User talk:Dixy flyer/Archive 2012

Welcome
Hello, Dixy flyer, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom  14:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

prior accounts and 1RR
Have you ever used a prior account on Wikipedia? Also, you have violated the 1RR at Qibya. Self-revert or I will report the violation.  nableezy  - 00:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, and what is 1RR?Dixy flyer (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the top of Talk:Qibya,  ---Huldra (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thx for putting that up. I think i understand the restriction, but I don't think I've violated it. I only reverted you once yesterday. I also explained why - can you address that, in the new section I started? Dixy flyer (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you made the same edit twice, at 19:56, 20 October 2012: and at 20:24, 20 October 2012: . When you have self-reverted (ie followed the rules), we can start discussing the edit. Huldra (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I made the same edit twice - which means there is one revert back to my version. Is that not how reverts are counted? Dixy flyer (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, that is not the way it is counted: read 1RR -rules. If you do not self-revert at once, I will report you.Enough time spent on this already. Huldra (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I did read the 1RR rules after you posted them, and thanked you for that. But I don;t see where they say that making the same edit twice is two reverts. Maybe I missed where it says that. Just point me to it and I'll change it - there's really no need for your hostile tone. Dixy flyer (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Three-revert_rule. This will be my last posting here; the best way to make you understand the rules is apparently to report you. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't say that two edits that are the same count as two reverts. It says "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material" - so it looks like I made an edit, then you reversed it (that is one revert for you) and I reversed your action - that is one revert for me. I really don't get it. What am i missing? Dixy flyer (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Your first edit was revering another editor. (=1RR). Your second revert was reverting me. (=2RR). Look, since I am apparently just unable to explain this to you, I will now report you -in the hope that other editors can explain it better. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Dixy flyer, 1RR parallels WP:3RR - it just means more than 1 instead of more than 3. The safest way to think of it is any change you make to the article within a 24-hour period counts as a revert. If you make several changes in a row without an intervening edit by another editor, that counts as only one revert. The policy is a bit more complicated than that, but if you think of it the way I'm explaining it, without getting into certain nuances, you shouldn't be blocked for a technical breach. Taking into account your newness and your willingness to discuss the issue, I am going to decline the report at WP:ANEW. However, any future breach, even if based on ignorance, will not be excused. If you still have trouble understanding the policy, you're welcome to come to my talk page to discuss it further.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2012 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Huldra (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Palestine-Israel article sanctions
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 uninvolved administrator and logged here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military Armament Corporation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page .45 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Capital cities
Your edit was rather out of the blue and your comment on the Talk vacuous and not addressing my points. As soon as some other related issues are cleared up, I'll get back to the text at issue. Do you have any "friends" here on Wikipedia?Ubikwit (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit


 * I addressed your points - the operative phrase was "Jerusalem was and still is a religious center." Dixy flyer (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't follow through to the dispute going on at the Jerusalem article I mentioned, which relates to the status of Jerusalem as a capital. The city has a long and complicated history, but it seems that its status as capital can only be clearly stated in terms of its relation to religion with respect to the ancient capital.
 * I'm perfectly willing to wait for the outcome of the dispute at the Jerusalem article to take this up again.--Ubikwit (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit