User talk:174.126.168.126

Salafi movement
- Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * So Wikipedia is going full in on support of the Salafist propaganda that made ISIS and mass beheadings, slavery, rape, pillaging, suicide bombers, etc. possible in dozens of countries? Is that how you operate now? Would you like to be designated a terrorist organization? Remove the edit that suggests that global Jihadist efforts to conquer and enslave mankind were somehow the result of something Western civilization did, before you get more Americans and Europeans kidnapped, murdered, raped and tortured than these kinds of lies already have. This is no longer an issue that can be perpetuated by the domination of Wikipedia by a handful of people who have socialist, fascist, anti-Jewish, jihadist and neo-liberal/pro-tyranny/anti-freedom of speech leanings. This is now a political and military issue, and it will soon be taken out of your hands. If you support the Jihadist narrative, your network will be shut down permanently. Your edits are lies. You refuse to correct the overt lies you spread. You are in bed with the devil, and you will pay the price. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised though, considering how anti-Jewish your webpage has consistently been for years. It makes perfect sense that you support both fascist and jihadist ideologies too, Sum mer PhD v2.0.


 * - 174.126.168.126 (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Your editing -- whether you are right, wrong or somewhere in between -- is disruptive. Please see my full response here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That is a false statement, Sum mer PhD v2.0, and I think you know it. How exactly is removing a demonstrably false, biased, non-neutral, non-consensus statement that is at best an opinion, at worst an outright lie designed to promote global terrorism, disruptive? My removal of that statement was entirely appropriate, and I and many others will continue to demand that you remove the statement until you do so. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON THAT STATEMENT, BY EDITORS OR BY SCHOLARS, therefore Wikipedia policies require that you remove it, and/or include the converse opinion, which is, by the way, the opinion of the majority of humanity and scholars. Remove the comment immediately, or prove that the comment has the consensus of the community and scholars, which is impossible, because there is no such consensus, and if anything, the consensus is just the opposite of what the article says. This fact is evident from both the talk page and all of the articles about Islam, Islamic imperialism, Islamic Salafist behavior that persisted long before the 19th century, and Islamic invasions and aggression toward not only Europe, but every civilization they came in contact with. That is not an opinion. That is factual, well-established history, which can be found in hundreds of Wikipedia articles' sources. Your refusal to read my comment, complaint, justification and request for arbitration is unprofessional and contrary to your duties to the Wikipedia community commensurate with your office. 174.126.168.126 (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not intend to have the same conversation with you on two pages. My response is on my talk page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. We expect that editors who have strong personal views will be able to keep those under control when editing articles, Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

"Pardon the interruption, but it's important. We depend on donations averaging about $16.36, but 98% of our readers don't give. If everyone reading this gave $2.75, we could keep Wikipedia thriving for years to come. The price of your Monday coffee is all we need. Donate today"

If Wikipedia wants to continue to exist, it had better stop censoring and insulting more than half the population, issuing unjust rulings based on lies, and perpetuating false information in pursuit of a minority political agenda which is also based on lies and deception, and which also depends on censorship of all mainstream sources of communication and information to exist. The editors and administrators responsible for this should be fired immediately and permanently, and denied any form of leadership role in the organization. Until then, funding for this website will remain under full embargo. Furthermore,support for terrorist narratives, as was the case with this most recent ban, may have far more serious consequences. 174.126.168.126 (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked
Due to your extremely offensive personal attacks, I have restarted your block and revoked your talk page access. This leaves you with WP:UTRS and I expect an apology from you before you edit anything else. --Yamla (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)