User talk:Meeso

Here are some links I thought useful: ...[Snip!] Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 23:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I thought the complaint should be addressed in the talk page first to see if it could be corrected easily before sending it for FARC...I strongly disagree about the name thing as many other wars have been named similarly...I guess it is the principle of "to the victor goes the spoils". Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"To the victor goes the spoils." hmmm; It seems that you're right! Anyway, thank you, no harm done. Maysara 22:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind wishes on the occasion of this venerable Egyptian holiday, and same to you. — Zerida 19:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a recommendation regarding LLTP on the French Revolution article Talk:French Revolution, and we're inviting comment. You have expressed an opinion on this matter, and we're interested in hearing your response to these ideas. Rklawton 03:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation; I have commented. I now feel the current name is the most appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meeso! Happy New Year to you too, nanou en sawwa en werri. The last two weeks, Wafaa en Nil, were a time of celebration of the Nile flood. Kol sana wenta tayyeb, may Hapy bring you and Egypt and Egyptians prosperity and renewed health in the new year. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 21:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nanou en sawwa en werri is basically Happy New Year! And you're right, the inundation is celebrated as "Night of the Drop" (Leilet en No'tah) on June 17/Ba'ouna 11 to be exact, recalling the ancient belief that when Isis mourned the death of Osiris, her weeping would cause the Nile to overflow (of course, Egyptians don't believe that anymore, but the naming convention survived remarkably enough). Wafaa en Nil, however, was celebrated when the Nile would reach its highest level, usually between August 6 and 16/Misra 1 and 11. I think 20th cubit of the Nilometer marked the level of Wafaa en Nil, before the construction of the High Dam. That's when fireworks are used to mark the occasion and a boat procession would take place. The ancients celebrated and made offerings to Habi during this time. August 15 became the officialized Wafaa en Nil since the Nile is now controlled (unfortunately IMO).

Thanks for leaving your address, I'd love to chat with you more. In the meantime, do you want to take a look at the discussion on the Copt and provide any input if necessary? Thanks. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · t 21:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I read about the disagreement at Bibliography of the Darfur conflict and have posted some questions over there. — mark ✎ 13:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I find the tone of your comments a bit too unfriendly. If you calmly reconsider my questions it might occur to you that our positions are not as different as you think. First you ridicule my question as to the usefulness of this particular thesis to this particular bibliography, and then I find you saying that "As long as something is potentially useful, even if it will never be "useful to ME", not only should it be allowed to take place, but [it should also] also be encouraged and welcomed." That's precisely my point. You will note that I didn't ask the question why it is useful to ME; rather, I wanted you, as someone who apparently knows more about this thesis, to explain its potential usefulness. My other questions were related to that; surely you can say something about the potential usefulness of a thesis if you know how it was judged by the thesis coordinator, if you know whether or not it is going to be published, and if you know whether or not one can consult it if one wanted.

Your comments on the principles underlying a succesful wiki are not without insight and I largely agree with you, but I do think you are underestimating your fellow editors at this point. Please help find the core of the disagreement instead of lecturing about how others should think about policies and wikis.

I want to separate the personal remarks from the main point of the discussion, so other points of my reply you'll find over there at Talk:Bibliography of the Darfur conflict. — mark ✎ 11:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on, I already know the doomed thesis. Its listing is not important for ME. Potential means this: Could be useful for Devils know whom: the potential lays in the "thing itself", not in our already judgement of its QUALITY (and how could that which is already considered useful to be still potential of usefulness?! And how could that which is considered USELESS to be potential of usefulness?!! !  !! !) Your questions are in vain! It is a disagreement with no "coooore"! I'd better lecture, Sir! ;-) __Maysara 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your generous use of interpunction and CAPS may be useful to 'Devils know whom', I can't see a use for it in a serious conversation. How about we just agree to disagree about how to define usefulness in the context of Wikipedia? — mark ✎ 16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• hehe! LOL! :-))))))))) __Maysara 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please see WP:DEADLINK for dealing with this issue. It is much easier to address if simply tagged rather than deleted. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See what is he doing? [1] He's removing referenced statements, without a reason! Am I the one who is making edit wars, or that because he is making it personal, because he was banned from editing in Egyptian Wikipedia for 3 days (he's not now) because he was disrupting our work & removing a picture of a monokini because he thinks it is inappropriate.[2][3] Please, review what he did before accusing me of edit-warring! --Mahmudmasri (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you have written much I disagree with, I want to emphasize how much I agree with this:

What is equally so clear is that, the problematic issues surrounding the defining of Judaism, and its relation to the Jewish people, are being ignored .... That debate keeps coming up regarding this, should be an indication that the statements in this article need to change, and that even this debate itself, and its details, shall be included in an encyclopedic and referenced manner, in the article itself.

I have added some sources to the ones you posted. If you want to work on a framework for a section that addresses this, I would support that. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I hope you will drop by the article again when you are not exhausted. If you do not mind some advice - when I have been in a protracted argument with others, I have often found that it is much more productive and ultimately gratifying if we find some point of agreement or convergence, and pursue that, even if it means dropping the point I originally cared so much to make, but that did not find any (or much) traction. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought i was the only one who saw this user's attitude as aggressive, and doesnt build Wikipedia, but simply tries to impose his/her opinion and ideologies as Facts, rather than well... Ideologies and Opinions, i believe Wikipedia is a place for ALl opinions, but it also needs to state that they are simply opinions, while their are un-touchable facts... for example concerning the so called Egyptian Language, it is in my beliefe that it is simply an Opinion that its a language, yet not one institute in Egypt, tha states so, all Languages Academies have insisted that it is a Dialect rather than a language, im not saying that we should demolish the theory yet... but i think their needs to be strict warnings to Lantrix/Mahmudmasri (not clear for me who is who really) to respect other users, and always assume good faith in them... im not sure what needs to be done... but we need to report this... dont you think?? it is incorrect for a user to be violent and rude towards users who dont share the same views as his... waiting for your response. Arab League User (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that he's frequently out of line. Though i like in him that he's (most probably) a very young man who's burnt by the fire of Egyptian nationalist feeling! His sentiments and believes drive him to deviate from the neutral vision of Wikipedia, that is, as an objective encyclopedia and not a place to promote ideologies and personal opinions, at least not on the expense of neutrality and encyclopedicness. But i think it is much better if we give him time to learn that as he goes by rather than threaten him with warnings and punishments; these just don't do! I am watching the article currently disputed and i gave my opinion there. Thank you very much. Maysara (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." I refer you to WP:Verify The section in question has been there over a year. My deletion is entirely acceptable. --Utinomen (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do what you want, machine man! Maysara (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the admin you asked for is "dab" and "dbachmann", in real life <real name redacted> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbachmann. --188.99.179.90 (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:EL? I suggest that you promptly remove the link to Maysara Omar's personal web page you added to the Zeitgeist Movement article as a clear violation: "Links normally to be avoided... Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)". Should you fail to do so, and then discuss on the article talk page as I asked, per WP:BRD, I shall be obliged to take this up elsewhere. We do not fill articles up with random links to the personal web pages of everyone who has an opinion on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have also added this link elsewhere. I suggest that you promptly revert those too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I note that you previously signed your name as 'Maysara' (e.g. at the top of this page). Since it seems entirely reasonable to assume you are the author of this essay, I will make one final request to remove all the links you have added, before I report the matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to The Zeitgeist Movement. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Jacque Fresco, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". See also the above spam warning. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Jacque Fresco, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The Zeitgeist Movement shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link you've been adding and the way you've been adding them fails WP:ELNO numbers 4 (don't promote websites), 11 (we don't want blogs). You are spamming, and I've got the report ready to file on you. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2012 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

i am no spammer, was not given chance to defend myself. excessive measure, against spirit of wikipedia. deplorable condition. Maysara (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

An unblock request that does not address the issue of your single-minded insistence on edit warring to keep Wikipedia linking to a blog that's almost certainly yours is not a type of unblock request that's going to get you anywhere. If you wish to appeal this block, I suggest you focus on understanding how your behavior has been disruptive (hint: read WP:SPA, WP:COI, and WP:EL and see if any of those help you understand) and then explaining to reviewing administrators how you will refrain from that sort of disruption in the future. This is your chance to "defend" yourself by demonstrating that you do understand how to operate within our rules. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:34, 3 October 2012 (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.

Your link failed WP:ELNO 11, and the drive in which you were pushing it failed WP:ELNO 4. You were spamming. Multiple editors have said this. You could have stopped at any time and tried to discuss things while not readding, waiting until the discussion was over before readding, but you continued spamming. The only way anyone is going to trust your appeal is if you promise to not link to your personal website again. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

they don't even allow you to edit your own user page to say goodbye, after being blocked. i don't regret participating for years in WP, giving talks about it in several conferences, but it's my fault that i've been away for too long. it has changed for sure, became intolerable to me since a while. i dont even know if the police force controlling WP will allow this message or not. who cares. knowledge and information are uncontrollable. too late for police. Maysara (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... You were the one violating policies and guidelines that have been around for almost a decade. It wasn't Wikipedia that changed. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]