:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, you are merely a dot. Do not for instance think that you somehow have more rights than others, even in your dictatorship. Mariam83 05:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, this is quite funny: "involving incivility, tendentious editing, harassment, assuming bad faith, using false claims to accuse and harass admins, meatpuppeting" Not sure what "meat puppeting" is, you might want to define these rather obscure terms, as you are being much too pedantic in a wikipedian sense. The "tendentious" editing is particularly revealing as I have not once shown any bias in my editing. It is rather your tendentious hijacking of material concerning living persons that compromises wikipedia's accuracy and objectivity. As to harassment, I was very polite at first and followed all the rules. I was unfortunately, however, attacked from all corners from three fiendish contributors who put their own personal interests before the content. As to harassing admins, I have not once harassed an admin. Your "mate" again, is rather the one who uses objectionable language in dealing with others, and who has formed a sort of monopoly on certain articles, with the aid of corrupt admins such as yourself. Mariam83 05:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You: "You think you are right? Great, prove it gently! In your last email, you claiming that i blocked your sock or whatever w/ no sound reason. Aha! You thought that you contacted someone because you felt unjustice. Fine. Isn't that meatpuppeting? You accuse me of protecting the Maghreb article because Collusburry incited me to do so! You say how you to make an argument which is fine but you failed to know how to check the User:X contributions. Please bear in mind that the user you are talking about contacted me 20 MINUTES later after i protected the article." Prove it gently? the edits that I made were all sourced. Sadly however, they were reverted by contributors, again the same three fiendish war wagers, who found the "truth" in all its complexity, rather "objectionable." I am not in the least bit surprised however, as I immediately noted a propagandistic tone with which the article had been written, the interjection of value judgments such as "debatable" and the omission of FIGURES AND FACTS IN ISSUES discussing, rather authoritatively (pathetically), sadly enough, GENETICS! THE OMISSION OF The ORIGIN OF DONORS IN ASSERTING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT GENETICS IN A REGION MORE THAN TWICE AS LARGE AS EUROPE!The inclusion of thes every significant facts surely would have proved, as it did and does, my point rather perfectly. No, I'm afraid it is you who has rejected PROOF and boycotted PROOF! And Lastly, he did not contact you 20 mins AFTER you locked it. In fact, it is all documented on your talk page. He very clearly asks you, his "mate" do "help him out" and you very readily OBLIGED. And lastly, no one should have the right to remove tags. Mariam83 05:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, do you really thinking blocking me indefinitely will aid you in perpetuating lies and distortions about an entire region? I am going to complain to the highest echelons. I feel that you are jeopordizing the content of this portal, indeed, it's very essence, by not wisely administering. Mariam83 05:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to complain to the highest echelons. You are violating another Wikipedia policy → WP:LEGAL. The third and the last chance you got. Get some break please and come back w/ a fresh air. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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).

Mariam83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

For being unfairly ostracized. I merely reacted in like manner

Decline reason:

This does not justify your behaviour. — Yamla 15:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

Offer of help

Can you tell me what articles are in dispute? I may be able to offer a third opinion on your editing behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tunisia and Berber people. Please compare the following link with the demographics on the page:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n5/abs/5201797a.html

Also, please notice the number of Berbers in a country of 10 million people- 130,000 and compare with the demographics page. You could also check the CIA & columbia source. Mariam83 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Name of the Wikipedia article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

1)Tunisia
2)Berber people
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice how I have been blocked again? They really are trying their best to keep me away from these pages as my annotated sources contradict their rather POV edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not used any account inappropriately yet I have been blocked once again. I suspect certain admins are abusing their rights? what should I do? Mariam83 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand it can be frustrating, in particular when you strongly believe you are right. In Wikipedia, going head-to-head and reverting other editors, making claims of cabalism and other such complains, seldom accomplish anything (bedsides getting your blood pressure up and getting dinged for disruption).

For these situations when you feel unheard or when you may have a strong dispute with other editors, Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process that you can follow. Start by asking a third opinion. If that does not help, request input from other editors via a Request for comments. If that fails, ask for a mediator to assist you. You can do start with an informal mediator from the WP:MEDCAB.

In summary, be patient, do not get into edit wars and avoid strong exchanges with others, and even if you feel attacked, do not attack back. Use the power of the community to assist you. If your arguments have merit, the community will support them.

So, take a break, cool off, and when you come back start afresh with a new approach following Wikipedia dispute resolution. It takes time, but it works. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Jossi. Mariam83 12:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion

Because you were caught violating WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK, your block has been restarted. You are not permitted to edit while blocked. --Yamla 16:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by because I've been caught violating? I didn't violate anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I have not been caught doing anything. The admins that blocked me yesterday have decided to give me another chance. Mariam83 16:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you believe you are not required to adhere to WP:SOCK but I assure you this is not the case. --Yamla 16:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to Sub Africa

DOnt delete valid content. This is how wiki works.

• Add a dispute TAG if possible
• USe the talk page and dont remove content, especially age-old content (this section is very old)
• Use wiki rules by citing them before using your OPINION on what should be added or poor arguments

Now I will address some issues. This content from a PHD in African History the content is published widely. If it is so adsurb then what you need to do is use evidence not OPINION to contest the claim. Follow the rules, check this definition of original research because i dont know how a well cited statement can be original research. I dont think anyone who has travelled or lived in Africa would dare to compare (Russia (a country) with Pakistan (another country). My friend Africa is not a country, there is no Flag for Sub-Saharan Africa, The organization is called AU not SAU, There is no historical reference to a Sub-Africa. If this is real to you, then add your content but just because you disagree doesnt give you any right according to how this site works to delete it! And kindly show what seperates the North from the South so clearly. I state again this site is about reflecting all valid perspectives not just the ones you like!--RastaRule 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to address your concerns as I could barely read your paragraph, uninformed as it is. Now, I think anyone who has been to North Africa wouldn't even ask such a nonsensical question as "And kindly show what seperates the North from the South so clearly." Hmm, let's see. 1)Culture 2)Race 3)History 4)Language 5)Religion 6)Overall Identity 7)Geography

You can't possibly believe that North Africa is not distinguishable from Sub-saharan africa, unless you have never been there, in which, it is very possible from your little North American burough to imagine such nonsense. I assure you however, that there is a clear difference, which might explain why the Arabs started the whole abominable Slave trade. This example, tragic as it is, ought to clarify the division for you.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, however, which VALId content did I delete? What is more, I have yet to read an article concerning countries and regions that contains VALID content that is not manipulated and distorted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The proper label would be Sub-Saharan Africa, also known as Black Africa. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

according to who?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 01:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you insane? oh yes, you're an afrocentrist..you are rather eccentric. According to the world! If we begin to ask questions like these, then according to whom is Africa AFrica and Europe Europe and according to whom is the MEditerranean sea the emditerranean sea? according to whom does Africa end with northern morocco? why not with spain? This is an encyclopedia. Mariam83 15:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The PHD is not a historian nor is his opinion FACT. It is an idea, an experiment in conjecture...and the bogs of such opinions do not belong in an encyclopedia. Fact does. Like for instance, the fact that North Africa is separate from Sub-saharan Black Africa. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The entire earth is cut-up by all kinds of things so does this mean the desert in America makes it two countries? Sahara is a desert, Sub-Sahara is not a country or a collection of countries. What about countries in and out of the sahara--what are they?--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 01:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

it's not just the sahara, though the sahara, like an ocean, is a division. IT IS SUB-SAHARAN. It is about RACe, CULTURE and HISTORy.

Mariam83 15:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And if, as the PHD you are so fond of claims, the Saharan or divide is an imaginary one, then my dear the Mediterranean is also imaginary, as is the minuscule Red SEa, as is the Atlantic and Pacific. Get my drift? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mariam83 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No I don’t, deserts belts divide Namibia from the rest of Africa so what does that make it? Ethiopia is cut off by a mountain range so why not separate that out from Africa if geography is so important to your argument. The term sub-Sahara Africa as a separate object is a myth. the Sahara isn’t a myth. the divide on the bases of a inhabited desert is a myth. Try reading the arguments.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 01:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is Morocco not part of Europe? one can swim across the strait of gilbatar. Is it a myth? then Europe is an extension of North Africa. The term Europe and North Africa and mediterranean sea must be a myth. water divides continents but does it divide the world? no..must be a myth according to you, as one could swim..hmm. Oh my god, just accept that you are sub-saharan black african. Mariam83 15:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion warning

This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Tunisia, you will be blocked from editing. The particular issue here is deleting paragraphs which have sources, but whose findings you do not like. Do not do this again without the agreement of other editors. Bouha 04:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

ORIGINAL RESEARCH EXPLAINED

Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified). Thus the section which sums up 4 sources cannot be original research. original research is you stating The fact is North Africa is distinguished from Sub-saharan Africa for a reason, and the two cannot belong to the same label from your own mind as opposed to a valid external source.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Another warning about your poor usage of wiki

This is a warning about your poor application of wiki rules and inventions on articles which people are developing, have been developing. If you continue to do so you will find your account up for a bar. Please read the rules and use this site constructively and respect the work of other editors.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 01:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Tunisia

(copied from my talk page for your convenience)

Well, you accuse me of being Afrocentrist. No such agenda, sorry. Ma n3arf chay 3la tunis? Mmala! And let me quote you...

In the opening paragraph, you write that 98% of Tunisians identify themselves as Arabs and cite the CIA source. However, in the CIA source 98% of Tunisians are labeled Arab.

It appears you are accusing me of stuff without reading my edits. Look at Tunisia. It no longer says what you say it says, because I edited it. Actually identify oneself doesn't mean they're wrong, but in case you and other get that inference, I changed it to are. And you did delete sourced material. I also removed references to the 80% being Berber: did you notice that, or do you just want to be angry with the world? Bouha 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Bouha, irtha please. Mush lazem thabilni okay. And why did you go behind my back and attempt to block/ban me? Malla 7ishma. Instead of having welcomed a Tunisian contributor, you attempted , with the aid of others, to block me. You started this whole "biting" campaign. Talk about anger. Don't forget that I was very nice at first. If I am bothered at all, it is by the content. I am not the one who used all leverage to block a newcomer..I am not the angry one my dear. My problem with you is that you, along with others, seem to think that these article belong to you simply because you have been here longer. Unlike you, Bouha, I've absolutely no desire to reprimand strangers or adults. I find this aspect of wikipediam rather tedious. It also compromises the material...and it is simply bizarre, we are not in kindergarten. Don't try to block me and waste my time. I am not interested in wikipedia or in becoming a member and having my own webpage etc...what an utter waste of life. I am simply concerned about the articles pertaining to this region. Thankfully since my arrival,, certain things have changed though I am still battling the wholly ignorant non-natives who have hijacked these pages. Americans, British..Blacks..all attempting to rewrite a region's history and reality to further their political means. I understand that Europe does not want to be responsible for the mess that they caused in Black Africa but North Africa should not have to remedy their disasters. You fail to see the strategic manipulations behind this idiotic and absurd afrocentrism, and risk the region's future in not understanding this. Now, as to the TUnisia page, please don't twist the sources around, as the authors have done on the Berber page, in an effort to blackenize the original Berbers, who are Eurasian, by pretending that the blacks who have marauded into Noth Africa are veritable Berbers. This is the problem with this idiotic label. As is also the testing og immigrants as natives. It is as if one were to travel to France and test a Senegalese/French person and say..Oh , jeee look. This should not be tolerated. If you fail to understand this, then so be it. Please dont threaten me anymore, as I am not interested in this silly game. I did not break the 3rv rule and I have every right to edit. I contacted wikipedia, and they encouraged me to do so. I left messages on your talkpage yesterday repeatedly. Mariam83 15:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Maghreb

I think it is time you unlocked the Maghreb page, as it contains some false information that needs to be removed/edited. You are also in dire need of a history lesson. I urge you to learn more about the region from which you come. As far as I know, Morocco is not part of the United Nations of the African Jungle, and Maghreb explicitly means, nations bordering the Mediterranean or Red Sea. If as an admin the content does not interest you, then perhaps you should not lock pages at the request of contributors whose intent it is to distort content! Thank you Mariam83 16:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Again and again, you seem you haven't learned anything about how wikipedia works. Your rants are still being the rule instead of an exception. Admins lock pages when a "cool down" period to stop an edit war is needed. Read well Wikipedia:Protection policy. On the other hand, protection expires automatically as noted in the edit summary here.

As for you urging me to read about the history of the Maghreb, i find it weird since neither a researcher nor any concerned party contacted me before you. So i'd assume you are kidding. You stop your harassment, ranting, insulting, racist remarks toward African users, legal threats, accusing admins or else you'd be out of this place as per our multiple policies and guidelines. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(After yet more blankings and restorings, Marian 83 finally blanked all posts hereabove back to the last blanking-note, plus the sock-puppetry tag, at 20:06, 26 June 2007. -- Lonewolf BC, ed.)

blanking take pages is dishonest

Do not blank your talk page as you are hidding the remarks and warnings which expose your mindset and your conduct on wiki. your link is not relevant to the blanking of talk pages.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly is. You seem preoccupied with one's conduct etc. while my sole concern is the content. Again, it is my right to blank my talkpage and it has become a habit that I intend to keep. Rather than waste your time worrying about my talkpage, spend it reading facts instead, it might benefit you and most imp, wikipedia in the future. Mariam83 19:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

study the rules you have no rights this is not your website. How long have you been editing here? Please dont shame yourself anymore it is clear you dont know what you are doing, or understand how this site works. everyone is saying the same thing to you, take a break and rethink how to contribute without the racism and bad research.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are the racist who is attempting, with mighty force, to rob a whole civilization and region of its identity because you seem to regard your own with very little regard. I have linked the page for you where it clearly states that users may blank pages. You seem to believe only what appeals to you. Here it is again [4] Mariam83 19:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

---

I just saw your contribution on my talkpage, it goes on the contradiction of black and white. In my eyes, Northwest Africa was mostly white, but there were also black Berbers (like Garamantes). See my article: Ancient Libya. In any case, there is no reason to feel angry when dealing with such contradictions. It makes wikipedia more vital, and it cannot change the history (positively or negatively). So, be patient, en consider it as a sharing of common knowledge, Best regards! Read3r 20:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Racist attacks

You got away with this and this, and you continue in the same manner. One more racist attack like this and you will be blocked. You have been getting away with incivility, but no more. --Ezeu 21:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been pointing to the content and facts the entire time. Users keep alluding to personal behavior etc. in an attempt to bypass the material, content and authority of the text. I encourage you to look up the information, as your behavior is sabotaging the material. In the end, this is not a forum or chat or social network, it is a strange creation that aims to be "encyclopedic" and despite the fact that its very technicality will forever obstruct that possibility, it is my aim and it should be yours as well, to render its CONTENT encyclopedic. I left severals sources for you on the page, for instance, the Oxford definition of North Africa, which you should perhaps acquaint yourself with. It might encourage some objectivity on your part. Thank you for your note, and I will try my best to remind editors of wikipedia's essence: the dessimation of accurate and scholarly information and not etiquette or nonsense. Your help is much appreciated. It behooves us all, including you Ezeub, to focus on the CONTENT. Mariam83 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(Marian83 blanked the page again here, at 21:30, 9 July 2007 -- Lonewolf BC, ed.)

You've been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal, you are corrupt. You have blocked me at collounsbury's request and perhaps bouha's. You are abusing your power. Maybe you think wikipedia is run by the morroccan or any other 3rd world gov? No, it is an American creation and in America, corruption is not tolerated. Even though I feel my behavior was unjustified, I think your profile should be scrutinized VERY CAREFULLY. You appear to be abusing your privileges and bestowing favors upon editors you've befriended, a most unAmerican thing. Mariam83 23:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed your contributions, and you very often mention Collunsbury and noticed that you've in several instances granted Collunsbury "favors" in haste, without reviewing the case or even warning the editors, for example, with the Maghreb page, you locked it without warning any ediotrs and simply at Collounsbury's requestfor a "favor" on your talkpage. Mariam83 23:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

who cares. You are stupid and idiotic. You think you're impacting the world in a positive way, but funnily enough, you're only compromising the content by blocking me. Yel3an deenak.."De foot, connard, et de cown." Enjoy your life "administering" foreverrr and ever and ever and ever. And before pitying deecee, why don't you read some of the utter filth she's tried to disseminate. Again, thank you..afterall, stupidity has no bounds, which might explain why wikipedian stupidity seems to overflow alllll boundaries. Mariam83 09:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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).

Mariam83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The admin that blocked me appears to be working in tandem with certain editors, that is, he bestows favors upon certain ediotrs, in this instance I suspect Collounsbury. A review of his history will reveal misconduct and corruption on his part. He blocked me for an instance that occured a long time ago, before my first block, even though I had made a truce with another editor in regards to a dispute on a certain article. Mainly however, I feel that this admin is corrupt and abuses his admin privileges. He promises to fulfill collunsbury's demand here [3] and mentions his "mate" collounsbury as a possible aide in changing an article here [4]. The main problem I had with these articles was the unwillingness on collounsbury's behalf to accept sources from the UN, Oxford and Britannica as sufficient evidence to corroborate my requests for change. Fayssal has exhausted his admin privileges in blocking me indefinitely by digging up incidents that occured before his first block. As of now, the articles remain flawed and inaccurate. The editors that ignorantly hawked the articles rejected all authoritative evidence and resorted to childish innuendo instead in an attempt to divert attention away from the CONTENT, which is why I am again wasting my time discussing this rather than correcting their reverts.

Decline reason:

Block was endorsed at WP:ANI. After the block, Mariam83 continues to be disruptive and abusive using IPs. — Ezeu 06:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

Hey Ezeu, you are the same self-loathing Sudani black guy who contirbutes to the articles that are inaccurate hehehehe wikipedia is a joke :) if the same self-loathing black person who pretends like black people are not really black and resemble Arab people is the one in control of blocks and content, it is no wonder wikipedia is worthless. By the way, you are black, I swear it...and sudanese people are considered 3abeed in the Arab world, afterall, Sudan means black in Arab, sudanese means the black breed.

The whole gruesome tale

For the convenience of any admins having cause to review it (and of the morbidly curious), the whole gruesome tale of Mariam83's past misbehavior and gross talk-page incivility is restored above. Though I expect the culprit will delete it, it will remain at hand and fully assembled, in the page history. -- Lonewolf BC 06:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Must not be as gruesome as your private tales, my sixth sense never fails me, and you sound like one sick reject. I bet you're on anti-depressants. And for some odd reason, I feel you've taken advantage of some vulnerable beings. Guilty you are!

And now your talk page is protected. --Golbez 12:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)