User talk:Rastiniak

This user has a second user page, with a Hebrew user name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D7%A8%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%90%D7%A7

August 2012

Hello, I'm Macaddct1984. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Category:Jewish anti-Zionism seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, MacAddct1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 14:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your lawsuit

Hi! In this edit, you indicated that you are planning a lawsuit against Wikipedia. That is entirely your right. However, while you are in the process of suing Wikipedia, Wikipedia's policies require that you stop editing Wikipedia, and instead, your communication with Wikipedia should happen between your lawyer and the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyer. You can read more about that at WP:LEGAL. I also noticed, in that edit, that you had misunderstood which of your edits was against Wikipedia's rules- the problem edit was this one. You can read more about Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy at WP:NPOV. The rules require me to block this account from editing, until your lawsuit has concluded. However, I think there's a chance that you were just making an idle threat, and aren't really planning a lawsuit. If that's the case, all you need to do is respond to this message, clearly stating that you are not involved in a lawsuit against Wikipedia or any of its editors, and have no plan to file such a lawsuit in the future. I'll wait a few minutes before blocking this account, to give you a chance to respond. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amiram Goldblum

In attempting to remove the inaccurate and biased information from this article, you also removed some basic Wikipedia information, like the category tags and the reference list. I've restored those, but removed information which seemed to be verified only by sources that don't meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. I'll try to keep an eye on this article, to make sure that only well-cited information is added to it. I may have made some errors in fact simply because I don't have much knowledge of chemistry or Zionism, but I will do my best! Be aware that facts about you that are reported in reliable sources will get to stay in the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question, regarding notability

Does Wikipedia need an article about you? Here are Wikipedia's criteria for notability for university professors; do you think that you meet that criteria? It looks like this article was created purely for political reasons; if you don't meet that criteria, I'd be happy to nominate this article to be deleted from Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Rastiniak. You have new messages at Macaddct1984's talk page.
Message added 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

MacAddct1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI AGAIN,

i AM NOT SURE THAT i ANSWER PROPERLY, BUT CLEARLY NEED YOUR PROTECTION. i DO NO REGARDS MYSELF AS ONE OF THE CHEMISTS WHO ARE IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO BE ON WIKIPEDIA - MAYBE i WILL CHANGE MY MIND, BUT THAT ONLY IF I MANAGE TO DISCOVER A MAJOR IMPORTANT ANTI CNACER DRUG, WHICH IS MY MAIN ACTIVITY i AM INDEED INVOLVED IN POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND THIS ARTICLE ABOUT ME WAS CLEARLY INTRODUCED FOR POLITICAL SMEARING OF ME. i CNA ALSO ADD THAT NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THE ITEMS UNDER THE "CONTROVERSY" TITLE IN MY "BIOGRAPHY" IS CORRECT, AND THE ONLY PARTIALLY CORRECT ONE MENTIONS FINANCIAL QUESTIONING OF MY SUPPORT TO PM BARAK IN 1990, BUT I WAS NEVER CHARGED IN COURT FOR THAT, SO THAT IS A LIE AS WELL. aLL THE "SOURCES" CITED IN MY BIOGRAPHY, EXCEPT FOR THE NEUTRAL ONES ABOUT MY UNIVERSITY POSITION, ARE "SELF CREATED".

YOU MAY SAFELY DELETE MY NAME FROM WIKIPEDIA, AS THERE IS NO REASON YET TO INCLUDE ME THERE

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP, Rastiniak (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)AMIRAM[reply]

Thanks- I'll start the procedure for deleting this article. It will be several days -maybe as long as a week - before it is deleted, but in the meantime, there are at least two of us watching it to prevent the restoration of the biased information. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much ! Rastiniak (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)rastiniak (Amiram Goldblum)[reply]

Greetings

Hi Rastiniak

I note your comments at User talk:Soosim/Amiram Goldblum. You may be interrested at looking at the record of my Wikipedia stalker: See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Runtshit and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Runtshit. There are several other related pages, and I would be happy to share information with you regarding this; I believe that we have a common enemy. (Note, however, that I do not share your opinion that to be called an anti-Zionist is abusive). RolandR (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1400+ socks? omG..... Soosim (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the new Amiram Goldblum page

hey rastiniak - you are in violation of several wiki rules with all of your changes. the best solution for now might be to just stop editing that page. the next best might be to revert most of your edits since they are in violation of the rules (WP:1RR).

in any case, i have brought the article to the attention of other editors and to the WP:BLPN. you may comment there, or here, or anywhere, if you want.

i think for the betterment of wikipedia, it would behoove you to learn some of the basic rules and to follow them. your edits, as they stand now, are very very disruptive and can lead to sanctions. Soosim (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request to stop the Vandalism on the Amiram Goldblum article

I have already made several requests to stop the vandalism by political rivals who try to smear the name of Goldblum by adding irrelevant information and adding lines to the "political Acitivity" section on that page which are a set of swears rather than reference based information. There is nothing on that page as it was edited by rastinak that has the slightest ingredient of incorrect information. I hope that senior wikipedia editors would indeed intervene in order to block the political smearing, which is a repeat of the attempts during August 2012 that ended by deleting the article altogether. This may be the preferred avenue now. Rastiniak (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak[reply]

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Amiram_Goldblum, Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Amiram_Goldblum.27s_disruptive_editing and User_talk:Sean.hoyland#amiram_goldblum. Several editors aree aware of the problems here, and are working to resolve this. Meanwhile, I would advise you to pay special attention to the Wikipedia rules about edit-warring, and not to allow yourself to be drawn into a trap whereby you will be blocked while your defamers will be free to continue. RolandR (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Amiram Goldblum, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Steven Plaut. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Hertz1888 : I wonder how the steven Plaut article can remain neutral without stressing his most important activity in Israel, Isracampus.org.il, where he is the initiator (after separating from the right wing watchdog Israel-Academia-monitor in 2008), the "master mind" (writing most of the names articles on Isracampus, and he presenting himself as plaut@isracampus

and being the owner of that site (according to all neutral examinations). This site has been already the reason for the Neve Gordon libel suit against Plaut and is now subject to a second libel suit by Goldblum. Please explain what is wrong in presenting his own mocking of the Palestinian Nakba, where he "congratulates" the Palestinians with his hopes for more Nakbas ? Is he ashamed of what he wrote ? or maybe proud of it and will be happy if it is mentioned in his article, a fact that might have been ignored until now ? Please explain why not bring his own very extreme words to be publicly acknolwedged ? Rastiniak (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a site for expressing our opinions. Please try to avoid editorializing and stick to what is reliably sourced. It is your added comments and conclusions (such as "smears", "do not adhere" and "mocked") that make the edit problematic. WP cannot take a non-neutral tone in its own voice. Relevant policies are found at WP:NPOV, WP:NOTSOAP (especially nos. 1 & 2) and elsewhere. Your labeling of "his extreme right-wing ideologies" is also uncited, and an apparent violation of WP:BLP as well as WP:LABEL. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Hertz1888 I understand and agree with your explanations. I am still learning, maybe the hard way.... with that being said, what about a source such as Steven Plaut's own words, please suggest how to introduce it, or why not to introduce it: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11654 ? Other citations by him are found on his page, why should that one be excluded ? Thank you. Rastiniak (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Talk:Amiram Goldblum. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mifter (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to Mifter It seems to me that I did not attack on this present page any editor but I asked relevant questions concerning content that were unanswered yet. It will be good to learn what are the opinions of WP editors about including in the article about Steven Plaut the following piece of his:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11654 which reflects more than a thousand photos his ideas. Please recommend if it should be discussed on the talk page of the Plaut article. Thank you. Rastiniak (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)rastiniak[reply]

October 2012 Yisraela Goldblum Fund poll

Please do not make comments in a Wikipedia article. Instead, use the article's Talk page, Talk:October 2012 Yisraela Goldblum Fund poll.

Also, please read WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks. Comment on content, not on contributors. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Talk Thank you for your useful comments. Unfortunately, we are too experienced with these attempts by user:soosim and others to smear the name of goldblum by all kinds of tricks, that senior editors of wikipedia already identified and are well aware of, and there is clearly no aspect of WP:Assume good faith in this case, quite the contrary, as there is no problem to identify a Smear Campaign here and elsewhere. Rastiniak (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Rastiniak[reply]

January 2013

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:October 2012 Yisraela Goldblum Fund poll. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:October 2012 Yisraela Goldblum Fund poll, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Israel and the apartheid analogy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that I am the one who introduced correct information into the page, while another editor is at war with me, on the issue which was also discussed on the Amiram Goldblum talk page and concluded in favor of undoing what that other editor introduced, which has no basis in any citation, while I introduced a valid reference. Please examine that talk page and hopefully it will become crystal clear. Rastiniak (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Rastiniak[reply]

First, it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong. Attacking other editors is not permitted, and the next time you do it I will block you.

Second, as it says above: Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my response to you above, I did not purport to justify warring, but to justify the information. I assume that it is not the fact that I edited or reverted that provoked your warnings, but my attacks, although they were not naming a specific editor. Rastiniak (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Rastiniak[reply]

October 2012 Yisraela Goldblum Fund poll (2)

Hi Rastiniak. Having two active WP:RMs on one article usually causes confusion and is to be avoided. But it looks like you now prefer the second title, and no other users have expressed support for the first. Can we consider the first proposal withdrawn? --BDD (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BDD, yes, the first may be withdrawn due to agreeing with WP:POV. But is it only that the current WP:RM substitution is considered and not the deletion of the incorrect current title ? As long as there is no agreed title, is that title acceptable ? Could it be just called "The 2012 Poll" or is any evidence required for a title ? Where is the evidence for that current title as well as for the Fund's erroneous name ? Rastiniak (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Rastiniak[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but if anyone new shows up that supports the proposed name in the first RM, they'll probably say so. It's common to suggest alternatives in RM discussions. The current title will remain unless consensus is found for an alternative. After the RM resolves, you could move the article yourself, but tread very carefully if you do so, and don't do anything contrary to consensus. Best, BDD (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

rastiniak multiple accounts needs to be corrected

rastiniak has two accounts, one in english and one in hebrew. i now see that he has been investigated for sock puppetry. i propose that one of the accounts be deleted (makes no difference which), but that all material from that account's talk page be moved to the remaining account's talk page. (i assume that both are his and not a real sock puppet, yes?)

relevant pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rastiniak/Archive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D7%A8%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%90%D7%A7

rastiniak - you have first right to take care of this. please proceed. thanks. Soosim (talk) 06:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That SPI was closed with no action. The only thing this editor needs to do at this stage is to use only one account going forward. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rastiniak may not be familiar with the relevant policy, WP:Multiple accounts, which recommends the use of only one account without good reason. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

official conflict of interest report

Hello, Rastiniak. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

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

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

rastiniak - I believe it is now clear that you have a deep conflict of interest in editing of Wikipedia. I am asking you to please refrain from making any edits to any article related to amiram goldblum (including the new Israel fund, Israel and apartheid related articles, yisraela golblum, steven plaut, etc.) unless you discuss your edit/revert/addition/etc on the talk page first. that is the easiest of wiki's standard procedures, though you can try some edits anyway, as per WP:LUC. in addition, it also appears that you are in violation of WP:SPA which is a separate but related issue. I ask, again, in order to make this work smoothly, that you discuss all edits on the talk page of the relevant article first, before editing the article itself (editing, reverting, adding, deleting, etc.). thank you. Soosim (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.

(I would just change 'you may be involved' to 'you are involved'. Soosim (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]