Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You recently reverted my edit where I changed the formulation Literary Essayist into writer. This issue has been discussed in the talk page where removal of the term essayist has been suggested; [1]. Please join the discussion in the talk page. Best regards Ulner (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a Wikiquette alert concerning your recent edit, see [[2]]. Ulner (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a Wikiquette alert concerning your recent edit comment, see [[3]]. Ulner (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents filing: [4]. Ulner (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I can see from your user page that you actually represent the person that the article is about in some professional way so that sorta makes me worried that you shouldn't really be participating in editing that article since you might effect the [[WP:NPOV] and it also worries me a great deal since that means that this person has the means to get someone on his behalf to actually edit Wikipedia for him and since you admittedly do so then how can we possibly know that others showing interest in this article are not also working on the behalf of this man or people associated with him. This isn't the most pleasant situation and I think that you should for the sake of Wikipedia refrain from editing or reverting the article or its talk page yourself and if you indeed do encounter any of those privacy concerns that you mention or other such concerns to ask random admins to deal with them.

Please tell me your position on this matter.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not paid. My sole purpose here is to protect NNT (a person very close to me by blood ) against harassment that are costly TO THE ENTIRE FAMILY by detractors and establish contact with wikipedia --and cannot intervene to promote or enter new items. This is explicitly allowed by wikipedia standards as a defense mechanism by a Living Person against aggressors. I only intervene when no-one else does so. I would love it if you did so yourself IbnAmioun (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at [[5]]. Best regards Ulner (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly ask you to consider deleting this comment about me: [6], i.e. the sentence starting "The harassment situation is far more serious than you think..." Best regards Ulner (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [7]. Best regards Ulner (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edit calling for office: [[8]] - see WP:OFFICE where it states: "Office actions only occur by formal complaint made off-wiki (e.g. postal mail, electronic mail, telephone, or personal meetings)." So if you want to invoke office action, you should e.g. send an email to the persons mentioned on the page WP:OFFICE. Best regards Ulner (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please do not make statements which can be extremely easily construed as threats to pursue legal action against other editors. This is your final warning. lifebaka++ 19:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IbnAmioun! I write to you regarding our disagreements of the article about Taleb. I would kindly ask you not to make personal attacks against me on the talk page of the article. Instead I suggest that you 1) write a personal message on my talk page if you think I have written statements biased against Taleb (or similar) - if this does not help - 2) try to ask other editors for input - if this does not help - 3) file a RFC on users on me [[9]]. If you think we have a content dispute about the article and how it should be written in a neutral way I suggest that you 1) ask other editors for input - if this does not help 2) file a RFC about the article itself. I hope we can resolve our disagreements in some reasonable way. Best regards Ulner (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --John Nagle (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent attacks on other editors in edit summaries, etc. have left us with no choice.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

--Orange Mike | Talk 21:37, 16 December 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Representative of person under DANGEROUS smear campaign IbnAmioun (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your conflict of interest and strong point of view are the reasons you are blocked, not reasons to unblock. A reason for unblocking would indicate that you recognize that you are too closely involved in this subject to edit it objectively, that you now understand that Wikipedia's rules don't allow anyone to own an article or to try to push their personal point of view into an article, and that in the future, you plan to write about other subjects, like Australian football or Japanese pop music or Cheese. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:13, 16 December 2010 (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.

Although I have had issues with the conduct of Ibn Amioun in the past, I disagree with the decision to block him from editing.

I think Ibn Amioun was lashing out in reaction to a handful genuine slanders on the Taleb page a while back (for example I remember that there was one lame insult relating to Taleb's daughter a while back). Certainly Ibn Amioun's behaviour has been unreasonable, however we need to take into account the history here.

I might also mention here that while on Wikipedia I have come across editors who have been far more disruptive than Ibn Amioun, yet most of these editors have never once been blocked.

Wikipedia should try to encourage rational debate: blocking a user is not good for promoting civilised conduct in future. I would welcome Ibn Amioun back as an editor on this page, though I would hope in future the user in question will make an effort to be more reasonable. Inchiquin (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you do some editing on the Nassim Taleb's article. What modern mathematicians do you think need to be added to the intuitive mathematics article? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you might not have anything to add to the stochastics article but I think that some indirect input from Taleb on more modern adaptions of stochastics would be richly appreciated and a deep benefit to Wikipedia. I understand you are here as a representative but maybe you could ask? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --John Nagle (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]