Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, rʨanaɢ /contribs22:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Long time no see
Sorry that I missed your message. I've been having problems with my chat program, so I'm online less frequently, but I still should be available most evenings. --Danger (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think that it's not obvious that the edits in question fall under the topic ban. I don't think "broadly construed" means all general international relations articles. There are certainly points to criticize about that table but its inclusion of the Israel/Palestine conflict doesn't necessarily place it in the forbidden zone.
Wikifan, I would encourage you to find non-international relations topics to edit though, regardless of the ban. Danger (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Got it. I was just whizzing through my all edits and happened to see the table was removed. I didn't really see a solid rationale but I understand now. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Just cruising around wiki but wondering how international relations is equal to Israel-Palestinian conflict? Perhaps there is a legitimate place wikifan1234 could go and inquire as to the limits of his ban? Stellarkid (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I gave that advice in my capacity as a mentor. It has little to do with the ban and more with the types of articles that are most conducive to developing interpersonal skills. --Danger (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. It is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). I noticed that while many editors who commented on prior AfDs in the past were contacted, you somehow were not, so am leaving a friendly note here. Thank you, --Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
You have a friend! Lucky... He followed you to Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, a virtually untrafficked page. Doesn't he have anything better to do. IMO, his sole purpose on WP is to insert 'bad publicity' to Israel related articles and anything productive is lost in 1/60. Sad... --Shuki (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
eh, I personally don't mind. He didn't revert any of my edits. I "followed" FOTG to RFK but not out of spite. So it would be hypocritical of me to complain. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope you will address the matter of the JVL sources you have left around, I notified you of my concerns prior to you using them, as we now have confirmation that it is a poor source please do be considerate of the state you have left the articles in. Unomi (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The first respondent is a RS/N regular, there is nothing controversial about her findings. This makes at least 4 users who consider it an inferior source for wikipedia. I know that you are aware of the general sanctions in the I/P domain. I would kindly suggest that you abide by them. Please revert. Unomi (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Revert what? JVL is a reliable source. It is used frequently in I/P. The only question is if this particular page is reliable. Can you find me a substitute that lists the # of attempted or plotted suicide bombings? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to buttinsky. Just cruising around and saw this debate. I looked at the first graph and there is a source given. I downloaded the PDF and see it came from "The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center (IICC)" Why couldn't you use that source appropriately? As ItsmeJudith, one of the regulars at RS noticeboard, suggested? That should be satisfactory and there would be no argument with respect to JVL. In fact, the JVL is much like Wiki. Wiki is not a RS but hopefully the refs are. Stellarkid (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: the addition to the Equipment of the Iranian Army page - I'm not disputing that Uzis are used by the Iranian military, but the link you use as a source, only notes that someone was arrested for attempting to export Uzis to Iran - this can't be used as a source to say that the Iranian Army uses them. Furthermore, the image you use to assert that the Iranian Army uses Uzis states that the soldier is a member of the Iranian Navy. A source verifying use by the Army is necessary. - Jonathon A H (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your edit at Spike Jonze again. Rather than get into an edit war, could we agree to include what the source actually says, being (a) that he has a "Jewish background", and that (b) "he has admitted to being the great-great grandson of Joseph Spiegel, who founded the Spiegel catalogue at the turn of the 20th century and was the son of a German rabbi"? Probably also that should be worked into the existing section on his ancestry rather than having a stand-alone paragraph. For the record, I don't feel the article needs this kind of detailed geneaology at all - it's not usual to include ancestors in a BLP unless it's directly notably relevant to the person's life - but if you really feel it's relevant let's at least stick to what's directly supported by the sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I was simply restoring cited material that you removed without reason. I explained my case in talk, which you subtly ignored, and waited a few days for others to respond. As a former admin, you should know a content dispute does not warrant arbitration. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
When it comes to BLP, there are much stricter standards, which you have repeatedly ignored. This is a formal notification that I have filed an arbitration request concerning your editing: please see WP:AE#Wikifan12345. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I remember blocking you before. I'm surprised you haven't been banned yet, but judging by your conduct on this article it's only a matter of time. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Not particularly. I wasn't edit-warring or anything, just a content dispute that escalated into something unnecessary but fortunately it has been resolved for now. With the article locked it will make it easier to build a consensus on whether removing entire pages of cited material is consistent with wikipedia code of conduct. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Request for MEDCAB Mediation
The request for mediation concerning Israel and the apartheid analogy, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). If you have any questions, please contact me.
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.
I strongly advise that you tone down your incivil and hostile attitude on Talk:Richard Goldstone. I warned you earlier that I was willing to restart my arbitration enforcement request against you. Do not force my hand. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
