User talk:Soosim: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:45, 12 December 2011 editEdJohnston (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,202 edits →Edit warring at New Israel Fund: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:33, 13 December 2011 edit undoEdJohnston (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,202 edits →Edit warring at New Israel Fund: 24h, ARBPIA noticeNext edit →
Line 309:		Line 309:

	Please see my comment at ]. It seems that you broke 1RR but Malik did not. I have proposed a method of resolving this case without a block, which you can see there. Thank you, ] (]) 17:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)		Please see my comment at ]. It seems that you broke 1RR but Malik did not. I have proposed a method of resolving this case without a block, which you can see there. Thank you, ] (]) 17:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
			<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. </p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock -->
			<hr>
			{\| class="messagebox" style="width: 100%; background: ivory;"
			\| ]
			\|
			\| The ] has permitted ] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at ]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the ]. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the ], any expected ], or any ]. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the ] section of the decision page.

			Please familiarise yourself with the information page at ], with the appropriate sections of ], and with the case decision page.<!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic\|{{{t}}}}}} -->
			\|} — ] (]) 02:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:33, 13 December 2011

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

New Question

Just a little question to my edit. I know and understand that 'blogs' are not reliable source, but it is top of the google search and judging by its about... 'http://mondoweiss.net/about-mondoweiss' Its basically an alternative press, Citizen journalism, you know...something like 'Democracy Now!' I know my example are not the best, but unless there'sproof from the Red Cross itself, it is worth questioning. Check the story of the Levitt Institute, are you sure the mainstream Media is worth believing that much? More checks by various others...for now.. 'blog.camera.org/archives/2011/04/there_is_no_humanitarian_crisi.html' 'http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/2011/palestine-israel-interview-2011-05-19.htm '(Current stance from Red Cross) What I am saying is...it is debatable...and should be shown as such. P.S. I did try to write as unbiased as I can, saying there are speculations on its authenticity...not to say it is fake outright...probably I am not unbiased enough? P.S. (2) I went to the Red Cross website myself and try to contact the Delegates from the Israel and Occupied Territories. If Proven to be false, I will edit appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.99.38 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

blogs are very questionable. maybe try to find the slant you are looking for in an opinion column of some online news magazine - those tend to carry more weight and can be quoted with "Jane Doe of the National Sun and Times says "blah blah blah".... Soosim (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Soosim, why do you assert "blogs are very questionable". We could say the same about newspapers and the generalisation would be just as true - or untrue. Just as there are relatively reliable newspapers, mostily broadsheets, eg The Times of India, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, Al Ahram, New York Times, The Guardian, The Independent etc there are also newspapers which cannot in any way be regarded as reliable eg the late unlamented News of the World along with most of the rest of the Murdoch stable. Similarly, there are blogs which are maintained by highly respected journalists and which are far more reliable than many tabloid newspapers. Mondoweiss is one such, so is 972, there are many others. Floccinauci (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

basically, see this about blogs that are not attached to "real" websites - which is why i said that a blog written by a washington post or guardian journalist on their website, is certainly a better direction to head for. Soosim (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the blog is being used to provide verifiability for the personal opinion of the writer of the blog. It's certainly reliable for the author's opinion. The question I would have is whether Muhammad Idrees Ahmad's opinion is notable. This seems to be his home page. He's written for Al Jazeera, Electronic Intifada, and of course MondoWeiss and his own site Pulse. He says he has reported for many other news organizations on his home page in the journalism section (although I haven't checked them). It may be an interesting issue to take to WP:RS/N. I don't think this one is entirely clear. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors

The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting.

This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated.

We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words".

>>> Sign-up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Freedom Flotilla II

Paul Murphy is an Irish Member of the European Parliament (MEP) and participated in both the first and second convoys. He is an elected official, has been with them since the beginning, and is almost certainly privy to more information on the Flotilla than, say, Howard Jacobson. If his words given to newsmedia cannot be taken as official statements, praytell, what can?

Ismail Haniyeh? Or would you prefer the ayatollah? One of you has a Jewish Barnstar, another has his name translated into hebrew on his page. I wonder what you all have in common that motivates you to edit this article the way you do.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.136.216 (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

dear anon ip - i don't think i removed anything attributed to paul murphy from a reliable source. and howard jacobson is not known to have any information about the flotilla other than his own opinion, which is what is listed there. all edits are NPOV as much as possible for any one person to be that way. now, as far as mssr haniyeh and the ayatollah, they are fine too - just find an RS.... Soosim (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Link replaced with official Paul Murphy website - where an identical statement is found. These ARE his words, the link is verifiable (and the information is a lot more relevant and deserving of note here than one old apologist's spiteful opinion). You are a LIAR and you know it; your edits are only ever to remove positive info about the convoy or insert more Israeli POV. And you just happen to have the hebrew translation of your name on your page. The other edit nazi on this forum has a Jewish Barnstar. I'm sure none of this is related ;)

Continue tampering with this information and it will be treated as VANDALISM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.136.216 (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Archives of American Art Update!

Hi! I just wanted to deliver a little news about the Archives of American Art partnership project! We have released our amazing barnstar to the world, learn how you can earn one here! We will be having a Backstage Pass tour later this month which will be announced this week, and an upcoming contest in which major contributors can win some amazing goodies from the Archives and Smithsonian, allowing for international involvement! Thanks again for your interest and I look forward to your continued participation in this ongoing project to better coverage on American art history on Misplaced Pages! SarahStierch (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anthony Weiner

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anthony Weiner. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marshall Strabala

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Marshall Strabala. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

Please comment on Talk:Bon Iver, Bon Iver

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bon Iver, Bon Iver. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Theatre

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Theatre. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

Please comment on Talk:Certification listing

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Certification listing. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

Ahava

Hello, Horses. Amazing how much time we spend on the relatively minor subject like Ahava. Anyhow, I did't really understood your recent edit and reverted it. This material, as you know, has been discussed on the talk page, and everybody will be glad to see your comments there. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Elinor Joseph

Regarding this edit of yours, as far as self-identification goes, she never described herself as a Palestinian Christian. And you're welcome to contribute to this, if it interests you.—Biosketch (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on CTERA Networks. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- samj _in 14:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

really sam? one revert 5 days ago = 3RR edit war? omg. maybe even omG. but thanks for the info above - i will keep it in mind. Soosim (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

The person who left you that message boasts that he is a technical program manager at Google Switzerland, worked at Citrix Systems, founded high-tech start-ups in 3 countries, and is listed as "one of the leaders of cloud computing." Interesting how he is accusing everyone and his grandmother of conflict of interest and edit warring all the way to the bank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silmiyyah (talk • contribs) 17:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

An interest is not a conflict of interest. -- samj _in 08:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors

The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters.

>>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 17:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Help please

Hi. I am Jivesh. I edit strictly Beyonce-related articles on Misplaced Pages. I was wondering if you could do a copy-edit of Destiny's Child for me? Please reply on my talk-page. Waiting in anticipation. Jivesh • Talk2Me 10:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ariel University Center

A talk page section has been open for 5 days regarding the edit you have reverted (twice now). You have not responded there at all, and nobody has given any reason for the removal of occupied. If you do not self-revert I will be going to AE. nableezy - 14:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#Soosim. nableezy - 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (music)

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (music). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

Please comment on Talk:Homosexuality

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Homosexuality. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

October 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Mikis Theodorakis. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dr.K. 05:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

dr k, this looks so official and scary. thanks for posting. however, only two edits were made, not three. and i have offered various ways to change the article so it reads exactly what the source says, but alas, you are objecting to that. not sure what to do. can you help???? Soosim (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is just a reminder of the repercussions of edit-warring. There is no need to worry if you are not planning to engage in it. Please visit WP:BLPN at the Mikis Theodorakis section where I and Athenean are both trying to help you understand the issues involved. Let's keep the conversation all in one place for consistency, ease of reference and clarity. And please don't copy my comments from the noticeboard to the Mikis Theodorakis article talkpage. It gives the wrong impression that I commented in the talkpage of Mikis Theodorakis when I did not. It is misleading to copy things to another place from another discussion somewhere else and it is called forum shopping, please see WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Let's keep the conversation in one place. Last time you did that you also mangled my signature and I reverted. Thank you. Dr.K. 13:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard

You are hereby invited to participate in the discussion taking place at the Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mikis_Theodorakis regarding your attempted edits. Thank you in advance for adhering to the principles of collaborative editing and consensus building as per the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. Dr.K. 06:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jolie Gabor

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jolie Gabor. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

Please do not copy the discussion from BLPN to the Theodorakis article

Per WP:FORUMSHOPPING please do not open another discussion while there is an ongoing discussion at WP:BLPN. If you want to forum-shop still despite my advice please do no not copy my comments from BLPN but just use a link to refer to them from BLPN. While copying my comments you also destroyed my signature and you cannot do that. Mangling my signature and moving my comments around Misplaced Pages to forum shop is unconstructive behaviour. Dr.K. 16:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

why not? it is NOT forumshopping. it is simply a 'rfc' as per wiki:rfc and other places which say it must be on the article talk page. not sure why you skipped that step and went to blpn. anyway, it is good to get other opinions other than yours and mine. right? Soosim (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It is forum-shopping because there is alrady a discussion on the topic at BLPN. But I will not prevent you from opening an RFC if you must. But whatever you do please link to the discussion at BLPN instead of copying my comments at Mikis Theodorakis. People can open links and read. This avoids mangling my signature. Is that ok? Dr.K. 17:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

why not do both? make it easy for people... Soosim (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I will try one more time to explain it to you: Because copying and pasting other peoples' comments and mangling their signatures in the process is forum-shopping, unnecessary, excessive and close to spamming. Dr.K. 17:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

i think you need to explain it again since what you wrote ain't true. Soosim (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

CAIR

Hi there, I see you removed the mention of Congressman Jim Moran from the Council on American-Islamic Relations page. I actually have a number of sources talking about it, including press releases after the fact stating that he was present and the event raised over $400k in donations. Should I use that as a source instead? BrotherSulayman (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

the problem is that they are all press releases using the CAIR press release. no newspaper picked it up as relevant. maybe try the congressman's own page? Soosim (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, but he doesn't publish his schedule. BrotherSulayman (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors

The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their November 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles (and specifically will be targeting the oldest three months), as we want to copy edit as many of these as possible. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters.

>>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 02:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

NIF

I think your last edit at the NIF article was a 1RR violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

how so? i thought i am allowed one revert per 24 hours. this was my first. Soosim (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this edit would be counted as your first revert (="in whole or in part" change to an edit by Perplexed566 per WP:1RR) and the last edit would be counted as your second. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

it is actually, as you can see, two separate issues. but, if it will make the powers that be, you and my friend malik happy, i will self revert and then do an edit of it later. whatcha think? Soosim (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, all of your consecutive edits would probably be counted as the first revert so I don't think the separate issue argument would work. Having said all that, I don't mind, I'm just letting you know because it's the kind of thing I do sometimes too. Starting a talk page discussion might help. You could self revert if someone asks you. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Soosim, your first set of edits was a revert, and your edit summary ("replaced recently edited new section with original material as per general consensus.")indicates you were aware of that fact. Please be more careful in the future. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 15:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

malik - the piece about the jpost reporting the orgs that nif funds, etc was NOT a revert. it was brand new. go check the edit again and see. no revert = no violation.... Soosim (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that you added new material in between your two reverts. Just acknowledge that you made two reverts and let's move on. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 17:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

you are mistating the facts. a) i rv someone's edits. b) i added new material. c) someone undid my addition of new material. d) i reverted that and that only. did not touch the previous material. period. Soosim (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Action a was your first revert. Action d was your second revert. It does not matter if each revert was on different material, what matters is that you made 2 reverts. nableezy - 17:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Soosim, do you want to test your theory about 1RR at WP:ANEW? Please read WP:3RR so you have a better understanding of what a revert is. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Ilam controvercy you put back in is not verified by the evidence. NIF is not even mentioned in the report! Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perplexed566 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Buddhism

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Buddhism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

1RR at NIF

Please consider self-reverting your last edit to New Israel Fund. It is the second time today you restored a paragraph that was deleted from the article on October 31. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 19:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

malik - i will be happy to self-rv, but you are the one who told me what to write so it would be acceptable. so please decide what you want, first, then i will do one of the two options. thanks. Soosim (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Bus ride

Hi, the Palestinians were arrested for riding in the same bus as Jews: Israeli police have detained six Palestinians dubbed West Bank Freedom Riders who boarded a Jerusalem-bound bus used by Jewish settlers. Source. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

they were not arrested for riding the bus. they were arrested for not getting off the bus when it was about to go through a checkpoint. their protest at that point caused the stir. Soosim (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Were the Jewish passengers also arrested for not getting off the bus? --Dailycare (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

no, since, when asked, they got off the bus. the protest was not about riding the bus. it was about going through security checkpoints. Soosim (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

At least that source doesn't say that the Jewish passengers would have been forced off the bus at the checkpoint. --Dailycare (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beatrice Rosen

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Beatrice Rosen. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

Facts

Soosim, you haven't got your facts right. Setting aside the fact that what you are saying isn't in the source, the statement by Steinburg is false. Try doing your searchs again. See selections from AI below for example. It's clear that the source is unreliable. We can't put patently false information in an encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Israel-Hamas prisoner swap casts harsh light on detention ...

After more than five years in captivity, Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was released today in exchange for more than 1000 Palestinian prisoners. ... 18 Oct 2011 Story

Palestinian Authority: The Palestinian bid for UN membership and ...

... indiscriminate rockets into southern Israel, which constitutes a war crime, and failing to ensure the humane treatment of captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. ... 4 Oct 2011 Questions And Answers MDE 21/003/2011

Q&A: Human rights implications of the Palestinian bid for UN ...

... indiscriminate rockets into southern Israel, which constitutes a war crime, and failing to ensure the humane treatment of captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. ... 26 Sep 2011 Story

Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories: Human beings are not ...

... Hamas must immediately end inhumane and illegal treatment of Gilad Shalit. ... Staff Sergeant Gilad Shalit has been in captivity for five years. ... 24 Jun 2011 Public Statement MDE 15/029/2011

Support campaign to end the suffering of Gilad Shalit and his ...

25 June 2011 marks Gilad Shalit's 1826th day in captivity in a secret location. His suffering must end now: Amnesty International ... 24 Jun 2011 Action Document

Amnesty International Report 2011: The State of the World's Human ...

For Indonesia entry in INDONESIAN, see http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA21/ 011/2011/in. For Iran entry in PERSIAN, see http://www.amnesty.org/en/library ... 13 May 2011 Report POL 10/001/2011

Israel Gaza blockade must be completely lifted | Amnesty ...

... saying that it is a response to attacks from Palestinian armed groups, a reaction to the continued holding of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, and a ... 17 Jun 2010 Story

Suffocating Gaza - the Israeli blockade's effects on Palestinians ...

... that it is a response to attacks from Palestinian armed groups, a reaction to the continued holding of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, and a means ... 1 Jun 2010 Story

Impact Assessment of the Rights Education Action Programme (REAP) ...

... eg, teachers). (AI Moldova) I wrote letters in school to government ministers about the release of Gilad Shalit. (AI Israel) Changed ... 10 Jan 2010 PolicyDocument POL 32/006/2010

Detainees used as bargaining chips by both sides in Israel/Gaza ...

Palestinian armed groups and the Israeli authorities are denying prisoners their rights, including Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been held for 1000 days ... 20 Mar 2009 Story

Israel/OPT: Gaza: Questions and Answers

... These include the capture by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups of an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, from a military base on the Israeli side of the Gaza ... 12 Jan 2009 Document MDE 15/006/2009

Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT): Health Professional ...

... insist that they will not allow the Gaza-Egypt border crossing to reopen and resume regular functioning until the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who is being ... 17 Nov 2008 Action Document MDE 15/044/2008

Human rights violations in cities around the world | Amnesty ...

... 19 June 2008, the Israeli blockade remains in place as Israel now insists that the blockade will be maintained until the release of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli ... 6 Oct 2008 Story

Israel/OPT: Briefing to the Committee against Torture

... attack on a military post inside Israel, near the border with Gaza, killing two Israeli soldiers and capturing a third, Corporal Gilad Shalit, who remains ... 30 Sep 2008 Document MDE 15/040/2008

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Torn apart by factional strife

In the past year fighting between security forces and armed groups loyal to the two main Palestinian political parties - Fatah and Hamas - caused the deaths of ... 24 Oct 2007 Report MDE 21/020/2007

Israel/Occupied Territories: Road to nowhere

... inside Israel. In the attack, two Israeli soldiers were killed and another, 19-year-old Corporal Gilad Shalit, was captured. The ... 1 Dec 2006 Report MDE 15/093/2006

Israel/Occupied Territories: Deliberate attacks a war crime

... means at its disposal against Palestinian terrorist infrastructure in the Gaza Strip in order to ensure the quick and safe return home of Corporal Gilad Shalit ... 29 Jun 2006 Press Release MDE 15/061/2006

Israel/OT: Growing concern for safety of civilian population

... It also renews its call to the Palestinian armed groups who have said they are holding hostage an Israeli soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, to release him ... 28 Jun 2006 Press Release MDE 15/060/2006

Israel/Occupied Territories: Hostage-taking and wanton destruction ...

... of Islam, a little known group believed to be a breakaway faction of the PRC, for the abduction of an Israeli soldier, 19-year-old Corporal Gilad Shalit, on 25 ... 27 Jun 2006 Press Release MDE 15/058/2006

Israel/Occupied Territories: Palestinian armed groups must release ...

... Amnesty International calls on the Palestinian armed groups who are holding hostage a 19-year-old Israeli soldier, Corporal Gilad Shalit, not to harm him and ... 26 Jun 2006 Press Release MDE 15/055/2006

my point exactly - all of those 'news articles' and related info on their website do NOT call for his release except june 2006 and june 2010 and then afterwards. Soosim (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Look at what Steinberg says.

"For the most part, these pseudo-human rights groups largely ignored the violation of Schalit’s rights for 1,941 days. (Four years after he was kidnapped, both Amnesty and HRW belatedly made brief statements on his behalf, but only after being named and shamed by NGO Monitor.)"

It is false. You can do better than this. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Art Pope

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Art Pope. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

New Israel Fund

Please undo your last revert (which broke 1RR). If you don't, I will report you to WP:ANEW.

I put the tag there because I would like somebody other than you to verify that the site says what you claim it says. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 06:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ANEW#User:Soosim reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 06:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

wow malik - your revert was also a violation of the 1RR. did you see that? so please revert that too, and then i will revert mine. thanks! (oh, see, i didn't threaten you when you did yours. i just accepted the fact that you were being sincere.) Soosim (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Soosim, but I haven't made a 2nd revert to the article. A quick scan of this page shows that you've violated 1RR many times before and not been reported. Not this time. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 07:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at New Israel Fund

Please see my comment at WP:AN3#User:Soosim reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). It seems that you broke 1RR but Malik did not. I have proposed a method of resolving this case without a block, which you can see there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at New Israel Fund. 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 ~~~~}}, 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.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

— EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)