→Arbitration notice: new section |
|||
Line 604: | Line 604: | ||
::I'm reverting to contain a POV warrior [[user:Jiujitsuguy]] is what I'm doing and you know it. Blanking is vandalism, I'm reverting blanking. Disappointed by your reaction, this article has gone into tailspin before and it would be better if editors on "both sides" took care of their own cavalier editors so that those with a pro-Wikipedia bias would not get sucked into "edit-warring". [[User:RomaC|RomaC]] ([[User talk:RomaC#top|talk]]) 03:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) |
::I'm reverting to contain a POV warrior [[user:Jiujitsuguy]] is what I'm doing and you know it. Blanking is vandalism, I'm reverting blanking. Disappointed by your reaction, this article has gone into tailspin before and it would be better if editors on "both sides" took care of their own cavalier editors so that those with a pro-Wikipedia bias would not get sucked into "edit-warring". [[User:RomaC|RomaC]] ([[User talk:RomaC#top|talk]]) 03:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::I disagree with his blanking but it was a content dispute worthy of discussing in more detail. He had some reasoning.[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:RomaC reported by User:Cptnono (Result: )]].[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 04:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC) |
:::I disagree with his blanking but it was a content dispute worthy of discussing in more detail. He had some reasoning.[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:RomaC reported by User:Cptnono (Result: )]].[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 04:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Arbitration notice == |
|||
*{{la|Gaza War}} |
|||
I am contacting you because you have made an excessive number of reverts at this article in recent days, including more than three in the last day. In such circumstances I would normally issue a short block for edit-warring. However, your recent edits suggest that a compromise is being reached. Consequently, I am simply advising you to make no further reversions and, additionally, I am adding below information on the arbitration judgment with respect to articles in this topic area. |
|||
[[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 04:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
===Re: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles]]=== |
|||
As a result of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles|an arbitration case]], the [[WP:AC|Arbitration Committee]] has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Area of conflict|Palestinian-Israeli conflict]], broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|editing restrictions]], described [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions|here]] and below. |
|||
*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 Wikipedia, 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 [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_notifications|here]]. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 04:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:28, 4 May 2010
Welcome to RomaC's Talk page!
If you post something here I will (eventually) respond on this page, so check back please. Just start at the bottom, write something interesting/informative/amusing and then sign your post by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ).
Arbcom candidate userbox
Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.
- {{User arbcom nom}}
If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Doylestown
Thanks for deleting the band-cruft. *Zero* Google hits tells the tale. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Request for a third opinion
- Gregbrown You are listed on the 'third opinions' page, and I chose your name at random. Thank you in advance for considering this. Last week, I placed, onto the Jack Benny biography page, an External Link entitled 'Jack Benny Audio history free MP3 book.' http://www.geocities.com/jackbennyhistory Minutes after I put the link up, an Administrator took the link down. I looked at my online traffic checker (Statcounter.com), and it is almost certain that this Administrator did not even click on the link -- seeing what was on the site -- before he took the link down. If this is the case, all of the later explanations given about why he took down the link are for naught (in my opinion), because all he knew about the link were the words on the External Link: 'Jack Benny Audio History free MP3 book'
My question is how much consideration an Administrator should give to an External Link before acting upon it. Relatedly, what is the procedure an Administrator should follow when acting upon an External Link.
There is discussion about this on my talk page, and I went to the Cabal prior to coming to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-13_Easy_question_for_mediators A person on the Cabal suggested bringing in a third opinion. Thank you.
Gregbrown 00:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hello Greg, I don't have a lot of time right now but my gut feeling is that the link was perceived as advertising/spam and deleted for that reason. If that is the case, my concern would be with determining whether that might have been a hasty and/or incorrect conclusion based on the name of the link alone. I assume you're arguing that the link is not advertising/spam. I'll look at the discussion pages later and comment there. RomaC 02:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Gregbrown Thank you very much. I truly hope that this can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
Thanks again I appreciate your help here. My note to you a few hours ago (it was in this spot) said that I was trying to find the third party comment. Now, I see that you put your comment into my Talk page(I thought that all comments went to the bottom of a page), so I thank you for giving a reply. I will make more progress, and I appreciate your help. Gregbrown 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
Hey there. Always nice to see someone using the policy trifecta.
I hope you have a nice holiday in Germany!
--Kim Bruning 13:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Admin coaching request
Hi,
I'm glad to see you are interested in developing your wiki-knowhow by seeing admin coaching. Without any prior judgement whether you are ready or not to seek others views on adminship, it is always good to see others aiming to improve themselves. If you are looking for occasional hints and tips on your editing, I would be glad to give you some to-the-point feedback and pointers, and a helping hand for a while.
(Of course what you do with them, and how others view your work, is down to you always!)
If you're interested, you'll want as a first step to set yourself up with an email account, and then let me know. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Striking your vote
Hello RomaC,
Thank you for your interest in the Wikimedia Board Election. The Election Committee regretfully informs you that your previous vote was received in error and will be struck according to the election rules, described below.
The Election Committee regretfully announces today that we will have to remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must have at least 400 edits by June 1 to be eligible to vote.
The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third party election partner) initially were wrong, and one of your account was eventually included to our initial list. There was a bug in the edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits. So large numbers of people were qualified according to the software who shouldn't be. The bug has been fixed and an amended list was sent to SPI already.
Our first (and wrong) list contains 80,458 accounts as qualified. The proper number of qualified voters in the SPI list is now 52,750. As of the morning of July 4 (UTC), there are 2,773 unique voters and 220 people, including you, have voted who are not qualified based upon this identified error.
In accordance with voting regulations the Election Committee will strike those approximately 220 votes due to lack of voting eligibility. The list of struck votes is available at https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/List_of_struck_votes.
We are aware of the possibility that some of the people affected may have other accounts with more than 400 edits, and hence may still be eligible to vote. We encourage you to consider voting again from another account, if you have one. If you have no other account eligible to vote, we hope you reach the criteria in the next Election, and expect to see your participation to the future Elections.
Your comments, questions or messages to the Committee would be appreciated, you can make them at m:Talk:Board elections/2007/en. Other language versions are available at m:Translation requests/Eleccom mail, 07-05.
Again, we would like to deeply apologize for any inconvenience.
Sincerely,
Kizu Naoko
Philippe
Jon Harald Søby
Newyorkbrad
Tim Starling
For Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee
Talk:Gordon Ramsay
sorry for the delay but I have finally replied to your last comment re the "vegetarian" pizza incident -- Barliner talk 18:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
article note
i replied to your concerns, at the article talk page. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal
A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The case is located at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 Israeli-Palestinian conflict, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- PS. I felt like it was time to open a mediation case, since in spite of all the contention, dissent and new proceedings curently going on, as well as edit-protections on several entries, there are actually very few active mediation efforts for any articles right now. so this is a step in hopefully a right direction. by the way, did you know that a single MedCab case can cover a few articles at once? so this seems like possibly an appropriate way to go. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Watch out for wiki-addiction
Ouch, 3rd opinion, and RC patrol? I hope you don't get *too* addicted. Have fun! :-)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks kim, I have actually been on Wiki for four years now, but recently found some time (chilly outside), so stepped in a bit more, and seem to have landed in the fire hehehe RomaC (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Philostophy lyrics
I'm copy-pasting this from the Greggery Peccary talkpage, just to make sure you get the heads up. The correct lyric is actually "of". It makes sense when considering the quote in the context of the song. DeNameland, being an experienced philostopher, would be loathe to give too straight an answer to either central dilemma (either the cause of the New Brown Clouds, or, on a meta level, whether Greggary is the bad guy for creating the calender or if the young hipsters are just freaking out over nothing). Saying that "time is an affliction" would be casting his vote squarely on the side of the hipsters. Rather, what DeNameland is saying is that there is an affliction attached to time - similar to saying a pregnant woman is "with child". And, specifically, that afflicition is, as he leans towards proclaiming, that the EONS ARE CLOSING. A much more notable site within the Zappa community - in fact, the site from which your link seems to have copy-pasted the lyrics - has it as "of", further reinforcing my above statement. --Badger Drink (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Allegations of apartheid deletion notification
Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
what seem to be the problem with my talk page?
I have blanked it - as I always does - inorder to archive things, and keep my talk page clean. Now it apears twice - on archive and talk page? is ther any kind of problem? --Shevashalosh (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Blanking your talk page hides warnings against your conduct. Users do not 'own' their talk pages. These are for community communication. If you read the warnings why are you persisting in moving an article without consensus? RomaC (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Even Shabazz says there is no problem with it according to policy ? but ok, i'll keep for now, not to caus dispute --Shevashalosh (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Editing the content of Deir Yassin (not title yet)
Would there be any problem if I ad at list additional lines to it (The jews wounded etc). I'm not talking on the title at the moment ?
--Shevashalosh (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion belongs on the article talk page. RomaC (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
List of ice hockey players of Asian descent
Thanks for your contribution to the page and also for pointing out that "half" is not a proper descriptor. However, I would like to ask for your opinion once again.
The point of the page was to highlight the ethnic background of the players, rather than their nationality. "Japanese" is both an nationality and ethnicity, where as "Canadian" is a generally considered as a nationality, but not as an ethnicity (as it is a mixed ethnic/racial culture).
In your opinion, do you believe that "Japanese, mixed ancestry" would be an acceptable term for an individual coming from biological parents of two (or more) different distict, ethnic backgrounds? "Japanese and European" is likely overkill, and hafu, I believe, is slang.
Thanks in adavance, TakTak (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi TakTak. This is an interesting and somewhat sensitive question. I started a talk page for the article and let's see what we can come up with RomaC (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that players born in Asia, from Asian/Soviet backgrounds should be included as Asian, not European. Examples are Alexander Mogilny (from Khabarovsk in the Russian far east), and Nik Antropov (or any player) from Kazakhstan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbrynen (talk • contribs) 05:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Third Opinion
Greetings, pursuant to a request on the Third Opinion Noticeboard: I added my opinion to the article's talk page. I hope that my comments help to resolve the dispute. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Robert Dziekański Taser incident
I've just taken a brief look at Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident. I'm concerned that the user you're dealing with isn't so much concerned with the logical points you've made on the page, but is more worried about getting a lot of people on his side and trying to gang up on you. It concerns me because everything you've said on that talkpage is absolutely right but user Ckatz would rather be disruptive and argumentative for whatever reason. I've added my own comments. Since he is so worried about third parties, maybe me stepping in and telling him he doesn't know what he's talking about will get through to him. Happy holidays! Coastme20 (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
January 2009
Excuse me, but I did NOT "blank the lead" as you have suggested in your warning on my TALK page. In fact, it is you who are reverting sourced material in the lead. As per TALK, there are issues in the lead being discussed. The version you keep reverting to is inaccurate. The conflict did not start on the 27th of December nor did it start without any reason. Nor is it one-sided. Please stop editing out important clarifications from the lead. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just because material is sourced does not mean it belongs in the lead. Check talk pages before replacing large section of an article. I used too strong a warning, sorry. RomaC (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of line
What you put here at Tundrabuggy's talk page was way out of line. That tempalte's is reserved for serious vandalism, not for contentious editing. If you had an issue, you should have raised it in the talk page. I reviewed the history, and his/her edits seem contentious and WP:3RR, and of course happened without discussion, but declaring them vandalism without previous, less escalating discussion was out of line. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Responding on your talk page. RomaC (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- What ownership issues? Please explain. If you think you over did it, then just apologize, nothing bad with that. Its just now his intervention on the talk page makes much more sense. I can't control how other people feel, I can, however, control how I feel. And I feel for the most part we have been civil. Lets keep it that way, shall we? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cerjota you are currently having arguments with several other editors, I propose a truce so you can focus there. Also things have not improved since you told me not to complain but to revert Tundra's disruptive editing, as you can see he's running roughshod over the lead. Cheers. RomaC (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- What ownership issues? Please explain. If you think you over did it, then just apologize, nothing bad with that. Its just now his intervention on the talk page makes much more sense. I can't control how other people feel, I can, however, control how I feel. And I feel for the most part we have been civil. Lets keep it that way, shall we? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Casualties in the Lead
I recently had an exchange with User:Cerejota on the issue of including a concise casualty count in the introduction. I think its very important, because this what is most important for many readers -- the impact of the war in terms of human lives. I was reverted with User:Cerejota saying that this was "per discussion". As far as I could see, in the earlier discussions a majority of editors seemed to support the inclusion of this fact. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this understanding. If not, please look at the main discussion page and also the discussion page on the Lead. Jacob2718 (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Gaza Massacre
Done, Romac. Check all those "high quality" references in the Lead ;). --Darwish07 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Some of the references I have put are different from your proposed ones cause they weren't exactly from the middle east region. I know that this means that we should say in the lead that not only Arabs refer to the offense as Gaza Massacre but a lot of other journalists and approximately the whole Muslim world (which is much bigger than Arab world), but I'm not welling to enter another deadly debate now. Anyway, the new references handle the case of "Gaza + Massacre" very well. It's been clear that because people didn't like the term, they tried to outsmart the references by by using illogical false arguments. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
totally disputed
User:Jaakobou has placed a totallydisputed tag on the page. Its quite inappropriate given that there are already tags that indicate that this is under development and documents a current war. I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia policy on this issue... but what can be done when a disruptive editor places a tag like this without even a justification on the talk page? Can the tag be removed or can any administrative action be taken against the editor involved? thanks, Jacob2718 (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I know that this is a very aggressive editor, there was an article years ago, "Media_coverage_of_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict" that was marred by wikilawyering nitpicking and just plain dogged determination. This editor was warned for his editing when at the highest level when a dispute on the entire series of Israeli-Palestinian articles went to arbitration. I suggest you explore all avenues, talk to some non-involved admins as well, I will try to back you up as I fear this editor will not back down and will try anything and everything to push his views on the article. RomaC (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
5+5
thanks for the message, but I would refuse to make such a compromise. I appreciate the warning, and I know this to be true. I have read almost every I/A article that wikipedia has, and almost every talk page and archived discussion, so i already know some of the players. But thanks again, peace Nableezy (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I left out one word that changed the meaning entirely hehehe. "oops" ~I would also not make that compromise... RomaC (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
re:Dead kids are not 'porno'
V.Joe, your comments "(images of dead Palestinian children) can certainly be a form of pornography and often are to people who are members of death-cults, neo-nazi organizations and others who we might find unpleasant. To me, Hamas is all three" are highly offensive and wholly inappropriate. Consider a substitution of the word "Jewish" for "Palestinian" and "Israel" for Hamas" and tell me what sort of reaction you would expect. You were politely asked to strike out the vile comments, your blithe refusal to do so is noted. RomaC (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Roma, You did not politely ask me (and WanderSage, and Tundra Buggy)to change or strike-out our comments. You demanded it. I don't do well with demands. And I dislike your implied threat.
Unfortunately, the nature of Hamas is a death-cult, and the use by largely (but not completely) Muslim youths unhappy with their lives in both Muslim countries and non-Muslim country to compare the poverty they might face in Egypt and the discrimination (quite real) in France or Sweden. This is a form of pornography as I understand it. (Namely, literature or images to encourage fantasies.) Hamas does not belong to the level of Fatah or even the Muslim Brotherhood (alternatively non-Islamic terrorist organizations, like the PIRA or the 1930s era Ku Klux Klan or the Red Brigades), but instead to the likes of Al-Qaeda or Aztec priests with sacrificial knives dripping blood. (Instead of feeding Quetzalcoatl with blood, these men wish to feed God with blood, the blood of the Israelis, but also the blood of themselves and their children. I cannot envision a God, compassionate and merciful, who wishes these things.) This is not the faith of the Muhammad (to me, a historical figure, not a religious one) who banned female infanticide any more than the Inquisition was the faith of the historical Yeshua. I have a limited sympathy for the Palestinian people but very little for Fatah and none at all for Hamas. These images were also taken of a human tragedy, of whatever cause, and posted in a very public place to garnish sympathy for a cause. I appeal to you, where are the pictures of the dead children from Checyna (Russian and Chechnik) or from Tamil. V. Joe (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- V.Joe, I am disappointed but unfortunately not surprised that you refuse to apologize for or strikeout your reprehensible comments associating dead Palestinian children with pornography and "death-cults." Your argument above provides me no evidence of coherent thinking, I'm sorry to have wasted your time. RomaC (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thanks
thanks a lot for your note. Your are probably right. I agree, with Cerejota's latest suggestion that nothing needs to be done ... this lead was developed after a lot of discussion and we shouldn't get pressured by a set of POV pushing editors. Jacob2718 (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Sources are needed to back up OR claims
I don't see any concensus in Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead#Original Research - The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in much of the Arab World. As I wrote there, it is not enough to have a RS that describes the event in question as the Gaza Massacre. You have to find a RS that says "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in much of the Arab World." I am not aware of such a source. Until you find a source, please leave the charged "massacre" claims out of the article. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can see you have an opinion, now please use Talk and get consensus before blanking the lead. Thank you. RomaC (talk)
- You don't need a consensus where OR is clear: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." This is a clear case where multiple sources call the military operation a "massacre" yet no single source says that this is the widely used term. I can't believe that you don't understand it. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your view is understood. Many other editors have discussed this, please consult the archives. RomaC (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I went through the archives, and in archive 17 I found, strangely, that no one noticed that the claim is OR and has no RS backup. I'm sure that a vote will support deleting of OR, but I don't have the energy to start a vote now, so I will leave the OR intact, hoping that someone more brave than me will do some justice to this blatantly unbalanced poor article. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your view is understood. Many other editors have discussed this, please consult the archives. RomaC (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- You don't need a consensus where OR is clear: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." This is a clear case where multiple sources call the military operation a "massacre" yet no single source says that this is the widely used term. I can't believe that you don't understand it. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Roma, I removed your comment from the article's talk page. Talk pages are not forums for editors to give their opinion; they are for discussing article improvement. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm glad to hear you don't think talk pages are for editors to give their opinion. I rephrased the comment. RomaC (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
RomaC's Ill-advised Message and harm to the Encyclopedia
- RomaC, "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." [[1]] In this case that would be you.
- RomaC, Exactly where in the vandalism policy is correcting WP:NPOV bias and unbalance and adding references to the POVs of prominent academics, heads of state (including the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel) as well as other noteworthy sources defined as Vandalism? That you characterize contributions of editors that don't confirm to your preferred narrative as Vandalism immediately tells us about your dispute resolution style.
- RomaC, That you instruct an editor to make their contributions of WP:RS sources to the sandbox does not demonstrate WP:Civility.
- RomaC, That you characterize the attempt to bring the article into conformance with WP policies and guidelines as arbitrary merely adds insult to injury.
- RomaC, That you request the editor discuss the edits first on the talk page only suggests that you have not been reading the talk page or have no regard for the truth.
- RomaC, I as well as others have engaged in extensive discussions on this subject as well as the references to be provided related to it.
- RomaC, You should know that WP:Good Faith does not imply the acceptance of bad behavior on your part nor does it immunize you from a questioning of your motives in the face of "particularly strong evidence."
- Doright (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- The article in question is about a controversial current event, there is a box at the top requesting editors use Talk to get consensus for edits. You ignore talk, make a ridiculous reworking of the article's first sentence based on a WP:Fringe theory and then get aggressive when you are reverted? Please... RomaC (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Do not harass other editors with no basis
You have posted a baseless warning/threat on my user page. Do not post any more things on my page. Otherwise, I will complain to the administrators, or even Jim Wales if I have to. John Hyams (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I realize this is a controversial article and that you have a strong emotional opinions on the content, but your talk page comment, "You are clearly a Hamas operative on Wikipedia, and this has to be dealt with." constitutes a personal attack and implied threat on editor Nableezy, and that is unacceptable. The early reaction on the article's talk page is that you should be banned from this article. Take that to Jimbo. RomaC (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- As I already said on the talk page, "has to be dealt with" is by the Wikipedia administrators or arbitrators. All the rest, regarding his endorsement of Hamas, stands. Stop harassing me. John Hyams (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Needless to say, poor you RomaC... Forget about speaking to him directly. He posted a report on the Admin noticeboard [2], so perhaps it is best that you post your comments there and an admin will deal with it. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hola Fala, no problem I have thick skin hehe. I see he was banned. RomaC (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Please explain removal
This area, specifically heart of Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers.[1]
There is discussion about this in Talk page - Background section - please join. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Agada. My reversion was because the information does not reflect the source. A person firing a rocket does not make the place they are standing at the time into a "military installation." Otherwise I think the RS information that rockets have been fired from inside Gaza is well represented. RomaC (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that a soldier firing a rocket from a crowded neighborhood, hospital or mosque doesn't turn them automatically into "military installations". Quite differently, what that soldier does make himself (and, purposefully or not, also the area surrounding him) is a "military objective". From the point of view of the laws of war, the question is whether soldiers firing rockets in the middle of civilians what really want is to spark off the (intentional) collateral effect of civilians being shelled, just for the sake of war propaganda. Is there the least possibility that things really happen this way in Gaza? --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
No edit war please
RomaC - I discussed this change for 2 days now. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#.22Israeli_army_said_they_shot_the_farmer.22_-_removal_request.
I think it was established that Israeli army said they shot the farmer never happened, this is not a fact. Calling Hamas reports of civilian casualties Ceasefire violations during the morning when Israeli officials announced a unilateral ceasefire but Hamas "vowed to fight on" and militants fired rockets is twisting a truth. Blackeagle said elsewhere There's a clear expectation of a quid pro quo "we'll stop shooting at you if you stop shooting at us" on both sides. Be fair. I hope you see my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs) 11:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikifan12345
I noticed that you had earlier warned Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) not to continue making personal attacks - Elonka and I have also warned him, though he has deleted all three warnings. I have raised the issue of his conduct at WP:AE#User:Wikifan12345 and User:Brewcrewer. If you have any views on the issue, please feel free to comment there. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
i understand
but i think this still accomplishes what is intended. We say it has a high density and in the sections where we have quotes we say why that matters. I think that is pretty fair. But I understand why you object. Nableezy (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
These articles urgently need work to move towards neutrality.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Talk page comments
(your post on my page)
"I am concerned about this edit. Can you please show me the Wiki policy that permits you to remove others' comments? RomaC (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)"
- The user in question is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Part of his MO is to use a string of alternate accounts to target users he is upset with (i.e. anyone who has disagreed with him) and follow them around the project, reverting edits, adding targeted comments, and so on. Comments can range from mild, seemingly innocuous messages (such as what you saw) to aggressive, full-blown attacks on- and off-wiki. Banned users have surrendered their right to contribute to the project, and as such their edits can be reverted when found.I hope this answers your question. --Ckatzchatspy 05:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Roma, I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. The user in question is banned from Wikipedia. Not just blocked for a period, but banned for abusive practices, harassment of editors, edit warring, article ownership, the list goes on. He is not allowed to edit, his editing privileges have been revoked, and he is unwelcome on the site now or in the future. Read up on banned users and how we deal with them, please. When someone's editing privileges are removed, they forfeit the right to sneak back in under alternate accounts and target editors. Their contributions are reverted on sight. It is that simple. If you are irked about my commenting out the first sentence of your subsequent comment, I apologize. The text in question read:
Looking at the sentence, it was immediately apparent that it made your post look strange given that the text you responded to was no longer present. If you like, I can restore your text, and leave it up to you to remove it if you so choose. --Ckatzchatspy 05:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)"I was about to thank you for your encouragement CoastMe, but it seems you have no talkpage and now, no account!"
- Roma, I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. The user in question is banned from Wikipedia. Not just blocked for a period, but banned for abusive practices, harassment of editors, edit warring, article ownership, the list goes on. He is not allowed to edit, his editing privileges have been revoked, and he is unwelcome on the site now or in the future. Read up on banned users and how we deal with them, please. When someone's editing privileges are removed, they forfeit the right to sneak back in under alternate accounts and target editors. Their contributions are reverted on sight. It is that simple. If you are irked about my commenting out the first sentence of your subsequent comment, I apologize. The text in question read:
Quilem Registre AfD
Hi. Regarding your participation at WP:Articles for deletion/Quilem Registre Taser incident, did you learn of the AfD from the notification at Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident? There's a discussion at WT:Canvassing#AfD notifications at related articles using the notifications I posted as an example. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Please explain your revert
Hey there. It's nice to see you again on the discussion page. I hope you could explain your position on OR argument on talk page on the long discussion, maybe here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi AU. I made Talk comments which I think explain my position. There were some ten sources for the term in question, these were removed to streamline the article. Were you not here when the previous discussion was held and the consensus was reached? RomaC (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- You could call me Agada or AgadaUrbanit, since we know for ages now :). "Many sources" is not a strong argument in my eyes. Sounds like a terrific recipe for WP:SYNTH: take zillion of sources, stir fry all together and make a conclusion none of the sources make. In my eyes not tasty. Some editors think OR should be removed. Consensus usually required for inclusion and see a surprise in talk page discussion: some editors supporting inclusion admit that the consensous for inclusion is not "very wide". And btw 10x for removing מלחמה בדרום (War in the South). Agree it is an ugly synth, and nobody even bothered to google for the term to make zillion of sources. Stay cool RomaC :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks God we got Google! Much more than 10 sources with this query. You could try it just for fun :). Would it be NPOV to restore מלחמה בדרום now? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Do you support using "War in (the) South" in translation? I see it as a media term and therefore not as important as the term that the Gaza government used. Was "War in South" or "Operation Cast Lead" more popular in Hebrew-language media, do you think? RomaC (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not an expert, but thanks to Google (again), "Operation Cast Lead" (מבצע עופרת יצוקה) generates less (about half) hits than "War in (the) South". Surprise, surprise. Still first hit for "operation" is Hebrew language WP article describing this conflict. So I personally say be really NPOV and cut both South and Massacre out of lead, to improve encyclopedic value of this article. Do you see any logic in this? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Agada can we just keep this on the article's Talk page rather than pasting here? thx RomaC (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Agada can we just keep this on the article's Talk page rather than pasting here? thx RomaC (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not an expert, but thanks to Google (again), "Operation Cast Lead" (מבצע עופרת יצוקה) generates less (about half) hits than "War in (the) South". Surprise, surprise. Still first hit for "operation" is Hebrew language WP article describing this conflict. So I personally say be really NPOV and cut both South and Massacre out of lead, to improve encyclopedic value of this article. Do you see any logic in this? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Do you support using "War in (the) South" in translation? I see it as a media term and therefore not as important as the term that the Gaza government used. Was "War in South" or "Operation Cast Lead" more popular in Hebrew-language media, do you think? RomaC (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks God we got Google! Much more than 10 sources with this query. You could try it just for fun :). Would it be NPOV to restore מלחמה בדרום now? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- You could call me Agada or AgadaUrbanit, since we know for ages now :). "Many sources" is not a strong argument in my eyes. Sounds like a terrific recipe for WP:SYNTH: take zillion of sources, stir fry all together and make a conclusion none of the sources make. In my eyes not tasty. Some editors think OR should be removed. Consensus usually required for inclusion and see a surprise in talk page discussion: some editors supporting inclusion admit that the consensous for inclusion is not "very wide". And btw 10x for removing מלחמה בדרום (War in the South). Agree it is an ugly synth, and nobody even bothered to google for the term to make zillion of sources. Stay cool RomaC :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Photo on Robert Dziekański Taser incident
Answer is here — when I deleted the image on 29 May, it hadn't been in use since the 21st, and nonfree images need be unused for only 7 days to be deleted. If you can get consensus on the talk page to restore it (it was a version of this image), tell me and I'll be willing to restore it. I know nothing about the subject of this article, so I'm not going to restore it and add it back to the infobox in place of the current one myself. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you please explain why my contribution to Israeli West Bank barrier was not constructive, and why you reverted it. --Boatduty177177 (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Kindly conduct these sort of discussions on the article's talk page. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded a photo of her and her family when she was about 7, and two or three others (one was the last photo showing her suffering the effects of cancer) and all were deleted, even though they had the right tags, and were mentioned in the article. I found it strange at the time, as many other photos on Beatle-related pages were left alone. I took it as a personal thing against her.--andreasegde (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Andreasegde. I read through the deletion discussions and it seems the family picture and the cancer picture were both seen as outside the main focus of the article which is her music and her celebrity. Can we just have a neutral picture of her from 1960s-80s or a performance picture or even her with a camera. RomaC (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Allegory
I'm not sure how to interpret your comment on "Middle earth" change suggestion. Did you have time to read sources brought? 10x AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
politburo sources
Politburo during Gaza War
- January 6, 2009: Khalid Mish'al is the head of the Hamas political bureau: Israel will no doubt wreak untold destruction, death and suffering in Gaza. But it will meet the same fate in Gaza as it did in Lebanon. We will not be broken by siege and bombardment, and will never surrender to occupation.
- January 13, 2009: ... at the organisation's headquarters in Damascus, 100km from the territory, Musa Abu Marzouq, the deputy head of Hamas' political bureau, told Al Jazeera why he believes his organisation is on the verge of victory against Israel ...2009 (UTC)
- January 18 2009: Exiled Deputy chief of Hamas' politburo Mussa Abu Marzouk announced ... a one-week ceasefire in the Gaza Strip...
Palestinian sources describe elections mechanism of the "Political Bureau" and its role:
AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for the welcoming
and for the double welcome! I'l do my best to edit in a NPOV manner. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Personal attack?
I didn't attack anyone. I told somebody to take an English course and some spelling lessons. You consider that a personal attack? And I never called anyone a "butcher." I said the article was being "butchered."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Responding on your talk page. RomaC (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why is it permissible to say in the preview section that Israel attacked civilian infrastructure but the subject of Hamas attacking civilian targets is taboo? Moreover, at least I sourced my edits. Everything I edited was backed by credible news sources but there is no source backing claims that Israel attacked civilian infrastructure. That's not to say it didn't happen. I acknowledge that it did but all I wanted to do was to place it in proper perspective. Instead of blanket reversions, I suggest you work with me and you'll find that I'm quite reasonable.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Look, cut me some slack here. I'm willing to self revert and modify the edits if you just work with me. I think I'm right, you think you're right and there's got to be a middle line where we can both agree.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding your claim of not being "constructive;" Unlike you, I generally don't revert. I just add sourced and relevant content. On occasion, I'll tweak something here and there. I find it interesting that you were quick to criticize me when you perceived an insult to Mr. Anon Unsigned but it's okay to accuse me of
being a Zionist agentworking for the Israeli government and its okay to indict and disparage an entire community based on alleged geographical location and ethnicity. These are some of the constructive messages your buddies left on the discussion page. Yet you remain silent. I thought better of you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding your claim of not being "constructive;" Unlike you, I generally don't revert. I just add sourced and relevant content. On occasion, I'll tweak something here and there. I find it interesting that you were quick to criticize me when you perceived an insult to Mr. Anon Unsigned but it's okay to accuse me of
- Look, cut me some slack here. I'm willing to self revert and modify the edits if you just work with me. I think I'm right, you think you're right and there's got to be a middle line where we can both agree.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why is it permissible to say in the preview section that Israel attacked civilian infrastructure but the subject of Hamas attacking civilian targets is taboo? Moreover, at least I sourced my edits. Everything I edited was backed by credible news sources but there is no source backing claims that Israel attacked civilian infrastructure. That's not to say it didn't happen. I acknowledge that it did but all I wanted to do was to place it in proper perspective. Instead of blanket reversions, I suggest you work with me and you'll find that I'm quite reasonable.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Romac. I have always operated under the impression that if someone's editing is detrimental to the article the best place to bring it up was on that article's talk page and have done so. The recent arbitration enforcement request against me led to a 6 month restriction (I'll try to make it indefinite) on how to conduct myself. I asked the closing admin for some clarification and it essentially boils down to no personal attacks and keeping the talk page as a place to discuss content. Your recent edit there could be easily viewed as something that would have been better on a user talk page or noticeboard. It was worded in a way that spits in the face of assuming good faith and was less than civil. Just to keep a precedent and making sure all is square, I'll be reporting comments like this if I see them.Cptnono (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Cpt, first I've heard of such a restriction, thanks for the heads up and agree we should all remember to focus on the content not the editor. Plenty of issues should be dealt with on those Israel-Palestine pages, but focus and civility are undoubtedly a good place to start. I will say I find you reasonable and relatively balanced in approach, sure the restriction will not be a problem for you. Maybe a good point is that it sends a message to others. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Gaza lead and other issues
Hi there Roma. Assuming we can come to agreement on the lead (which seems to have generated other controversies beyond our dispute), is there a way we can come to consensus on the other issues? I'm willing to work with you and we can resolve this in a matter of minutes.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Contentious Edits
First off, did you notice that I corrected a spelling mistake [3] in the lead? You were so quick to revert me that you didn't even take notice of it. By the way, it still reads "expiri." If that's an actual word, then I'm sorry for correcting it to "expiration."
Second, if you want to leave it as a battle between Israel and the Gaza Strip, do so. I really don't care. My reason for the change is as follows. Israel and Hamas are entities whereas the Gaza Strip is a geographical location. Entities interact with each other. They make war, peace, engage in commerce, etc. Therefore, I thought it made more sense to state that the war was between Israel and Hamas as opposed to a war between Israel and The Gaza Strip.
As an illustration, Israel fought a war with Syria in 1967 in the Golan Heights vicinity. The war was between Israel and Syria, not Israel and the Golan. Similarly, she battled Egypt in Sinai and the Gaza Strip. The battle was between Israel and Egypt, not Israel and Sinai/Gaza Strip.
But if you want to leave it as is, I have no objection. I just think it's a poor phrasing. Similarly, if you want to leave the spelling mistake as is, by all means do so.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I read Cordesman's 96 page report. Perhaps the word "exhaustive" should have been omitted. No objection to your revert on that ground. I do object to your revert and rephrasing of his quotes. The quotes that I cited were accurate and reflective of the article's tone but I would have no objection to adding and incorporating your quotes to the ones I cited.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
"Expiry?" dem words are just to fancy fer common folk like me.
The war wasn't between Kadima and Hamas. There was a coalition of parties that included Kadima at the helm. Moreover, the war had the support of Likud and the opposition and there was broad consensus for the war within Israel. Therefore, it was Israel that went to war. Israel did not wage war against the Gaza Strip. It waged war against the entity that controlled the Gaza Strip, Hamas. But like I said, I don't care. If you'd like to keep the incorrect and poor phrasing, fine by me.
Concerning Goldstone and Cordesman; Obviously, Goldstone's report carries greater political ramifications but in terms of reliability and credibility, Cordesman wins the day. Goldstone's report, sanctioned by the likes of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Cuba (all human rights champions), was motivated by a political agenda and had nothing to do with human rights. His team was composed of people who had already expressed the view that Israel committed war crimes before seeing any evidence (Christine Chinkin). He deemed credible witnesses who had on previous occasions declared that Israel imported sex gum into Gaza to corrupt the morals of the youth. He relied on (actually cut and pasted) reports compiled by Marc Garlasco who just happens to have had a Nazi fetish.
By contrast, Cordesman had no agenda and wasn't on the UNHRC payroll. He presented an analytical, in-depth, unbiased report and laid out the facts, bare and dry. So in terms of credibility, Cordesman's report is head and shoulders over Goldstone's.
Just as an aside, Goldstone's report will die in the Security Council. The most that Israel's enemies can hope for is a General Assembly resolution that Israel committed war crimes and that will just be symbolic like the 1975 "Zionism is Racism" resolution.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to ask you for the 3rd opinion for this edit which I reverted as non-notable, but it has been added again (by different IP address) with no comment. Although it is listed in this article as a notable, I doubt whether it should be in the 59 (number) article. Best wishes. --Tomaxer (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Strange
I find it strange that utilizing the caps lock feature merits a response from you but engaging in racial profiling does not. respectfully, cordially, courteously, sincerely--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Alleged POV edits
Those aren't my words. They are those of a Commentary magazine columnist. In any event, do you have another way to describe wide-spread desertion and a lopsided kill ratio in Israel's favor? If yes, I'm open to suggestions.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- There's been lots of fighting lately. I'll take the first step. If you want me to self revert the offending sentence, I'll do it. Respectfully--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- u stalking me now?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have to, your edits find me! Cheers, RomaC (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Battle of Karameh: Let's see 156 dead Fatah members and another 141 captured. Eighty-four Jordanian soldiers KIA against 27 Israeli. Oh and I almost forgot, the entire Fatah base was obliterated! Yup sounds like the Israelis lost that one, NOT! Can I ask you in all seriousness, how do you define victory? Seems like we had the same discussion regarding the Gaza ops where the IDF scored a 100 to 1 kill ratio over the enemy and you were arguing that it was plausible that Hamas actually won! So please, pray tell, how would victory be defined in the make-believe, dream world of RomaC? Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- A stalker, relentless POV pushing reverter and now a tag-teamer. Wow! Terrific! looks like you've learnt well from your mentor, MUA.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Battle of Karameh: Let's see 156 dead Fatah members and another 141 captured. Eighty-four Jordanian soldiers KIA against 27 Israeli. Oh and I almost forgot, the entire Fatah base was obliterated! Yup sounds like the Israelis lost that one, NOT! Can I ask you in all seriousness, how do you define victory? Seems like we had the same discussion regarding the Gaza ops where the IDF scored a 100 to 1 kill ratio over the enemy and you were arguing that it was plausible that Hamas actually won! So please, pray tell, how would victory be defined in the make-believe, dream world of RomaC? Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have to, your edits find me! Cheers, RomaC (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- u stalking me now?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
@Jaakobou: p.s. love the "questionable" title. - JaakobouChalk Talk 15:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I-P sanctions
Hey RomaC! Could you give me all the links you can surrounding the I-P sanctions? Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is there any action we can take against JG for the edits he makes on the article in disregard of the fact that there is an ongoing dispute in the article? --Sherif9282 (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Get a load of this. Tag-teaming! --Sherif9282 (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Jerusalem edit discussed on talk:israel
Hi, Do you know what kind of distribution of opinion is needed for consensus? It looks like the balance would be something like 6-3 or 7-3 in favour of making the edit, is that enough? The opposing editors appear to not be engaged in an actual discussion, and just aim to block consensus. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello RomaC! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 905 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
- Bojoura - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
nb 1
I know, I know. I agree. I just went through the article on Music of Israel and changed all the footnotes that were not references to nb format (before this discussion, I didn't know that this was something you could do).
But what to do? Why bang your head against the wall, especially when there is virtually no chance that any casual reader of Israel will understand the colossal importance of, or even notice, the difference between [1] and [nb 1].
Now the lead is a different matter. That is something we can improve. That is something we can revise to more closely reflect the slurpy, slimy truth of Middle East politics.
That is why I focused on the lead, and suggested we ignore the infobox. You do what you can. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Re "tag-teaming"
Yes I totally agree. Unfortunately though I've been busy lately, which is why JG has gone on an editing rampage. I like and really respect your reasoning, so it'd be great if you could stick around with this article. This biased POV pushing is intolerable. Respectfully, Sherif9282 (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Joltinjoe56 comments
I do not share any IP with the user nor do I know who this user is. It does appear that this user is new and he/she left a comment in the "archive" section on the Yom Kippur War discussion page. Judging by the comment that he/she left, it looked as though it should have left in the "infobox" section where the comment had more relevance. I therefore pasted it there but the comment still remains in the "archive" section as the last comment on the discussion page. I clicked on this user's talk page out of curiosity and it looked as though it was a recently opened account. In any event, I pasted a beginners tutorial on his/her talk page.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't change or remove anything.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I just looked at the history for the talk page to get a clearer picture of what you were talking about. I do not know who this IP address belongs to nor am I familiar with the edits made by this IP.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a misunderstanding. JG moved the editor's comments elsewhere, and the bot attributed this new edit to JG, assuming he written the comment. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to weigh in there with a third opinion; this sort of work must be time-consuming, difficult and infrequently appreciated! Things seem to be progressing more collaboratively now, and I'm appreciative that your feedback did not further aggravate the rocky start there. (I've been called much worse than "baby" in the past :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Israel (and the status of Jerusalem as capital) has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission. -- tariqabjotu 15:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Israeli West Bank barrier (2)
Hello RomaC. I protected the article because the dispute involved several editors. Having taken that action, I shouldn't have blocked Mbz1 as well. I have unblocked Mbz1. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's widely acknowledged that the version of any article that's been protected is The Wrong Version.
- I'm concerned that lifting the page protection will lead to more edit-warring, so I'm reluctant to do so. Of course, as you wrote, you can bring the question to WP:RFUP.
- If your specific complaint is that the cartoon should be removed, I recommend that you use the {{editprotected}} template on the article's Talk page to make that request. That will give all interested editors the opportunity to comment. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You placed a comment on this proposal in the "Neutral" secion, but you labelled it as "Oppose". Did you intend to have this in the oppose section or are you neutral?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Request for mediation not accepted
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Diffs?
Hi RomaC,
I'm still waiting for diffs regarding your accusations against me; see here.
okedem (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Jiujistuguy
Hi RomaC. Thanks for your message.
As you know, the issues related to Israel and Palestine raise very strong emotions, both online and off-line. Part of the problem here at Wikipedia is that many editors appear to have lined up on one side of the dispute or the other, and they seem unwilling to consider other editors' viewpoints or suggestions. At times, they may seem to be engaging in advocacy on behalf of their position.
If you feel that Jiujistuguy has stepped outside the bounds of normal editing, inasmuch as there is any "norm" in the articles related to Israel/Palestine, I think the appropriate place to bring a complaint is WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. That gives Jiujistuguy an opportunity to respond to your complaint, and it gives other editors a chance to comment if they'd like.
Before you file a complaint about Jiujistuguy, though, consider your own behavior. In the past, both editors' actions have come under scrutiny at WP:AE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if my message seemed to bring into question your edit history. I'm not familiar with your past contributions, and I didn't mean to suggest anything about them.
- My point was simply to warn you that when an editor brings a complaint to WP:AE, other editors pick apart the complainant's edit history in a game of "Gotcha!" That's something to consider before filing an enforcement request. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Why do you conspire here? There is clearly an attempt to force political opinions into en-wp. All you need to do is check the talk page and the nature of contributions of the G-3: Harlan, Tiamut and Nableezy. Why do you cooperate with this trend? Would you like Wikipedia to turn into a political forum? This is what currently happen. DrorK (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The 3R rule does not apply when there is a clear attempt to "hijack" an article. Any Wikipedian is entitled to defend an article from an orchestrated attempt to make an article "a private mention", especially when there are significant suspicions that the motivations are purely political, and do not result from a genuine controversy about the content. I pointed out to many errors and biases on the articles, and proved them in details. The discussion went on for a long time, and these group of three did everything possible to avoid reaching consensus or acknowledge their errors. This group has also violated a consensus decision to have only one article entitled Proposals for a Palestinian state, and re-initiated the article making it a political pamphlet. Nableezy was only recently blocked for messing up issues related to Middle Eastern issues. I really don't see why these three receive so much sympathy with regard to this case. We are not talking formalities here, this is a serious thing that goes to the very credibility of WP. DrorK (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Back in action
Hey RomaC!
Love to see you join in at the Yom Kippur War. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hey there!
- Don't take this the wrong way, but this was unnecessary. I for one believe the article has deteriorated the past couple of months or more. However, comments like these, acting like "others" do (you know who I'm referring to), doesn't achieve anything. At the least, it doesn't improve the article, nor furthers your POV. Let's work to improve this article, and while we're at it, keep to better standards. Respectfully, --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Israeli military participating in Gaza war
Hi, I noticed your frustration with the clearly absurd notion that IDF had only 20K troops in the war. I don't have the time right now to research it, but I recommend you see if you can find some citation of not just the invasion force (which there is a citation for) but a mention of what proportion of the IDF was called-up/supporting the war. My guess is there was a major call-up of reserves or other concentration of forces (maybe you could at least get the Navy and Airforce involved), although this was planned as a surprise attack so you may not find much until after the war was underway. Let me know if you don't find a RS and I can help look. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm fine with your change to total troop strength for both sides; I'm glad you have refs for that. I looked for a while but couldn't find active participants, though I did find this about calling up an additional "tens of thousands" of reservists: Haaretz. You also expressed interest in comparative weaponry and I came across this columbia international affairs online. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Other response
I am assuming we can find estimates on defensive forces. I haven't looked hard but agree it would be problematic if there isn't something available. There actually was an attempted border incursion according to SeanHolyland's recent PDF. I doubt the numbers were big and I'm sure if they even got across so that really was just added in to my discussion over there for clarification. Units involved is the parameter. For Israel that appears to me as guys going in. Those mobilized to defend the borders should realistically be included if we have a source.
For the IDF, "#-#" or even adding "(est)" works fine. Presenting the info as if over 100k troops went in is just to much of a concern. Hardware is still a good idea.Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
- Proposal to Close This RfC
- Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Re: Steady as she goes
Not to sure about the Nahum Shahaf issue. If it deserves discussions, perhaps highlight it on the talk page?
Re SlimVirgin - I don't doubt that she put allot of effort into Al-Durrah. I don't dispute that the article is mostly good. What frustrates me is that a number of editors have objected to just two minor sentences in the lede, and she outright refuses to any changes and simply edit wars other peoples' contributions. I think this is very unfortunate.
Please do comment here, even if only briefly.
Thanks for your message. It's interesting to hear your perspective. NickCT (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
reply from DiverDave
Sorry for the delay in my reply. I have just returned from an overseas mission, where I had only intermittent access to the internet. Thanks again for your intervention. DiverDave (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
reply
@Jaakobou: JaakobouChalk Talk 09:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
You will cease
And you will do so now, or run the risk of taking a richly deserved block. I'm free to rease any messages I like on my talk page; you are not free to harass me with your plaintive POV concerns. Thank you for your cooperation, and do feel more than free to delete this. IronDuke 15:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have nothing to hide, I don't delete anything from my talk page, ever. Of course you can continue to delete things from your talk page if you choose, that's a difference between us. Do not threaten me, please. Hope you are here for the project, respectfully, but please don't issue ultimatums on my talk page, you can hide whatever comments you like from your Talk page but I do not do so on mine, so either be a mensch and engage in open communication, which is welcome, or else back off. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- No, the difference between us is that you edit-warred to insert your POV plea onto my talk page, after I asked you multiple times not to. That's not something I would do here on your talk page. And I wasn't threatening you, sorry if I gave that impression. I was telling you a thing that would happen if you persisted. Wisely, you have desisted. I think being here for the project is a good thing: you might consider that more fully before you start goading and annoying working editors. Thanks. IronDuke 16:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, just saw you left yet another combative message on my talk. If you want to get blocked, there are many ways to go about it. Can you think of one that doesn't involve me? Your interest is flattering, but ultimately annoying. Stop. Last warning. IronDuke 16:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ok Ironduke, I respond to you here because you immediately delete my comments on your talk page. Anyway you are welcome here, I have nothing to hide, and I will never delete what you or anyone writes :-) Hope you can comply with Wikipedia policy in your edits on Nahum Shahaf instead of trying to include totally unsourced content, then there will be no problems between us. Cheers 16:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the welcome, and I'll leave your sharply inaccurate comments about the article in question to the relevant talk page. Once more, with feeling, and for the record: Never ever leave anything on my talk page, for any reason. I trust that is crystal clear to you now. IronDuke 16:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ok Ironduke, I respond to you here because you immediately delete my comments on your talk page. Anyway you are welcome here, I have nothing to hide, and I will never delete what you or anyone writes :-) Hope you can comply with Wikipedia policy in your edits on Nahum Shahaf instead of trying to include totally unsourced content, then there will be no problems between us. Cheers 16:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I hope all of this is settled now, but be aware that it is very rude to revert the removal of one's comments from another's talk page. Please respect others' rights to put limits on their willingness to engage with you. I trust there will be no further problems which require administrator intervention. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean, admin, and I continue to welcome everyone's comments here, no problem. But Ironduke, if you want to challenge me, again, be a mensch and take it to admin for real, but don't hide my comments from from your page then come round here spitting threats -- it's inglorious mate, dunno if you'll see this as I'm now disinclined to post on your talk, anyway, again, hope you can edit policy-compliant regarding the I-P sanctions, that would help, cheers! RomaC (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Mensch? I don't think that word means what you think it means, mate. I won't be "hiding" your comments from my talk again, because you won't be making any comments there, will you? I have your talk on my watchlist now, and can respond here to personal issues (which I'm guessing, lessons learned, you won't feel the need to introduce again). Anything related to Shahaf can go on that talk page. If you can edit without baiting people you disagree with, that would help! Cheers. IronDuke 17:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hehe, no, IronD, I'll make comments on your Talk page no more, as you delete them and then run and complain to admins! So what's the point? But you're always welcome here, no problem, here for the project. And, I know well what "mensch" means, dunno why you'd think I didn't. Let's see, you know what "schmuck" means, no? Let's vocabulary! Cheers, RomaC (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- And now childish taunting? Your getting lightly slapped down over your harrassment of me seems to have further enraged you, despite your ostensibly contrite remarks on Wehwalt's page. Perhaps you should disengage from the whole subject for a bit. IronDuke 18:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, here it seemed you wanted to compare our Yiddish. So whatzit boss, you can question my vocabulary, but I can't yours? And you can write on my Talk, but I can't on yours? You know, this sucks. Tell you what, can you do me a favour? Return to Nahum Shahaf already, and make your case for including your totally unsourced content over content sourced to numerous reliable sources. See you there, ok? If you don't want to move, let's do a RfC and see what uninvolved editors think, ok? No need to fight, can we deal with Wiki, please? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't question your "vocabulary," I questioned your use of the word "mensch." Still seems odd to me, and odder still that you'd issue a childish taunt in reply. And yes, I can write on your talk but you can't write on mine. Why is that? Because you repeatedly edit-warred in your comment, after I repeatedly told you not to. You'd only have to tell me one time not to post here, and I'd stop posting here. And BTW, I've been an editor a long time, working in highly controversial areas, battling trolls, thugs, POV warriors and worse, and in all that time, to the best of my recollection, I never had to ban anyone from my talk page. Think about it. See you back at NS. IronDuke 18:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah you said I didn't know what a word meant, that's questioning word usage, ie, vocabulary -- anyway this little spat means more to you than me, happy to drop it go away a winner. Now, as you can see I don't "ban" any unpleasant or dissenting opinions from my Talk and I've been on Wiki just about as long as you have so I decline the dick-swinging contest ok? YES, see you on NS but it's not a busy article and editing may not work with you and me, you reverted just about every edit I made. So I would say we will probably have to get uninvolved editors to have a look wouldn't you agree? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- I know how long you've been here. Genitalia was not on my mind when I made my comment. I referenced my own tenure to reinforce the point that I've seen `em come and go on my talk page, and I never had to do to anyone else what I did to you. Then I invited you to think about that for a sec. I hope you did. I also don't feel that questioning whether someone is using a word correctly ought to invite a childish personal attack, but we may disagree on this point. Finally, I have already said I am happy to open an RfC, though I find they often generate little interest. I would remind you again, please formulate the question as neutrally and blandly as you can. IronDuke 19:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah you said I didn't know what a word meant, that's questioning word usage, ie, vocabulary -- anyway this little spat means more to you than me, happy to drop it go away a winner. Now, as you can see I don't "ban" any unpleasant or dissenting opinions from my Talk and I've been on Wiki just about as long as you have so I decline the dick-swinging contest ok? YES, see you on NS but it's not a busy article and editing may not work with you and me, you reverted just about every edit I made. So I would say we will probably have to get uninvolved editors to have a look wouldn't you agree? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Just so you're aware RomaC, Wehwlat is considered an involved admin for the purposes of I-P enforcement. In his admin nomination, he pledged not to take admin action in the I-P arena due to concerns raised by editors (me among them) regarding his impartiality. You should check out his edit, for example, to Rachel Corrie where he an ID made quite a mockery of any form of NPOV treatment of her death. Anyway, if he does issue you a warning again, kindly remind him of his admin nom pledge. He should be giving warnings to you or anyone else in that domain. Tiamuttalk 20:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- I do seem to recall you and possibly other inveterate POV warrior extorting some kind of a pledge from Wehwalt, presumably because you feared he would interfere with that very POV-pushing. Two things spring to mind. 1) Informing Roma that s/he is obliged to abide by Wiki norms (having nothing per se to do with IP) would be not merely his right, but his duty. Second, he doesn't have to abide by any pledge made in an RfA. None of that is binding. It may be that it should be (though this example surely argues against it) but there it is. (And PS: things seemed to have died down on this thread. It was very good of you to come along and stoke the flames again.) IronDuke 21:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- You're funny cat Iron Duke. I'm not stoking anything. The embers were still burning as you were the last one to comment here less than two hours before I made my comment above. That RomaC exercised restraint by allowing you to have the last word is a credit to her, to be sure.
- I commmented here to let RomaC know that Wehwalt made the pledge not to be involved in I-P article enforcement in his RfA. I didn't extort it from him. He might have chosen not to make it and take his chances and see how he fared. As it is, he volunteered to make that pledge. I view it as binding. If I ever see him take admin action in the I-P arena, I will consider a breach of that pledge, and will suggest that his admin tools be withdrawn from him for falsely advertising himself in the nom.
- Have a nice evening. Tiamuttalk 22:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm more funny than you can possibly imagine. Funnier even than Nableezy, and that's saying something. I cannot speak for Wehwalt, but it appears to me that he may have felt that there would be a crapflood of pro P POV warriors coming to oppose him if he didn't pledge not to take admin action in that area (which AFAIK he hasn't, and which actions on this talk page wouldn't be). You can view anything you like as binding, doesn't make it so. This has come up in the past, where admins have made promises in RfA, then not kept them. The WP answer has always been, "Oh, well." Have a nice evening yourself. IronDuke 22:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Discuss instead of edit warring, dude.
Dude, I was surprised by your actions, feel free to contribute to this discussion. Warm regards, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to reiterate the above sentiment in regards to a living person's biography. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Agada responded on the article Talk and your Talk, Jaak dunno what you refer to sorry. RomaC (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Rockets
Do you mean the rocket template or the line graph? Forgot all about those. Feel free to remove both if there is no consensus by now. I don't feel strongly about both either way.Cptnono (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Argh. And here is the lazy part. I removed an image to make room for the template and can't find it now. Let me know if you are familiar with the name of the rockets launching from over the city image.Nevermind, page loaded and there it is.Cptnono (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)- LOL. The lazy part was in regards to fiddiling with those other two images. I didn't want to adjust them again if consensus was going to swing towards keep. It looks like people weren't interested in it so screw it. As I said, I don't feel strongly about it but wanted to make sure I wasn't rash in its original removal. And I believe it is all squared away now.Cptnono (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I know it must be shitty having the finger pointed you is. Especially on the talk page like that. I am not saying it is your fault but something similar did happen. You made a quick series of edits that cascaded into edit wars over a few different aspects. I honestly don't recall what they were. You only did some minor reverting but your edits were the catalyst. I actually started a talk page seciton on it title "Romac's recent edits" or something but deleted it within minutes because Sean or someone else had already started a discussion on it. I'll try to find it just so you can see my example. Again, it was not your fault but these are potentially similar circumstances.Cptnono (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- Rash edits with little consensus sought after and subsequent edit waring Oct 7-8 2009 led to the lock that lasted until Oct 15. That led to a second lock quickly enough. There was a negative shift after you made those edits. Not saying you are to blame for other people edit warring. Cptnono (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Nahum Shahaf
An article that you have been involved in editing, Nahum Shahaf, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahum Shahaf. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ← George talk 09:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
...for your help at Jerusalem. Could you also have a look at Old City (Jerusalem)? A situation there involving a similarly irate editor has me wondering how to proceed. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
BLP vios
Roma, per your request I have asked for a pair of admin eyes here. I am not going to edit WP any more tonight, so you have an opportunity to restore your BLP-violating comments, but I would urge you not to. IronDuke 03:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- (responding here as Ironduke has "banned" me from his Talk page) None of the other editors on Talk:Nahum_Shahaf seemed to share your opinion that my comments were "BLP-violating", so I went to AN/I, an uninvolved administrator there also saw no problems with my comments and warned you for disruptive editing, i.e. your repeated removal of my comments, and will block you if you continue. I could ask you to apologize for the disruptive behavior and to strike your accusations that I violated BLP, but I sense that you would do neither. I realize that you have something against me personally, so I simply advise you to henceforth abide policy and I think then we won't have any more problems, I will strive to do the same. Regards, RomaC (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
BLP noticeboard re Nahum Shahaf
Please note that I have raised the issue of Jaakobou's problematic editing of Nahum Shahaf at the BLP noticeboard, at WP:BLP/N#POV and sourcing problems with Nahum Shahaf, as a possible preliminary to an arbitration enforcement request under the article probation regime currently in force on Israel-Palestine articles. If you have any views on the matter, please feel free to contribute to the BLP/N discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Edit summary?
Did you actually look at my edit or did you just assume?Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- I thought that was purely aesthetic and kept the number of active troops and the range in. Even if you had a problem with it, why did you revert the whole edit? It doesn't matter too much since you are edit warring and are being reported for it. If ou would have just simmered down like I had recommended I am sure something could have been worked out.Cptnono (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm reverting to contain a POV warrior user:Jiujitsuguy is what I'm doing and you know it. Blanking is vandalism, I'm reverting blanking. Disappointed by your reaction, this article has gone into tailspin before and it would be better if editors on "both sides" took care of their own cavalier editors so that those with a pro-Wikipedia bias would not get sucked into "edit-warring". RomaC (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with his blanking but it was a content dispute worthy of discussing in more detail. He had some reasoning.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:RomaC reported by User:Cptnono (Result: ).Cptnono (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm reverting to contain a POV warrior user:Jiujitsuguy is what I'm doing and you know it. Blanking is vandalism, I'm reverting blanking. Disappointed by your reaction, this article has gone into tailspin before and it would be better if editors on "both sides" took care of their own cavalier editors so that those with a pro-Wikipedia bias would not get sucked into "edit-warring". RomaC (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration notice
I am contacting you because you have made an excessive number of reverts at this article in recent days, including more than three in the last day. In such circumstances I would normally issue a short block for edit-warring. However, your recent edits suggest that a compromise is being reached. Consequently, I am simply advising you to make no further reversions and, additionally, I am adding below information on the arbitration judgment with respect to articles in this topic area.
CIreland (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
- 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 Wikipedia, 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. CIreland (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)