Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:47, 22 March 2009

Messages will be answered within 48 hours.

Attacks in Gaza

Please stop inserting grammatical errors and awkward phrasing into a lead that is already quite fine and well-phrased. Also, I'd appreciate it if you could explain to me how preventing people from reaching a hospital constitutes an attack. That information, while important, does not seem relevant. —Anonymous Dissident 20:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)\

Well, how is wounded Palestinians fleeing to Hospital's in Israel not related to the attacks in Gaza?? Also, I fixed the awkward phrasing but the motivation behind my quick rewrites was because your edits were loaded with whitewashing and simply false information. As I stated in the talk, If you plan on removing ENTIRE paragraphs and inserting weasel words, go to discussion. Thank you.Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

These are not weasel words. This is trying to maintain some NPOV and appreciating the knowledge we currently have about what's happened. Please, stop altering the phrasing. With your every revert, you keep inserting syntax errors. I honestly don't understand how are phrasings are so different - other than the grammatical and formatting errors you keep introducing. Please, see reason. —Anonymous Dissident 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your original phrasing was not NPOV, it was wrong. Please re-read the sources provided in the reference section. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What part of it was wrong? Explain your objection. —Anonymous Dissident 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I just compared the diff. From what I can see, our phrasings were almost the same. I mention how people have been killed - so do you in just a different way. I mention that Hamas may be involved - you just say it in a different way. I mean, please. —Anonymous Dissident 20:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I said they were executed, and many were wounded, as the source clearly states. I also said that Hamas claimed at least partial responsibility for the attacks, simply because a leader of the organization highlighted its involvement to "reassert its control of Gaza." Your version didn't even mentioned this, it just said Hamas is suspected of being involved. It's more than a different way, so stop unnecessary reverts. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your failure to appreciate neutrality, especially in the lead, is becoming a detriment to this article. The evidence against Haamas is present in the main body of content, but in the lead a summation is needed, not detailed accusations. We know Hamas is suspected; my phrasing makes a point of articulating that in the initial paragraph. Discussing Hamas' actions and motives is not what the lead should be about. If you read the article, you'll see that plenty of information about Hamas' suspected involvement is given. My phrasing isn't much different to yours; it just uses proper syntax and gives a better overview of the situation. In fact, you just pretty much interchange "killings" with 'execution", which are not fundamentally different and the latter smells of COI or POV. In addition to that, it is entirely unecessary to mention that people were injured; the article is "attacks in gaza"; ever heard of an attack not causing injury? It's obvious and implied. Your claims of "censorship" are quite bogus as I, the creator of the article, was the one to author the information about Hamas' actions and discuss how they might be behind the killings. I have no investment and not interest in censoring material because I have no ties with anything but the good writing standard of the text. For all these reasons, I am going to ask you to stop reverting me, and to not template my talk page again. You are not the owner of the article, and neitehr am I, despite having started it. You seem to have some conflict of interest here, judging by your edit summaries, and I have observed your reversion of other contributors to the article as well. You're attempted monopoly over the content is not appreciated and cannot go on. I ask you to stop. —Anonymous Dissident 02:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing neutrality with fallacy. The evidence against Hamas was woefully understated, which I gladly improved. Syntax is a non-issue here; grammar is hardly an excuse for misinformation. I changed killing to execution because Hamas orchestrated a systematic execution of Fatah and its supporters. As in, they lined them up on a wall and shot them in the face. They weren't simply casualties of war, they were executed as individuals. Get it? You being the creator of the article is irrelevant, and in no way gives you ownership of articles - per Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. You say you are not the owner of the article, but seem to be infatuated with the fact that you started it, and that somehow gives you the right to tell me and everyone how it should be written. If syntax is your concern, go ahead and edit the article according to your standards of English. But if that conflicts with my concern for facts and truth, then I will most certainly edit it. I offered a very lengthy explanation for my edits in the talk section. Also, I didn't mean to edit your user page template. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In lieu of our dispute, the phrasing of your edit summaries, and your general manner, I have made a post at WP:COI/N. Feel free to comment. —Anonymous Dissident 05:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your frustration

I fully understand your frustration at what's going on at the Gaza conflict article. The swarm of nasty pov-pushers butchering the article in the name of a consensus are really out of control. I generally avoid the article because I don't want to find myself in a situation where I would lose my control and tell these pov-pushers where to go. If I would lose control I would find myself facing a pretty good block. Hopefully, one day the pov pushers will go back to their porn habit, leave Misplaced Pages alone, and we'll be able to get back to editing neutral articles instead of propaganda pieces. I encourage you to try to edit the article and try to interact civilly on the talkpage, but when things get too crazy just move on to another article that is of interest to you. There have been greater injustices in the world then some hit-piece disguised as a Misplaced Pages article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Block

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock #1301329 lifted or expired. Request handled by: עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

carriage return

Hello, instead of pressing enter when posting your comments it would be easier to read if you instead used break, like this: "this is one part<br>this is the second" will end up like this:
this is one part
this is the second.
The thing with doing it this way is it keeps your previous indent so it doesnt look like it is separate comments. Nableezy (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I always forget to do that. I'll keep it in mind thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arb enforcement

Thanks for your comment there. Funny how we landed there at the same time. Be civil at talk pages!Ferrylodge (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

what i said

I wasn't calling this a genocide, I was calling the imaginary hypothetical you put forward (Israel killing everybody in Gaza in 15 minutes) a genocide. To be clear, I did not complain to anybody about your remarks, I dont even really care that you think i am what you said, my issue is that when people float that accusation around it serves only one purpose; to chill debate and discussion because people are afraid of being branded a certain way. That was my issue. I really dont think there is a single comment I have ever made on wikipedia that could in any way be taken as anti-semitic, that is why I responded the way I did. Yes I, like everybody else, has a pov on these issues, and as you alluded to on the enforcement page my user page does demonstrate that pov (i dont however think it is an extreme pov). But I do try to keep it out of my edits, at least on the article and most of the time on the talk page. I personally think that anti-semitism, where it exists in this wikipedia, should be systematically rooted out just as any racism. But the accusation without basis is almost as dangerous to the idea of rational debate for the purpose of building an encyclopedia. Anyway, I didnt try to get you in trouble, I didnt bring this up to anybody else, but I do think you went over the line with that accusation. And finally, as I do not consider myself an anti-semite, if you could please point me to any diff where I made an anti-semitic statement it would be appreciated as I do not want to give that impression to anybody. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I explained my basis in the arbitration discussion. The reason nobody said anything in the discussion was because the vast majority of users were simply people who shared similar or identical opinions. If everyone agrees with each other, then there's no fighting. And the source behind this is that users like me have gotten sick of the bandwagoning and risk that we will be criminalized in the event of crying foul. I've retracted my statements, but my personal opinion remains, as do yours. One doesn't have to say "I'm antisemitic" to be such a thing. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

re Lol

Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. Savlanoot. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting in Katyusha

Hi, Wikifan. Please don't just revert and wipe out an edit when someone has added information, as you did. Take it to talk instead.

In this case it's not “nitpicky”, because the article entitled “Katyusha” is about a rocket launcher. When you quote a news source which uses the term for a different thing altogether, you have to make this clear. —Michael Z. 2009-02-09 01:15 z

Also, there's already a paragraph about Arab–Israeli conflict covering 1967–2006 in the article. Why on earth would you put the 2003 US invasion of Iraq in the middle of this? —Michael Z. 2009-02-09 01:22 z

Hi. Pay more attention to the diffs. What you wrote wasn't removed, only edited, by me. I restored that version, and now you've put it into the article twice. Need a coffee :-) ? —Michael Z. 2009-02-09 01:59 z

Here's a diff from before you started editing, so you can clearly see the net result highlighted. —Michael Z. 2009-02-09 02:01 z

No, man, my first revert moved the information about Hamas up by one paragraph, and also edited it. —Michael Z. 2009-02-09 02:12 z

Hey

Did you ever think about enabling your email? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Click the "my preferences" section, which is at the top of each page. At the bottom of the page you'll see an E-mail section. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much, wikifan. It is my first one, and you know how important that first one is! I seriously appreciate it.  :)

Yes

I think it is excellent. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC) I responded on the article talk page and found another recent report reported by YNET UNRWA pays terrorists Tundrabuggy (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for what you said on the Gaza war page. On the actual content, I think the tag thing counts as lame, but your suggestion is spot on. I truly think it is redundant. --Cerejota (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

antisemitism and Gaza conflict article

Hi. Perhaps a moot point re how to summarise the incidents. The figures, eg CST figures, present the objective facts and it's best they go in imo. Really should be a breakdown of the nature of the incidents. Anyhow, the point I'd like to make concerns the edit comment. "False neutrality" is rather strong: I don't think being logical is "false" neutrality.

But my concern is actually re "Understating firebomings is..." Perhaps your comment was longer and intended to be factual and no insinuation was intended, but the comment as I could read it troubles me.

- Ddawkins73 (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay

Would you mind waiting for Cerejota's answer before you remove a tag when the debate is still ongoing. . You use exactly the same arguments on the other side in another article. Please, try also to improve WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and more of everything : have in mind this is a collaborative project based on consensus (100% agreement) and discussion. Ceedjee (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I answered his question. He isn't an admin, so while I value his opinion, it isn't worth anymore than yours. The question posed was secondary sources, I provided information to respond to that statement. Unless you have any evidence that I can respond to, I'm pretty sure it's expected that I remove the tag. The tag shouldn't be used as a badge of shame. I wasn't uncivil or mean so there was no need to include those links. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

His opinion and mine have no more value than yours.

It doesn't mean you lead the debate.

I kindly ask you to have in mind this is a collaborative project, based on disucssion and consensus and the use of force is not acceptable.

So, wait for his answer or ask on his talk page his agreement.Ceedjee (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

reply

Not hostile to her, but you are exhausting her with your unwillingness to listen to rules, logic, and common sense like you have with other users before her. She knows Misplaced Pages guidelines (she is especially familiar with copyright policies) and you can tell she examined the case thoroughly and she gave you a very clear explanation, and she answered all your subsequent questions. But still you continue to rationalize and make excuses, just stop it. I know where it is heading. Also, I told you to not to use Fal when referring to me, so I know you are trying your best to turn this into a hostile situation.

I brought in Moonriddengirl to comment because I knew she was better at explaining copyright infringement than I could. I should have reported you to the admins if I really wanted to do you in. Though now I really don't care if you don't assume good faith--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that even if God Himself were to explain to you what I mean, you still won't comprehend. BTW can you stop with the "I find it odd that other users think it is plagiarism." It is, hello! As for the second set of changes you made, I said it was a violation of the policy regarding the quotation of copyrighted text. Moonriddengirl agrees that it was a violation and she says that you didn't even attribute one of the quotations properly by passing off a Jpost statement as one of Cotler's (which was the problem to begin with!). She told you as it is. What more do you want? I didn't say you were being hostile to Moonriddengirl, so please stop using that argument now. I think the version we have now is okay, if you plan to add back the paragraph consisting of quotations, then we will have to go straight to the admin board. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

title change on OCL article

Why oppose? I though you had agreed with it in the past, based on RS evidence. My apologies if I am mistaken.--Cerejota (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Cerejota (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Cerejota (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Cerejota (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Cerejota (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Cerejota (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Cerejota (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Cerejota (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

the half barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		For dealing with source verification along with Sean.hoyland in the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article. This is necessary work, and you guys reached across previous and current differences to make the encyclopedia better. You get the left half ;) --Cerejota (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

pchr

is not Hamas. They are not affiliated with Hamas in any way. You should know that, you use them as a source talking about Hamas executions of Fatah members. Also, read this, I know you will likely disagree with me, but please do not continue to equate the PCHR with Hamas. Nableezy (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Perception

Wikifan, it might be time to ask yourself if you aren't misunderstanding Ceedjee's comments. He has already said that he was misunderstanding yours, and it really seems like you guys are on the same page (both of you want a section which is a balanced representation of academic consensus) but got off on the wrong foot. Assume for a moment that Ceedjee is an expert (as he says) and that you are not (as you say). In such a situation, I can see how the two of you could get very frustrated over a misunderstanding, and start to believe that you are at odds with each other. Why not let him (the expert) write the section in question, and then see what you think. If you are still unsure, you can show it to an expert you know. I can also show it to an Israeli history professor I know for their opinion.

As for your comments on the talk page, you really really really need to tone them down. You are constantly repeating accusations against Ceedjee which are clearly against editing policy (wp:CIVIL and wp:AGF). This method of approaching discussion with both guns blazin' (so to speak) is not only not allowed, it is also harmful to the process of creating neutral articles. If you're unsure of what I'm talking about, I can point out some specific passages, but I think it best that you read the policy/guideline pages I listed here first. NJGW (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed in your last edit. You start by saying that you like the text (after all, didn't I tell you the two of you were on the same side), then call the discussion a battle. Please try to revise this attitide, as not a battleground. This is official policy because the project is a constructive effort. Believing otherwise will hurt the perception other editors have of you, and will affect the way they respond to your edits. NJGW (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The line is called wp:AGF. Also, you should not ever try to be pushing your POV into the article. You should be after what is verifiably expert consensus. As for people rejecting your suggestions, this is why I'm trying to give you advise... I think your suggestions are getting rejected because you come in with a POV before you are completely familiar with the literature on the subject (as you stated in this case several times on the talk page). If you approach a topic with humility and genuine curiosity (as you saw me do) rather than with prickly accusations and demands, you will find that it is much easier to get your way or a compromise. You lure more flies with sweetness... NJGW (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Re : when you use a word like "retarded" in this way. some editors might think you're referring to them. I'm also putting a message at User talk:Nableezy#Comment. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re : LOL! If everybody's happy, that's fine. But, sometimes in written communication it can be hard to tell whether someone is taking something as a joke or not, so it's good to be careful. I'll keep my eye out for comments such as you mentioned. If I'm spoiling a joke, I hereby give you permission to laugh at me for that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Work together on List of Terrorist incidents

You are extremely intelligent and collect excellent sources that update casualties figures and perpretrators of terrorist attacks well after the fact. I believe you and I can work together in fixing list of terrorist incidents, from now on. All incidents from March 15 to Jan are good and I believe should stay. I think from now on before either of us posts a terrorist incident we send each other and e-mail and link to source. My e-mail is lover_man_86@hotmail.com

Also the February 11 source is from a February 23rd incident . No suicide bombing occured targeting AU peacekeepers on the 11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jersay (talk • contribs) 03:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

images

a general sanity test for myself, but i cannot possibly see this as appropriate for an article about kindergarten. tell me i am wrong somehow. Nableezy (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

i meant to ask you if i am wrong for saying that it does not belong in that article. i cant imagine all this bullshit spilling into articles on kindergarten, seriously wtf? do you think i am actually wrong? you disagree with nearly everything with me wanted to see how far that would actually go Nableezy (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

i think i can safely delete the 'dipshit' right? i was actually meaning you as in asking you if i am wrong. Nableezy (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding - User:Yamanam

I just wanted to let you know, I will be on the lookout for User:Yamanam edits and I already Reverted some of User:Yamanam work. I have taken the time to crosscheck yamanam's edits and i think a administrator needs to reverse all of his edits. Keep me posted. --Michael (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

for the last time do not bring up my religion, if you want to discuss anything with me i only ask that you observe basic fundamentals in decency and respect. if you cant do that, stay the fuck of my talk page Nableezy (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Nableezy (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Nableezy (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2009 Hamas reprisal attacks‎‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. suggest you stop, if the ip editors are an issue take it to the 3rr noticeboard, but you will get into trouble if you keep doing that. and other editors can deal with it as well Nableezy (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

2 places Nableezy (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Nableezy (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

last time Nableezy (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

3rr

I have reported you to the edit warring noticeboard, you can see this here Nableezy (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Block without prior consensus and extreme conflict of interest

Wikifan12345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dubious report of edit warring here. Admin User: William M. Connolley blocked me without posting at the noticeboard or offering a rationale. Didn't even provide the typical block template, just "24th." Important: A month ago I endorsed the restriction of William M. Connolley's administrator privilege at a noticeboard. He deleted Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict after an AFD which resulted in Keep. He never apologized or accepted responsibility from what I recall. I don't really care about the block, but I'd like it to be erased or deleted from my record since IMO it was unmerited and downright malicious. thanks! Update: He did post at the noticeboard after the fact. Not particularly revealing but I felt it was important. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

AN3 report seems accurate. Please address the edit warring. –xeno (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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.

• If admins weren't able to block because the blockee had spoken out against their actions in the past, someone could become unblockable just by questioning the actions of every admin individually. Please expand on why you feel you were not edit warring. –xeno (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to say I'd forgotten about your contribution to the deletion kerfuffle; indeed I'd forgotten the kerfuffle itself. I didn't provide a rationale because none is needed when the preort is accurate: you have been blocked for what the AN3 report says William M. Connolley (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Editors User:EdBever, User:Michael93555 User:Piano non troppo and I reverted disruptive edits by user User:Yamanam. Yamanam previously vandalized the article with POV moving, as reported here: link. This was included in the noticeboard: For those who are curious, the vandalized edits I was reverting and Nab is defending was by a user warned not to be disruptive or face a likely ban. P.S: Vandalism was in the same article.

Yamanam offered an impressive list of excuses to justify his vandalism, here: 1. I responded to a few of his points and revealed his flawed logic, here. It all boils down to Nableezy, who has noted his dislike for me as an editor, reporting ME for edit warring while ignoring Yam's edits. I felt my actions fit well with Misplaced Pages:Revert, block, ignore. After a few reverts, I reported his vandalism at the noticeboard: Yamanam, you've removed six sources and reverted 3+ paragraphs of information. You justify the reverts with "as per talk", but you gave no user a chance to respond. User:Falastine fee Qalby promptly attacked my character as an editor All I have to say is Wikifan rarely does crosschecking and he is quick to make accusations while spending few sentences to actually tackling the issue in question. Also, only recently have I reported vandalism. In my experiences most vandals are suppressed since I'm usually involved with heavily-moderated articles. I've been editing reprisal attacks since it started, and never have I been accused of vandalism or disruptive editing there. I've been involved in the talk discussion as well. It seems odd that I've been exclusively punished while Yam has been given a "polite" warning even though it is clear HE is the source of all this frustration. Ok, that's my POV...but I think it is relevant. :D Have I provided enough details Xeno?

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=the edit warring notice, the one reported by Nableezy (who is not an objective editor towards me as we have a lengthy history of disputes), included a laundry list of reasons WHY I wasn't edit warring. I think this is either a serious misunderstanding or a lacking in good faith, ok here it goes: Editors ], ] ] and I reverted disruptive edits by user ]. Yamanam previously vandalized the article with POV moving, as reported here: . This was included in the noticeboard: . Yamanam offered an impressive list of excuses to justify his vandalism, here: . I responded to a few of his points and revealed his flawed logic, . It all boils down to Nableezy, who has noted his dislike for me as an editor, reporting ME for edit warring while ignoring Yam's edits. I felt my actions fit well with ]. After a few reverts, I reported his vandalism at the noticeboard: ] promptly attacked my character as an editor while spending few sentences to actually tackling the issue in question. Also, only recently have I reported vandalism. In my experiences most vandals are suppressed since I'm usually involved with heavily-moderated articles. I've been editing reprisal attacks since it started, and never have I been accused of vandalism or disruptive editing there. I've been involved in the talk discussion as well. It seems odd that I've been exclusively punished while Yam has been given a "polite" warning even though it is clear HE is the source of all this frustration. Ok, that's my POV...but I think it is relevant. :D Have I provided enough details Xeno? Update: If any admin would like a response to Fal's list of inaccurate accusations, such as saying 6 were killed when the real # was 19, and then saying I should be shot for "deception. If he read the article he would see a source by SF chronicle said 19+ fatah members were killed, not 6. Someone switched out the source probably. ] (]) 22:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=the edit warring notice, the one reported by Nableezy (who is not an objective editor towards me as we have a lengthy history of disputes), included a laundry list of reasons WHY I wasn't edit warring. I think this is either a serious misunderstanding or a lacking in good faith, ok here it goes: Editors ], ] ] and I reverted disruptive edits by user ]. Yamanam previously vandalized the article with POV moving, as reported here: . This was included in the noticeboard: . Yamanam offered an impressive list of excuses to justify his vandalism, here: . I responded to a few of his points and revealed his flawed logic, . It all boils down to Nableezy, who has noted his dislike for me as an editor, reporting ME for edit warring while ignoring Yam's edits. I felt my actions fit well with ]. After a few reverts, I reported his vandalism at the noticeboard: ] promptly attacked my character as an editor while spending few sentences to actually tackling the issue in question. Also, only recently have I reported vandalism. In my experiences most vandals are suppressed since I'm usually involved with heavily-moderated articles. I've been editing reprisal attacks since it started, and never have I been accused of vandalism or disruptive editing there. I've been involved in the talk discussion as well. It seems odd that I've been exclusively punished while Yam has been given a "polite" warning even though it is clear HE is the source of all this frustration. Ok, that's my POV...but I think it is relevant. :D Have I provided enough details Xeno? Update: If any admin would like a response to Fal's list of inaccurate accusations, such as saying 6 were killed when the real # was 19, and then saying I should be shot for "deception. If he read the article he would see a source by SF chronicle said 19+ fatah members were killed, not 6. Someone switched out the source probably. ] (]) 22:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=the edit warring notice, the one reported by Nableezy (who is not an objective editor towards me as we have a lengthy history of disputes), included a laundry list of reasons WHY I wasn't edit warring. I think this is either a serious misunderstanding or a lacking in good faith, ok here it goes: Editors ], ] ] and I reverted disruptive edits by user ]. Yamanam previously vandalized the article with POV moving, as reported here: . This was included in the noticeboard: . Yamanam offered an impressive list of excuses to justify his vandalism, here: . I responded to a few of his points and revealed his flawed logic, . It all boils down to Nableezy, who has noted his dislike for me as an editor, reporting ME for edit warring while ignoring Yam's edits. I felt my actions fit well with ]. After a few reverts, I reported his vandalism at the noticeboard: ] promptly attacked my character as an editor while spending few sentences to actually tackling the issue in question. Also, only recently have I reported vandalism. In my experiences most vandals are suppressed since I'm usually involved with heavily-moderated articles. I've been editing reprisal attacks since it started, and never have I been accused of vandalism or disruptive editing there. I've been involved in the talk discussion as well. It seems odd that I've been exclusively punished while Yam has been given a "polite" warning even though it is clear HE is the source of all this frustration. Ok, that's my POV...but I think it is relevant. :D Have I provided enough details Xeno? Update: If any admin would like a response to Fal's list of inaccurate accusations, such as saying 6 were killed when the real # was 19, and then saying I should be shot for "deception. If he read the article he would see a source by SF chronicle said 19+ fatah members were killed, not 6. Someone switched out the source probably. ] (]) 22:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Wow. I might act on your request, but my attention span isn't up to it.—Travis 00:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I do agree, it is very long. But to be honest I could have said a whole lot more lol. If desired I can create a short cliff-notes list, but I'll need a little more time for that. I believe administrator William immaturely dismissed my claims (included in the noticeboard and article talk page)unjustly and failed to consider my arguments. That is enormously frustrating as a remedy I felt a thorough explanation was necessary to ensure there is no excuse for "unintentional" ignorance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, hello? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Likewise, TLDR. Take a gander at WP:GAB if you want to increase the likelihood of getting an admin to care enough about your block to reverse it. --jpgordon 04:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. My second block request answered Xeno's question. Is a paragraph rationale too long? I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong here so I can correct it. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 claims that I said he should be shot for deception...Um I said he (assuming he is the editor that placed in the distorted number) should be warned for deception. Why can't he be permanently banned? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Fal - you said I should be shot for deception. This isn't the place, but to be clear: Nothing was distorted. Look in the info box, it says 19 Fatah members killed, not the 6 Yam changed during his 2nd vandalism campaign. I don't expect an apology but I would like for you to leave my talk page unless you happen to be an admin. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Another sick lie, prove it I said it. Provide the diff, you liar. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you read the article: Fatah officials said at least 19 of its members have been executed and many more brutally tortured. That was one of the sources in the info box before your accused me of "deception." It was also in Fatah section, second paragraph: Fatah said 19 of its officials were executed and many more tortured. Are you happy? Admins, this is what I am dealing with on a daily basis. I hope I will be unblocked so I can correct the citation issue and fix the Anthony Cordesman article which User:Wodge recently...uh...deleted cited content and reverted back to its original POV-state. Ok, any further accusations or demands that I be shot will have to wait Fal. I'm waiting for an admin's response and I don't want this talk page to clutter up. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't respond to your request, since I already have. But I'm having trouble finding the place where he said you should be shot. It doesn't seem to be at the link you gave. Can you provide a diff for that threat? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 06:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I checked the diff: The person who originally placed 19 should be warned for deception.. I could have sworn I read "shot for deception." Following sentences include the words "shot" so I may have confused myself. Apologies. Still, accusing someone of deception is highly inflammatory. I proved above why I wasn't and also demonstrated Fal's lack of understanding of the article, solely based on the fact that he didn't even read the cited sources which Yam erroneously removed. Do you have any other accusations Fal? I'd be happy to respond but for now I would prefer to leave some space for an admin's decision. So, back to my unblock request...:D Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/africa/la-fg-somalia-car-bomb23-2009feb23,0,5915403.story

• Requests for unblock