User talk:Soledad22

Gerald guterman

Hi there. Thanks for your edits to Gerald Guterman. I'm worried that every day a brand new, anonymous editor comes along to remove anything which discusses the magnate's struggles. If you can help keep an eye on this page, I'd be grateful. Thanks again, Smilo Don (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Durrah

The article recently went through an extensive review and was given featured-article status. That sentence is one of the key perspectives of sections of the Israeli and Jewish communities, and it has been widely published as such. It's therefore in the lead for balance. By removing it, you are unbalancing the lead, because you are leaving the Palestinian perspective, but removing the other. If you want to argue against it, please go to the talk page and make your case. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with much of that, see the Talk page on the article. Thanks.Soledad22 (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad al-Durrah incident

Please stop edit-warring on Muhammad al-Durrah incident. Further reverts will result in your being blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am editing and not edit-warring. Wikipedia works when the public edits it and improves it. That's what I am doing. Thanks!Soledad22 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you repeatedly delete the same sentence, it's edit-warring. Thank you for joining the discussion on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of article probation

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My God, what a racket. Great post, way to build goodwill and consensus!! Soledad22 (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-chuckling- @ChrisO, this template does look a little unduely threatening. If you have issue with something specific you should really highlight it rather than sending vague "you may be sanctioned" warnings.

Shabazz - Trolls are asked to stick to thier own userpages, Thank you. NickCT (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soledad22, please stop spamming other users' Talk pages with this notice. And NickCT, watch who you call a troll. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soledad22, if you are spamming other users' pages I'd suggest you'd stop. See what I wrote below about "shouting" at your opponents. Malik, see Troll (Internet). Writing messages that clearly unwanted & unhelpful on user's discussion pages is by definition trolling. NickCT (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not spamming, I'm sending along to the other editors the same notification ChrisO kindly sent to me. He must have forgotten to provide it to the others somehow, so I did so as a favor to ChrisO.Soledad22 (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Jaakobou and Breein1007 are aware of the sanctions. Breein1007 was given the notification in November, and Jaakobou was topic-banned under the sanctions in March 2008. If you read the page to which the template links, you would know that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ok. Ladies ladies. Your point has been made Malik. Let's leave it at that? NickCT (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More personal attacks. Shocking. Breein1007 (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More ankle biting. Even more shocking. NickCT (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies if my "thank you" was offensive. I meant it to be facetious, not offensive. And sorry for the subsequent biting comments. For future reference, there is a list of people who have been notified about the WP:ARBPIA sanctions at WP:ARBPIA#Log of notifications. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure nobody accused you of personal attacks or "biting comments". Nick is the one making personal attacks, and according to him, I'm "ankle biting". Breein1007 (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I warned Nick against calling people trolls and he has apologized. Please stop trying to stir up trouble, Breein1007. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justice as usual from you I see. Breein1007 (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sole. I believe Shab is sincere. This is all likely a misunderstanding. Let's kiss and makeup. NickCT (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Libel

Hey Soledad, in response to your message. Ultimately, I think the fact-of-the-matter is that on Wikipedia the majority does rule to some extent. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it prevents vocal minorities (like say conspiracy theorists) from defacing articles. Unfortunately, the western world (i.e. the part of the world that is editting Wikipedia English)is woefully pro-Israel. Its not surprising then that this predijuice gets written into Wikipedia at points. The only thing one can really do in response is to fight bias where it is obvious, and point it out where it is less obvious. We should avoid trying to write in anti-Israeli bias to "balance" wikipedia, as that would mean losing the moral high horse. We should also avoid becoming overly empassioned in debate. While explaining calmly the fallacy behind your opponenent's arguements might not convince them, shouting will not convince anyone. Best NickCT (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was shocked to read that Blood Libel link the first time, now the sentence also includes the term "anti-semitism". You'd think it was some Israelis that were shot and killed the way some pro-Israel editors are approaching the subject. I was reading about the Goldstone report and in that case too, the Israeli/Jewish pundits were using the same terms "anti-semitic" and "blood libel", seems like a pattern, people need to keep this kind of bias out of an encyclopedia however, keep it in the opinion sections of print journalism. But hey, I tried. I gather from the warnings the so-called consensus-builders are sending me that if I edit the article again I will be banned??? So much for building consensus with us, huh?Soledad22 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continue to calmly object. I stress calmly. NickCT (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo Soledad,
Thanks for the notice, i'm well aware of the case. Not sure, why you're "notifying" me of it and I'd be happy to hear what is sitting on your mind.
Warm regareds, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc - Blood Libel / Israel's Brutality

You may be interested in commenting on this. NickCT (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad al-Durrah

Hello. I was wondering if you could explain this edit, particularly your edit summary? Why is it a "smear" against al-Durrah? If you read the news article that is cited, the source for that description of al-Durrah is the boy's mother. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic for one. Gee, does he also eat corn flakes for breakfast? The association of this child with older boys that throw stones is a guilt-by-association smear. I guess this child had it coming to be shot and killed since he was just going to grow to be a violent stone thrower soon enough. It's horrible writing, amateurish, and a sneaky little hateful smear. Soledad22 (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Courtesy link. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

one more--Mbz1 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your edit

Please explain why you removed my edit here. Woogee (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was an accident, sorry about that!! must have been a bad cut & paste job or something, I really have no idea how that happened. I was typing on a different section.Soledad22 (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Woogee (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final notice: Muhammad al-Durrah incident

The next time you edit Muhammad al-Durrah incident you will be blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you disrupt editing again I will seek to report you to Admns. Kindly refrain from causing problems on the article. Please also review WP:OWN. I'm not interested in telling you again, OK? Thanks.Soledad22 (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soledad, can I offer a friendly reccomendation that you cease edit warring Al-durrah until this AE is resolved? While I think we're in the right, refraining from editting will demonstrate good faith on our part. NickCT (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath

Hi Soledad, can I ask you to please take a deep breath regarding the al-Durrah article. I saw the edits you provided giving background on the victims' lives, which is something I would also like in the article, and I believe such additions would be supported by Wiki policy. Also believe some of your other points are worthy of consideration. This article has a weird and fascinating history, as Muhammad was valiantly edited back from the abyss. Some of the editors have weird and fascinating contribution histories. Yours was picked up on by SlimVirgin. Wiki means working with all sorts of very different people, my advice would be to keep civility and policy in mind. Without those, any suggestions you offer will probably be rejected. And, yeah, you will get blocked. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Malcolm X, you will be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik, are you talking about this edit?

@Soledad, are you hounding Malik? NickCT (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Malik is hounding me, please review his edit history. What is objectionable about my edit on Malcolm X? There was a source provided and the info is well-known. I don't get it, basic edits can be reversed, even if true, common knowledge, and sourced? Why? Soledad22 (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. See also this discussion. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 00:27, 1 March 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).

Soledad22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been on Wikipedia for over 2 years, not broken any Wiki rules, never had one single problem with anyone until this peculiar group of editors on the Al-Durrahs. Not happy with the witchhunt and scapegoating and smears. No Wiki rules were broken by me, and I spent countless time on the Talk page for Al-Durrah, to no avail or collaboration. Review the Talk page to see no disruption but an attempt at collaboration. Repeat, I never had any problems in over 2 years on Wikipedia before this peculiar situation. Thanks. Soledad22 (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 1 March 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.

Hey Sole, I posted an appeal for you. To be frank buddy, I think this block was half the result of SlimV's attempts (among others) to suppress oppossing POVs, and half the result of some slightly "loud" edits in the past. I mean really dude, what is this? Anyway, don't let Wikipolitics get you down. NickCT (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be allowed to edit again, creating sockpuppets like User:RHusaini to evade your block is not the way to go about convincing people of your good intentions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with ChrisO. Sole, Sockpuppetry is v. v. naughty. NickCT (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Olin Eugene Armstrong for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Olin Eugene Armstrong, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olin Eugene Armstrong until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TM 15:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]