| Revision as of 23:58, 7 October 2013 editSepsis II (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,988 edits →Aloha← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:31, 22 December 2016 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,133,055 edits →Extended confirmed protection policy RfC: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| (379 intermediate revisions by 73 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| : ] ''']''' | |||
| : <big><big><big><font color="orange">'''5'''</font></big></big></big><!----> ''']''' | |||
| : ] ''']''' | |||
| : ] ''']''' | |||
| : ] ''']''' | |||
| : ] ''']''' | |||
| : ] ''']''' | |||
| : ] ''''']''''' | |||
| ==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction== | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| |2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg | |||
| |imagesize=50px | |||
| |1=The following sanction now applies to you: | |||
| {{Talkquote|1=You are indefinitely banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.}} | |||
| If you want your edits to stick it would be a good idea to read through some of the links above. Importantly always provide a reference for anything you add that may be subject to challenge. Also if editing in controversial subjects such as the Israel/Palestine conflict it might be worthwhile to make one edit at a time, then non-controversial edits will not be undone, while more controversial ones can be discussed further on the talk page. Another important thing to remember is not to ]: In topics related to the Israel/Palestine conflict, you are only allowed to make one ] per article in 24 hours after that you should go to the article's talk page. Unfortunately even if you have good intentions, if you do not stick to the rules you will find that you won't be editing in the topic area for very long. ] (]) 14:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to . | |||
| ==Request for comment== | |||
| This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an ] under the authority of the ]'s decision at ] and, if applicable, the procedure described at ]. This sanction has been recorded in the ]. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the ] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be ] for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. | |||
| You are receiving this message because you have submitted at least one edit to the ] article during the past thirty days. Your attention is called to ]. Sincerely, ] (]) | |||
| You may appeal this sanction using the process described ]. I recommend that you use the ] if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> ''']''' ~ (]) 20:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. The thread is ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] ] 01:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == December 2012 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of ], such as the one you made to ], because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thanks, <!-- Template:Huggle/warn-1 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 -->] (]) 01:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I removed racist soapboxing from the talk page, please do not re-add racist soapboxing to the page for obvious reasons. ] (]) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Your edit == | |||
| has reverted several edits, including with meaningless edit summary 'anti-resistance propaganda'. | |||
| I'm reverting this change. Maybe splitting your change into more manageable and organized smaller edits could help. Generally a removal of a ] ] content should be discussed. Please take it to the article talk page, if you wish to reinstate your edit or part of it and also read ]. ] (]) 08:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Do hypocrites realize their hypocrisy? Do not make wide scale reverts due to your laziness, making your changes "into more manageable and organized smaller edits could help". I am happy to see the part you objected and you re-added was removed by another editor for the same reason I removed it. I will be undoing the collateral damage which you wreaked upon the article. Unless you can explain why the other editor and I have removed your addition I do not see further discussions with you on any matter to ever be fruitful. ] (]) 14:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ARBPIA notice == | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| | image = yes | |||
| | 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 ], satisfy any ], or follow any ]. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, 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 at 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 before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.<!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic|{{{t}}}}}} --> | |||
| | valign = center | |||
| | ] | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Extended confirmed protection policy RfC == | |||
| Operation Pillar of Defense is on a 1RR restriction which you just broke, please self revert ] (]) 14:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I have heard of no arguments in favour of the previous version, one which I find to be blatantly bias, falsely sourced, and distortive of reality - in other words, unacceptable and far inferior to the current version. Any rule which burdens me to make an edit to the detriment of the article's quality is a rule I will always ignore per ], which my edit clearly does fall under. ] (]) 15:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''forty-eight hours''' for violating the 1RR at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. -- ''']''' 21:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
| You might be interested in this discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ma.27an_News <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 17:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Asia topic == | |||
| As a participant of the discussion ] regarding naming change of the page ], you might be interested in discussion ] on changing the title "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at ]. Thank you.] (]) 22:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Moderation of Jerusalem RfC == | |||
| Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at ] or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the ] article (], ]). The ] recently ] a binding ] about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at ''']''', add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at ]. Best regards — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 12:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one == | |||
| Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at ''']''' - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 17:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two == | |||
| Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a ''']''' on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 16:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question == | |||
| Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the ], and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at ''']'''. Best — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 04:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday <s>31st</s> 28th February. I invite you to have a look at ], especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 13:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three == | |||
| Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at ''']''', and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC == | |||
| A ] has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 01:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts == | |||
| Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right. | |||
| So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under ''']''' on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there. | |||
| Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by '''the end of Wednesday, 8 May''', then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Jerusalem RfC discussion: step four == | |||
| Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at ''']''', and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the ]. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of '''Monday, 20th May''' for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Jerusalem RfC discussion: final countdown == | |||
| Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, ], and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at ]. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Warning of arbitration remedies == | |||
| Hello Sepsis. I see that you have already about the editing restrictions that have been imposed on the general Israel-Palestine topic area by the Arbitration Committee. I'd also like to remind you of the clause in the that says, "''The original motion in December included a clause authorising administrators, including the Moderator, to sanction editors for disrupting the process, and that clause remains in effect.''" I also see that you have been ] over the content of the source summary in the RfC, against my ], and after I left on the talk page of the RfC. I've tried to point this out to you nicely, but that hasn't worked, so I'm giving you an official warning. I consider the behaviour I have outlined above to be disruptive to the RfC process, and if you revert again I will likely ban you from the RfC. This would be a shame, as it has finally got to the part where you can comment on the actual content of the article. If you're not willing to stop edit warring, though, I'm afraid that you will leave me with no choice. You are welcome to include your findings in the discussion section of the RfC, but they cannot go in the source summary. Sorry. As always, let me know if you have any questions about my actions here. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 09:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Jerusalem RfC has started == | |||
| Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at ''']'''. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Misplaced Pages, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk:Rob Ford == | |||
| I did to the section heading you added. No offence is intended. "Censor" is a strong word and in my experience these sorts of discussions are likely to go better without those kinds of words. Again, nothing personal towards you was meant. Thanks, <font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 17:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : Oh well, someone else has removed it altogether. Probably best to let it go. Most editors know how to find it easily in the article history (unless someone starts making use of the revdelete tool). <font face="Comic sans MS">]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">]</font><font color="Green">]</font></sup></small> 17:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::If I had one wish it would be that those people who can not understand policy were smart enough to know that they can not understand policy. ] (]) 18:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Jerusalem RfC: breakdown of results == | |||
| Hello again everyone. Now that ] has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start ''']''' of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == your recent edits == | |||
| Sepsis, | |||
| I have the following concerns with your recent spree of reversions. | |||
| #] and ]: on numerous occasions you have accused editors of being "socks". You have also described editors as "malicious or incompetent" and "pov-pushing". | |||
| #You have not discussed controversial edits on the relevant article talk pages, instead relying on accusatory and contentious edit summaries. | |||
| #You have reverted contributions by ] on (by my count) 11 separate articles in the last two days. This raises significant concerns of ]. | |||
| Setting aside all questions of content, I am concerned that your recent edits create an environment that is a ] and not conducive to collaborative editing. I agree with some of your edits, but I hope that you will consider making changes in how you interact with other editors. ] (]) 06:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : - how would you describe this account? And sorry, maybe you're not so bad, but you still did enable a sock. As for plot spolier, I do not follow him to annoy him, but to correct the massive number of disruptive edits he makes. My lack of interaction is only with certain editors, ones who are either clearly socks or seem to have such a strong ideological reason for editing that makes any discussion futile. I hope more people join the RSN discussion which I am happy to see is so far in favour of allowing a work by the article's subject to be allowed mention in the article. ] (]) 12:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you feel that an editor is a sock, then you should go to ] and request an investigation by editors who have the appropriate tools. You should not make accusations without trying to substantiate them. In addition, you need to engage in a discussion with ] rather than revert him at nearly a dozen different articles. I would point out to you that, based on your edit history, you also appear to have "strong ideological reason" for editing. There are several places where such a discussion can take place, including ]. You should not make this volume of reverts without some attempt to engage the editor. ] (]) 17:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps you could show me how it's done, these three accounts are all obvious socks -, , , would you mind creating the SPI, I mean we are both against socks who are adding quotes attributed to a man who has never said such quotes, right? ] (]) 01:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Reverting at AE == | |||
| If you're going to keep reverting at ], which is an admin board, on grounds of ] being a sock you really should open an ] containing your arguments. Otherwise your edits could be viewed negatively. Thank you, ] (]) 22:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry I'm just getting the SPI in order right now, been busy today. ] (]) 22:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Arbitration enforcement warning: ] == | |||
| Hello, please read the conclusions I've entered at the AE thread you opened, . Please make sure to avoid the appearance of tendentious editing by choosing to use one side's advocacy groups' reports in articles and not the other's. While I recognize that there may be valid editorial grounds for such choices, if made repeatedly they can create the impression of non-neutral editing. In general, it seems to me that editors would do well not to use advocacy groups from either side as sources at all (even if they only republish material from other, more neutral sources) or extremely sparingly. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 07:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Aloha == | |||
| I don't believe a Daily Show video is considered a reliable source. If you disagree, you're free to discuss on the talk page and revert me. I suggest you ] and stop trolling my contributions and focus on contributing positively to Misplaced Pages yourself. Also curious, have you ever edited under another username? Given your quick proficiency at editing Misplaced Pages, it appears you had prior experience. ] (]) 01:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Haha, you're a real piece of work . Check user! ] (]) 23:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Looks like AndresHerutJaim to me. Who do you think is running that account? ] (]) 23:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Is it an RS ? A newspaper quotes a veteran who speaks about issues other than his experience? == | |||
| article: ] | |||
| You reverted my ''Citation needed|reason=According to a wp:rsn opinions, Mr Neumann is a primary Source as for he was directly involved in, otherwise not a source''. | |||
| your claim:''nonsensical, primary sources are fine as long as their is no attempt to interpret, read wp:primary''. | |||
| Why will not you read ? ] (]) 03:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a ] ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> <small>(sent by ] (]) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))</small> | |||
| == 1 RR violation == | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:BU Rob13@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:BU_Rob13/MMS-Sandbox&oldid=756193177 --> | |||
| Your recent edit at ] broke the 1RR restriction on that page, Undo it or you will be blocked from editing. ] (]) 23:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:31, 22 December 2016
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are indefinitely banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13 (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))