Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:14, 28 February 2011

Archives February 2010 — February 2011

The devices in the pictures were EFPs. The tank incident was when Israeli forces returned fire at the militants, it wasn't an attack. It was already included in the mortar attack section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sham (talk • contribs) 22:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

To deduce something from a photo is original research which is unacceptable. For the tank part, it was clearly an attack, even if you were of the POV that Israel can only defended itself, the attack on Palestinians is still a violent action. There was definitely no ground to remove the reference even if it somehow was apart of the mortar section, which it clearly was not. Passionless -Talk 23:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The tanks clearly RETURNED FIRE at the militants. It wasn't an attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sham (talk • contribs) 15:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What exactly did I do wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Sham (talk • contribs) 00:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

With this edit, you removed sources information and replaced it with a very differing source, there was nothing wrong with the first source or the information so deleting it was wrong, you should have added your source and information to it rather than copying over it. I think WP:DISRUPT is the most relevant policy. Passionless -Talk 01:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Little help

--candle•wicke 04:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

I never broke 1RR, I made 1 revert and a few rejections, but only 1 revert. I ask Timotheus Canens, here but he seems to be ignoring me. Passionless -Talk 05:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

And Courcelles, you made a pretty bad edit here are you sure you wanted to make such a reprehensible edit? Passionless -Talk 05:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Given you have chosen not to abide by the sanction you were placed under, under the authority of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles I am hereby banning you from all articles related to the I-P area of conflict for a period of four months. This ban will expire at 0001 UTC 2 July 2011. Further, I am extending the 1 revert per week per page restriction to run from the expiration of the topic ban until 31 December 2011. After ec, I see your question. Look at the page history, rejecting a change is a revert, no other way to look at it. Courcelles 05:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Than I claim those "reverts" to be all undoing blatant vandalism, which is of course fine and true. Passionless -Talk 05:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That all the edits I reverted by rejecting were all perma blanked you have validated my removing them as vandalism per "Edit summary vandalism - Making offensive edit summaries in an attempt to leave a mark that cannot be easily expunged from the record (edit summaries cannot simply be "reverted" and remain visible when viewing a page's history). Often combined with malicious account creation."

User:B however has broken 1RR on the article Jerusalem, twice reverting the addition of the fact that EJ is a located in Palestine, and has also used a misleading edit summary while doing so. Passionless -Talk 05:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Reversions of a banned user are exempt from revert limitations. I didn't realize when I made the AN3 report that Largeother was a banned user. But you've got to know that this is just totally unacceptable and you restored some version of that in each of your two reverts of Largeother. If you had just removed this nonsense - "even though said international community does not consider the 1961 Indian annexation of Goa to be illegal, demonstrating its hypocrisy and anti-Semitism" - I probably would have ignored it and not even reported you (1RR is not a suicide pact to leave garbage in articles because of a magic number). But you readded the tendentious material too. --B (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You not only reverted the banned user but you reverted by edits at the same time!Passionless -Talk 05:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The edit you linked to was my revert for the week and nothing about it was wrong. It was the rejections of vandalism that you call reverts which is the problem here. Maybe I should have changed the word claimed to stated, but it was pre-wrote and I agreed with it in spirit and lazyness, I kept it how it was. I'm pretty sure I made a similar edit to that a few months ago as well, and I am very very far from being alone in demanding that version. I did not choose which version I restored to because I never restored, I only rejected the new edit. Is is tendentious to know that East Jerusalem is in Palestine? Passionless -Talk 05:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, as it turned out that Largeother is possibly a banned user, the block is abrogated. However, this isn't really a "get out of jail free" card, at least not totally. So, we're also going to abrogate the topic ban, though more incidents will likely get it swiftly reinstated. I trust that will not be necessary. I'm going to leave the 1 revert per week restriction in place, for now. After the three months that I have no control over are complete- this will be late May- come talk to me. If things are going well, I will give serious consideration to removing the parts of it I do have control over (June-31 December). So there can be no misunderstanding, 1) Rejections of pending changes are reverts, as they are made as reverts by another button. 2) Jerusalem is now under a semi-protection. Pending changes there was an utter disaster. 3) The blanket ARBPIA 1RR allows the reversion of IP's without penalty, your restrictions do not, unless Tim says otherwise. (Sorry, have to defer to him here, as he imposed the initial sanction.) 4) Stay out of trouble, and I expect May to be a mere formality. Courcelles 06:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)