| Revision as of 04:00, 10 April 2010 edit74.178.230.17 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 08:24, 5 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == |
== April 2010 == | ||
| <div class="user-block"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been ''']''' for a period of '''24 hours''' from editing{{#if:| for {{{reason}}}|}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. ] (]) 20:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks"></span>, 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 ] or ]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the ]. 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."</small></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | |||
| ==] case== | |||
| Didn't you say you was gonna leave wikipedia and never come back? --] (]) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {| align="left" | |||
| || ] | |||
| |} | |||
| Your name has been mentioned in connection with a ] case. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 14:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been ''']''' for a period of '''48 hours''' from editing{{#if:| for {{{reason}}}|}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks"></span>, 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 ] or ]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the ]. 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."</small></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | |||
| == January 2010 == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be ] from editing'''. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] 17:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :DrorK, was your fifth revert in 24 hours. However, if you undo it (self-revert), I will not file a ] report, despite your having violated 3RR anyway. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==AE comment== | |||
| == State of Palestine == | |||
| I realize I may not be welcome here, so feel free to delete this, but, if you dont mind, Id like to try to have a serious conversation. I sincerely hope you dont get blocked for that comment at AE (it was too funny to be blocked for) or the last comment at the All-Palestine talk page. But what you should do, if you wish to continue contributing here, is file an appeal of your sanction. The '''only''' reason I filed that request was because of the continuous insults, if you promise to not continue to do that I would support an appeal. When you want to, you can make intelligent and reasoned arguments, as you did in the last comment at the All-Palestine page. But when you first came back you did not do that, you just continuously insulted me and Harlan. Whatever you may think of me personally, I dont think the way to get these articles in shape is to "snipe" "pro-Israel" editors; I think we need "pro-Israel" editors, just the ones that are able to be reasonable and argue logically. You can do that. I know you are a smart person, you know three languages nearly as well as I know one, you are well-read and can make a coherent argument. So, if you can just be that smart person and not a complete dick I think you should be allowed to edit in the topic area. If you ask me the reason these pages have gotten worse than in the past was because editors like Jayjg and Nishidani and the rest are topic-banned. At least when they made an argument it was intelligent enough that most of the "me too" people just stayed out of the way. Now, there are too many googlers trying to push an agenda to fill that void, not enough people have read anything that wasnt from one side or the others narrative. What we need is editors like you, and like Harlan, that know what they are talking about and can have a rational discussion. The last comment at the All-Palestine page was an example of what we need in the topic area, but everything else that you had written on that page in the past few days was not. So, if you would like some unsolicited advice, make a formal appeal on AE, and promise not to repeat the behavior that you came back with. I would support that appeal. Bye. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)</font></small> (edit conflict with the above block) | |||
| :Just dropping in, Nab -- hope it is ok to say hi here, and pick up on one observation you make, and let fly with a complete tangent. I would only add/respond by saying that the reason editors stayed away from many arguments in this area was because it was a waste of time, given the ganging up approach often seen. The people who value time, and have limits (as in demanding jobs), see their edits reverted, and re-reverted, and some say ... gosh, maybe I should just pick a non-controversial topic, like Creationism. I'm just saying.--] (]) 23:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==6 months block== | |||
| ] Please do not use talk pages {{#if:|such as ]}} for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are ]. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting ] and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See ] for more information. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-chat2 --> ] (]) 21:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been ''']''' for a period of '''6 months''' from editing{{#if:| for {{{reason}}}|}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC) <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks"></span>, 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 ] or ]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the ]. 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."</small></div></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | |||
| This is in reaction to your evasion of your block and your arbitration topic ban as {{userlinks|Gderot}}, as documented at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for ], you may be '''blocked'''. <!-- {{uw-chat3}} --> ] (]) 13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Harlan, please don't use template warnings like weapons against users who aren't ] as you seem to be. It could be considered harassment and you may be blocked. Thank you. ] ('']'') 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::He has been asked by several editors to cite published sources for any analysis and to stop using the talk page as a general forum to discuss his speculative theories and opinions. Here are just a few examples He has put a number of NPOV tags on the article, but has not cited any published sources that represent the viewpoints he wants to add to the article, despite rather lengthy discussions. There is nothing wrong with the use of these templates under those circumstances. ] (]) 00:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Harlan, the history of the article indicates that you changed it to a controversial phrasing ignoring the consensus reached, and you are currently preventing any change by edit wars. I demonstrated how you misuse sources and brought very good evidence for that. The people who are damaged are Misplaced Pages users who don't get a genuine picture of the situation in the ME. ] (]) 13:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] State of Palestine == | |||
| You have made a number of tendentious edits to the State of Palestine article. Removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced editorial opinions is not acceptable behavior. | |||
| Other states and international organizations have recognized the Palestinian Authority as the government of the State of Palestine. The Forward article said that the Palestinian Authority has been working to expand the number of countries that recognize Palestine as a country and that "Costa Rica, a small Central American country, decided to open official ties with a “state of Palestine” through a document signed February 5 by Costa Rica’s ambassador to the United Nations and Riyad Mansour, the P.A.’s U.N. mission chief." That fact has been discussed on the article talk page. ] (]) 20:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :There is nothing in the sources you provide that suggest the the PA and the SoP are equivalent. This is merely a personal interpretation of your. ] (]) 20:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::*The article cites An Al-Haq Position Paper on "Issues Arising from the Palestinian Authority’s Submission of a Declaration to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute" that addresses "The Jurisdictional Capacity of the PA" and the capacity of the PA to enter into international agreements. The paper says the reality is that the PA has entered into various agreements with international organizations and states. It has been noted by Israeli officials that: (1) the PLO representative in Egypt is designated as a PA official; (2) that a PLO representative signed a protocol on security cooperation with Russia in the name of the PA, and (3) the PA joined the International Airport Council as the PA. These instances of foreign relations undertaken by the PA also signify that the Interim Agreement is part of a larger on-going peace process, and that the restrictions on the foreign policy operations of the PA conflict with the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, now a norm with a nature of jus cogens, which includes a right to engage in international relations with other peoples. | |||
| ::*The article and the talk page both cite The Today's Zaman article which said the Palestinian Justice Minister and Palestinian Foreign Minister announced that "the Palestinian Authority submitted documents recognizing the ICC's authority."; "that they had submitted documents to Moreno-Ocampo that proved Palestine was a legal state"; that "Malki said they had provided proof that Palestine was recognized as a state by 67 countries and had bilateral agreements with states in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe."; that the two ministers said "We represent the Palestinian occupied territories. We are not going to ask permission from one faction or another"; | |||
| ::I'll move this discussion to WP:AE if you persist in making tendentious edits and inserting unsourced editorials in the State of Palestine article. ] (]) 22:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == 3rr == | |||
| No consensus was established and you are certainly not an impartial person to make that judgment. You have already reverted 3 times, if you continue you may be blocked. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :It is not a threat, and I "admitted" no such thing. How in the world can you claim that there is a consensus for merging the two articles? You have a discussion with 4 users, one of whom only said "support per Drork", and 2 users disagreeing with you. And yet you claim there is a consensus. If you continue blindly reverting based only on your personal viewpoints you may be blocked from editing. That is not a threat, just the way of the world. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 07:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| You have been reported to the edit-warring noticeboard, you can see this ]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 08:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :While I declined to block you, you ''were'' involved in edit-warring. Don't engage in that type of behavior in the future, or you '''will''' be blocked. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for your note. I responded at ]. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and Unsourced Editorials, State of Palestine (Again)== | |||
| You deleted sourced content again without any explanation or discussion. The material included content on the foreign relations of the PA, Ban Ki Moon's statements regarding the non-existence of the State of Palestine, Gershom Gorenberg's comments about the legal arguments used by the Israeli government to remove settlements from the OPT, and Paul De Waart's comment that it is no longer a matter of creating the State of Palestine, but of recognizing it. | |||
| In addition you restored some WP:Synth editorials that had been removed to the talk page for discussion.. The fact that the United Nations does not recognize states had already been discussed on the talk page. It has never invoked the Member States duty of non-recognition in connection with Palestine as you suggested on the talk page. It has done that in connection with the illegal territorial situations and demographic changes created by Israel in the OPT. The question as to whether or not the Palestine Mandate was a state as defined by international law is a settled matter ]. The decisions of the PCIJ, the LoN Arbital Court, and the Courts of Appeals in Great Britain and Palestine were all in agreement, were final, and legally binding. Even if opposing views exist, they have to be cited, and they do not warrant removal of the other legally-binding viewpoint. Constantly harassing other editors simply because they cite published sources that describe Palestine as a country or a state and removing sourced material is disruptive. ] (]) 18:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :You are edit-warring at ] again Drork. You have already made 3 reverts in 24 hours. The next one will get you reported for breaking 3RR. Last time you made 5 reverts, I didn't report you in the hope you would come to learn that this is not the way to get changes effected at Misplaced Pages. However, it seems nothing short of a block will make that clear to you. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==SoP== | |||
| You have been reported to the edit-warring noticeboard, you can see this ]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 14:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :Drork, there are some basic rules here, one of them is the ], I advise you, however "right" you think you are in forcing a particular edit, to observe these rules for the good of the project. Thanks, ] (]) 16:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| You think I am missing anything ] or does that cover most of what you have been doing? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| == ] (Still)== | |||
| Drork, you have once again added an unsourced editorial to the State of Palestine article which says the UN did not extend so-called "diplomatic recognition" to the State of Palestine. and That material was removed for discussion because the Secretary General and UN Legal Advisor have stated that the UN does not confer statehood or extend diplomatic recognition to states, and that the Charter would have to be amended in order for the UN to do that. Your response was that you don't have to provide a published source which actually makes that statement, and that you don't need to discuss the matter. After your edit was reverted, you subsequently suggested that a statement in the lede of another Misplaced Pages article regarding the Stimson Doctrine and article 2(4) of the UN Charter might be applicable, but provided no published source which made any such statement about Palestine. All of this behavior violates the basic policy regarding ] and ]. Despite the fact ''that you have drawn a conclusion'', and DO NOT cite a reliable source that has made the same argument, you suggested to Nableezy "This can go on forever, all your questions had been answered on the talk page. Read it before reverting." | |||
| At the same time you have once again removed the sourced material about the foreign relations of the PA, Ban Ki Moon's statements regarding the non-existence of the State of Palestine, Gershom Gorenberg's comments about the legal arguments used by the Israeli government to remove settlements from the OPT, and Paul De Waart's comment that it is no longer a matter of creating the State of Palestine, but of recognizing it. Putting a POV tag on the article, while preventing other editors from adding a range of views including non-existence is troll-like behavior. The only related discussion that I can find is a comment which says "''The PA cannot be said to be equivalent to SoP. This claim of yours doesn't hold water. The foreign relations of the PA are not relevant to this article.''" The article cited a published Al-Haq policy paper on the Palestinian Authority's declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC. Al Haq, not me, argues that Palestine can be considered a State for the purposes of the Rome statute article 12(3) because, among other things, the PA has demonstrated the capacity to engage in foreign relations. The policy is "''There is no rule on Misplaced Pages that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict ]. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.''" | |||
| You have posted complaints at the Original Research Noticeboard , but you were told my edits are well sourced. You posted a complaint at the Editor Assistance Noticeboard , but I have not created a synthesis of published material that advances a position. I am citing and quoting the published analysis of John Quigley, Marjorie Whiteman, and the General Editors of the FRUS. That analysis is supported by other sources that are cited in the article including Kuttner, Weiler, Massad, the Permanent International Court of Justice, the Palestine Post, the Encyclopedia of the United Nations, and etc. Notwithstanding all of that, you say "My problem is not adding information to this article. My problem is the fact that this article includes false information based on misuse of sources. For some reason (political motivations?) you refuse to edit this article or let others edit it in order to remove the false information. | |||
| You have been asked to drop the "no edit orders", personal attacks, ] rationalizations, misguided demands that other editors take your content disputes to ARBCOM, and have always been told to feel free to add sourced content that represents any significant published views: | |||
| Once again, I see you have decided to use the article talk page to discuss some of the other editors and myself, instead of the article content. I was going to leave a note for Tiamat, and noticed on her talk page that you named me in a complaint at the Administrators Noticeboard without bothering to inform me of the fact on my user page. ] (]) 17:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR policy == | |||
| On RomaC's Talk page you wrote: | |||
| :The 3R rule does not apply when there is a clear attempt to "hijack" an article. Any Wikipedian is entitled to defend an article from an orchestrated attempt to make an article "a private mention", especially when there are significant suspicions that the motivations are purely political, and do not result from a genuine controversy about the content. I pointed out to many errors and biases on the articles, and proved them in details. The discussion went on for a long time, and these group of three did everything possible to avoid reaching consensus or acknowledge their errors. This group has also violated a consensus decision to have only one article entitled ], and re-initiated the article making it a political pamphlet. Nableezy was only recently blocked for messing up issues related to Middle Eastern issues. I really don't see why these three receive so much sympathy with regard to this case. We are not talking formalities here, this is a serious thing that goes to the very credibility of WP. ] (]) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Can you point out where the ] policy has that exception? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you implying that I need to hire a lawyer? Do I need to go over court rulings and find precedence? Are you going to appoint jurors? Am I supposed to find two or three friends that will help me bypass the 3R rule like those G-3 do? Have you ever read this page ]? ] (]) 17:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you understand that 3RR is a ]? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::PS: There's no need to reply on two Talk pages. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Can you show me where it is mentioned that this rule comes before any other rule or policy? Can I ask again why you are defending a huge misconduct by a group of editors based on a violation of a minor rule, which I forced into by that group misconduct? ] (]) 18:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Where it says in bold letters that '''3RR is a bright line where action now becomes almost certain if not already taken.''' — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == February 2010 == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for {{#if:24 hours|a period of '''24 hours'''|a short time}} to prevent further ] caused by your engagement in an ]{{#if:State of Palestine| at ]}}. 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 ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, 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 "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:|] (]) 19:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)}}</div>{{z9}}<!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> The full report of this case is at ]. ] (]) 19:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Golan Heights == | |||
| Explain why you are distorting the facts on the talk page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :That is also your third revert on the page. Revert once more and I will file another complaint. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| ::Hi DrorK. I'd like to give you some friendly advice. I understand your passionate about setting the record straight and it's an admirable trait. However, I think you should disengage for a brief period and then see if you could come to terms with Nab. He is reasonable as I'm sure you are as well. I think if you both discuss the issues civilly, you can come to an agreement. If you need help in resolving an issue, you can ask me to intervene and I'll be more than happy to help as best I can. Happy editing--] (]) 16:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| You have been reported to the 3RR noticeboard, you can see this ]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :Drork, if you revert your changes of "settlement" I will withdraw the report. Is that acceptable to you? I am willing to start from scratch with you, but I am not willing to continue playing these games. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :::It's 00:11 local time, and I need some sleep. Tomorrow is another day. ] (]) 22:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, in the hopes that we can discuss things more calmly in the future, I withdrew the complaint. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :::::Thank you, let's see where we can get keeping a peaceful atmosphere. I do have to point out though, that the problem is not simply personal. There is a genuine problem with article related to the Middle East conflict. ] (]) 07:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, there is, but we dont have to fight '''all''' the time. Are you at least willing to revert the change from "settlement" to "village"? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 14:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :::::::You can change to settlement, I accept you definition, with regard to the post-1967 Israeli towns and villages. BTW, I added an article about ], if you want to add something to it. I couldn't find too much information about him despite his very interesting biography, and his connection to the Middle East. ] (]) 14:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Glad to see things working out. Thanks to Nab for withdrawing his complaint and thanks to DrorK for compromising--] (]) 14:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Drork, that is your third revert again. And among the many problems with your revert you write that "Encyclopedia Britannica '''claims'''" while not even attributing CAMERA's nonsense. Please dont start this again, self-rv and make your case on the talk page. If other agree with you they will support the edit. So for nobody has. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| ::Nableezy, you weren't honest with me before, and you are not acting too honestly now. You also have no respect to the work I've done to make this article better. Personally I wouldn't dedicate so much paragraph to an issue that is not very important (the alleged destruction of a town already shuttered by two wars and several military confrontations in-between them), but if you want to give an account about it - do it fairly. ] (]) 17:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::How am I not being honest? But seeing as you feel this way, one more revert and I will be reporting you, again, but I will not be withdrawing the complaint this time. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| ::::I see you find much joy in harassing people while talking nicely to them. I am not in a position to deprive you from these joys. ] (]) 17:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| You have been reported to the 3RR noticeboard, you can see this ]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :You have been warned per the result of ]. If you continue to violate 3RR, longer blocks may be necessary. Admins have no power to bring about peace in the Middle East, but they can keep acting on obvious edit wars and can lock down articles into the next century if people won't behave properly. Terms such as 'lies' in edit summaries don't improve the editing climate here. Your comments at the talk page of ] suggest that you will be getting into more trouble soon. You've ], and the next step could be sanctions including a topic ban from the affected articles. ] (]) 02:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Just adhere to the 3RR and everything will be fine == | |||
| If other editors revert you on a cruicial issue, open a discussion about this right away and place an appropriate dispute tag in the article. They cannot remove the tag until the issue is resolved, and by placing the tag you will atract unbiased editors to the article. Also, instead of reverting, try different wording and approach. Keep up the good work! Just don't respond emotionaly to them on the talk pages, keep it in a cool professional expression with good citations, and you will be on the upper hand. Put some user boxes on your user page, develop your presence and reputation and you'll be listened to. ] (]) 02:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Drork. We haven't communicated before, I don't think. I would reiterate what John says above (except for the userbox bit -- I hate those). I would add to that that, though tempting, you might want to stay away from WP enforcement areas to report editors with whom you are having a content disagreement. I'm not saying you're wrong factually about your reports (haven't really looked), and I'll say further that trying to get editors who are or who are perceived to be pro-Israel punished/blocked/banned has been a popular choice among some pro-Palestinian editors. Which is odd, because it's generally worked very, very poorly. Doesn't work out very well in reverse, either. Misplaced Pages justice is to justice what ] is to food. Not very healthy for anyone involved. Anyway, I hope you forgive me for barging in like this. Feel free to ask me for more/less/to go away. <font color="green">]</font> 04:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks a lot for these remarks and for the encouragement. I think it is awfully said that WP has turned into a bureaucratic organizations with "courts-of-law" and "lawyers". I never meant to get into this game, and I left WP for a long time to avoid it. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is a "raid" of editors with certain political views, who try to use WP as a political platform. This phenomenon was one of the pessimistic scenario when WP was in her infancy, and now it is realized, and not much is done about it. I have noticed that it was futile to urge people, sometime even "shout" at them, to stop lawyering and resorting to bureaucracy and start being concerned about the content of the articles and the image of WP. I saw a lot of admiration to people who learned the bureaucratic system and game with it. Hence, I have no choice but to work from within the system, namely file complaints etc. I cannot leave the arena to those who game with the system. ] (]) 04:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, my opinion, for what it's worth, is that using "the system" to win never works here. For example, don't know if you were around for this, but there was a large, nasty arbcom case about when and where to use Judea/West Bank, etc. While I myself never edited one way or the other on the topic, I followed the case pretty closely. In the beginning, the pro-Palestinian folks who brought the case and submitted evidence seemed really, really pleased when it looked like Jayjg was going to have something bad happen to him. Well, they got their wish. They also all got more or less the exact same bad thing to happen to them as well. I think there may be a lesson there for us all. <font color="green">]</font> 04:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I start wondering whether this is still an encyclopedia or a worse version of the United Nations... ] (]) 05:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Well, there aren't many Israeli editors who can write good English (most Israelis live in the Hebrew Misplaced Pages bubble), so I would hate to loose you :) Something which you may find useful: ] :) ] (]) 06:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Agree with John re not taking the bait. Someone put this link up: It is supposed to help one figure if one is being wikistalked. I think it may just as well demonstrate who could be working as a ] on which articles. I was playing with it and it is quite fun. ] (]) 03:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And while I'm at it-- being agreeable that is--I agree with IronDuke too. ;) ] (]) 04:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I agree with ID as well.--] (]) 01:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == sorry == | |||
| You were right, I was wrong, I am sorry. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| == Hi == | |||
| Hi, Drork, | |||
| I see you have been at Wiki for awhile but I have not run into you before. You seem a very intelligent person who knows how to express himself clearly and with imagination. I very much liked your analogies on the the I-P collab page with respect to "occupation." I see you thinking out of the box, heaven knows we very much need that here at WP. Not that I am optimistic, mind you, but with people like you around, I am at least hopeful. Best wishes, ] (]) 03:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks a lot :-) I really appreciate this comment. ] (]) 06:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Your edits == | |||
| Hi Drork, your edit on ], wherein you want to add to the lead the qualification "(The State of Palestine)...but not to be confused with the geographical region called Palestine or with the Palestinian Authority, which is also occasionally referred to as Palestine", is this, ie. esp. the "not to be confused with" phrasing, encyclopediatic, do you think? Might it not come across as sardonic? Respectfully, ] (]) 14:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't mind it being rephrased, but I think it is crucial to point to the differences. I think too many editors tried to confuse these terms (I want to believe they didn't do it deliberately). ] (]) 14:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:TEDIOUS and Unsourced Editorials, State of Palestine (Again) == | |||
| It has become very clear that you do not respect the policy that requires sources for any controversial statement once it has been challenged. The talk page has a subsection which addresses the fact that other states have recognized the PA as the government of the State of Palestine. The article cites the Forward article mentioned on the talk page, the Today's Zaman article, Quigley, Al Haq, and other sources which identify the PA as the government or representatives of the SoP. | |||
| Your WP:OR and WP:Synth observations in connection with recognition by other states are not acceptable evidence for inclusion in the article. Cite and quote published sources for any controversial analysis. We've already had a discussion on the article talk page regarding state practice which illustrated that messages of recognition do not need to speak of recognition. Once again, see Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) Page 90, and stop trying to publish your original research on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Please stop edit-warring at ]. Further reverts will result in your being ]. Thank you. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not siding with anybody. I gave Harlan the same warning I gave you, because the two of you were edit-warring. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, 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|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our ] first. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> | |||
| == Reply wanted == | |||
| --] (]) 19:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Withdraw from editing ]? == | |||
| Hello Drork, see ]'s proposal at ]. If you and Tiamut would agree not to edit ] for six months, this might allow me to close the 3RR complaint with no further action against either party. I admit that I am considering sanctions under ] if a voluntary agreement can't be reached. ] (]) 03:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == revert == | |||
| You are mistake, see my talk page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| :At least fix the error in the infobox, it needs to be in lowercase. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
| == 1RR restriction for six months == | |||
| Please see the result of . You are restricted to one revert per day on all articles in the Israel/Palestine area. Restriction expires at 19:00 (UTC) on 28 August 2010, and as usual may be appealed at ]. This restriction has been logged at ], and can be enforced with blocks by any admin. ] (]) 19:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi there == | |||
| :Hi Drork, | |||
| :I really do not think you should take 1RR restriction close to your heart. What has actually changed? Nothing much, you still could edit. | |||
| :You yourself said that you are here because you are bored, so just take it easy, and come back not to be bored, you know. | |||
| :IMO you should try to understand the other side better. Think about that this way: While Jerusalem is mentioned in Torah more than 600 times, Jerusalem is never mentioned in Qur'an. | |||
| :So our friends have to mention Jerusalem in connection to the Palestinian state somewhere, don't they? Wikipeidia seems to be just the right place to do so :) | |||
| :Remember, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. | |||
| :Now about Tiamut. I am not sure how you could get angry with her. IMO you should accept her the way she is. | |||
| :She is well educated, very intelligent lady, who enjoys watching the musicals, and I assume all other freedoms that a democratic society could offer. | |||
| :She proudly displays this ] at her user page, and what a beautiful image | |||
| :of a beautiful young woman it is! I wished to ask Tiamut what she thinks is going to happen to her own people under hamas rule, how come | |||
| :they got from to . | |||
| :Yes, I wished to ask her, but after I saw she added ] to category Palestinian casualties during the Second Intifada I've lost interest in the lady, | |||
| :and decided to take her the way she is, and it is what you should do too, Drork.--] (]) 17:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{talkback|Talk:All-Palestine Government#Post WW I use of the term "state" for the territories of the mandate}} | |||
Latest revision as of 08:24, 5 March 2023
April 2010
Notice to administrators: In a 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."
Sockpuppetry case
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Drork for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. nableezy - 14:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a 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."
AE comment
I realize I may not be welcome here, so feel free to delete this, but, if you dont mind, Id like to try to have a serious conversation. I sincerely hope you dont get blocked for that comment at AE (it was too funny to be blocked for) or the last comment at the All-Palestine talk page. But what you should do, if you wish to continue contributing here, is file an appeal of your sanction. The only reason I filed that request was because of the continuous insults, if you promise to not continue to do that I would support an appeal. When you want to, you can make intelligent and reasoned arguments, as you did in the last comment at the All-Palestine page. But when you first came back you did not do that, you just continuously insulted me and Harlan. Whatever you may think of me personally, I dont think the way to get these articles in shape is to "snipe" "pro-Israel" editors; I think we need "pro-Israel" editors, just the ones that are able to be reasonable and argue logically. You can do that. I know you are a smart person, you know three languages nearly as well as I know one, you are well-read and can make a coherent argument. So, if you can just be that smart person and not a complete dick I think you should be allowed to edit in the topic area. If you ask me the reason these pages have gotten worse than in the past was because editors like Jayjg and Nishidani and the rest are topic-banned. At least when they made an argument it was intelligent enough that most of the "me too" people just stayed out of the way. Now, there are too many googlers trying to push an agenda to fill that void, not enough people have read anything that wasnt from one side or the others narrative. What we need is editors like you, and like Harlan, that know what they are talking about and can have a rational discussion. The last comment at the All-Palestine page was an example of what we need in the topic area, but everything else that you had written on that page in the past few days was not. So, if you would like some unsolicited advice, make a formal appeal on AE, and promise not to repeat the behavior that you came back with. I would support that appeal. Bye. nableezy - 23:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict with the above block)
- Just dropping in, Nab -- hope it is ok to say hi here, and pick up on one observation you make, and let fly with a complete tangent. I would only add/respond by saying that the reason editors stayed away from many arguments in this area was because it was a waste of time, given the ganging up approach often seen. The people who value time, and have limits (as in demanding jobs), see their edits reverted, and re-reverted, and some say ... gosh, maybe I should just pick a non-controversial topic, like Creationism. I'm just saying.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
6 months block
Notice to administrators: In a 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."
This is in reaction to your evasion of your block and your arbitration topic ban as Gderot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as documented at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Drork. Sandstein 11:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)