User talk:Thamarih

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ayahuasca

YOU ARE VIOLATING WIKIPEDIAS 3RR RULE FOR YOUR ACTIVITIES AT AYAHUASCA.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --he ah 15:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Nur.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Thamarih.jpeg. The copy called Image:Thamarih.jpeg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 12:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia's conduct policies and guidelines

For the record: please review the various WP policies and guidelines on personal conduct. WP is not a blog or message board, and the rules are different here. To wit:

Cheers, MARussellPESE 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image

You asked for a good reason for changing the picture of Subh-i-Azal. The image you loaded has no source information, and actually it will probably be deleted soon if an administrator scrutinizes it. How do I know that is really Subh-i-Azal? The other reason is that the image is obviously touched up and not a real photograph. It might be considered a fictitious painting, but that needs to be noted on the image's page and noted in the article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have put the source information when I uploaded the image. Stop playing your stupid agnostic games, cultist schmuck. Thamarih 23:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second reminder on your conduct and notice of report

Accusing someone of sockpuppetry without notifing them is a violation of procedure and incivil.

Your conduct on Talk:Azali and Talk:Subh-i-Azal continues to be contrary to the Wikipedia policies WP:Civil, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Specifically these edits: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. It's one thing to disagree — even vehemently. It's another entirely to resort to personal attacks and accusations.

This one is a threat which is specifically out of bounds. I have reported this totally inappropriate incident to the Administrator's noticeboard. MARussellPESE 03:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Go to the devil and go report to whoever you want, cultist jerk! You think I'm afraid of you or your threats?? There's a global momentum building right now against precisely the sort of misinformation hackery you Fascists have been engaged on wikipedia, with ramming down your misinformation and propaganda down people's throats. People like Kurt Nimmo and I have declared all out war on bureaucratic-beholden lying scum-bags like you! Thamarih 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thamarih, take a deep breath, slow down, and contemplate your statements. You're suggesting that the conflict around your page is some sort of worldwide, good vs. evil, fascists vs. freedom fighters, truth vs. lies conflict. I think if you step back and relax, and try to expand your field of vision, you might realize that your own comments might be causing far more of the problem than you thought, and that the problem itself is far more isolated than you realize. Nosferatublue 13:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to your persistent incivility and personal attacks, I have blocked your account from editing for 31 hours. You may appeal this block via the normal avenues; please be aware that continued disruption will likely result in a longer block. ~ Riana ⁂ 14:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back with another warning?

This is really too bad. After being blocked for incivility, your first edits back are to place {{NPOV}} tags on your pet articles [6][7] — articles that have been in roughly their current forms for years — and the second entry into the talk pages is incivil. This is not the way to re-integrate.

Be advised: It is Wikipedia Policy to conduct ourselves in a civil manner and not engage in personal attacks. There is a standard of conduct here that is not what one does not find in the blogoshpere; and one you have had difficulty conforming to. The block was your opportunity to take stock. Please do so. MARussellPESE 19:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen, sock-puppet. Your threats do not scare me. Thamarih 02:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the personal attacks

This accusation of sock-puppetry on my talk page, the above accusation, this, this all constitute personal attacks. Specifically: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."

This is an attack page.

You've been asked repeatedly to refrain, and have been blocked already for doing so. Be advised: I've reported these incidents as well. MARussellPESE 01:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improper Sockpuppet Reports

Please do not post improper sockpuppet reports. They are a drain on admin resources. If you have any questions, please review WP:SOCK. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks 04:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from Wikipedia for repeated incivility and attacks, despite warnings and a previous block. Please take the time in the block to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and act appropriately in the future. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 06:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I have been inappropriately blocked and ideologically victimized by wikipedia administrators on behalf of the bahai organization. This issue will be publicized Thamarih 13:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "You have provided no basis for your personal attack and threat and so I am denying this unblock. — Yamla 13:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

[edit] Welcome back

Welcome back to Wikipedia. I hope you will enjoy your stay. Let me know if you need any help. Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your most cordial note. I'm aware that the Bahai articles are a quagmire, but probably no-more-so then other articles on living religions. Religion is an area in which people have very strong opinions, on both sides of any issue. It's a great test for Wikipedians to find consensus in such a situation. But it is possible. Now that we've gotten your User page blanked, perhaps you'd like to write something there about yourself.Wjhonson (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thamarih, please be aware that there are many resources available in Wikipedia to assist you. If you find yourself in an edit-war, the course which is most highly advised here, is to consult with other more experienced editors on how to resolve the conflict rather than escalating it. Escalating or prolonging conflicts does not have the desired effect, but only serves to make you look bad, in the eyes of uninvolved reviewers. I'm sure you'd much rather discover how to work within the system, rather than fight against it. Have a great day. Looking forward to hearing your views when you return. Wjhonson (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thamarih, that's really good advice from someone who's been around WP long enough to have been in, and a bystander to, their share of talkpage flame wars and learned and grown from the experiences. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your most cordial remarks. I truly appreciate it MARussellPESE (what the heck does that stand for?)Wjhonson (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the wikipedia system as a whole is inherently corrupt and amenable to manipulation by agendas who can muscle and strong arm their agendas than the truth as such. Given this, I am not remotely interested in working within the wikipedia system unhless this system was more interested in truth and balanced reportage rather than what is going on today. I also don't believe in denigrating all sides and lapsing into relativism as an argument. There is truth and there is falsehood. Thamarih (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Wikipedia is amenable to corruption and manipulation. That's why we need more white knights to fight for truth and justice and freedom, etc. But it's a hard road to follow, and many Paladins get side-tracked into the dark side by the sight of evil lucre. There may be truth, but here on Wikipedia we don't claim to know the truth. We report what Source A, Source B, and Source C say and try to integrate, paraphrase and render the accounts in a readable fasion. We're not really here to solve long-standing viewpoint wars, only to report what they are.Wjhonson (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well then, there are countless sources that report alternative and more credible narratives than those being propagated by the Bahais regarding Bayani figures. The site Bayanic.com uploads countless sources that have been quoted and identified by the primary European language sources such as Gobineau, Nicolas, E.G. Browne, Tumanskii, MacEoin and others.Yet these sources are being discounted by the Bahais and I am being banned regularly for revert wars for pointing this and similar out. Thamarih (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conduct issues

Possibly. But consider another possibility. Read the article on ad hominem. If I say to you, "you are an idiot and need to be beat", that is not an civil attack on your argument. If I say, "your argument lacks evidence and merit", that is. We should strive to maintain a civil approach, even in the face of overt aggression. Remember the story of the tortoise and the hare, the tortoise won. I'm familiar with Browne and he is considered an expert in this area. If you have Browne quotes that are being reverted let me know. I can verify most of his work independently.Wjhonson (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 3RR violation

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Subh-i-Azal. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on Maitreya

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Maitreya, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Maitreya, you will be blocked from editing. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Got my attention too. It's just so obvious.--Smkolins (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Maitreya, you will be blocked from editing. - --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reported you to administrators. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on my talk page

I just got home from work. I needed a good laugh! By the way, please see WP:CIVIL. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twofer Personal Attacks

This edit is a twofer personal attack of sockpuppetry and ad hominem directed at three users. Congratulations - that seems to be a high score.

This conduct can not continue. I have reported this to the administrators. MARussellPESE (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You have previously been warned and blocked for making personal attacks on the above editor, so I see no reason to provide you with escalating warnings. The only legitimate criticism permitted in Wikipedia is that relating to content, and not the contributors or their motives. Should you act contrary to this principle you will likely find yourself blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeez-O-Pete! Would you please knock it off? MARussellPESE (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maitreya

Hi- I reverted you on Maitreya. While I agree that the Maitreya article should primarily cover Buddhist views of Maitreya, it's appropriate and in line with WP:NPOV to provide verifiable information on non-Buddhist views, and to provide pointers to articles on non-Buddhist views of Maitreya where appropriate. The Bahai community is probably the most prominent non-Buddhist religious community to take an articulated position on Maitreya, in terms of their numbers and the literature associated with them. The information that was removed is quite small relative to both the article itself and the non-Buddhist views section (two sentences) and is referenced. As such, I really feel that it should remain in the article. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

You have been blocked for a period of 2 weeks from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. (See above and here for context.) You have been blocked in the past for harassment, including unbased accusations of sock puppetry. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. Continuing to edit in this fashion, however, may lead to longer blocks. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Legal Threats

This is a WP:PA and a WP:THREAT, and has been properly reported. Congratulations — another twofer. This is such a waste of time. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

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. You were recently blocked for two weeks for this exact reason. One more attack like this and you will be blocked for longer. jonny-m t 03:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I wasn't aware that wikipedia policy meant that responding to an originating personal attack and impugning of honor by said attacker constituted an attack. You are blaming the victim here and might wish to actually look at what is going on Thamarih (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My response is here. --jonny-m t^

[edit] Removing talk junk from Talk:Juan Cole

Removing personal attacks and incivil comments from talk pages is bona fide editing and not vandalism. Reading the policies before shooting your mouth off saves everybody time and energy. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop it if you please

This is yet another PA (using someones affiliations as an attempt to discredit them) and you're still threatening legal action. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop vandalizing my talk page!

After countless warnings and several blocks, it's about time you read WP:DBAD. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)