User talk:BMGRAHAM

IBM March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page IBM has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Alan (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It actually was not a test, I genuinely believe that the article before edit was inaccurate and based on one person's opinion of IBM. I agree I should have included an edit summary. BMGRAHAM (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

August 2015
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk). Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry that was a mistake, I stupidly did not realize it was a talk page. BMGRAHAM (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Your email
I prefer open discussions. You could have been blocked without warning after your 2nd revert. As I asked the other editor, how did you miss the huge edit notice when you edited? Or on the talk page? As for clarification, I thought it was clear enough. You can be blocked, topic banned, etc " for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, ourstandards of behavior, or relevant policies." It's impossible to be more specific. Note that 1 revert per 24 hours isn't an entitlement either. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * He can be blocked for his very first edit per WP:ARBPIA3. Sepsis II (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As could you for your three reverts. BMGRAHAM (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You may not edit any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
See WP:ARBPIA3. Doug Weller talk 20:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
To enforce an arbitration decision and for ARBPIA violation after alert, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Doug Weller talk 20:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."


 * To clarify, this relates to your edits here. Doug Weller  talk 20:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just for anyone else reading this, I was blocked for participating in a conversation about this on Sepsis_II's talk page even though they participated in a conversation about this on my page. They also deleted my comments from their page which is against wikipedia rules. Also the wording about Turkey's occupation of Cyprus on the Northern Cyrpus Wikipedia page clearly states that the occupation is "considered" occupied. It's exactly the same situation as Golan. Different standards apply when it comes to Israel on wikipedia. BMGRAHAM (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You were blocked for the content of your post at the link above, not for participating in a conversation. Users can remove most things from their talk page, that wasn't against the rules. See WP:UP and following. Doug Weller  talk 18:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I was replying to an allegation of vandalism and to their comment on my page. I didn't realize the restriction applied to talk pages also. I know now. Just curious are 4 letter swear words allowed?BMGRAHAM (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That's another issue and the answer is it all depends. It wouldn't be an automatic block, it would depend upon a pattern. You wouldn't have been blocked if you hadn't ignored the DS alert and written "Or is it only designed to be objective for people that are not Jewish, Israeli or Zionist?" - that was clearly a disruptive edit relating to the topic of Arab-Israeli relations. Hopefully that won't happen again and you will never be blocked again. A lot of good editors have been blocked at some time in their editing here. Doug Weller  talk 11:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This has certainly increased my understanding of Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind but I went back and edited some of my comments in my discussion with him as I don't want to get blocked again for the same reason.BMGRAHAM (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

About a mail you sent me
Listen, there is no point in denying that the international community regard the Golan Heights is occupied. I"ve been there, the indeginous people are so ass licking to the Israelis, you might think you are in a Zionist paredise inhabited by Druze. So in my opinion it's not occupied, but my opinion doesn't matter and your opinion doens't matter as well. You can have opinions, but you can never change the content of an article without a sourced justification and wikipeida's policies always come before reliable sources, and one of wikipedia's policy, actually one of the five principals of Wikipedia, is a Netural Point of View, and due to the fact, almost no one in the world disputes that the Jewish occupation of some non-existing country is an occupation, we in Wikipedia must accept it. Happy editing and try not to get mad.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have been there too. It's actually beautiful there now. My whole issue is that Wikipedia isn't neutral. There is neutral language they could use, e.g. "annexed" which is true, and has both positive and negative connotations depending on whose side of the fence you sit.  "Occupied" only pleases one side.BMGRAHAM (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Your recent email
First, except for sensitive communication, correspondence on Wikipedia is handled transparently on talk pages. I do not respond to emails, nor do most Wikipedia editors. If your correspondence concerns a content dispute, post a message on the article's talk page. Anything else, post on the user's talk page. Since you have been informed of this, I will consider any future email correspondence from you public and deal with it accordingly.

No correspondence was needed at all in this matter. You added something and I removed it. That is a content dispute. I will not be re-adding it, as obviously I disagree with its usefulness in the article. I would suggest you start a discussion on the article's talk and try to form a concensus per WP:BRD. Please do not replace it without concensus, for concensus is the basis of all article content. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)