User talk:Abisharan

Hello, this is Abisharan's talk page. I am not here right now. Please leave your message and I will reply as soon as I can

bip!

---

cruel and sick

you are a very sick and a very cruel liar from Toronto, franklin.vp, abisharan and IP 128.100.216.170. you are also a coward, you attack from behind the corner, from a computer that belongs to University of Toronto. you are so sick and so cowardly that you even afraid to sign your garbage, no, not with your real name, but just with your user name. I really feel sorry for you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2

Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop it

stop wikihounding me cruel and sick liar from Toronto. Do not you ever touch my messages with your dirty, bloody hands.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please leave Mbz1 alone

You have left a number of messages for Mbz1 on their talk page, and comments elsewhere, after being asked not to do so. Please review our policy on wikihounding, and our policy on harassment, which generally prohibit this type of behavior.

The two of you should disengage - don't mention each other on your respective talk pages or comment on the others' page, avoid each other on article content and article talk pages, and if you believe the other one is causing a problem report it to an uninvolved administrator rather than try and act on your own.

I would appreciate it if you agree to avoid each other and don't force myself or another administrator to make this a formal interaction ban. If you two can just avoid each other it's for the best. If not, and if hostile comments continue, someone will probably take action and either impose an official ban or block someone if it's hostile enough.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 48 hours, for harrassment, by not taking Georgewilliamherbert's advice above and making this very unhelpful comment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  20:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I am also warning you that you may be made subject to sanctions according to WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions if you continue to act disruptively in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area.  Sandstein  20:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Really? I rejoice amused and amazed. What are those acts in the context of I-A conflict? I have zero business in that area. I my world there are no Israelis or Arabs, in it everyone is just people. The only asymmetry is that some people, sometimes do the wrong choices (but they can do the right ones other times). At the end what everyone want is to eat and have fun. And so do I. Anyways, don't worry too much. In the end I only listen to myself and only to myself I obey. Abisharan (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Since Mbz1 promised to behave well I won't have reasons to "hound" her.

Decline reason:

No - the fact that you found it necessary at all to hound anyone is all the more reason for this block to remain, and probably should be for longer (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Blocks are designed to prevent behavior against the rules. Since the cause will be nonexistent it becomes a punitive resource. Even more an attempt to scare with a "probably should be for longer".

Decline reason:

I see no sign that you have internalized what the issues with your behavior are, nor that you intend to change your approach. Mbz1 needs to stop commenting about you, to be sure, but you need to stay completely away from Mbz1. Full stop. No longer a debatable point ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Mbz1 has not commented about me. Shouldn't the reviewer of the request get informed about the issue? It makes me doubt the whole process. Abisharan (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually. they have. Perhaps not recently but they have. Decline stands pending some introspection on your part. What I see here is belligerence and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, among those times one was a barnstar she gave me too but is rather hard to draw related conclusion from unrelated events. Belligerence and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, are two common positions after a block, yes. I will review to see if I am falling in that simplistic behavior. Meanwhile notice that I am not saying that the block didn't make sense. I am saying that it doesn't make sense now. Well, now that I think, the block was done after a post in which I was telling her that if she was stopping with her problems (her problems are not with me or about posting things about me) I also "forgive her"(=stop hounding her). The block is not stopping me from hounding her, since there is now nothing to be stopped. That is why I think it lost its purpose already. Notice that for a hound there is no difficulty in just moving to the next computer, opening a new account and continue barking. And besides, what time is it? Less than 6 hours before the end of the block? Blocks are to make all continue with the enjoyment of Wiki-editing. Mbz1 went astray from her enjoyment of her usual wiki-editing going into problems that she can not handle but now she is back to the pictures and calmed articles. So I can continue my Wiki-editing, normally. Abisharan (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What time is it?

{{help|How do we know what time is it? Is there a page in Wikipedia that shows what time is it?OK, in the history I see the time, but is there a better way?}}

It's currently 02:11, Wednesday, April 24, 2024 (UTC). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool! 02:11, Wednesday, April 24, 2024 (UTC) Abisharan (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

hu.... Does it refresh every time I refresh the page? Abisharan (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Or you can get it to stay still with {{subst:CURRENTDATE}}, which produces 02:11, Wednesday April 24, 2024 (UTC) or you can leave just a timestamp by typing 5 tildes: ~~~~~ like so: 22:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC). :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Test

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago Blackhawks Grant Park pano

I am not understanding your "Green" comment at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago Blackhawks Grant Park pano.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing harrassment of Mbz1

You were previously warned earlier this month, and then blocked, for harrassment of User:Mbz1. Over the last 24 hrs, you have repeated that activity:

[1]

[2]
[3]  [4] (and this one to Gilisa, over the same edit on Antisemitism [5])

With the previous warning, you should have started a talk page discussion yourself, arguing that the link was somehow inappropriate, rather than removing it directly and edit warring over it.

With more time in between the incidents one could see this as a good faith editing decision. Given that it's barely 2 weeks from when you were blocked, I can't make that assumption. This is not acceptable behavior and it must stop.

I am imposing a 1 week block on your editing for ongoing violation of our policy against hounding and stalking users' edits on the wiki.

If this behavior is repeated again I or another administrator will put in place an ARBPIA (see below) special topic restriction prohibiting you from contacting Mbz1 or reverting any edit they make, in addition to a longer block.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Special arbcom case edit restrictions notification

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.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)