Revision as of 17:38, 13 May 2013 editNishidani (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,504 edits →Hezbollah is an underachieving mimic: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:09, 13 May 2013 edit undoCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →Re: "Bloody shoe" multiple reverts: warnings per policy not childishNext edit → | ||
Line 192: | Line 192: | ||
''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 19:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 19:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
:What is this childish message? Why don't you discuss it on the talk page of the appropriate article?--] (]) 20:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | :What is this childish message? Why don't you discuss it on the talk page of the appropriate article?--] (]) 20:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
::It looked like you were getting ready to do revert it by yet another editor and you needed a warning before you got into serious edit warring territory. Calling editors childish is hardly civil. ''] - <small>]</small><big>🗽</big> 19:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Hezbollah is an underachieving mimic == | == Hezbollah is an underachieving mimic == |
Revision as of 19:09, 13 May 2013
Welcome
|
IranitGreenberg, you are invited to the Teahouse
Hi IranitGreenberg! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. |
prior accounts
Have you ever used a prior account on Misplaced Pages? nableezy - 15:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, actually I'm new. Perhaps you could help me to improve my editions. Thanks for asking.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I could make a suggestion or two, to "help ... to improve editions", IranitGreenberg. Go easy on calling other user's edits "redundant", go easy on reverting, and use the talk page. But in general, we welcome newbies, Ajnem (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! If you are still looking for suggestions on how to improve editing, there are lots of instruction manuals available on this website, such as Help:Editing and Misplaced Pages:Summary style. It's also a good idea to look at some of the featured articles, as they are considered to be good examples of the best editing on Misplaced Pages. --1ST7 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll take a look.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! If you are still looking for suggestions on how to improve editing, there are lots of instruction manuals available on this website, such as Help:Editing and Misplaced Pages:Summary style. It's also a good idea to look at some of the featured articles, as they are considered to be good examples of the best editing on Misplaced Pages. --1ST7 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I could make a suggestion or two, to "help ... to improve editions", IranitGreenberg. Go easy on calling other user's edits "redundant", go easy on reverting, and use the talk page. But in general, we welcome newbies, Ajnem (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Please go to Jew and add a "see also" to Jewish political violence. That will make it easier to see that you are here for the right reasons. Zero 17:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
1RR
You've violated the 1RR at Palestinian people. Please self-revert your latest revert and discuss your edit on the talk page. nableezy - 17:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- That actually didn't fix the issue, but I won't report the violation. nableezy - 20:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Israel and the apartheid analogy
You've violated the 1RR rule that applies to Israel and the apartheid analogy. Under the rule, which is featured prominently in the edit notice on the page (as well as the article's Talk page), an editor may not make more than one reversion during any 24-hour period.
Please undo ("self-revert") your last edit or you may be blocked for your 1RR violation. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 04:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
1RR violation
You have violated the 1RR rule once more here. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, I didn't. I only reverted you once.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- And if you are so desperate to avoid 1RR rule violations, I recommend you to look at this. Come on! Send a warning message to him.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Inappropriate canvassing
Concerning your message:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AGilabrand&diff=552587496&oldid=552477134
Please read: Misplaced Pages:Canvassing. Further more of this behavior will be reported. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't know. Gilabrand was already editing there. It won't happen again though.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Your section header: "Anti-Israel vandalism in the article" and your reversion of previously reverted material with a clear explanation on talk of the reasons also can be seen as edit warring. (And a continuation of edit warring behavior when 1rr already has been violated in relevant edits.) Given your aggressive editing, being allegedly new, a couple complaints about 1RR, one has to wonder what is going on. If you are new, you should take it slower and learn the ropes. And you should revert back to the version previous to your reverts and read WP:Edit warring about policy. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nop. I didn't violated 1RR rule this time.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - something you should check out. No one turned me on to it for my first couple years and only my natural cautiousness kept me from being blocked from edit warring. Explains why even a first revert in some situations - like someone else reverted the material and started a whole talk page discussion - can be seen as start of edit warring, especially if it continues. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nop. I didn't violated 1RR rule this time.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Your section header: "Anti-Israel vandalism in the article" and your reversion of previously reverted material with a clear explanation on talk of the reasons also can be seen as edit warring. (And a continuation of edit warring behavior when 1rr already has been violated in relevant edits.) Given your aggressive editing, being allegedly new, a couple complaints about 1RR, one has to wonder what is going on. If you are new, you should take it slower and learn the ropes. And you should revert back to the version previous to your reverts and read WP:Edit warring about policy. CarolMooreDC🗽 17:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Palestinian people
You've violated 1RR on Palestinian people. Please self-revert your last edit or you may be blocked. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 01:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Notice
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, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. 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 "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 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.
— Malik Shabazz /Stalk 01:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring notice
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
As I told you above, there is a Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. By reverting back to a lot of new material that two editors have objected to by reverts and for which there is a talk page section with a whole list of problems; without attempting to discuss the material on the talk page, you are engaging in edit warring. Please avoid being reported by reverting your last massive edit here. If you don't know how to do that, ask someone to do it for you on the talk page. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have reported you for edit warring, because it seems to me you have no intention of following the rules in the topic area or using the talk page to resolve content disputes.
May 2013
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "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." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
Revert
My mistake, I accidentally hit the revert button. Deadbeef 05:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- No problem.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Battle of Jenin
Please stop gaming the system. Waiting 24 hours to make the same revert, day after day, is a good way to get blocked. Instead of revert-warring, start a discussion on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 03:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Balance
IranitGreenberg, did you understand why I made this change ? Three reasons 1. "The legal status of the Gaza strip is disputed" is editorializing and presents the situation as a false parity which is rather misleading 2. the view with the most weight, the international community's view, should go first followed by Israel's view 3. since the article is not about the status of the Gaza Strip and there are no details explaining the international community's views there should be no details explaining Israel views for balance. I find your edits in general rather problematic because your editing and comments on talk pages appear to suffer from bias. Is there anything you can do to minimize the influence of your personal views on your editing ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's done. I reverted myself. But you ask me "I find your edits in general rather problematic because your editing and comments on talk pages appear to suffer from bias. Is there anything you can do to minimize the influence of your personal views on your editing ?".... Are you kidding me?? Why don't you ask the same thing to extremely biased users, including Dlv999, Nableezy, Pluto2012, Nishidani and yourself, among many others?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. No, I wasn't kidding. The only person's behavior you really have any control over is yourself and you are new enough to not get into bad habits. I don't think 'extremely biased users' is an accurate description. I'm generalizing a bit but pro-Israel editors tend to use the wrong reference point to measure bias in my view and end up shooting the messenger. For example, if you believe that sources/the media/the world are biased against Israel it follows that an editor or even a robot that complies with policy will generate content that you also believe is biased against Israel. I can understand why I look like an extremely biased user to you but I know that your assessment is inaccurate. I don't mind what you think about me or anything as long as your edits comply with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- IranitGreenberg, I inform you of WP:AGF. Rgds, Pluto2012 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. No, I wasn't kidding. The only person's behavior you really have any control over is yourself and you are new enough to not get into bad habits. I don't think 'extremely biased users' is an accurate description. I'm generalizing a bit but pro-Israel editors tend to use the wrong reference point to measure bias in my view and end up shooting the messenger. For example, if you believe that sources/the media/the world are biased against Israel it follows that an editor or even a robot that complies with policy will generate content that you also believe is biased against Israel. I can understand why I look like an extremely biased user to you but I know that your assessment is inaccurate. I don't mind what you think about me or anything as long as your edits comply with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Palestinian people
Your recent edits to the page are in violation of 1rr regulations which apply to all topics related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Unless you self-revert I will report you to the noticeboard as I believe that your persistent ignoring of 1rr combined with your failure to follow core policies of encyclopedia is disruptive to the project. Dlv999 (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- When? I didn't break 1RR. Prove it with links showing such violation.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
1rr
You have violated the 1rr at Borders of Israel article. Revert yourself or ill file a report. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's true. It was an honest mistake. Thanks for your WP:Civility. I'll recover my edition tomorrow.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
{{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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- You have just been blocked for 1RR for the second time, which is a measure against edit-war, and you have been back for a few hours that you already reproduce the same behaviour of edit-warring. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with my edition, discuss it on the appropriate article. But if I violated 1RR in any article, just let me know and I'll revert myself immediately. Thanks.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is the same here : .
- Stop edit-warring and pov-pushing.
- Misplaced Pages is not a battlefield of propaganda.
- After being blocked 2 times, you should understand your behaviour is not appropriate. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Don't worry, my "pov-pushing" is a beginner's compared to yours. But if I violated a non-interpretative rule of Misplaced Pages, like 1RR, just let me know and I'll revert myself.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with my edition, discuss it on the appropriate article. But if I violated 1RR in any article, just let me know and I'll revert myself immediately. Thanks.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Seems like Pluto got a point - you need to become a patient wikipedian, or you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: "Bloody shoe" multiple reverts
Just to reaffirm the point about WP:Disruptive editing, that multiple editors have disputed you on putting the photo in for various reasons, on the talk page and in removing the photo. Please do not put it up again. Thanks.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- What is this childish message? Why don't you discuss it on the talk page of the appropriate article?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- It looked like you were getting ready to do revert it by yet another editor and you needed a warning before you got into serious edit warring territory. Calling editors childish is hardly civil. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 19:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Hezbollah is an underachieving mimic
A very short list of examples of incidents like the kind you deplore in Hezbollah (though your list has only 2 incidents of such behaviour imputed to Hezbollah since 1994)
- King David Hotel bombing
- 1948 Arab–Israeli War 24 massacres of Palestinians, one of Israelis cf Deir Yassin massacre (13,000 Palestinians, 90% civilians, killed:700,000 dispossessed of their houses and property)
- Qibya massacre
- Lavon Affair
- Operation Black Arrow
- Operation Elkayam
- Operation Jonathan
- Eilabun massacre
- Kafr Qasim massacre
- Operation Egged
- Operation Olive Leaves
- Samu Incident
- Six-Day War
- Operation Opera
- 1982 Lebanon War
- First Intifada
- Operation Accountability
- Operation Grapes of Wrath
- Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre
- Second Intifada (nearly 1900 Palestinians, mainly civilians shot in the opening week)
- Operation Defensive Shield
- Battle of Jenin*Battle of Nablus
- Ain es Saheb airstrike
- Operation Just Reward
- Operation Sharp and Smooth
- Operation Changing Direction 11
- Operation Summer Rains
- 2006 Lebanon War
- Operation Orchard
- Operation Hot Winter
- Operation Sea Breeze
- Sudan airstrike
- Operation Returning Echo
- Khartoum airstrike
- Gaza War
- Operation Pillar of Defense
- Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
- Assassination of Lord Moyne
- Attempted assassination of Harold MacMichael
- Jan 2013 Airstrike on Syria
- Two May 2013 Airstrikes on Syria
- Lillehammer affair
- Assassination of Yehia El-Mashad
- Abduction of Mordechai Vanunu
- Assassination of Gerald Bull
- Assassination of Khalil al-Wazir
- Assassination of Atef Bseiso
- Assassination of Fathi Shaqaqi
- Assassination attempt of Khaled Mashal
- Assassination of Izz El-Deen Sheikh Khalil
- Assassination of Imad Mughniyah
- Assassination of Muhammad Suleiman
- Assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh
- IDF use of Palestinians as Human Shields
Israeli heads of state who were terrorists
or whose work recognized by the state
- Natan Yellin-Mor elected to the Knesset
- Yisrael Eldad won the Bialik Prize for Jewish thought
- Eliyahu Bet-Zuri buried with full military honours on Mt Herzl for killing Lord Moyne
- Eliyahu Hakim buried with full military honours on Mt Herzl for killing Lord Moyne Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I could cite hundreds more, but of course, it is well known that Israel is the only country in the world that doesn't use terror, and only kills out of an profound ethical conviction of its ineffably pure resort to armed conflict. Don't reply. There's no conversation to be had on this.Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)