User talk:Regman007

Speedy deletion of Samir Zeinoun

A tag has been placed on Samir Zeinoun requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have made an edit to Samir Geagea that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. The link you provided is a personal link and is not suitable for wikipedia. Even on the site you listed as a reference it only mentions a lawsuit. Please do not add it again or your will be reported to an adminstrator.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Geagea

I am sorry to hear about this person. The link you gave as a reference is to a private site and it does not even mention anything other then a lawsuit. Samir Geagea is a leader and all the evidence you have is a private web site dedicated to this person who was executed? How do you know how old I am?

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you make your comment less POV and put that he accuses Geagea of ordering the execution? I am going to change the wording because there is a court case against Samir Geagea for a reason- because it's an unproven allegation that he wishes to challenge in court.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you add defamatory content, as you did to Samir Geagea, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. provide THIRD party citings Eli + 14:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you add defamatory content, as you did to Samir Geagea, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Eli + 09:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated addition of defamatory content despite warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Please choose your wording more prudently. Doczilla _STOMP! 09:17, 31 May 2008 (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).

Regman007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was trying to add a very well known fact in Lebanon and the Middle East about Samir Geagea. There is a court case against him which is taking place on the 12th of June in Lebanon. My edits have been constantly removed by a group of people who may support Samir Geagea. They do not want the truth come out for some unknown reason. Samir Geagea himself has never denied ordering the execution. When the execution took place in 1988 during the Lebanese war, it was a very well publicized event in the Lebanese and the Middle Eastern media. Time after time my edits were removed for various reasons although they could not deny that Samir Geagea has ordered the execution. Every time I answer their request they come up with a different reason [Samir Geagea article Page History].I was forced to post the execution order which was signed by Samir Geagea himself on the www.zeinoun.org website. What else do they want? I have nothing against anyone. What should I do to get this undeniable fact posted? Regman007 (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As noted below, you need to seek dispute resolution to bring in uninvolved third parties to help solve the dispute before re-adding the information. That you continued to add it over and over is edit warring and is disruptive. It should be noted that edit warring to add "correct" or "right" information is still edit warring. You are blocked for behavior and not content. Please change your behavior when the block expires, and seek dispute resolution methods as described at WP:DR. Thank you. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:55, 1 June 2008 (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.

I can see why you're frustrated, but here's the thing: at Wikipedia, we try to resolve disputes by discussing them, and looking at your contributions it seems you've put most or all of your energy into edit warring instead of justifying your actions. Please remember to use talk pages to develop consensus in tough situations; it's difficult to get the hang of, but works out much better for all involved in the long run. The trick is not just being right, but also convincing others that your are right. If you agree to stop reverting and instead discuss your edits, I might support an unblock. The ball is in your court. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2008 (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).

Regman007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do agree that I did not do a good job using the talk pages although I have tried by starting a discussion with Eternalsleeper (talk)) which went well, but later on other users started removing my edits and did not know what to do. I lack experience in using Wikipedia but I do not lack good manners. I have never said anything wrong, bad or untruthful about anyone. I would have liked to re-start a discussion but with who? There are too many of them. And how can I convince them about a fact that they already know and cannot deny? Regman007 (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wait until your block expires ad read WP:DR / WP:EW in the meantime. Edit warring is not acceptable, even if you think you are right. — Sandstein 10:08, 1 June 2008 (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.