User talk:Mariam83

I've just blocked your sockpuppet User:Khalidmn indefinitely. I am going to give you one more chance by not extending your block. Please behave and have some time to read our core Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines before you delve into edit warring and incivility. For now, i am intending to keep our off-wiki communication between us. So this make it 2 chances in fact.

Please note that contributors are intended to assume good faith and discuss calmly in a civil way. We disagree most of the time here but we respect eachother. You can't just come and create havoc. It is disrupting. There are other alternative ways to male yourselves being heard w/o attempting to harass people. Good luck. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking my talkpage. As I am sure you are aware, the "edit war" was begun because numerous users appeared to be working in tandem with one another to block all and any possible reinterpretations of their afro-centrist POV/Original definitions of terms such as Maghreb, North Africa and their refusal to allow the inclusion of figures and facts to contested sections of contested articles. I tried to reach a compromise with them but I felt that I was being ostracized and that all leverage was being used againt a newcomer such as myself. My question for you is: Who decides what is legitimate or accurate in instances where different sources are available that lead to different conclusions? and why should contributors such as Zarida be given the right to decide whether certain tags are appropriate or not? Surely this is not the way things are run around here.

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)

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 not use such a reprimendive tone with me and you would instead have also 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, propganadistic 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 you 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. Mariam83 05:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)