User talk:Mariam83

It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively.
The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended.
See block log and lists of suspected and confirmed accounts.

Template:Do not delete Template:Do not delete

As mentioned on my message above, you should have first tried to get yourself familiarized w/ how stuff work here. Your talk page is full of warning messages. Of course you have the outmost right to delete them indeed. We offer everyone these functionalities and spaces. Don't forget that fact.

You have been asked gently and sometimes harshly to take it easy. You cannot fix what you believe is wrong in 72 hours. Take it easy and breathe, look for alternative ways to make yourself heard. You are editing wikipedia and that means that you are able to do some simple research efforts, right? You say you have done just that. So why not have a break of something like 72/22/2 hours trying to read about the system here. Do some research. It would surely save you and me and maybe others some good time. We have 1.7 articles and we don't think we have time to waste of conflicts. Wikipedia guides you through your lifetime here. It is an encyclopedia and it would be stupid if an encyclopedia can't offer the optimal amount of guiding new users. Wikipedia:Introduction is very interesting. It is in the tutorial where it says ← Wait! Before you start, have you seen the Introduction?. Do you have any idea about how it works? No. Have you asked for help? Never- only when you got yourself stuck. Right? In other words, you should have known how to listen to the admins who are trusted by the community to do some additional tasks such as protecting a page when an bitter edit warring seems to have no end. It is up to the admins to judge whether a user has to be blocked or not. It is up to an admin to maintain order helping keeping the system run smoothly. In case a user feels being unfairly mistreated, Wikipedia offers a wide variety of appealing ways. If you feel/think/believe the blocking admin action(s) appear(s) fraudulent or whatever, you have all the right to defend yourself and that's why i left this space open for your comments.

I urge you also to stop emailing me. It doesn't help as you have a very confrontational way of dealing w/ simple things. I can't deal w/ that. I am sorry. You think you are right? Great, prove it gently! In your last email, you claiming that i blocked your sock or whatever w/ no sound reason. Aha! You thought that you contacted someone because you felt unjustice. Fine. Isn't that meatpuppeting? You accuse me of protecting the Maghreb article because Collusburry incited me to do so! You say how you to make an argument which is fine but you failed to know how to check the User:X contributions. Please bear in mind that the user you are talking about contacted me 20 MINUTES later after i protected the article. So stop emailing me for the time being until you get rid of your allegations and accusations. You already have the link to the guidelines and policies in my email. It was this same community who worked on making them policies and guidelines. Never the community agreed 100% about any policy or guideline but i am sure they agree 100% when it comes to cases involving incivility, tendentious editing, harassment, assuming bad faith, using false claims to accuse and harass admins, meatpuppeting....... Please save the time of arguing and change your behaviour.

P.S. Not to forget. Since you have mentioned Zerida, i am suspecting now that you have something to do w/ User:Serenesoulnyc. I'll try a CheckUser then. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about and this tone of yours is most unbecoming of an admin, in fact, it is against wikipedian etiquette for an admin to point fingers in a dispute. Furthermore, you have shown preferential treatment to Collunsbury, whom as I've stated, appears to know you very intimately. If you had taken the time to actually read the talkpages of these articles rather than blindly take orders from contributors on whom you bestow favors, i.e. collousbury, you would probably not have written in such a censorious tone and you would instead have noticed the other users persistent violation of the 3RV rule, and their deliberate hijacking of certain articles.

Here is some information for your benefit as an "admin"-

Three users appear to be engaged in some sort of "edit warfare" directed at countering any legitimate, sourced changes that I might make. The three users in question are: Coullsbury, Lonewolf BC and Bouha. They have been persistently deleting edits that I have made ( minor sourced edits to highly POV material) to contentious excerpts. They have wholeheartedly rejected cited additions, as these seem to contradict the articles' POV, propagandistic content. Historical interpretation has no place on wikipedia yet the articles read like opinion. Furthermore, the articles are teeming with value judgments and manipulation of language. I intend to report you, as I feel you are abusing your privileges as an admin. Lastly, I only emailed you because it is my right as a contributor to email an admin that I feel has committed an error. If you are referring to my second email, that was, naturally, a response to your very long and rather abusive email. Do not think that your status as an admin entitles you to observe the rules only with the unfamiliar..nor does it, if I may, give you the right to bestow favors on your "mates" (collusbury.) I am going to file a complaint against you and the three users involved. Another thing- this is the second time you accuse me of being someone else. Again, you fail to show me the evidence. As I have informed you, Khalid is a friend that I contacted following my initial experience here on wikipedia, which I found most bizarre and problematic. And let me remind you that it is my right to invite a thousand people here if I please and to point them in the right direction. Unfortunately, however, it is you and your "mates" rather than I who are abusing not only the editing system but also special privileges, in your casea administering, to replace facts with PROPAGANDA, VALUE JUDGMENTS AND HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION. AS THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, MY EDITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVERTED, AS I SIMPLY ADDED CERTAIN FIGURES TO CONTENTIOUS SEGMENTS TO PLAUSIBLE AND SUSPECT ARTICLES. MY FACTUAL ADDITIONS, WHICH WOULD HAVE ONLY FURTHER AIDED THE READER IN COMPREHENSION, WERE DELIBERATELY REMOVED BECAUSE THEY BROUGH THE ARTICLE TO HEEL! You are doing a fine job colluding with these hijackers..but I intend to report you, as you are not only abusing your privileges but also compromising wikipedia's integrity. Again, it is wrong of you, as an admin, to pigeonhole me as you have in your first email and as you have, regrettably, once again here. Finally, contrary to what you'd written me, you did indeed lock the Maghreb page before even voicing warning others, and you failed to use your admin privileges in an equitable manner. In fact, on your talk page, collusbury specifically refers to you as "mate" and asks you for a "favor".."to help him out." p.s. This unfounded accusation concerning zaruda is, once again, attributable to an overzealousness in protecting those you are on friendly terms with. Mariam83 05:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, this is quite funny: "involving incivility, tendentious editing, harassment, assuming bad faith, using false claims to accuse and harass admins, meatpuppeting" Not sure what "meat puppeting" is, you might want to define these rather obscure terms, as you are being much too pedantic in a wikipedian sense. The "tendentious" editing is particularly revealing as I have not once shown any bias in my editing. It is rather your tendentious hijacking of material concerning living persons that compromises wikipedia's accuracy and objectivity. As to harassment, I was very polite at first and followed all the rules. I was unfortunately, however, attacked from all corners from three fiendish contributors who put their own personal interests before the content. As to harassing admins, I have not once harassed an admin. Your "mate" again, is rather the one who uses objectionable language in dealing with others, and who has formed a sort of monopoly on certain articles, with the aid of corrupt admins such as yourself. Mariam83 05:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You: "You think you are right? Great, prove it gently! In your last email, you claiming that i blocked your sock or whatever w/ no sound reason. Aha! You thought that you contacted someone because you felt unjustice. Fine. Isn't that meatpuppeting? You accuse me of protecting the Maghreb article because Collusburry incited me to do so! You say how you to make an argument which is fine but you failed to know how to check the User:X contributions. Please bear in mind that the user you are talking about contacted me 20 MINUTES later after i protected the article." Prove it gently? the edits that I made were all sourced. Sadly however, they were reverted by contributors, again the same three fiendish war wagers, who found the "truth" in all its complexity, rather "objectionable." I am not in the least bit surprised however, as I immediately noted a propagandistic tone with which the article had been written, the interjection of value judgments such as "debatable" and the omission of FIGURES AND FACTS IN ISSUES discussing, rather authoritatively (pathetically), sadly enough, GENETICS! THE OMISSION OF The ORIGIN OF DONORS IN ASSERTING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT GENETICS IN A REGION MORE THAN TWICE AS LARGE AS EUROPE!The inclusion of thes every significant facts surely would have proved, as it did and does, my point rather perfectly. No, I'm afraid it is you who has rejected PROOF and boycotted PROOF! And Lastly, he did not contact you 20 mins AFTER you locked it. In fact, it is all documented on your talk page. He very clearly asks you, his "mate" do "help him out" and you very readily OBLIGED. And lastly, no one should have the right to remove tags. Mariam83 05:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you really thinking blocking me indefinitely will aid you in perpetuating lies and distortions about an entire region? I am going to complain to the highest echelons. I feel that you are jeopordizing the content of this portal, indeed, it's very essence, by not wisely administering. Mariam83 05:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to complain to the highest echelons. You are violating another Wikipedia policy → WP:LEGAL. The third and the last chance you got. Get some break please and come back w/ a fresh air. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:07, 21 June 2007 (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).

Mariam83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

For being unfairly ostracized. I merely reacted in like manner

Decline reason:

This does not justify your behaviour. — Yamla 15:58, 21 June 2007 (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.

Offer of help

Can you tell me what articles are in dispute? I may be able to offer a third opinion on your editing behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisia and Berber people. Please compare the following link with the demographics on the page:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n5/abs/5201797a.html

Also, please notice the number of Berbers in a country of 10 million people- 130,000 and compare with the demographics page. You could also check the CIA & columbia source. Mariam83 15:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the Wikipedia article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1)Tunisia 2)Berber people

Notice how I have been blocked again? They really are trying their best to keep me away from these pages as my annotated sources contradict their rather POV edits.

I have not used any account inappropriately yet I have been blocked once again. I suspect certain admins are abusing their rights? what should I do? Mariam83 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it can be frustrating, in particular when you strongly believe you are right. In Wikipedia, going head-to-head and reverting other editors, making claims of cabalism and other such complains, seldom accomplish anything (bedsides getting your blood pressure up and getting dinged for disruption).

For these situations when you feel unheard or when you may have a strong dispute with other editors, Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process that you can follow. Start by asking a third opinion. If that does not help, request input from other editors via a Request for comments. If that fails, ask for a mediator to assist you. You can do start with an informal mediator from the WP:MEDCAB.

In summary, be patient, do not get into edit wars and avoid strong exchanges with others, and even if you feel attacked, do not attack back. Use the power of the community to assist you. If your arguments have merit, the community will support them.

So, take a break, cool off, and when you come back start afresh with a new approach following Wikipedia dispute resolution. It takes time, but it works. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Jossi. Mariam83 12:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Because you were caught violating WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK, your block has been restarted. You are not permitted to edit while blocked. --Yamla 16:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by because I've been caught violating? I didn't violate anything.

I beg your pardon? I have not been caught doing anything. The admins that blocked me yesterday have decided to give me another chance. Mariam83 16:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you believe you are not required to adhere to WP:SOCK but I assure you this is not the case. --Yamla 16:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits to Sub Africa

DOnt delete valid content. This is how wiki works.

Add a dispute TAG if possible
USe the talk page and dont remove content, especially age-old content (this section is very old)
Use wiki rules by citing them before using your OPINION on what should be added or poor arguments

Now I will address some issues. This content from a PHD in African History the content is published widely. If it is so adsurb then what you need to do is use evidence not OPINION to contest the claim. Follow the rules, check this definition of original research because i dont know how a well cited statement can be original research. I dont think anyone who has travelled or lived in Africa would dare to compare (Russia (a country) with Pakistan (another country). My friend Africa is not a country, there is no Flag for Sub-Saharan Africa, The organization is called AU not SAU, There is no historical reference to a Sub-Africa. If this is real to you, then add your content but just because you disagree doesnt give you any right according to how this site works to delete it! And kindly show what seperates the North from the South so clearly. I state again this site is about reflecting all valid perspectives not just the ones you like!--RastaRule 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to address your concerns as I could barely read your paragraph, uninformed as it is. Now, I think anyone who has been to North Africa wouldn't even ask such a nonsensical question as "And kindly show what seperates the North from the South so clearly." Hmm, let's see. 1)Culture 2)Race 3)History 4)Language 5)Religion 6)Overall Identity 7)Geography

You can't possibly believe that North Africa is not distinguishable from Sub-saharan africa, unless you have never been there, in which, it is very possible from your little North American burough to imagine such nonsense. I assure you however, that there is a clear difference, which might explain why the Arabs started the whole abominable Slave trade. This example, tragic as it is, ought to clarify the division for you.

More to the point, however, which VALId content did I delete? What is more, I have yet to read an article concerning countries and regions that contains VALID content that is not manipulated and distorted.

The proper label would be Sub-Saharan Africa, also known as Black Africa.

The PHD is not a historian nor is his opinion FACT. It is an idea, an experiment in conjecture...and the bogs of such opinions do not belong in an encyclopedia. Fact does. Like for instance, the fact that North Africa is separate from Sub-saharan Black Africa.