This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayjg (talk | contribs) at 22:50, 12 December 2011 (Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Child sacrifice. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:50, 12 December 2011 by Jayjg (talk | contribs) (Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Child sacrifice. (TW))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome
|
=?
We really do not need to have a policy against people creating odd sections with random "equal" signs at the top. No one needs to be told that it is disruptive to create odd sections with random "equal" signs at the top. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Your edits
Dalai lama ding dong, I am concerned with your edits. Your entire editing history on Misplaced Pages has consisted of trying to prove that 1) ancient Israelites did child sacrifices, 2) Jews did forced conversions, 3) Benjamin Netanyahu's son is anti-Arab, 4) Israel has desecrated an ancient Arab cemetery, 5) the Anti-Defamation League is anti-Muslim, and 6) the EUMC working definition of antisemitism is discredited. The sum total of your edits indicates a rather obvious agenda. Rather than continuing on this path, please review WP:SPA and WP:NPOV. Jayjg 16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- I see, so you response to my comment here was to again add the WP:UNDUE material to the Child Sacrifice article, and again promote your agenda regarding the EUMC definition of antisemitism at two different article. Please review WP:DISRUPT, and the remedies for this kind of disruptive behavior. Jayjg 20:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why on earth would you think that any of my work here is a response to you? The work I have done on the EUMC definition has nothing to do with any agenda, and that is clear. With reference to your above list. 1) ancient Israelites did child sacrifices, 2) Jews did forced conversions. I have added academic references to both these articles, they do not 'prove anything' but they do offer a summary of academic opinion. I can not help it if you do not like these majority opinions.
3) Benjamin Netanyahu's son is anti-Arab, If that is true, then it is 'proved' by his words, not by my addition of them to an article on anti Arabism. 4) Israel has desecrated an ancient Arab cemetery, This again, if true is shown by the facts, not by my 'proving' of them.5) the Anti-Defamation League is anti-Muslim, and 6) the EUMC working definition of antisemitism is discredited. These last two are just silly. I have said neither of these things. I still await proof of your opinion on signing.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Username
Welcome to Misplaced Pages and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Dalai lama ding dong) may not meet Misplaced Pages's username policy because it may be promotional or disparaging of the institution of the Dalai Lama, and it may be offensive because Ding Dong is "a euphemism for the penis". The combination of religious and sexual references in your username is multiplicatively disruptive. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you. Quigley (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not aware that the phrase ding dong is generally regarded as being solely a euphemism for the penis. It certainly has many more meanings than that. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ding-dong) (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cCVnlIUTpg4C&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=ding+dong+pensi&source=bl&ots=cRLrUZMSkr&sig=G1RPbeoUY_jRmgabrckxprOzHNo&hl=en&ei=ab4yToGHMoKEhQeOiq38Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Since Buddhism is one of the few 'great' religions of the world whose 'sacred texts' have no concept of religious slaughter, i.e. no equivalent of the ban, or jihad, I doubt if you can find any Buddhist who would be offended by a play on a song title. Indeed here is someone who is sympathetic to Buddhism who uses equivalent forms of dalai lama rama ding dong and lama-rama-la-ding-dong (http://www.myspace.com/spitdoesntmakebabies/blog/137417396) How much checking did you do?
Please check the following to see evidence that the DL is regarded as having a great sense of humour,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGF9ciXeMs4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DLb7NwsCTc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83_zj_w0gMw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rAKmWPlZ5A&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu2ANgwDFuM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yWQp7Gxvzw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NKtV4GJ4zc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTIrgZkW34I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uls4YdV2ns&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p_xIUcltmw&feature=related
Would you like to contact some Buddhist organisations to see if they are offended by my user name? Alternatively, I will change it to dali llama ding dong, is that acceptable to you? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would support you keeping your current name if you wish to. The basic listing on the OED for ding-dong does not include the penis interpretation (neither does the full OED entry which is not available free online) and there are many, many words that are slang terms for penis. Personally I would read your account name as "heated discussion about the Dalai Lama" which does not appear immediately offensive or intended to offend. Fæ (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, the username clearly has non-disruptive interpretations, so I have removed the concern category. Quigley (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I removed a couple links since the appeared to be contributory copyright infringement. An essay can be seen at WP:VIDEOLINK that says everything I have to say on the matter. Let me know if you need any clarification.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, the username clearly has non-disruptive interpretations, so I have removed the concern category. Quigley (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Antisemitism in Norway
Hi Dalai. Your edit here appeared to contain info identical or very similar to the source, so there may be copyright problems. See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE and WP:PLAGIARISM. Also, one of the sources was unreliable. Thanks. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:TERRORIST
In reference to your recent edits at Jewish religious terrorism, I advise you to review the guidelines at WP:TERRORIST. In particular, note that "Value-laden labels...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I tried explaining this to you on the Discussion page, but I'm willing to consider that you simply haven't understood. When using labels of an exceptionally charged nature, such as "terrorist organization," you must demonstrate that the label is widely used by reliable sources and use in-text attribution. Please address these concerns soon, or else expect to have your edits reverted.—Biosketch (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Previous account
Hi. What was your previous username?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
tags
Hi, To ask for a citation use this: {{subst:cn}}. It adds the correct tag and fills in the date.. Zero 16:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Don't use the nowiki tags, just the part with the double curly braces. Zero 11:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Do not revert
The page was locked due to edit warring. If you revert again you will be edit warring and someone like me will be seeking your block. Instead, follow the dispute resolution process. I recommend that an admin gives you a heads up on the additional scrutiny editors are under in this topic area based on a history of disruptive editing. I feel that I cannot give you the proper advice since you choose to not listen and I do not have the patience do deal with you.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- WP:ARBPIA was opened because there has been a history of contentious editing. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision is what you should focus on. What you doing is against Misplaced Pages policy and makes you more likely to be blocked. Editors have explained WP:IRS and WP:OR. You have no excuse for not reading them.Cptnono (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- You continue to fail to understand policies linked to you. You chose not to understand ARBPIA. What would make it easier for you to understand?Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
1RR violation at Textbooks in Israel
FYI.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is what I am talking about. Pay more attention.Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Notice of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA
You restored similar material twice in one day at Textbooks in Israel. Since this might be construed as a WP:1RR violation appears to be edit warring I am leaving you the discretionary sanctions notice. I have also added the {{ARBPIA}} template to the article talk page to make sure no one is in doubt about the status of this article, or the existence of a 1RR restriction.
|
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page. |
Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- See my reply to your comment at User talk:EdJohnston#Dalai lama ding dong. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- See another reply on my talk page. Your reverts at Itamar attack getting close to requiring admin action. "I have not quite waited twenty four hours, so I will wait and do this later" looks like gaming the restriction. You are not even discussing the removal of that sentence on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have revised my comment above so it no longer claims you made a 1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- See another reply on my talk page. Your reverts at Itamar attack getting close to requiring admin action. "I have not quite waited twenty four hours, so I will wait and do this later" looks like gaming the restriction. You are not even discussing the removal of that sentence on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Where is it?
I understand you opened a dispute resolution regarding use of "Land of Israel" in Jewish History. I did not see a notice of it in either the Judaism or Jewish History Wikiprojects, or on my user page. Was this done? Please note that I cannot respnd until next wekk, nor can many others, due to the holiday.Mzk1 (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Please self-revert
Your have now twice in 2 days removed a section from the article saying it repeats the lead. Well, the rules of composition are that the lead summarizes the body of the article. By removing the reduplication in the main body of the article, you destabilize the lead, which now has no follow-up in the text. The lead section is problematic, not the redupliction you erase. You should have pared down the Gesher-Poll data in the lead, while retaining all of the information in the appropriate sub-section. In short, you turned the correct procedure upside down by retaining too much information on that poll in the lead, and then erasing the copy of it, there for expansion, below. Do you understand now why I had to revert you? Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Intro sentence of Textbooks in the Palestinian territories
Hi there. My point with this edit was simply that the sentence I deleted was inherently information-free. The title of the article is Textbooks in the Palestinian territories, and the sentence I deleted was:
Textbooks in the Palestinian territories are school textbooks published in the Palestinian territories.
You reinstated the sentence with the rationale that this sentence "distinguishes these textbooks from those produced in East Jerusalem". I think this sentence cannot possibly achieve this goal, since it contains no information that isn't already present in the article title. Do you agree? --Doradus (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- On second thought, perhaps you're referring to the word "published"? --Doradus (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, is this acceptable? --Doradus (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- I like what you did here. I think we've arrived at a pretty good intro sentence. --Doradus (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, is this acceptable? --Doradus (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
December 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jewish history. 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. You've made your point, and it has been challenged. For further discussion please use the talk page, per WP:BRD. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Child sacrifice shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Jayjg 22:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)