User talk:Gabby Merger

Jeffro77's comment on article talk page...and my response (and rebuttal) against the charge of "murder" in Numbers 31

since I can't respond to Jeffro77's remarks and comment on the other article talk page, currently, I will try to respond here (for now).

Jeffro77 wrote:

"You need to stop making stupid claims about what I supposedly "want to believe". Though it is the case that the law code allowed the Israelites to buy and sell slaves, as well as kidnap virgin girls after murdering their families (Numbers 31:17-18), at no point did I suggest that I 'wanted' that to be the case. Nor did I or anyone else at any point claim that "Exodus 21:16 doesn't belong" in the article. More broadly, if you so badly want something in an article, then you should find better sources. Other editors are not obligated to find better sources for things that you want in an article. (Maybe I should complain about how Numbers 31:18 "should be in the article SOME WAY IN SOME SENSE", and then demand that other editors find sources for it.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)"

His use of the word "murdering"...their families...shows the obvious bias and error. A "text without a context is a pretext", and Jeffro77 acts as if those Midianites were angels or something, or never did anything, and they were totally innocent, and that their only crime was being pagans and worshipping a different god ("Baal of Peor"). He forgets (or more realistically dishonestly just doesn't care) that those Midianites harassed, molested, and attacked, and (truly), in effect, murdered many Hebrew Israelites, after they were warned to stay away from them, and caused nothing but trouble and problems, when they were specifically told not to. Right in the beginning of the chapter, Numbers 31:2 we read: "AVENGE for the Israelites on the Midianites." "Avenge" means that there had to be something to even "take vengeance" for in the first place. They were not just some pagan nation minding their own business. As your average Atheist will claim or at least strongly imply. And those Midianites were warned. And ignored the warning. (The Bible indicates that the Biblical Jehovah never strikes without warning...) Atheists always disingenuously dishonestly don't take those things into account, and even deny or down-play those facts sometimes!! One Atheist Bible-basher once counter-factually wrote this: "...the accusation that the Midianites were singled out for destruction “because the Midianites worshiped a deity named Baal Peor” is not at all present in the text (actually, NO reason is given in this passage)." That's patently provably demonstrably factually simply undeniably irrefutably untrue. In fact, the reason for the warfare is explicitly given in 25.16ff as the unprovoked hostility and treachery of Moab/Midian (which we will look at in detail below):

“The LORD said to Moses, 17 “Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them, 18 because they treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor.”

Those Midianites were provably wicked, menacing, and dangerous not just for worshipping a different god of their choice, but because they attacked and molested Israel first, and caused the death and many Jews. And were always a problem for Israel. And since pagan Midianites were heavy Baal-worshippers, and Baal-worship dealt with child sacrifice (real murder) as that was an accompanying trend with Baal worship in that region, how far a stretch is it to believe that those Midianites were into child sacrifice and child prostitution? (See Numbers 25 and compare Jeremiah 19:5 to see how lovely Baal worship was in the Middle East.) Jeffro77 should know this, since he quote-mines the Bible so much, he must have come across that somewhere.

So no Midianite families were "murdered". They were warned and killed in warfare context. If any individual Midianite before that had repented, sued for peace, etc, he or she would not be killed, but spared, and made a debt slave (oh wow, that again), or could be a proselyte if he or she wished, and not starve or lack for anything, and actually have some decent life. That generally did not happen though, as they did not repent, like the Ninevites later did, and the God of Judgment against sin and nonsense, struck, by means of the Israelite warriors. At least according to the chapters etc.

The reasons are stated in this passage as (1) hostilities taken by the Midianites; and (2) deception of Israel by them, in the ‘affair of Peor’. Nothing at all is said about treating them as enemies because they worshipped a different god.

So, at least we should see that some of the accusation elements above are contra-indicated by the data. There was no need for ‘virginity testing’; as there would be other ways in those cultures, with young girls and articles of clothing, to see or know that, and the fact is that "rape" and "sexual slavery" is not in the passage at all; and the reason for the combat is not just ‘disagreement over religious terminology’.

Also his recent diss edit and removal again, the problem is that Exodus 21:16 does not say "stealeth an Israelite" or "kidnap a brother", but "stealeth a man" in general, and the paragraph wrongly states what the ref does not state.

The Pulpit Commentary ref specifically says this:

"We may gather from Deuteronomy 24:7, that the Mosaic law was especially levelled against this lena of the crime, though the words of the present passage are general, and forbid the crime altogether."

It's not just "kidnapping fellow Israelites" as the paragraph wrongly says. It wasn't just limited to that, according to Exodus 21:16 and according to the reference. So Jeffro77 was wrong for saying "added nothing to the article".

Exodus 21:16 simply does not say just "fellow Israelites". But kidnapping ANYONE, with no justification, to own or sell him as a slave, carried the death penalty. Because Israelites could be made slaves too IF THERE WAS A CRIME AND DEBT situation. Same for foreigners. Yes, Israelites got better treatment overall than foreigners, but that's only logical and natural. But it wasn't like pagan foreigners could be randomly taken from their families simply solely only because they were of a different nation and religion...if that nation never did anything bad to Israel first, in a war-time context and drift. It always always had to be based on something and a pre-context. Not from a total vacuum, and from greedy whims. And also, again, Numbers 31 was showing the avenging and the destroying unrepentant enemies of Israel, and disrespecters of the Israelite religion, and molesters of Israel, not innocent neighbors who minded their own business. And also it SHOWS that it was "war reparations" for those who were taken and made bond-slaves or whatever the case was for those who survived. And no, I don't have a problem with Numbers 31 being somewhere in the article "in some way in some sense". I'm consistent, unlike others I know. But Exodus 21:16 is a general statement, for any "man" broadly, and Leviticus 25 and Numbers 31 were about war reparation PRE-contexts and backgrounds. So the "Bible slavery" article is not very accurate in giving the wrong Jeffro-ish impression that it was "only fellow Israelites" that could not be randomly kidnapped. More careful and critical and honest reading of all the books of the Bible on this matter indicate that NO ONE could be randomly kidnapped, and taken or used as slaves with absolutely no context or justification. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Block

I've asked Bishonen to lift the block against you. GBRV (talk) 08:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You must have seen the repeated accusations of stalking/hounding, there's one on your talk page. This is totally unacceptable and I told Gabby to either stop or go to ANI and make a formal complaint. Gabby's failure to do either had the obvious consequence. I'm also concerned about the use of other accounts and IP addresses to edit. I'd be against unblocking until we have the names of those accounts and an agreement to stop using IP addresses. 12:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Yes, I saw the accusations, and I also saw Jeffro77's behavior which led to the accusations: he suddenly entered a discussion that he hadn't previously taken part in, and began making ad hominem comments against Gabby Merger stemming seemingly from past disputes or a personal dislike rather than sticking to the topic (which was supposed to be a rather drab semantic debate). That sort of thing naturally raises eyebrows. Although I understand that Wikipedia requires assuming good faith rather than making accusations, nonetheless that's supposed to go both ways. I didn't see Jeffro77 assuming good faith or treating people in a collegial manner. GBRV (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, GBRV, I appreciate the attempt, but trust me, Bishonen will never do that. Too much baggage, bias, and double standards, with her. And, Doug Weller, I was thinking seriously of making a "formal complaint" against Jeffro77, even before you said anything about it, for weeks now, but I don't edit much on Wikipedia overall to begin with, compared to other editors, but I was thinking seriously of going to ANI etc about this, but since Bishonen (an Admin) clearly for weeks too was biased and unfair with me, I doubted that it would have gone anywhere, or that I would have received fair or just treatment with this, and was sure that Bishonen would come in and give her two cents, poisoning the well with her nonsense and distortions and inconsistent biases and analyses, (as well as Jeffro's arrogant uncivil tag-team partner and meat-puppet "BlackCab" with his arrogance, incivility, hypocrisy, and biases), but I was thinking of formally complaining against Jeffro77 anyway...(and maybe even against Bishonen, as they're the only two I've ever had this much of a problem with), and like I said, maybe even Jeffro's even more arrogant buddy "BlackCab", who's also known for hounding and disrespecting, and being incredibly uncivil (then whines when someone tells him off, can dish out but can't take it), with double standards, and who has had major problems with other editors over the years, and has been on notice boards and has been in trouble many times, that he'll of course leave out in his disses of me on Bishonen's page, (and I have the copy-pastes and proofs of BlackCab's problems over the years, saved). He's a biased, uncivil, insulting, hypocritical, and arrogant hounder too, with jumbo-sized arrogance and prejudices. (I'm just stating black-and-white and checkable ANI facts.) BlackCab, though I have not had as much of a problem with him as with Jeffro77, has not helped matters. He's a bully as well and has gotten in trouble (provably so) for hostile non-WP kosher bahavior. Who likes to poison wells also, and chime in his biased uncivil junk. Another pot-kettle-black bully and troll.

But regarding the main and real problem Jeffro77, I almost did make a formal complaint, but waited etc. Things happen. There's no question that Jeffro77 checks, follows, and second-guesses, and disrupts any meaningful edits of mine for a few months now. In violation of WP:Hound. It's not just a "baseless accusation" (that coming from Bishonen, who has no credibility at all as she does it herself), but clearly a fact. Jeffro77 admits that he put me on his watchlist because he feels I put "POV" etc, and doesn't trust me or my edits. As far as other accounts, that's my business only after this block expires, if I even choose to go sometimes. As I said, I don't agree with you much either, Doug Weller, though sometimes I have, from what I remember, but I don't consider you (at all) like Jeffro77 or Bishonen. I even don't have a big problem with Jeppiz, or any others on "The Exodus" talk page. But Jeffro77 for years has been known (with other people too) for bullying, hounding, disrespecting, and insufferable ownership attitudes and arrogance. (And his meat-puppet and tag-team troll partner BlackCab many times.) What was unfortunate for me is that a very uncivil arrogant dishonest inconsistent Admin (Bishonen) got in the mix weeks ago over the "Jeppiz" matter, where of course Jeffro77 the stalker came in and caused more problems. So it became a tangled mess that can't be untangled, as no one will be unbiased, honest, or fair, including you to some extent it seems (from your words). Hence, why I will not ever be making any significant edit (or attempt to) from this account name again.

Jeffro77 complains about "long winded comments" and edits on his page, and makes it like that is "hounding" him, but I never hounded his edits or followed him around like a stalker and bully, nor would I ever care to, though he obviously has been known to have his own biased soap-box on Wikipedia, with some good edits, and some questionable also. But I don't stalk people. My "long comments" to him, that he whines about, are really in response and precipitated by his hounding, checking, disrespecting, of my edits. If he left me alone, I would never have commented on his page at all, regarding edit wars, disputes, and hounding. And I'm sure he'll make a fuss about this very long comment on here, if he ever sees it, which he probably will, and rudely jerkishly call it a "rant" and "long-winded", just like his friend BlackCab will inevitably do. It's whatever though. By the way, as I said, I don't belong to any church, or religion, and have problems with all of them, and have not attended anything in decades now. I'm just a researcher, and believe through the research, certain things concerning divinity, scripture, and world history, favoring some positions over others, but still trying to be careful to always maintain NPOV wording on WP articles, that Jeffro77 never gives me credit for or admits or cares about. But the problem is his OCD stalking and watchlisting, that gets excused as valid, in circular reasoning. (He and I have collaborated and compromised on some edits sometimes, but not recently really...as things got more resentful unfortunately...and he loves to check everything I do, and disrupt it, never conceding anything, and forgets that this is a wiki, and no one person owns any article, but insanely the accusation of "own" gets turned on me...simply because I don't want to be hounded and my sourced accurate edits to be summarily over-turned and reverted.)

Of course, he doesn't look at it that way...with his cop-out and personal overblown view that my edits...it's a circular argument in many ways...have been POV and problematic, therefore warrants constant checking and second-guessing, therefore is not "hounding". No editor who hounds ever admits he hounds, and will ALWAYS fall back to the convenient subjective alibi of "well that's a problematic POV editor, so I have a right to watchlist and revert them, so it's not hounding". Then if that's the case, no one would ever be a "hounder" because all WP hounders and stalkers will invariably claim "I'm justified for following this editor".

And of course, if an editor is considered a "good editor", or "experienced editor", by Admins, it will be assumed that that "good editor" can't be a "hounder", and that he must be justified (no matter what) in constant checking, harassing, disrupting, reverting, removing, dissing, undoing, regardless of the actual specific merits, but will convince themselves somehow that there must be some merit to the reverting and following around. Can't win. I'm not on Wikipedia as much as Jeffro77 clearly has been for many years, to build up a "good editor" status, so my credibility is not as Jeffro's, so it will be hastily believed that Jeffro77 can't be a stalker, troller, rude hostile hounder, no matter what, especially if some Admins have their own biases, hang-ups, dishonesties, and issues. One of the reasons I did not bother reporting Jeffro77, as I knew that it would most likely be turned on me, insanely, as I'm the bad one 100%, and that Jeffro77 (the true bully and stalker) is a perfect angel, doing his job of correcting a "POV and problematic editor" regardless of actual true merits and specifics or sources, or facts.) The fact though is that both Exodus 21:16 and the cited source DISAGREE with Jeffro77 and the wording of that particular paragraph, as I clearly proved in the section above, and is just one example of Jeffro77's own POV problems, and pot-kettle-black pathologies and circular arguments. It's human nature to assume that another editor's contribs will automatically be "POV" and "wrong" if there's already a pre-bias and past bad blood. And it kinda sucks that Wikipedia allows and facilitates "watchlisting" other editors, because it is many times abused, with the cop-out excuse of course of "well that's a POV editor who deserves checking" etc. But WP does say that hounding does exist, but then there's a ganging up on someone, and Doug is being unfair too in many ways, though not nearly as bad as Bishonen, then it becomes a losing situation, especially when WP is controlled mostly by a certain type anyway. But hounding does exist, and Jeffro has no respect for me, and says uncivil cold snipes at me like all the time, so violates both WP:Civil as well as WP:Hound, but in circular reasoning, will never see it that way, or admit to it, especially when some Admins like Bishonen back up the biases and double standards and dishonesty and nonsense. Can't win, in other words. (And he calls me "paranoid", uncivilly, but he's so paranoid that every significant edit I would make would have to be wrong, and jumped on, that he feels the compulsion to check and watchlist and undo and mess with, to keep Wikipedia uncontaminited by POV editing. Talk about paranoid. All my edits I make very sure are sourced, accurate, and NPOV in wording and tone. His worries are overblown and not really necessary. Though of course he won't ever agree. Hence I move on, no more edits from this account, as long as I have an unrepentant and relentless horrible stalker on my back, who gets excused for it by Doug Weller and Bishonen, because "well he's a good editor and so he can't be a hounder". Fail. But anyway, Doug, to repeat, I actually was thinking of never editing from this name again weeks ago, but I was stupid, because I knew already that Jeffro77 was stalking, watch-listing (he's neurotic and OCD that way with editors he doesn't like or has had problems with), second-guessing, he has no respect for me, and reverting, and imposing, and not trusting anything I do or say, but is automatically dismissive. I obviously can't deal with that, as that is a patently impossible situation. So, again, no more big editing (or any editing really probably) from this user name. Don't worry though. I won't edit from any other name during this (Bishonian) block for the next few weeks. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Advice

Gabby, I gave you a friendly piece of advice a few days ago, my intention was to avoid this situation. Unfortunately you did not take the advice, nor the warning from Doug Weller. I'd like to give you an another piece of advice now, and please consider carefully. Stop immediately! I believe you're somebody who could contribute meaningfully to WP so I'd hate to see you banned indefinitely, but the way you're going on now, the only thing that will happen is than an admin will remove your access to edit this talk page, and perhaps block you for even longer. Please understand that you were blocked for uncivil behaviour. I had no part in the block, and I was sorry to see it, especially as I thought you made some useful contribution in the Exodus discussion, but the point is this: even if you believe you're right, that is not an excuse. And since your block, you have just trapped out the same behaviour that got you blocked. You lash out at Bishonen for "rudeness, incivility, and bias", "you're too biased YOURSELF, and dishonest to acknowledge, bluntly speaking", "As you're a very biased and uncivil human being" and much more of the same. You've attacked BlackCab calling them "Jeffroy's meat-puppet "BlackCab" with his arrogance, incivility, hypocrisy, and biases", "known for hounding and disrespecting, and being incredibly uncivil", "He's a biased, uncivil, insulting, hypocritical, and arrogant hounder too, with jumbo-sized arrogance and prejudices. Who likes to poison wells also, and chime in his biased uncivil junk." and much more of the same. You've continued to attacked Jeffro77 after the block, as in "the stalker came in and caused more problems", "Jeffro77 for years has been known (with other people too) for bullying, hounding, disrespecting, and insufferable ownership attitudes and arrogance", "constant insults, coldness, unprofessionalism, hounding, and disrespect." and much more of the same. It's really quite simple: This kind of language is not accepted on WP and will always lead to a block. I know you feel like people are stacking up against you, but I see nobody else using language about you that is even remotely similar to the examples above. I won't take part in any further discussion, just as I had no part in what led up to this block, but for your own sake: strike all insults above and don't repeat them. Any admin who happen to come to this page is likely to remove your access to it. Jeppiz (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jeppiz. I have no problem with you. We made amends some time ago. But I was answering both GBRV's comment and that of Doug Weller's. You can agree or disagree, and yes I was being very blunt, and even overly so, in my previous comment, but it's all facts, and hard facts, unfortunately. And I would not do this in the future, if and when I ever edit again (on another account perhaps some time hence). But I do appreciate your advice and your concern. Best wishes. Gabby Merger (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Your claim that what you write is "all facts, and hard facts" is just a lie. You have previously previously accused me of being a meat puppet, an accusation I told you on your talk page was offensive. It is untrue and you probably know it. From the diatribes above, it seems most of your efforts on Wikipedia go into writing juvenile hate posts directed at those who disagree with you or challenge you. BlackCab (TALK) 00:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Uhm, yeah ok, BlackCab. Since things are in the eye of the beholder anyway, it works both ways, as far as "meat-puppet", and that's not even that big a deal to me necessarily. What the real problem is is your and Jeffro's arrogance, manipulations, bullying, politicing, rudeness, sniping, insulting, disrespect, stalking, hounding, and incivility. But you think I care all that much at this point about your feelings on that? If I'm being "uncivil" with you now, it's only because you've been yourself, and (as you should know already from reading the above) I frankly don't care at all what happens, as I don't intend on editing anymore from this user name. So why hold back? Let the facts (that you'll deny, that Bishonen will deny, that Jeffro77 will of course deny, that Doug Weller of course will deny, but where GBRV will confirm, and Sh33na will probably confirm, and Jeppiz may concede to some extent and deny to another extent) go forth.

You and especially Jeffro77 have not been fair or cool players in this, no matter what you delusionally like to think. You're definitely a close partner with Jeffro77, whatever semantical word you want to use, and why is it that you and Jeffro77 are on the other talk page, bad-mouthing me? Tag-team partners at best, then. So? And as for "lying", when you say unfair untrue biased idiotic garbage like "it seems most of your efforts on Wikipedia go into writing juvenile hate posts directed at those who disagree with you or challenge you", when "most of my efforts" have nothing to do with that, that shows what an uncivil bad-faith assuming dishonest lying impossible troll you are, and can't be reasoned or dealt with at all, in any way, and proves my point, and only confirms (richly so) everything I wrote about you above.

Why are Jeppiz and I somewhat cool now, and made amends, though he and I had our differences some time ago? If you take the vast majority of my "efforts" and edits and work, they had nothing to do with "juvenile hate posts". Fail. But your credibility hovers below zero, so I consider the source.

But when you write uncivil put-downs, insults, and mean-spirited disheartening cold remarks about an editor, they're somehow not "hate-posts", but when I do it, and give another side, and bluntly expose what an appalling arrogant person that you are, and about your whiny arrogant trolling stalkish soap-box, and disrespectful behavior, it somehow is. You can dish out a ton, BC, but can't take anything... Human nature. As I said, double-standards, insane flagrant inconsistencies, and pot-kettle-black hypocrisies run galore on Wikipedia too often, sadly and unfortunately. Again, sir, though I already conceded (as I try to be fair and honest unlike others are) that you and Jeffro77 have done decent work on Wikipedia, that's not all you've done, and as I said, I have all the posts, proofs of problems, disagreements, and ANI disputes and uncivil comments and issues, copied, pasted, and saved from all your years of it with various editors, with the old bullying ownership tactics, BlackCab, aka "LTSally". And all your problems with other contributors. No one is totally perfect here, if that's the case, and I can swap you links and diatribes. It doesn't matter. I won't repeat what I said above, in my previous comments, regarding the no-win situation in certain matters with some individual Administrators (as an Admin was simply a one-time regular editor, with good and bad points like all of us have, and some may even have been unfair arrogant hounders too, and the stuff gets perpetuated, no infallibility anywhere, on a place like this), when even some Admins (such as Bishonen and to some extent Doug Weller) encourage the problem. And will have their own circular arguments and biases. But even with some occasional unreasonable or biased Admins, you and Jeffro still have had your share of complaints against you...regarding similar matters.

Also, BlackCab, why did you bother even writing on my page here? Because I mentioned your name on it? Well, I didn't really bring it up first, as I noticed that you felt the compulsive need to bad-mouth me on the other talk pages earlier. And since you did that, I was responding here to some extent, and setting the record a bit straighter, as your credibility as a fair and unbiased source is about zero..., and also as I know that you would never admit all your issues and baggage. Meaning, I'm obviously not the only person that you've had disputes with. And I was only responding to Jeppiz's comment, and earlier to GBRV's comment that he tried to speak to Bishonen (which I appreciate but won't go anywhere), and earlier to Doug Weller. If those three editors did not comment on my page, I would not be bringing you or Jeffro77 up about anything like that. I won't hold back, just because you don't like it. If you're not technically a "meat-puppet", then whatever, fine. (Eye of beholder as with other things, right, BC?) But you certainly are very helpful to Jeffro77, and have a history of partnership with him, on some levels. And that has nothing to do with opinion, but easily-checkable fact. Now please move along. Happy editing. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, you have trawled through years of my edits and interactions on Wikipedia to collect "proof"? I'm not sure if I should be flattered or creeped out. And yes, I changed my Wiki user name, as I made clear at the time. Your activity again suggests your motives here are slightly askew. BlackCab (TALK) 05:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't necessarily "trawl" through years, suddenly now, but I've noticed you and Jeffro77 years ago...at the time. Off and on. Just because I don't generally edit the same exact articles that you have that does not mean that I have not read them or analyzed discussions and disputes and edits of many of those things in the past, at the time, as many other editors do too. And I see the good valid arguments and points and edits you've made, and I've also seen all the trouble you've caused and have been in, AS WELL as the good clean-ups and edits, and NPOV stuff you have done. Remember, BlackCab, I do try hard to be fair and balanced and honest, about the good, bad, and ugly, about others, and about myself too. But don't you even remember me from early 2014? It's not something just from this year. But I've noticed you since like 2009, off and on, not "creep-ish", but occasional, and I can't help the fact that you have gotten into disputes regarding edit-warring, hogging, ownership attitudes, incivility, etc. (But what's interesting is if someone more in your camp looks through MY history, it would not be deemed as "creepy" by you. Only if it's vice versa...double standards.) I'm not saying that that's all that you've been about (as I mentioned and admitted), but it has definitely been there. So when you say I have junk, cast first stone much? That was my only point in even bringing that up. That you of all people, with your biases and arrogance (though mixed with some good valid work and points and discussions) should not be talking about someone else's supposed "incivility" or "warring" or "POV". You've put both POV and NPOV into articles, to a greater or lesser degree. But overall I'd say that your edits (and those of Jeffro77) are ok. Not totally POV-free or valid, but mostly, at least from what I've seen (and I have NOT seen all of it, as I do have a life and I do other things.) I hope that clears it up a bit. Yes, someone can see your past history even now, just as others look at MY history now (some have, but will not be considered "creepy" of course by you), but I have also noticed stuff from the past IN the past. I just never got involved in it. No one's perfect every second every syllable is my basic point. And you should not really talk so much about edit-warring and incivility and "personal attacks", when (though you'll of course deny it or minimize it) you've been guilty of it big time also, if that's the case. We all have to some extent. So let's be fair and honest. Gabby Merger (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access removed

While you're blocked, your talk page is to be used to address your block but you have continued to argue and insult other editors. So, your talk page access is revoked. I also noticed that you edited as an IP on GBRV's talk page. If you do this again, your block will be extended for block evasion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gabby Merger. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)