User talk:Marias87

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Marias87, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Judaism and violence. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to noleander on his edits at: Judaism and violence

I am quoting here a few lines that are very relevant to your article:

There are three forms of obligatory wars: against the seven Canaaanite nations, against Alamalek, and agianst a nation that has launched an attack. The first two forms are no longer relevant. The seven Canaanite nations no longer exist and the command to destroy them cannot be transferred to other nations... However, the third form, against a nation that has launched an attack, remains relevant. Jews are commanded to defend themselves as part of the Mitzvah to preserve life.... before attacking a city an offer of peace must be extended. According to Maimonides, "We are enjoined that if we wage war on them we are to make a covenant with them to spare their lives ...

"Teaching Mitzvot: Concepts, Values, and Activities," Barbara Binder Kadden, Bruce Kadden. Behrman House, Inc, 1990, p. 241. ISBN: 0867050802. ---

Aloni and the truthers blog "counter punch"

Even from a Muslim author:

Israeli politics and the Middle East peace process, 1988-2002 - Page 72: "...Shulamit Aloni of Meretz known for her anti- religious stance."

[1]

(Title Israeli politics and the Middle East peace process, 1988-2002 Volume 6 of Durham modern Middle East and Islamic world series Author Hassan Abdulmuhdi Barari Publisher Psychology Press, 2004 ISBN 041532226X, 9780415322263)

Aug 4, 1998: "...Shulamit Aloni was first Education Minister until her anti-religious public remarks caused her removal..."

[2]

Rabin Weaves a Parliamentary Majority - NYTimes.com

Jul 10, 1992: "... Ms. Aloni, regarded by the religious as a secular -- even anti-Jewish -- enemy." [3]

Rabin Shuffles His Cabinet But Critics Aren't Appeased - NYTimes.com

Jun 1, 1993: "... accusing the Meretz leader, Shulamit Aloni, of deliberately trying to provoke it with anti-religious remarks..." [4]

The challenge to Jewish survival, Hertzel Fishman - 1993 - 376 pages - Page 331: "For the first time in Zionist history, the National Religious Party, Mafdal, was not part of the government (though it had ... of Education and Culture, Shulamit Aloni, head of the Meretz party, generally perceived to be anti-religious." [5]

(Title The challenge to Jewish survival Author Hertzel Fishman Publisher Behrman House, 1993 ISBN 0874415489, 9780874415483)

Intelligence digest: Volume 18, 1992 - Page 24: "Shas is incensed that the anti-religious Meretz leader Shulamit Aloni holds the educational portfolio."[6]

(Title Intelligence digest, Volume 18 Publisher Intelligence International Ltd., 1992 Original from Indiana University)

ISRAEL protest over 'anti-religious' expressions made by Minister of Education and. Culture, Shulamit Aloni, Meretz's leader. This was just one in a series of ...

[7]

As to 911 truthers and Counter punch, I trust your google ablities... I don't like to quote 911 "truthness" messages.Marias87 (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:49, 21 October 2010 (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).

Marias87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I was alerted yesterday by a user who goes by the name noleander aomething about puppets, I have no idea what you guys arte doing but I am unrelated to any of the people I was linked with, I also looked up a few edits of the other names that appear there my interest don't meet theirs, especially that they contributed on the Israeli Arab conflict which is out of my interest. I came to wikipedia in 2008 for one minor edit I think it was about Margaret Thacher, I cannot remember my old-that name, I was alerted to come to wikipedia after gooogling up Judaism and peace, it brought me to noleander's slanderous bias NPOV material, if you feel that you just can not undue your blocking for some reason I wish you a good luck and a wondcerful day.Marias87 (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I find Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Curvesall/Archive#19_October_2010 persuasive. It clearly demonstrates similar interests (the same articles in some cases) and the checkuser result seals the deal.--Chaser (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2010 (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.

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).

Marias87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What check user? I know exectly who uses my (only one) IP . Remember that you have blocked a user that has protested a POV, and the user's protest in supprting against Noleander's push of his militant POV was the only basis for suggesting this user is in anyway a sock. (See also his desperate fight to block me and to keep the block). I did not believe that wikipedia is that bias, before I came here, it's awful that you allow one particualr militant POV to roam on wikipedia freely, maybe there's a light at the end of the tunnel and some administrator will wake up one dy and see injustice. peace.Marias87 (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM - we are dealing with your behaviour, not others. Might even want to read WP:NICETRY, and as per the use of "slanderous" above, WP:NLT. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 05:56, 22 October 2010 (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.

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).

Marias87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1)The victim of "slander" + blocking/censoring here is? 2) And the blocking is "not" about content, but about "behaviour...". 3) Nice trick (by Noleander) to attack someone with arguments of sock to put him on the defensive. 4) The attacker is free to go on and the victim needs to play "nice." 5) Is there an interest here in truth, honesty or only in being "offended" for telling as it is?Marias87 (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a decline or accept reason.

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.

Support block

[Edit Conflict] I support the block of Marias87, and suggest that un-blocking at this time is not appropriate. The evidence of sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry is very strong, as indicated in the SPI. An un-block should only happen if the editor admits to the puppetry. However, Marias87 is in denial. There appear to be around 20 different accounts (see the SPI for a complete list) and not one of them have acknowledged any wrong-doing or improper puppetry. I believe in rehabilitation, but these users must first acknowledge that they were engaged in tag-teaming and vote stacking (as described in the SPI). The WP un-blocking guideline Wikipedia:GAB#Agree to behave suggests that the editors should admit to their mistakes, but I don't see that happening. Finally, even after Marias87 was notified of the SPI, the user continued (!) to engage in edit-warring here. --Noleander (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I posted this at the same time as the above admin "decline unblock" post. My intention is not to pile-on: I was just trying to give additional information to admins before their decision, not after. --Noleander (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We heard you Noleander, your "reason" for pushing to censorship under "sock" claims. Don't you dare play that "innocent" on a high horse with me! (supporting a view doesn't make one a sock) I am sure someone along the way will alter the false content you try to impose on wikipedia.Marias87 (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the truth

What check user? I know exectly who uses my (only one) IP. Remember that you have blocked a user that has protested a POV, and the user's protest in supprting against Noleander's push of his militant POV was the only basis for suggesting this user is in anyway a sock. (See also his desperate fight to block me and to keep the block). I did not believe that wikipedia is that bias, before I came here, it's awful, as you can let one militant POV roam wikipedia freely, maybe there's a light at the end of the tunnel and some administrator will wake up one dy and see injustice. peace.Marias87 (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]