User talk:Maryester

Extended content

Welcome!

Hello, Maryester, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Ashkenazi Jews

Hi! I'm contacting you in regard to this edit. Please note, that all venues of dispute resolution on Wikipedia require prior talk page discussion. This means that you have to raise your concerns on talk:Ashkenazi Jews and discuss the problem with another editor before applying to WP:DRN or whatever forum you prefer. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Maryester. You have new messages at Czarkoff's talk page.
Message added 03:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Maryester. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

August 2012

Your recent editing history at Ashkenazi Jews shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

ok. I just read the case against me regarding sock puppetry. The claims are nonsense. In one part it details an edit made about Bob Dylan, no edit war occurred I checked, a user quoted Dave Van Ronk, and was deleted how is that an edit war? Then a common interest in "wild" sensitivity to anti-Semitism, or lowercase "i", very common. Maybe it's Charlie Rose on his show all names are lower case. Maybe they had common influences? Aloud and allowed come on, I know the difference, it is related to spellcheck rather than commonality. If the accusations of anti-Semitism are so wild, why are many of the pages locked? Why was their a vandalism attempt on the page Talmud last week? The person who did that was not banned. Maybe these users learned from one another? The accusations are tainted with exaggerations and lies.

The nature of the accusers should be seen by the accusation regarding Bob Dylan. A user wrote a quote from Dave Van Ronk, got deleted, and that is an edit war?Maryester (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified sock of blocked user. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:49, 29 August 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

This block is wrong! First in order to invade my privacy and get the Checkuser done user poeticbent used purposely false accusations (there is no way around it he did, study his accusations they contain purposeful lies). I will go through them one by one, if asked I can show through other edits how they came to be angry with me:

Here was his 'original' claim in whole "All three accounts have a history of inserting wild, controversial and often illegible claims of rampant anti-Jewish hatred followed by soapboxing and accusations of bad faith among fellow editors including sysops. Turmerick (talk · contribs) was blocked on 16 November 2011 for his racist remarks, and a few hours later on 16 November 2011 Maryester (talk · contribs) account was created in order to revert Future Perfect at Sunrise and continue edit warring at Khazars article.[1]. Maryester moved on to History of the Jews in Poland on 12 August 2012‎ (you bullies... nitpick for the sake of power. Jewish) as soon as the brand new Oceanyam (talk · contribs) account (created only on 15 July 2012 with 55 edits) got burned in edit warring with 3 senior editors including a sysop over controversial claims of wild antisemitism. Meanwhile, Oceanyam moved on from History of the Jews in Poland to other articles (incl. Bob Dylan), with questionable POV claims,[2] reverted by other members of the community.[3] Equally unnerving is the apparent overlap in key contriversies with edits of Bus stop (talk · contribs), see: Proposal:Bus stop topic-banned but I'd rather not go there right now. It's up to you to decide what's possible. Thanks. Poeticbent talk 21:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)"

Turmerics "racist remarks" were taken out of context themselves and not as cut and dry as the hateful one above claims. Ellen of the Roads said he may not have intended racism.

Now the reason he went after Oceanyam and I is because we both had problems with real wild accusations on the page Jews in Poland, we are not the same person nor did checkuser find that. It found that turmeric and I, are on the same IP, it says group 1 for that, Oceanyam and it seems a bunch of others are on a different IP.

He claims "in order to revert Future Perfect at Sunrise and continue edit warring at Khazars article." Actually no edit war occurred there was no revert undo revert, just writing and reversion by those who objected, which poeticbend is not even referring to. the "revert" he refers to, was actually an enhancement that happened a day later, and if viewed is hardly illegible 'soapboxing', and he lies about the date it took place on the 17.

Then a quote of mine is taken out of context, only occurred after having legitimate edits, vandalized, look at that comment in context about bullies. None of these were 3 reverts just 2 within a 24 hour period, and the problem was discussed on the talk page. Also contextually my arguments hold up.

Then claims of Oceanyam which has nothing to do with me.

He follows with 2 accusations that are completely false and can be shown to be I do not even know what he is talking about on the final ones, he is purposely lying and I will stand by that, look at the final 3 claims pure lies.

Sockpuppeting does not include someone who has done no vandalism and has contributed to wiki. I added to Talmud the earliest known full Talmud reference, for example. And I was bringing up valid debates.

Also they then saw fit to block the whole IP address of a public wifi router. Which is even more insanity.

Also I do not want dougweller or anyone involved or poeticblend, to review my claims. The block can be proven to be punitive, and the blocking admins therefore are not the ones who should review this. I would like a chance to show the punitive nature of the block and that I did not exhibit strong signs of vandalism. The rash decision to invade my privacy was unfair.

Decline reason:

There's a WP:NOTTHEM problem with your arguments above, but for now that doesn't really matter. Your block is based on checkuser results, and you also admit above to editing from the same IP address as Turmeric, appearing shortly after that account was blocked. Per the message below, a normal admin cannot unblock you, you must contact WP:BASC. Also, sockpuppeting does indeed include non-vandals; sockpuppeting is simply the use of multiple accounts for disruptive purposes such as block evasion, 3RR evasion, manufacturing artificial consensus, etc., no vandalism required. Finally, public routers are routinely blocked all the time (libraries and schools are two obvious examples). ~Amatulić (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Turmeric and did not admit to being the same person, I am a fan of his live in the same building and have similar concerns. I write in a similar style as I guess we think alike.Maryester (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2012 (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.

Normal admins cannot overturn Checkuser-based blocks, especially if the result is Likely or Confirmed (meaning everything the Checkuser uncovers - not just the IP - matches up). Contact WP:BASC. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the block I imposed was simply a routine implementation of the SPI. Plus of course the nonsense about me claiming I'm Jewish but being secretly anti-Semite. But there's nothing to review here. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remember saying that about, or to you directly. Where was that? I said that is a standard method not directed at you per-seMaryester (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote " Or anti-Semitic points of view though they pretend to be Jews, such as Dougweller or Galassi (many others)." Also "Dougweller and Galassi are defending an anti-Semitic, racist point of view." and "causes Dougweller to take revenge and block me". As I said, acted on the SPI and blocked various socks. Nothing to do with your edits. Your other acccusations suggest you don't particularly care about facts or investigate before making personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remember saying that. I meant to say present themselves as having a neutral point of view on the Jews, yet are defending an anti-Jewish point of view. I dont care if you are Jewish or not. Though I have been pushed around here, my points were well investigated, and will remain right.Maryester (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also what am I supposed to think when I add the only two enc. references to a place that said citation needed? And they are removed because "they do not mention the rhineland". This is clearly an abuse of power by you (dougweller), and in fact defending a racist point of view (eugenics) even if others agree, you are still wrong. The line says Germany then mentions the area, putting a reference to Germany, at the end of the line enhances the readability. This type of absolutely uncommon nitpicking on wikipedis (happens nowhere else) in a just rather than a wild west encyclopedia, would without any doubt leave you suspect, to a blinkblink support for in this case a racist perspective. Eugenics is racism not bigotry.

As a whole of all legitimate groups, by today's standards, wikipedia is by far least sensitive to the Jews. Because those who outnumber them here, 'democratically' are pretending to be sane, with false statements.Maryester (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying you are racist necessarily, I am just saying that you had supported that pov.Maryester (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page blocked

As this editor can't be unblocked by another Admin, after discussion I'm blocking talk page access. Instructions as to what to do to get unblocked (contact WP:BASC} have already been mentioned. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom unblock appeal

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the user's appeal and has declined to unblock at this time. After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed.

For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crucifixion In Arabia concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crucifixion In Arabia, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Crucifixion In Arabia

Hello Maryester. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Crucifixion In Arabia.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Crucifixion In Arabia}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]