Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sakiv (talk | contribs) at 18:04, 3 March 2016 (Reverted 1 edit by 104.162.193.17 (talk) to last revision by DumbBOT. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Syrian Civil War and ISIL general sanctions

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

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.  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

As the rule says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period". I reverted only once today and my last edit before that was yesterday at 01:19 GMT on 18 May.

Decline reason:

The policy also says Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring. Arguing that you should be unblocked because you thought you'd found a way to circumvent the rules really isn't going to get you anywhere. Yunshui _水 11:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dreyfus ethnicity

First, you made claims that these people follow Judaism (the religion) without supplying sources for those claims. Second, I am not going to get into a semantic debate with you concerning whether Jew can refer to an ethnicity or not. Take it up with the larger Misplaced Pages community and you might as well start at WP:JUDAISM or with the community of editors who have this in the article Jew: "The Jews, also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious and ethno-cultural group". If you have some kind of Misplaced Pages policy or guideline you can quote in support of your position then please do so. SQGibbon (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Each article supplies a source for the claim that each subject "was born into a Jewish family". As for how all of this is handled in infoboxes in Misplaced Pages with regard to Jews and Judaism and ethnicity I don't know. You're probably better of discussing it at WT:JUDAISM. SQGibbon (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Your recent editing history at Louis Louis-Dreyfus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SQGibbon (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about Category, "Yemeni emigrants to Israel"

Dear friend, User:Opdire657, I noticed that you removed the category, "Yemeni emigrants to Israel" from the WP article Avraham Al-Naddaf, although if you look carefully in the list of that category, we also find Yisrael Yeshayahu who was a contemporary with Rabbi Avraham Al-Naddaf, although Rabbi Al-Naddaf immigrated to Israel from Yemen some 30 years before Yisrael Yeshayahu. Is there any specific reason why you removed the category?Davidbena (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Al-Naddaf immigrated to Ottoman Palestine in 1891 so the removal of the category was right. I did not notice that Yisrael Yeshayahu also immigrated before the establishment of Israel.--Opdire657 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I guess you can say that "semantics" threw me off, since here in Israel, we are accustomed to call the country by the name "Land of Israel." Throughout all times and ages, even when it was called "Palestine" by others, the name "Israel" was still being applied to the country, without actually meaning the "modern political State of Israel." You see, in all of our ancient books, some dating back 1,900 years ago, the country was still called by Jews "the Land of Israel."Davidbena (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what Jews called the country throughout history we cannot ignore that it was Palestine for milleniums. Mandatory Palestine was a recognized political entity from 1918 to 1948. So, I propose creating two categories about Jews who immigrated to Ottoman Palestine and Mandatory Palestine.--Opdire657 (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Just remember that "Palestine" is a name not given to the country by the Arabs, but rather by the Romans. Jews and Christians and Druze also lived in Palestine. However, there has NEVER been an independent Palestinian State. The Arabs living here, as well as all other peoples, were subject to foreign powers. The British, as we all know, were once the custodians of the land, just as the Ottoman Turks were the custodians of the land before them, and the Mamlukes of Egypt the custodians of the land before the Turks, etc., etc. All residents or inhabitants of Palestine (the Land of Israel) were at that time subject to foreign powers. By 1948, the British in Palestine simply relegated authority, giving partial jurisdiction to the king of Jordan, and partial jurisdiction to the Jewish people, under Prime-Minister David Ben-Gurion. Some Arabs at this time found themselves living under Jewish rule in those areas given over to Jewish jurisdiction. Shabbat Shalom.Davidbena (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Duma village arson attack

Please refrain from adding unsubstantiated assertions of guilt to the page, as you have repeatedly done at Duma village arson attack. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs), the perpetrators were definitely Israelis, even national leaders condemned the attack describing it as settler terrorism.--Opdire657 (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you, me and a lot of national leaders suspect that they are, but we can't put it on the page until they officially name suspects. As with a crime of any sout, we can only go as far as the reliable sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly advise you to remove your last edit now. The source says "suspected"; it is not at all permitted to put speculation in an article about a serious, recent crime still under investigaion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm Winkelvi. Misplaced Pages is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Jimmy Carter seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jimmy Carter. 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 that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

331dot (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Your recent editing history at Silwan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The warning applies equally to several other articles that you've been fighting with 69.22.242.52 over. Stop now. Acroterion (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I have stopped, but I am not fighting with anyone here. He/Her is clearly not adhering to neutral point of view.--Opdire657 (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV is not an exception to the edit-warring policy. I will block you both if this continues. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

This will not continue by me.--Opdire657 (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

YOUNIS MAHMOUD

Hi , younis mahmoud was played two matches with ERBIL SC in AFC CUP 2015 and he registered two goals , I added two sources , can you explain why remove this information , I wait ur answer Kurdistantolive (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC) Kurdistantolive (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Kurdistantolive: As written in the infobox "senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only". Younis chose not to play in the Iraqi league because he did not want to face his former team Al-Talaba.--Opdire657 (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Do u have source just for Iraqi league here in wekipedia ? Kurdistantolive (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not need to provide a source.--Opdire657 (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

We must help togather :) Kurdistantolive (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Question

I noticed that you reverted the Copa America 2019 edit, which talked about a 2018 AFC Nations Cup. Do you think this is a real tournament? The same guy created this page but I can't find any references whatsoever. Contest for deletion? Let me know what you think. Ayoopdog (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I certainly don't believe this is a real tournament, so it deserve speedy deletion.--Opdire657 (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Could you nominate it for me? I'm unsure with deletion as I don't usually go about doing this. It's just that I think we shouldn't accept articles based on fantasy... Ayoopdog (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone had already deleted it.--Opdire657 (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Ahmad Shukeiri shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN 13:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop asking for protection in order to win your edit wars and what was this warning about? --NeilN 13:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

NeilN Ok, great I will stop asking for protection but would you take an action on this IP after he/she continues reverting edits on both articles and removes warning messages.--Opdire657 (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP was warned about edit warring. They are allowed to remove warnings per WP:BLANKING. And you didn't answer my question about the warning you gave. --NeilN 13:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the IP reverted my edits after you gave it the edit war warning. I gave it the warning for adding unsourced and controversial content like Lebanese people of Turkish descent even though Ahmad Shukeiri was not a Lebanese and Arab emigrants to Palestine.--Opdire657 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP was blocked a few minutes ago (this is not an invitation to revert their edits). You gave a final warning for adding defamatory content. Posting clearly invalid warnings could get you sanctioned as well. --NeilN 14:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing?

How was I pushing a point of view? Palestine does not currently exist as a state - it is referred to as the Palestinian Authority. And how does listing an attack put a point of view?--134.219.227.29 (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That is because you have repeatedly changed my edits without any explanation. Everything controversial should be taken to talk. For instance Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by over 135 states worldwide.---Opdire657 (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that Palestine isn't recongized as a state. But it technically does not exist. Referring to it in an article of conflict as though it's already a state is more controversial than simply saying "Palestinians" (which you put) or "Palestinian Authority".--134.219.227.29 (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It is illogical to put Palestinian Authority as representing Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, DFLP, PFLP. The article should be balanced and reflect the view of both sides. The status of Palestine was upgraded to non-member state observer in the United Nations.--Opdire657 (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Your reverts on Spillover of the Syrian Civil War

You repeatedly removed the infobox on Spillover of the Syrian Civil War without giving a sufficient justification. With your last revert, you also violated the One-Revert-Rule per 24 hours on all articles related to the Syrian Civil War, which you already came across a few months ago. I'm not taking any action now, but please refrain from controversial removals and reverts, unless you're looking forward to getting blocked next time. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Opdire657 reported by User:Boyconga278 (Result: ). Thank you. Boyconga278 (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not an admin, but I meant what I said about two-way POV pushing. The more tightly you source your edits, the harder it will be for someone to re-file that complaint against you, in thirty days or later. Good luck. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)