Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk | contribs) at 18:50, 13 January 2015 (→WP:HOUND: I advise you to stop your disruptive behavior, or you could be topic-banned or blocked. Regards,). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hi, Ashtul. Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

I hope you like it here and decide to stick around. If you see something on Misplaced Pages that you want to change, just press the edit button and change it!

For the basic principles, see the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. And if you're ready to make some edits, this Misplaced Pages cheatsheet may come in handy.

Cheers, ChzzBot IV (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Middle East Monitor (MEMO) (November 13)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Middle East Monitor (MEMO) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hello! Ashtul, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Misplaced Pages where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Rankersbo (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

You should note that this ruling prohibits more than one revert on any article within a 24-hour period. You have already breached this several times on Skunk (weapon), and any repeat is likely to lead to sanctions being placed on your account. RolandR (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Per Misplaced Pages's policy you should not be reverting. Note this revert of that article will be my final one today. I encourage you to read Misplaced Pages's Policy on Neutral Point of View Melody Concerto 15:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Please do not add defamatory content to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Battle of Shuja'iyya, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Battle of Shuja'iyya, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 22:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note

That the Skunk articles deals with the I/P conflict and comes under sanctions according to the protocols outlined at the top of the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Zero 05:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You have just violated the 1RR rule at Al-Aqsa Mosque. Your edit was reverted by someone else already, but I advise you that such violations can lead to sanctions including blocks and bans. Zero 05:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

My edit was reverted due to NPOV and lies. One person claimed it was copy/paste while the other decided it wasn't relevant which it is. Ashtul (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

You aren't allowed to break 1RR whether you think it is justified or not. Incidentally, neither of the sources you gave say that the digging was done at the al-Aqsa mosque, so the relevance to the article is not established. Zero 05:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Skunk (weapon)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 December 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Skunk (weapon), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please respond

You are under a formal obligation to revert your edit after being notified that you violated 1R. Please do so, or explain your action, or you will be reported.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

A full explanation was given at Talk:Skunk_(weapon). Ashtul (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right. Thank. --Ashtul (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:1RR violation

Hello Ashtul. You seem to have broke WP:1RR at Skunk (weapon) (your reverts at 16:09 on 27 December and 09:03 on 28 December). You've responded already on my talk page, but, unless your reverts are covered by WP:3RRNO they are still counted toward the violation. I.e. unless your were reverting vandalism or biographical defamation your reverts are still reverts. Arguments that you are right and the other party is wrong are not usually considered. Please offer to self-revert to avoid a block. Thank you, (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston Thanks for taking the time. I believe this revert should be permitted under WP:3RRNO rule #7. If you don't agree I will revert and change it again after the 24 hours but I believe I have provided enough information to justify it. User:Nishidani have failed to provide a reason for reverting my previous change which was fully sourced. Regards Ashtul (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

If you believe you were reverting libel, who do you think was being libelled? EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not libel but rather poorly sourced (outdated) which I have explained and open a discussion about. Nishidani claimed something didn't happen, which might have been right at the time the source was written, but I brought a source that the info is not true anymore. If he wants to word it differently, he is welcome but reverting incorrect information claiming it is POV is stupid (forgive my French). He doesn't dispute the info anymore so I would say we both agree the source is poor. Ashtul (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion that it was poorly sourced does not create an exception to 1RR. Please go ahead with the self-revert. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is embarrassing. I cannot do it since there were two versions since. I can revert only last edit. Am I missing something? How do I do it?

Thank you, Ashtul. I will explain technically the error you are making just to make it clear how wikipedia works when sources appear to be contradictory.Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Ashtul. You do not appear to understand the point.

The two sources state that fromk 2008-2013/2014, skunk appears to have been used exclusively against Palestinians

B'tselem Sarit Michaeli, 'Crowd Control: Israel’s Use of Crowd Control Weapons in the West Bank,' B'tselem May 2013 p.36

B’Tselem’s observations show that security forces often spray the Skunk at protest marches and demonstrations as a preliminary method of dispersal, even when the demonstrations are quiet and no stones have been thrown. B’Tselem does not know of any cases in which security forces used the Skunk at a demonstration with only Jewish or Israeli participants. Many Palestinian demonstrators have expressed indignation at the humiliation caused by exposure to the Skunk.p.36

John Reed 'Israeli use of skunk water fuels anger in East Jerusalem,' Financial Times 21 November 2014

They say that skunk water, which smells unbearably bad when fresh but is physically harmless, allows them to disperse crowds effectively and identify suspects later. "The skunk water cannons are used as a non-lethal weapon when Palestinians are involved in rioting, throwing petrol bombs and stones against police officers", says Micky Rosenfeld, a police spokesman. However, Palestinians in eastern neighbourhoods say police spray the greyish liquid indiscriminately into shops, restaurants and hotels, in a stream powerful enough to break windows, and describe it as one of many heavy-handed tactics Israeli authorities do not deploy in the city's Jewish west, underscoring their inferior status.

You found a source which suggests (the video does not) that skunk was once used against a Haredi group in early October 2014.

Yitzak Weiss, 'Discharging skunk at Haredi protesters in Jerusalem,' News 0404 (Hebrew) 9 October 2014

Rather than, as I suggested, add this information (it may not be RS by the way, but I suggest it may be used) to the page, you removed what both B'tselem and Reed stated. Whatever the truth of this obscure report, it remains a fact that (a) B'tselem had never heard of skunk being used against Israelis from 2008-2013 (May) (b) that the police spokesman cited by Reed in November 2014 said that it is used when Palestinians are involved (d) Palestinians are not aware of it being used in the Western half of Jerusalem.

Therefore, both the Israeli report of one apparent instance of it being used in West Jerusalem, and the other reports, suitably modulated, must be used. You cannot personally judge by one obscure report of one instance that a remark certainly valid for 6 years, since you can find no instance contradicting it from August 2008 to October 2014, must be removed as untruthful now, and therefore struck from Misplaced Pages as a libel (WP:OR, WP:V) etc. So revert, and allow the full details to be reentered in a way that all the reported opinions and facts are properly representedNishidani (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, I reverted the info. In it's current wording it is 100% incorrect. It is not up to an 'opinion'. You write something didn't happen when it did. If you want to do some word juggling - go ahead. Otherwise, in 24 hours we are back to bracket 1 and then you won't have technicalities on your side. Happy new year. Ashtul (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote above (which I am transferring to the talk page, slowly and carefully. You can call in any number of editors with a reputation as experienced and unbiased wikipedians, to modulate all of those sources so that they do not conflict, or I will do it myself. It is quite simple. It is not a matter of truth, it is a matter of correctly reporting what relevant sources say. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Middle East Monitor (MEMO) (December 31)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Middle East Monitor (MEMO) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WP:HOUND

Please stop following me around. Your edit and the edit summary was egregiously stupid because the wording I provided was in the source I introduced, which you clearly did not check. Don't attribute to me 'bias' unless you can show I distort the sources I use.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That was a small revert for a NPOV and biased change you have made earlier. Nobody hounding you to annoy you but rather look that you don't insert your biased propaganda wherever you can.Ashtul (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ashtul. Welcome to Misplaced Pages and all that. It is good to see you editing so I wanted to throw out some advice:

• Nishidani is very biased and I'm sure he admits it. Don't call him a liar or a propagandist, though. I did that a few years ago as a brand new editor (call a spade a spade I thought, right?) and got a swift kick in the ass for it. He was topic banned or awhile and was brought back in some weird Mickey Mouse "settlement". Should have never happened but it did.
• Don't worry about the paragraph above or another drama since you should be worried about contributing to an encyclopedia. The project is here to do an awesome thing. Kids aren't reading Britannica and Google is pushing Misplaced Pages articles on a simple search. That being said, Misplaced Pages is losing relevance every second. The aforementioned search engine's algorithms and editors not giving a shit anymore due weird internal politics (drama) on pages that no one is going to look at anyways.
• Don't edit war. Chill out when needed. Have fun (party all day, party all night)Cptnono (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashtul, your irrelevant comments, your highly biased edits, and your obsessive HOUNDING of User: Nishidani are tiresome and annoying. I advise you to stop your disruptive behavior, or you could be topic-banned or blocked. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eli (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) 09:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)