Misplaced Pages

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Israeli settler violence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IDF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your Mandate sources

Hi Dlv, I thought i'd make sure your work getting all those sources doesn't get lost, so i've turned them into cite quotes and am about to them all to the British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). Oncenawhile (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the backup:)

Many thanks for dropping all those useful sources off on the Menachem Begin talk page. Did the trick perfectly - the brick wall I had been talking to suddenly opened and became co-operative - they'll provide a useful resource should anyone want to take up that poisoned chalice in the future. I'd give you a barnstar or something similarly clique-ish if I wasn't so anti all that back scratching stuff. Good job and thanks again.1812ahill (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Discussion at Talk:Controversial tactics in the Gaza War

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Controversial tactics in the Gaza War. Shrike (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Counting reverts

To clarify, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". See WP:3RR. It doesn't make much sense but that is how reverts are counted. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversial Tactics

I apologise for not providing an explanation. I have responded on the Talk page in question.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

Ha'aretz Report

Hi,

Thanks for bringing that report about the Shin Bet chief to my attention. I've contacted Barak Ravid, who wrote the report, and asked what exactly Diskin was referring to, and whether Ravid's statistics disagree with Amos Harel's statistics (1:30 ratio) or they're discussing two different topics. I await a response, and will let you know as soon as I can. I will attach a photo if necessary (as proof).

Thanks!

--Activism1234 (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear what Mr Ravid has to say on the matter, but I don't think his personal comments to you would be suitable for inclusion in an article as they would not have been published by RS. Let me know the outcome, we can raise the issue on the reliable sources notice board if necessary. Dlv999 (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Overuse of cn tag

Edits like this results in difficulty in reading an article. It is better to use a "Unreferenced" template at the top of the article instead of overusing the inline cn tag. --SupernovaExplosion 10:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the information. I take your point and will bare it in mind for future edits. But for me the main issue with the article is that editors are deleting referenced content from the article and replacing it with totally unsourced material. Dlv999 (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see the original version which you created. --SupernovaExplosion 11:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It was not perfect by any means and needed plenty of work. But I had hoped to move it forward by finding further RS to cover all significant opinions published in RS - not by deleting sourced material and replacing it with unsourced work. Dlv999 (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please rectify this and use the unreferenced template instead. It is very unsightly.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

<- Dlv999, you are perfectly entitled to delete unsourced information in the topic area on sight. You don't need to tag it, you don't need to discuss it or try to be nice. You can just remove it. Adding unsourced material in the topic area covered by discretionary sanctions is not okay. Editors soon learn that content they add will be removed if it doesn't cite reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There is not much I can do if multiple editors are intent on re-adding unreferenced material and repeatedly deleting referenced material without explanation. At least tagging it alerts readers to the unverifiable nature of the article. Dlv999 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've requested action at AE

AE:Talk] --Shuki (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings

Could you please explain how did you came to this article?Becouse I see that you never edit it before.Following other users edits to propose opposing POV in areas that you don't edit together could be considered WP:HOUND.--Shrike (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to stick my nose where it don't belong, but 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings is a "hot" article. It had been linked from the news portal for very many days.VR _talk 18:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Vice. I wouldn't take too much notice, it is is not the first time that, apropos of nothing, this editor has left insinuating remarks questioning the intentions of my involvement in the Misplaced Pages project. Dlv999 (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that it is you who failing to WP:AFG.It was only a friendly notice to a new editor that probably was not aware of all the rules.If I really thought you hound someone I would go to the relevant board instead living a message on the talk page .--Shrike (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Holy Land Map

My own original translation from the Latin was fairly poor, and was corrected some time ago by people brighter than me. Obviously, the relevant dates are the specific Biblical dates to which each place on the map is relevant. I am also hardly an expert on this; I obviously never even noticed that the overwhelming number of place names on the map were purely Biblical in origin.

I seem to recall -- again, under the false illusion that this was an 18th century map merely with a Biblical overlay -- that I originally restored it to the "Middle Ages" section of Palestine, rather than where it resides now.

As far as your general point about ancient maps, the Lotter family were very reputable mapmakers in their time. It's very hard to determine whether Tobias had access to sources ~250 years ago that are simply no longer extant, and, in turn, whether those sources themselves were reliable. Archaeology is hardly an exact science either. Maybe you dig up 3 square feet of land, but there is a dreidel buried five feet away?

Perhaps it's just in my nature as a Catholic, but I just end up giving old sources a lot of leeway as to being right. -- Kendrick7 23:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Heat

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Heat. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Greetings

It is reassuring to see familiar old faces on here AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ankh, welcome back to IP. Have you seen this yet? I came across it the other day and thought it might be interesting to pick one article to "write for the enemy" (you will do Palestine POV and I will do Israel). Nothing major like Gaza War or anything, just a minor neglected article we could do a little work on and improve. Dlv999 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC

I think that should be fun. You can select an article for me if you want; gosh I hope I don't develop some kind of dissociative identity disorder and become a confused figure.AnkhMorpork (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I don't have anything in mind right now, but I will keep a lookout for a suitable article. Dlv999 (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

IDF use of Human Shields

There is a lot of overlap and reiteration of the same material cited in "Accusations of misconduct by IDF soldiers" as well as inclusion of immaterial content that does not discuss use of human shields. I aim to trim this and would appreciate of you could give the paragraph a look over and remove what you agree should not be included.

e.g irrelevancies - "Richard Falk, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian territories, alleged that Israel had confined Palestinian civilians to the combat zone in Gaza and prevented them from leaving during bombardment. Such a practice was a "new crime against humanity", Falk said and called for Israel to be held accountable." "...and the targeting of medics and hospitals. The paper also found evidence of attacks on clearly distinguishable civilian targets"
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to solely remove Israeli duplication and ignore your own repetition, I must protest this breach of 1rr, 12 and request you revert.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the warning. I have self reverted. I have also removed (self rv) the Falk comments and the Breaking the silence material per your concerns. Dlv999 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks indeed. I agree that Richard Kemp's sentiments should not be repeated. Bizarrely, they have been mentioned in "Use of densely populated areas by Hamas combatants" from where I intend to remove them. In my view, they probably are best located in the "Accusations of misconduct by IDF soldiers" paragraph.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I also observed that the "Disproportionate force" paragraph also repeats content and could do with modification. A suggestion, you remove extraneous anti-Israel in a way that you see fit, and I shall remove all pro-Israeli repetition that you point out, and that way, we will be in agreement with each others edits and can present the information once in a manner of our choosing.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In your Revision as of 18:27, 4 April 2012 you introduced a named reference without defining it: <ref name="unchildren"/>. Please provide the intended reference, or remove the ref entirely. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I have fixed the reference. Dlv999 (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoops

Didn't realise you had amended article. Restored content in lie with 1rr.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 17:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Dlv999 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your 'tabloid newspaper' was actually a verbatim assessment of the Shaw report
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't care. There is no other article in the encyclopedia that uses such inflammatory language. Look for example at the Rape of Nanking, I don't see that kind of language. The worst crimes in history are not described with this language, why are we using it just because the Palestinians are involved? And FYI the Shaw report is not a third Party RS on this matter. The British were the colonial regime and were committed to imposing Zionism on the indigenous population. The British are inherently an involved party in this matter and their official report of the event dating from the 1920's is not a third party RS. We don't use the Goldstone report for unattributed statements of fact on the Gaza War page - we attribute to the Goldstone report. In fact Goldstone has a much better claim to being third party as he was not a party to the conflict, nor was the UN. Shaw on the other hand was a member of the British establishment that had a commitment to Zionism and had been responsible for the overwhelming majority of the Arab deaths in the incident in question.Dlv999 (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You make a valid point which your edit summary did not do justice to.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 09:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Just for an insight into the Colonial mindset of the time, in the early 1930's Britain had blocked a proposal at Geneva to ban the use of planes for bombing purposes on civilian populations. Former Prime minister David Lloyd George is quoted as commenting "we must reserve the right to bomb niggers". So yes, according to their way of thinking, an Arab riot against colonial oppression and displacement by Zionists is "vicious" and "wanton" on the other hand bombing "niggers" (that is to say the very same Arab population) is perfectly acceptable. The moral universe that the British establishment of the time operated in is certainly an interesting topic, but it should never be introduced into a 2012 encyclopedia article as statements of fact without comment. Dlv999 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

shaw report

if you email me i can email it to you. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sri Lanka

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sri Lanka. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. When you recently edited List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lydda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hi Dlv999. Just dropping you a note because I thought you might be interested in Misplaced Pages:Requests for JSTOR access. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, that would be be a big help. Dlv999 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Palestine

Thank you for your support. My legitimate changes were being culled while equivalent ones on the opposing side were not. That is unfair. I have also sorted the complaints of Nice Guy. One of the complaints in particular I felt was completely unreasonable; I have nevertheless dealt with it.
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Three-dimensional chess

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Three-dimensional chess. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1929 Palestine riots

Hi there. Ankh asked me to look at your interaction as he was unhappy with it. I examined it and while I agree that you haven't made any personal attacks, I would implore you to continue to strive to discuss edits rather than editors. I recognise this is difficult sometimes and that this topic can inherently be a sensitive one. Please don't hesitate to use me as a sounding board if you need help, support or advice in this area going forward, and please don't take this as a formal warning, it is just meant as friendly advice. --John (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input, I will bear your advice in mind. Dlv999 (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. --John (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of the idea of asking at the RS noticeboard whether the sources used support "Some sources stated...while others..." and asking only editors from outside the I-P area to advise? Would you be interested in drafting a suitable question since it would be quite pathetic if the same disagreement with the same participants was merely relocated to a new forum.Ankh.Morpork 22:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think some form of dispute resolution is probably a good idea at his stage, but RSN isn't the right forum to address all of the aspects of this issue. For instance one of the main reasons I oppose your text for the lead is that it contradicts the factual statements made in the article body. I think Shrike's proposal complies with WP:LEAD while yours doesn't, and this is just not going to be addressed at RSN. Also there are two proposals on the table, yours and Shrike's, so any form of dispute resolution should be weighing up the pro's and con's of both, not just looking at your preferred option. Dlv999 (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I was addressing specifically the language used in the lead which you and Oncenawhile state is not supported by RS. Presumably, this feedback may influence your feelings?Ankh.Morpork 23:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think RSN is the appropriate venue to resolve the dispute as all the issues involved will not be dealt with as I have already explained. Dlv999 (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I do not want to solve "all the issues" there, just whether those sources support that particular formulation.Ankh.Morpork 10:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the dispute resolution board is more appropriate. We have already been discussing this issue for a long time, to go through another long drawn out discussion at RSN, which will not even resolve the dispute seems counterproductive. Dlv999 (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sure we both are curious of what third parties have to say. If you think I have misrepresented something, please say so and I shall modify my initial statement. It is in everyone's interest that both views are fairly represented and I have no issues with further clarity being provided, what I would rather avoid is the rehashing of the same familiar arguments all over again. It is time this issue is put to bed once and for all. Ankh.Morpork 23:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

RSN will not resolve the dispute because you have only added your preferred edit. You have not added the alternative solution that has been proposed, so RSN will not give an answer as to which of the proposed edits is a better representation of the sources. Dlv999 (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You have broken 1RR on The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

Though article wasn't marked under ARBPIA is clearly belonged to the conflict per WP:ARBPIA "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related."As you never received any official warning on the sanctions I am going to warn though 1RR didn't require a warning to be sanctioned I will assume WP:AGF and will not report you.--Shrike (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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 is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Please explain how those two edits are not 1RR ,.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that you wrote "This is the third time now you posted on my page, questioning my behavior in the topic area without good reason... I vehemently deny that I have done so and I demand that you withdraw your accusations in full, or make a report through the appropriate channels." Do you still stand by this, or perhaps you wish to withdraw your accusations?Ankh.Morpork 11:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, I don't need to make my case to you. You are not an appropriate person to act as Judge and Jury to rule that I have violated the policy. It is enough that I have stated that I vehemently deny the accusation. You now have two options, you can withdraw the accusation in full, or make a report through the appropriate channels. Dlv999 (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This is what happened.

• 19:52, 6 May 2012‎ - Dlv999 removed information for which there is no evidence of NPOV compliance.
• 10:07, 7 May 2012‎ - AnkhMorpork reverted with the edit summary "Restore. Discuss 'notabilty' prior to removing content".
• 10:21, 7 May 2012 - Dlv999 opened a talk page section.
• 13:29, 8 May 2012‎ - Having waited for a day without any evidence being presented by Ankh, his edit was reverted "No evidence has been presented that Alex Safian is a significant opinion that has been published in RS on this topic. See talk"
• 03:39, 9 May 2012‎ - Brewcrewer ignores the talk page and reverts on based on an evidenceless edit summary assertion "notable group reliable for its own opinions. one sentece in large article dues not run afoul of any UNUDE or notaiblity issues". The only good thing about this is that it says UNUDE.
• 08:56, 9 May 2012‎ - Dlv999 reverts with the edit summary "Theory of general notability allowing opinion to be inserted into any and all articles is not compatible with policy. see talk".
• 09:23, 9 May 2012‎ - Top of the Tower, clearly a sock, probably NoCal, also ignores the talk page and simply reverts based on an evidenceless edit summary assertion "notable view"

Yes, there was may or may not have been a 1RR violation but the 1RR violation seems to be the least problematic aspect of this sequence of events.

This is the kind of sequence of edits that I would like to see being addressed at AE because "any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process may be blocked up to one year, topic-banned, further revert-restricted, or otherwise restricted from editing." Sean.hoyland - talk 11:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sean, the page was not labeled as falling under the IP topic area until after the fact. The topic is a book about US Politics and Foreign Policy written by two US academics. I have not read the book. I came to the page via your link of all CAMERA's citations on the encyclopedia. I did not look at the whole page, I was merely interested with the CAMERA citation, which is a quote about the quality of the books scholarship (Safian is a Phd in Physics), and the evidence that had been provided that he was a significant opinion that had been published in RS on the topic. I checked that the article was not considered part of the I-P topic area, and that the material that I removed was not related. I strongly believe that acting in good faith at all times I did not breach the rules. Dlv999 (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, whether it's a 1RR vio or not really doesn't matter me, I don't think it's important (and I've amended my statement above). It's arguable as you say but focusing on that aspect is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The sequence shows clearly how bad things are in the topic area, how it's impossible to make progress by following the normal editorial process. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Or the Mavi Marmara as the case may be. Would it be fair to say that your initial impression, Sean, was that "there was a 1RR violation"?Ankh.Morpork 12:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My view is that anything, even slightly related to the conflict, is covered by the sanctions whether there is a template or not, even if it is just one sentence about a controversial donut factory in a giant article about donuts. That is just my opinion though and I know for sure that others don't agree with me. So, yes, for me this is a 1RR violation. I were an admin however I would also block you and Brewcrewer for 24 hours, and indef'd the sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"As I've got older I've realised that I actually know very little about anything and what I thought I knew often turns out to be wrong" - Sean Hoyland Ankh.Morpork 14:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, subjectivity, self-negating statements, and the paradox of self-reference. These are a few of my favorite things. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

1RR violation

Hi Dlv999,

With this edit you've clearly violated the 1RR restriction on I-P related material (see WP:ARBPIA). I strongly urge you to revert yourself before someone is tempted to take administrative action. Jayjg 11:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What Clare Short may or may not have said about Israel and Global warming has nothing to do with Israel Palestine as far as I am concerned. I ask that you withdraw the accusation or make a report through the appropriate channels. Dlv999 (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Given recent events, it seems I will have to be more careful in future about my assessment of topics that are not ostensibly related to the IP conflict. However in this case my three edits were addressing a BLP violation (the use of an opinion piece as a verification of facts in BLP) and the edit summaries made this clear. According to WP:EW, these edits are exempt and I think it would be detrimental to the project to re-add an opinion piece as a verifying source for facts in BLP, so I shall not do so. I would hope anyone "tempted to take administrative action", would also look at the editors who were repeatedly adding an opinion piece as a verifying source for facts in BLP against policy. Dlv999 (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

When stating the reason for the block the blocking admin made a false statement which leads me to believe he may not have been fully aware of the facts and thus the block may not be warranted.

Blade states that "User was clearly given proper notifications, refused to self-revert." This is not true. When I made the edits the page was not tagged as being part of the IP topic area, and prior to this incident I have never received any notification of the ARBPIA regulations. The article was only tagged as being part of IP area after my final edit on the page had been reverted by another user, at which time there was no possibility of me self reverting. Likewise I only received my first and only ARBPIA notification after my final edit had been reverted, at which time I was unable to self revert.

In total I have made three edits to the page , , over the course of of 61 hours. My understanding of the rules covering the IP area is that if an article is not judged by the community as specifically related to the topic then material in that article not related to IP is not considered to be under the sanctions.

The article in question is a book about US internal politics and foreign Policy. I specifically checked that it was not tagged as being part of the IP area and assumed that if it was considered to be related to IP by the community it would have been tagged given that this is an old article on a controversial topic that has been heavily edited. The specific material my edits involved was the opinion of a US pro-Israel group on the quality of the scholarship of the work. My honest belief was that as the material I was editing did not concern IP and the topic of the article had not been included in the IP topic area, the normal edit rules of 3RR would apply and not 1RR.

I honestly believe that I have not breached the 1RR rules in this case. If taking into account the facts the reviewing admin comes to a different conclusion then I fully accept the decision. If this is the case I would like to offer a few mitigating factors which I hope will make the admin reconsider whether a block is necessary.

1. This is the first time I have (potentially) fallen afoul of the 1rr restrictions
2. The article was not labelled as being part of the IP area and the material I edited was unrelated
3. During the edit period I had opened up a talk page discussion on the issue, non of the editors who reverted me have made a single comment in response.
4. It likely that one of the editors involved in reverting me is a sock with a brand new minted account
5. I have edited extensively in the topic area without receiving even a formal notification of the ARBPIA rules prior to this incident. There is every reason to believe that once Shrike added the IP tag that I would fully adhere to the rules as I have done in all articles that I know to be part of the IP area.

Thank you for reviewing this information. I will happily accept any decision without any complaint.Dlv999 (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• @ Shrike thanks for the comments, to clarify, my opinion was that it was unrelated. I wanted to make sure that the community had not decided otherwise. That is why I specifically checked.
• @ Blade. Appreciate the comment. Just to clarify, at the time I was given the notification, I had already been reverted by another user, so there was no possibility I could self revert at that point. (see diffs in response to Ankh)
• @Brewcrew, I can only remember commenting at 1 AE but maybe you are right. I am not arguing that i am unaware of the regulations. I have made it clear in my comments that I make an effort to abide by them. The point of mentioning it was 1) because it contradicts the statement made by the blocking admin, so could be considered a reason to reconsider the block 2) I think it gives an indication that I am able to follow the regulations. In any case I am happy for my actions to be judged on the basis that I am fully aware of the regulations.
• * @Ankh, as I have already explained, at the time the article was tagged by Shrike as being part of the IP area ], and Shrike accused me of breaking 1rr ], my final edit had already been reverted by another user , so there was never any possibility of me self reverting my edits.

Dlv999 (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

This isn't an acceptance of your unblock request, just an observation that the block has expired. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

I specifically checked that it was not tagged as being part of the IP area

I wanted to explain to him without filing any report and thus I give him notice about the case but he denied that he did anything wrong and insisted that I will file a case to relevant board so I did.--Shrike (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999, I'll say in your defense that I didn't check to see when the notice had been added to the talkpage. I'll also say that it does appear you were given a notification before the AN3 report was filed. To the reviewing admin; you can make whatever decision you feel is appropriate, and if you decide to unblock or reduce to time served you don't have to notify me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999, can you explain why you did not revert once you were informed that your actions did constitute a 1rr violaton?Ankh.Morpork 18:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@Dlv999 - After you were informed about the 1rr violation, you stated, "I vehemently deny that I have done so and I demand that you withdraw your accusations in full, or make a report through the appropriate channels". It is this aspect that is puzzling me as you now seek to mention the possibility of you self reverting. Do you think you could have handled this in a less combative manner?Ankh.Morpork 19:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999, I suggest you don't engage. Just speak directly to the admins. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I could care less whether DLV is unblocked but I feel obliged to point out one misleading aspect of this unblock request. As part of his argument DLV asserts he was never given the ARBPIA warning. Please note that in his short Misplaced Pages career DLV has already found himself at the AE Noticeboard commenting twice at length specifically regarding 1RR violations based on ARBPIA. He clearly was constructively notified and his arguments about not being notified appears to be wikilawyering, at best. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Palestinians

Hi, love and respect for your desire to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages's presentation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think List of Palestinians is a great list, doncha think? We're on the same page.

There is no sources on that whole page, unless you call wiki-links sources, which aren't RS sources, but you know that already. I admit the source is not the best, but I wanted to add it, the first on L of P, because there was no wiki-link.

Do you think Tamer Khuweir is not notable or object to the wiki-link to suicide bomber? This is reasonable, like you and me. Perhaps the source is no good. I don't look forward to adding sources to all the names on that already mentioned great list. Maybe a funner project, a funner project for you and me would be to make a wikipage for Tamer Khuweir? Anyway, I wanted to hit up the D of WP:BRD here, for convenience, and to be personable like a handshake with a firm shoulder touch. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think if a person does not have a wikipedia page indicating that they are an existing Palestinian person of note, we need something that tells us this person is a real person, Palestinian and notable to be included on the list. For me that would mean an RS, I think you must have been thinking along similar lines because you added a source, but unfortunately it did not meet RS requirements. I have to admit that I have never heard of this person, the source supplied was not sufficient for me to verify that this was a real Palestinian notable for the list so I reverted you on that basis. Dlv999 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe or will work, or maybe will convince readers he is a real Palestinian hero.

Let me remind you that Misplaced Pages is a view of reality, and not the other way around. Having a Wiki does not make one notable, notables should have wikis. So, let's make that Tamer Khuweir page. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Dlv999, I appreciate your intervening on my behalf on the dispute resolution board. It’s easy for people to gang up together against another person, especially when that other person is voiceless and can’t respond, as I was because of the block. So I just wanted to say thanks. VivaWikipedia (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you are interested in some friendly advice, if I were you I would try to get to grips with the basic rules and policies. Most importantly don't edit war, especially on articles related in any way shape or form to Israel-Palestine, in which you are only allowed to make one revert per day per article. Try to remember that the article will be based on consensus of the community and policies, not who edited the page last. Thus it is usually more productive to make your case on the article talk page to build consensus than it is to revert an edit of another. Sorry if this sounds like a lecture, but the reason I am telling you is because if you contravene a policy again, most likely the same editors will file another case painting you as a disruptive editor and you will end up with another sanction. Dlv999 (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Please kindly don't post in my section in AE

As your answer is not "statement by Shrike".Thank you--Shrike (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks.Dlv999 (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murasaki Shikibu

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Murasaki Shikibu. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"At least seven" - 1929 Palestine riots

Can you list the sources that support this version?Ankh.Morpork 11:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never proposed such a version. Dlv999 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I would to make a list on the talk page of all the sources and what they say to help decide upon a consensual position. On the talk page, only Mathews was presented as stating that "at least seven" were caused by Jews although I may have overlooked others so I would like to know which other sources support this. Ankh.Morpork 18:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, the sources have already been well documented on the talk page. Perhaps you could answer the reasonable questions you have been asked numerous times, and so far refused to answer, as to why you advocate the insertion into the lead of information based on poor quality tertiary "popular history" sources when they contradict academic sources and the well documented information in the article body. If you are willing to do that then I will be happy to recite the sources that I have previously cited to you on the talk page. Dlv999 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Another "Have you stopped beating your wife?" classic. See this and this, in which I responded to this question. If you wish to conceal the sources that is your prerogative, but be aware that you obstructing collaborative attempts.Ankh.Morpork 18:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced popular history books are not suitable sources for historical encyclopedia articles, especially for inserting contentious content into the lead which contradicts well documented information in the article body and high quality academic secondary sources. The lead is supposed to summarize the article body, not contradict it, with the introduction of poorly sourced material. As to blocking consensus, I was happy to accept the consensus solution offered by Shrike, but you rejected it. Anyway, this is not rlevent to my talk page, if you have any further comments about the content of the article you should leave them at the article talk page.Dlv999 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

amnesty

dlv - really? seriously? because you see an edit as "anything more than the standard Israeli government/NGO-monitor biolerplate" (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Amnesty_International&curid=18947898&diff=496424973&oldid=496419381) therefore it is reverted? so many issues with this dude/dudette. let's say it is standard. so what? it is official responses as reported in RS. this particular one has received significant and varied coverage in RS. but you just want to brush it away. and the ngo monitor information is not only RS in these articles, their source of info is all documented as well. it is not an opinion, or a standard anything. you really need to read this more carefully and think it through. i am asking you to self-revert the edit and your sweeping categorizations.... Soosim (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is there is a long list of governments that have criticized AI after AI has released a report documenting their human rights abuses. We haven't documented the statements by Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the People's Republic of China, Vietnam, Russia, the United States etc that they have made criticizing AI after they themselves have been criticized by AI. So why is it justified to include a passage devoted entirely to Israeli criticism of AI following an AI report critical of Israel?

Also, just to clarify, the term "biolerplate" was not directed at your edit. I was referring to the statements released by NGO-monitor/Israeli government in response to the AI report. They do not seem significant in terms of an overall article on Amnesty International. They are just the sort of stock comments ("biolerplate") that Israel (and other governments) release when a report by Amnesty is critical of their policies. I won't revert the edit as I believe it is in line with policy (WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM), but I would be happy to continue this discussion on the article talk page, where I will of course accept whatever consensus develops. Dlv999 (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, the criticism section should match the lead of the Criticism of Amnesty International article. All the pay controversy material should be moved over to the main article too per WP:SUMMARY. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Problematic Source

I'm not sure how best to deal with that source you tagged re: RS but it looks highly questionable to me. It includes things like this: "November 4, 1999, Athens, Greece. A group protesting President Clinton's visit to Greece hid a gas bomb at an American car dealership in Athens. Two cars were destroyed and several others damaged. Anti-State Action claimed responsibility for the attack, but the November 17 group was also suspected" which has nothing to do with the Middle East, let alone the Palestinians (see BBC report on that bombing here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/514368.stm). BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC). My guess is that they confused the November 17 group, which is an anarcho-leftist Greek organisation, with the Palestinian Black September group. But if they are making mistakes like that I don't see how we can put any weight on the source at all. BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I would like see a high bar on sources in the IP topic area, as I think it would resolve a lot of the problems. Even purely battleground/advocate editors would benefit the project if they were forced to use high quality sources. Unfortunately the article in question has a number of citations to questionable, advocate sources such as Palwatch and myths and facts. If you have advocate editors using advocacy sources all you end up with is POV garbage. Dlv999 (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaza War and Racism in Israel

At Racism in Israel you reverted a rewriting of an incident that replaced old sources close to the event itself with newer ones benefiting from a more informed perspective. How do you reconcile that attitude with these comments of yours made at Talk:Gaza War:

The issue that I see here is that the Haaretz report was published the morning after the attack so is probably not the best source for establishing the facts about the civilian/combatant ratio, given that the UN fact finding mission, the mainstream human rights organizations, the Israeli government, pro Israel NGO's Palestinian sources etc. all conducted investigations and published on the issue long after the Haaretz initial report. If you want to bring the initial Haaretz claim then we are going to have to document all the counter claims and explain the discrepancies between the different sources and the various rebuttals that have been offered by involved parties.

There was a comment of mine that you misconstrued recently as meaning something entirely the opposite of what it was actually suggesting. This is a routine request for clarification. You'll be repeating the same mistake if you read anything other than that into it.—Biosketch (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have already pointed out in the talk page discussion that the later Haaretz report is entirely consistent with its earlier report. The later article reports a further development that after heavy criticism from the media the Police attempted to downplay the incident. It is certainly notable for the article that the Police attempted to downplay the incident, but that does not mean we should downplay the incident. We should simply report the further development as it is described by RS. Dlv999 (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

damm Edit conflict

I have re-added your comment due (edit conflict), (edit conflict), (edit conflict), damm --DℬigXray 10:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Thank you. Dlv999 (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Syrian civil war

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Syrian civil war. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Welcome back. Ankh.Morpork 10:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I was planning to stay out of IP, but I still have all my old articles on watchlist, and I couldn't resist looking at the recent changes and sticking my oar in...Dlv999 (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Its difficult to stay away from the areas that interest you the most. I'll try not to rock the boat too much so that your stabilizing oar won't be oft required. Ankh.Morpork 12:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam article

Your requested article is ready for download. OhanaUnited 01:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you, much appreciated. Dlv999 (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you Shrike, much appreciated. Dlv999 (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iraqi people

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iraqi people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

AE

Please see here. Ankh.Morpork 13:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)