User talk:96.24.75.223

July 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Sabra (company), but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Can you explain which part of the edit included "original research"? --96.24.75.223 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Sabra (company), but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. '' Where is anti-Israel sourced from. You're a WP:POV pusher using WP:POINTy means to promote your personal agenda. Feel free to discuss this on the talk page of the article (not purely with me) and explain why your use of WP:ALLEGED and the overall refactoring is WP:NPOV as opposed to blatantly WP:WEASEL. Your editing history indicates that this is something of a hobby horse for you.'' Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

>> "Where is anti-Israel sourced from."

Citation # 21 -- "Michael Kotzin, executive vice president of the Jewish United Fund, said in a statement on DePaul’s reversal that the anti-Sabra campaign revealed deep anti-Israel sentiment."

Your additional personal accusations against me are not appreciated.

--96.24.75.223 (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

>> "...explain why your use of WP:ALLEGED and the overall refactoring is WP:NPOV as opposed to blatantly WP:WEASEL."

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Expressions_of_doubt:

"...although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined..."

--96.24.75.223 (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked you to take it to the article's talk page where other editors can assess the arguments. One source weighed up against the other sources not using anti-Israel does not equal neutrality of language... plus feel free to take it to the WP:NPOVN and open a discussion as to the use of "alleged" for the purposes of this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"I asked you to take it to the article's talk page..."

Your tone sounds bossy and is not appreciated.

--96.24.75.223 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies for WP:BITEing. Could you please take it to the article's talk page in order that other editors can involve themselves in the evaluation of the article content so that we can establish a transparency of process with regards to decisions. It's far more conducive to WP:CIVIL discussion in lieu of private bickering. Thank you, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

And why don't you take it to the article's talk page in order that other editors can involve themselves in the evaluation of the article content?--96.24.75.223 (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Euphoria42. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Sabra (company) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  ~ Euphoria 42  (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Euphoria42, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * Don't template the regulars. If you have an issue with content, take it to the talk page of the relevant article. If you have an issue with a user, take it to the WP:ANI. Do not vandalise other user's own page in order to be WP:POINTy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Euphoria42. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.


 * "Disruptive editing" is a catch-all term here, which aims to include your edits to Sabra (company) and your harassment of other editors in that expansive and hollow ANI claim. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia rules are best followed in spirit, not in letter. Pettifogging such as this doesn't help your case. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 17:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I asked for an objective evaluation, I got back a brain-dump rant. Not quite what I wanted, but at least the 2nd guy did not copy and paste a pre-prepared template.

However, the things he mentioned, the way he mentioned them and the other things he left out, his tone, and his reasoning show that he did not want to make an objective evaluation. He wanted the block to stay in place, so he just defended that point of view.

He also hopes that whoever looks at this in the future will just read his denial and not have time to research the prior materials, and just assume that everything was legit, so I'm going to show some issues with some of his arguments.


 * "persistently edited to promote a political point of view"

The article that I edited already promotes a political point of view, I was just trying to fix it. Specifically, it accuses a country and a business partially owned from that country of "human rights violations" as if that is an established fact. And these accusations are then used by various psychotics and their supporters to rationalize maiming and murdering innocent people, and to redirect attention from their own atrocities.


 * "made unreasonable attacks on another editor"
 * "wasted other editors' time with absurd accusations"

The admins that reviewed my ANI report [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive901#Harassment_by_user_Iryna_Harpy] have acknowledged and admonished the subject for several of the issues I raised in that report regarding the subject's behavior. The subject has also partially admitted to wrong-doing. And once again, yet another admin shows that my block was in retaliation for that ANI report.


 * "been uncivil and shown an "accusatory and adversarial tone" to anyone you disagree with"

They should give me credit for what I did not say.


 * "Now who is that a quotation from?"

It was from me and this guy copied and pasted it. I was just being open and honest that I did not appreciate their accusatory and adversarial tone, and neither do I appreciate the accusatory and adversarial tone from this guy. If it was me this is not how I would handle it.


 * "What was that about pots and kettles?"

This is from the folk expression "pot calling the kettle black". He's trying to say that it was actually me who engaged in the bad behavior I reported in my ANI report regarding the subject, and that the subject was actually innocent.


 * "removed another editor's talk page posts to hide what they were saying"

I removed their talk page posts because they were "Using another user's talk page to engage with me", which is the same reason they used earlier to remove my talk page comments [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Euphoria42&diff=prev&oldid=677746926] to hide what I was saying. This guy is silent on that.


 * "After all that, you post a long rambling unblock request"

My original unblock requests were neatly separated into paragraphs, each for a separate concept, but I noticed that every time they were reviewed the text always got compressed together, as if to make them harder to read. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A96.24.75.223&type=revision&diff=684209600&oldid=684147049] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A96.24.75.223&type=revision&diff=685178624&oldid=684926986]

I would not be surprised that if somebody told this guy that he's rambling he'd vehemently deny it.


 * "accuses the blocking administrator of various faults such as acting to support his or her "friends"."

I was aware that being that direct could cause other admins who were more rational nevertheless be afraid to unblock me even if they wanted to, out of fear of reprisals from the blocking admins and / or other admins who would not like to be talked of in that way. But nevertheless, the blocking admin had to be, and deserved to be, called out for their irrational judgement, that made it look to an outside observer that they were doing mental gymnastics to justify that block, as if it was a favor they really wanted to do for somebody.


 * "unsurprisingly, that request is declined"
 * "if you make another unblock request similar to these two, don't be surprised if your talk page access is removed"

Even though I did make formal appeals to show that the block was wrong and undeserved, getting unblocked was not really my primary objective. What I really wanted was to show is that a number of these current Wikipedia admins, especially those involved with blocks, are subjective, irrational, and generally nasty. If they had this admin power legitimately because they had the necessary skills to be admins, then they would not have played into my hands so easily. They do not deserve this power and should not have it, because they are doing damage with it.

And it's not just about these admin users involved in my block. The fact that anybody can get so arbitrarily blocked, and that the blocking admins can send such nasty communications, shows that there is a general lack of leadership at the very top of Wikipedia.

Blocking should not be as easy as writing a short summary note with some generic catch-all category. It should require filling out a detailed form with a specific reason for the block, and with another required field for an explanation of specifically how that reason applies in that situation. And the validity of that reasoning should then be anonymously evaluated by other users to verify its legitimacy.

There needs to be a better system in place to prevent bias from influencing decision-making. That is, the Wikipedia rules need to be followed to the letter, and not according to some random user's personal interpretation of what the "spirit" should be. Otherwise the systems originally intended for addressing vandalism will continue to be exploited to silence opposing viewpoints and to promote political points of view. 96.24.75.223 (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Sabra (company) are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * My edit to that talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASabra_%28company%29&type=revision&diff=688005443&oldid=630071741] was for a discussion related to improving the article and was within the talk page guidelines. 96.24.75.223 (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction alert
Rhoark (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

IP address change of ownership
''' AS OF NOVEMBER 7th 2015 UTC I WILL NO LONGER BE ACCESSING THE INTERNET FROM THIS IP ADDRESS. ANY FUTURE EDITS FROM THIS IP ON THAT DATE OR AFTER WILL NOT BE FROM ME. '''

I made the notice above bold and red so that it would likely get noticed in case other people edit from this IP, so that my edits would not be attributed to them and their edits would not be attributed to me.

However, if this present problem with the systematic bias and the admins giving tacit approval for the "special" users to harass regular users continues, I would be surprised if there will be any future edits from this IP. 96.24.75.223 (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)