User talk:Sagbliss

Note to Nishkid

You have blocked me from sending an email from this site to you and also have taken me off sending an email from this site to Riana. Below is the entire message I sent Rianna which you conveniently altered. Further, Rianna knows full well she asked for a change to the get site today because the article had not been edited for three days. She asked to change a couple of lines relating to Ms. Bruker and to remove the fact that she had an affair because it was not relevant to ths issue. Bruno then denied her change. This was in the history of edits secions which I somewhere have saved. Nishkid then changed the history section to show Rianna's change without the notice of line was changed. This is fraud and if an attorney did this in Federal Court, he would be disbarred and possibly charged with contempt of court.

In response to Nishkid's question in the email to me, I think that he is not telling the truth and is equivocating about what Rianna really sent to her. From what I have read on her page, she would be quite offended at the vindictive behaviour of these men. I was talking to Riana at the time she saw your message, and she had no idea what you were talking about. Care to enlighten us where you first contacted Riana?

On 10/28/07, Sagbliss <sbruker@hotmail.com> wrote: Rianna absolutely asked that there be a reversion which was poopooed by Bruno. You have not read a thing. Originally, Riana had the second to last post which you have fraudulently reverted to the last post. Bruno had undone it. Although I right now do not have in front of me the history edit ( I am saving all your pearls of wisdom) I do have a copy of an email which I sent to Riana. I will see that your tampering with the site is dealt with. This is fraud and deceit. All the history of what went on the site in the last few days is available on the server. The email continued with the entire article and a couple of more statements.

User talk:Riana From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I sent you a message which I am not sure I put on the correct page. I am a busy woman who has worked on get issues and am very familiar with the get case in Canada which is emerging law on the barriers to remarriage. This fellow Bruno is a vindictive fellow. The issue is to remove barriers to remarriage for women. All the men involved are abusive. The whole article is contextualy wrong. The correct article which has been blocked from the WIkipedia site. I framed the article with the titles that were originally written. Each and every section has cites which all these men have not read including Nishkid who is siding with these men. You are a woman. Whether you are Jewish or Muslim, a man could do this to you one day. Read the correct version of the article. And further, look at Nishkid's talk page and the notes at the bottom of my user page which admits that he has not read. And do note that your suggestion was ignored. Farmbrough stated the same thing as you. It was ignored. --Sagbliss 17:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

-- ~Nishkid64

You falsely send me For all women reading this article, this Nishkid who is not Jewish (states he is Indian American on his page) and has no knowledge of the get page has permanently blocked me from the Wikipedia entire site for trying to get a factually correct article on the site. All the editors are men, not knowledgeable in law or Judaism and certainly do not understand how to read a legal case or a legal cite. There is a woman Rianna who has tried to tell the male editors to change a line in the Court of Appeals Canadian case. She has been ignored. Further, the mention of the Canadian Supreme Court case is now totally off the site. Only transcripts have been submitted from December 27, 2006. Unfortunately, these non mavens forgot to mention what transcripts they were talking about.

I had put the factually correct article on the get on the talk page which was incorrectly removed by Gschoryu. You have no right to remove anything from my talk page. This is discrimination and it it to be noted that the men who are hovering over this article are vindictive and feeding into the issue that men abuse women in the aguna issue.

--Sagbliss 17:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to note that I'm a law student. I spend 60+ hours a week going over legal cites. Given your persistent incivility, and your perpetual legal arguments on this, I'm going to protect your talk page from further editing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Bruno, 24.225.137.164 (Talk) (4,267 bytes) and Sinebot, you have all been reported to the executive staff of wikimedia. You all do not have any legal understanding of the issue at hand. And to undo an article because it has not been cited with Wikipaedia cites which are often inaccurate is vandalism. The issue is the conflict between religious law and secular law and the emerging secular law to combat the religious law which cannot be changed because Jewish law is more than 5000 years old. If you do not understand the issues, talk to an attorney and get his/her understanding before you weigh in again. And do not that the get is not International Law nor are children out of wedlock in Judaism ever recognized in Israel. Look at the icar.il.org site.

Note: The article was restored before you changed the article to one with legal cites, etc. The issue is the conflict between religious law and jewish secular law. Please leave it. Also note that the Wikimeda editing staff is aware that this article is being professionally written. Other lawyers will also weigh in on the article along with icar.org.il. Please leave the references and read some of the citations in order to gain insight to the issue. Thank you --Sagbliss 02:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "professionally written" but it's all irrelevant if you do not properly source the content. What this means is that you cannot draw your own conclusions from citations and make arguments as if this were a motion. It's not. You clearly have not yet learned how wikipedia works. I've politely suggested your read up on wikipedia's original research policy. You should do it again. And yes we are aware that the article is being rewritten by you, and that has been problematic due to your approach. FYI, there is no such thing as "senior editing staff", at wikipedia (as you have mentioned in other posts). Your attempt to manufacture an endorsement of your efforts is pretty obvious to anyone who has minimal experience with Wikipedia. Bruno23 11:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to 64.3.161.67-- I note that you were editing this article today which is the Jewish Sabbath. I am not sure what your understanding is as to Jewish law with respect to Jewish marriage and divorce. Rabbis are given the power by the state to marry individuals.For that reason, the marriage ceremony is justiciable in the Courts of Western Countries. Couples are married by a Rabbi. They don't marry themselves." Judaic Law holds that, as with the marriage ceremony" is incorrect. Contrast, In the get process, the man must request the get and then both parties appear before the Rabbinical Beth to for the purpose of obtaining a get. It is the Rabbis that write the "so called" decision in Hebrew. The couple does not do it. This get has absolutely no standing in any civil court as a judgment which is why Western Countries in their body of law including Canada, Section 21.1 of the revised Divorce Act of 1985 addressed the issues of barriers to remarriage. With respect to the Supreme Court case that is awaiting decision in Canada, it is far more important to note legal oral argument in the SUpreme Court of Canada December 5, 2006 than the transcripts which are of the oral argument. Please read the Canadian Civil Liberties Association case on Bruker to see the issues.

As far as Brett, the issue of this case was to order a husband to give the get which is called specific performance. It has nothing to do with the usage of the Jews which is extremely offensive in the way it is written. sagbliss. Why not write the get site www.icar.org.il and Ms. Shames will confirm what I am telling you. She will also weigh in on this article.

Response:

I have no problem with anyone editing the technical part of what I write. What I am putting on here is substantive legal issues with good legal cites. These for the benefit of the reader should be left. Also initially, the article substantively was incorrect. Once I have finished in the next few days, if my technical insertions are incorrect, these should be edited but unless someone else here is an attorney, please leave the chronological order of dates alone because it affects the law. And I work with people all the time. When I write,I leave out salacious material which has absolutely no relevance to the legal issues at hand. Once the Supreme Court of Canada rules if the Court rules for Bruker, the Court of Appeals case will be totally moot. The attorneys for the case will probably weigh into the article as well.

By any chance, are you Ms. Bruker?

Please learn proper discourse

Dear Sagbliss, I am very confident you are not a lawyer given your analysis and incoherent prose. I also have strong suspicions that you are indeed Ms. Bruker. You have left enough hints in your messages and writings that you are she.

I also challenge you to explain exactly which passages are slanderous (and you may want to look that word up in a dictionary - it refers to spoken words, not written). I have read Justice Hilton's ruling and the Supreme Court of Canada summaries - all elements of the section addressing Bruker v. Marcovitz closely track the published findings of fact.

If you are Ms. Bruker, you must disclose this fact as required by Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines. I and other editors have also noted your abuse of Wikipedia norms. You are behaving badly in how you edit, and how to treat other editors. You will get a better reception if you read up more on how to approach editing in a collaborative environment and better learn about how to properly write an encyclopedic article.

OK. Now that I have that off my chest, I can possibly give you the benefit of the doubt that you are trying to write in good faith, but you are taking a very heavy hand to that article. It just doesn't work that way in Wikipedia. You have to gain credibility first before you can just rewrite entire sections of an article. The issue is that we don't care what any single editor thinks - you need to bring in external, published, and verifiable information in a neutral point of view. If you don't, you'll just get your work removed again and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.137.164 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Recent Comments to Editors on the Get Article

Hi Sagbliss. I've noted your recent comments to a couple of people editing the article on Get (conflict). Given your stated involvement with the case, you might want to learn a little more about wikipedia conventions around WP:POV and WP:NPOV. You have lashed out at people for simple gramatical or formatting changes. You do not own the article -- it's everyones. Editing is a group process and depends on people working together.

In the process of your edits have damaged the reference syntax. Wikipedia depends on properly cited articles so you might want to do some research into the templates that are used here Wikipedia:Citation templates.

Also, you may not yet appreciate the design of Wikipedia in that every article is open to editing by anyone who plays by the rules (those who cannot participate nicely or responsibly get blocked or banned). Here's some reading to help you better understand how Wikipedia works. 24.225.137.164 01:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These links are just starting points for your exploration into the wornderful world of wikipedia. Good luck, be polite, and try not to take it all so personally so soon.

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.Bruno23 14:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Get (Conflict) Talk Page

Hi. I reverted your deletion of comments on the talk page. Edits like yours are normally not done without good justification or explanation. You offered none. I noted that you also eliminated a comment that your edits may be biased. You have really failed to tackle concerns that you are writing, not as an impartial editor, but as a party to a court case. Can you explain exactly your role in the case of Bruker v. Markovitz, and why we should trust your edits: you seem to lack a neutral point of view, and your edits are not properly cited or readily verifiable. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Bruno23 15:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: 3rr

Regarding reversions[1] made on October 24 2007 to Get (conflict)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia. We have our own rules and policies. Your interpretation of internet law does not apply here. We can block whoever we please, permitted they are violating Wikipedia rules, or are disrupting the environment. If you continue these rants and attacks against other editors, you will be blocked. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you issue legal threats, you will be blocked per WP:NLT. It's an encyclopedia for everyone, for goodness sake! Sending e-mails to OTRS to get your way is unprofessional, and goes against the philosophy of this website. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not contesting the validity of your edits. We're telling you to stop reverting other people's edits without discussion. When people are in a dispute, they should go to the talk page and discuss the problem. Otherwise, the users involved will be blocked or the page will be protected. I suggest you go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter with the other involved parties. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not neglect to respond to your previous comments. I did respond to them. I'm not unprotecting the article until you actually do some serious discussion and reach a consensus on the article talk page. If I unprotect, an edit war will just start up again. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting the page is not an endorsement of the current state of the article. So, do not implicate me for my actions. I am acting as an administrator, and I am no way supporting any version of the article, and I don't plan to do so now. Unprotecting the page is a possibility, but I am not considering it now. You continue to say that you will just continue edit warring (if others revert you) on the article. Please read all the relevant policies on Wikipedia - WP:3RR, WP:REVERT, etc. Also, you have yet to pose a question. You keep telling me to read this and that, but I told you that this is a content dispute, and I will not take sides on the matter. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was never asked to mediate. Essentially, all you said was that your version was accurate, and it was discriminatory to prevent you from editing the page. You told me to look at the links (which I admit, I did not) because they would apparently show you're right. I'm not going to bother mediating if you haven't even made a legitimate attempt at discussing the issues with the other editors. You have dismissed their actions as inappropriate, and you have made legal threats against them. You have been contacting the Wikimedia Foundation by telling them to enforce your version of the page. There's no sign that you are willing to compromise. You remain staunchly by your position. What would mediating do? In this case, it would do absolutely nothing. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's your responsibility as an editor of Wikipedia to collaborate with other users. That's the whole point of Wikipedia. If you're only here to get your version of a page on here, then perhaps this place is not suitable for you. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting comments on talk pages

Following this, please do not use ALL CAPS. And following this, use "== ... ==" markup for titles, not as a device for typographic emphasis. People attempting to use typographical devices such as these in order to get their point across more effectively are more likely to come across as hectoring, and are less likely to get a thoughtful reading than if they'd written straightforwardly. -- Hoary 07:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to users

Please put your messages to users on their talk pages. Not their user pages. Thanks! Gscshoyru 16:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about your comment to Hoary -- and now you just did the same thing to me. You put the comment on my user page, not my talk page. To get to a user's talk page while on their user page, click the "discussion" tab at the top of the page when you're on their user page. Thanks! Gscshoyru 16:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on my talkpage

I'm not sure I've ever left you a message, so I don't know what you're talking about. Thanks, ~ Riana ⁂ 17:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move of article to subpage

I moved the article you pasted on your talk here, a subpage of your user space -- it's confusing to have it on your talk page. Gscshoyru 17:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sagbliss, Gschoyru's actions were appropriate. You're not supposed to copy and paste an article into your user talk page because well...it's just confusing. You should thank Gschoyru for fixing your mistake. Also, drop this whole sexism conspiracy. It's getting rather annoying to hear that every single male is out to get you. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get Conflict Issue

You have no right to remove the factually get conflict article from my edit unprotected page. You suggested you placed it on another page. This is not your right to touch my talk page. --Sagbliss 17:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest I put it on another page. I did put it on another page. It should not be on your talk page, that's far too confusing to users who wish to communicate with you. Instead, it's on a subpage of your userspace, where you can do, within reason, whatever you want with it, which is what you intended, ok? Gscshoyru 17:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please put your comments on my talk page. Not my user page. My talk page is here: User talk:Gscshoyru. And no, the purpose of the talk page is to discuss, and usually the topic discussed is elsewhere. Please stop adding it back. Thanks! Gscshoyru 17:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making legal threats. 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.

Nishkid64 (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admins: do not unblock per OTRS ticket#2007092910018541, please contact NishKid64 and myself first. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your email to xaosflux

Regarding:

Delivered-To: xaosflux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Return-Path: <wiki@wikimedia.org>
Received: from wiki-mail.wikimedia.org (wiki-mail.wikimedia.org [66.230.200.216])
                Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (best guess record for domain of wiki@wikimedia.org designates 66.230.200.216 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.230.200.216;
Authentication-Results:(best guess record for domain of wiki@wikimedia.org designates 66.230.200.216 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=wiki@wikimedia.org
Received: from srv66.pmtpa.wmnet (48319 helo=localhost.localdomain)
	by mchenry.wikimedia.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <wiki@wikimedia.org>)
	id 1InHd1-0001vV-KI
	for xaosflux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:45:19 +0000
Received: from localhost.localdomain (srv66 [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.localdomain (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l9VHjJBb029262
	for <xaosflux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:45:19 GMT
Received: (from apache@localhost)
	by localhost.localdomain (8.13.7/8.13.7/Submit) id l9VHjJri029261;
	Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:45:19 GMT
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:45:19 GMT
Message-Id: <200710311745.l9VHjJri029261@localhost.localdomain>
X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: apache set sender to wiki@wikimedia.org using -f
To: Xaosflux <xaosflux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re your blocking of the get conflict page until March 2008
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer
From: Sagbliss <sbruker@hotmail.com>

Your handiwork has been sent to the legal team. I do have a record of your handiwork. It is noted that the intent of Wikipedia is to continue this factually incorrect article for five months.  YOu have been reported as part of the vindictive team who has touched this article.

Sagbliss

I'm not exactly sure what legal team you are referring to here. I have no interest in this article at all, was just doing a cleanup of pages that were already protected from editing forever and making them have some sort of expiration date. Additionally, you may go to WP:RFPP to request a review of the page protection. From the protection log for that page:

    * 2007-10-31T12:52:19 Xaosflux (Talk | contribs | block) changed protection level for "Get (conflict)" ‎ (Cleanup of indef protected pages on Special:Protectedpages, setting an expiration date [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 2008-03-02T12:52:19 (UTC))) (Change)
    * 2007-10-24T17:37:18 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs | block) protected Get (conflict) ‎ (Full protection: Dispute. [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (Change)

Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your comments

FYI, Riana has no clue what you're talking about at all. She did not ask for any changes to be made to the page, so please stop misrepresenting people. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect statements

Just look at the block log. I did not block you from sending e-mails (I just received two e-mails from you). Also, I now see what page Riana was involved in. She just handled a simple {{editprotected}} request from Bruno23. She was just doing her administrative duties. She wasn't taking sides or anything. Bruno23 said it wasn't that relevant, so she removed it from the article. That's all. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

email block

Given your threats to other users through email, I'm removing your access to the email user feature. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]