User talk:Drsmoo/Archive1

Comments
− 		 − 	Hi, don't forget to put your signature on talk pages with four tildes ~, like that --AW 04:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC) − 		 −

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
− 		 − 	Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC) − 		 −

Spidey 3
− 		 − 	Please see the proposal that's been made at the end of the talk page. In addition, I'd like to invite you to start Spider-Man 3 (novelization). You can write about the book's plot following the guidelines presented by WikiProject Books. We'll link to the article, although we'll probably attach a disclaimer that says the novelization's plot may not ultimately match the film's plot. Let us know your thoughts. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) − 		 −

Adu page
− 		 − 	I'm willing to look completely beyond the blatant falsehoods you've asserted in your past few edit summaries (i.e. saying that it was me who put in that he is regarded as one of the most exciting young players in the world) and work towards a consensus on the issues at hand. I have begun a talk page discussion to get additional input from other editors. Like I said in my post there, I don't expect you to be able to maintain a civil or constructive discussion on the issue, but as a courtesy...I wanted to mention that such a discussion has been started. Batman2005 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC) − 		 − 	− 	I'm sure you have the page on your watchlist, but if not, I thought I would bring your attention to Talk:Freddy Adu, where I have offered my opinion on things. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 07:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC) − 		 − 	The two Italian youth teams are listed in the SI article (ref. 1). AlbertHall 01:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC) −
 * Smoo, I have weighed in on the issue on the Freddy Adu page. 208.40.242.41 01:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With regards to editing other people's talk page comments, I thought I'd bring your attention to this section of the talk page guidelines. Like it says, the vast majority of editors do not like their comments being edited apart from the reasons shown there. With regards to removing comments from your own talk page, it seems that it is no longer against guidelines (the reason me and Batman2005 reverted your edits earlier on this talk page is because it is a fairly recent change - up until recently it WAS against the rules to just delete comments). However, it is still very much preferred that you archive your talk page rather than just delete comments (it is also considered poor etiquette to delete/archive a section that is still active) If you want the archiving to be done automatically, just read the very simple instructions here.

−
 * Also, try not to engage in arguments with people. Batman2005 may be a little incivil at times, but he does great work on articles most of the rest of the time.

−
 * Thanks, and if you have any questions at all, feel free to contact me at my talk page. --Dreaded Walrus t c 08:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Cooperative Editing on Gilad Atzmon
+ 	Please discuss your edits at the talk page -under the same section heading as above. I will be noting the problems with them before reverting them again, as part of restructuring into separate Politics and Allegations of antisemitism sections. Failure to discuss while hurling insults at other editors and subjects of articles against WP:BLP is against a number of wikipedia policies. Carol Moore 16:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cooperative editing on Gilad Atzmon
+ 	Please note involved editors are discussing reverting all edits made that are not discussed and backed up as accurately sourced. So there will be several of us reverting your questionable edits which delete sourced material and defend only with POV personal opinions. This is against WP:BLP and a number of wikipedia policies. Carol Moore 15:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Sid-bernstein.jpg
− 	Thanks for uploading File:Sid-bernstein.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator. − 		 − 	To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions. − 		 − 	For more information on using images, see the following pages: − 	− 	− 		 − 	Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC) − 		 −
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Possibly unfree File:Sid-bernstein.jpg
− 	An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Sid-bernstein.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC) --ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC) −

Image copyright problem with File:Sid-bernstein.jpg
− 	Thanks for uploading File:Sid-bernstein.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well. − 		 − 	For more information on using images, see the following pages: − 	− 	− 		 − 	This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC) − 		 −
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Sid Bernstein
− 		 − 	I'm really not all that familiar with Wikipedia's policies on images. You might want to copy this: with a question about images on your talk page. All I know is that randomly picking an image from the web is not acceptable. Cheers, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC) −

Image copyright problem with File:Hanna Szenesh.jpg
− 	Thanks for uploading File:Hanna Szenesh.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well. − 		 − 	For more information on using images, see the following pages: − 	− 	− 		 − 	This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC) − 		 −
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Possibly unfree File:Sid-bernstein.jpg
− 	An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Sid-bernstein.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC) --ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC) − 		 −

Commercial use of File:Sid bernstein.jpg
− 	Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on File:Sid bernstein.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because File:Sid bernstein.jpg has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information. − 		 − 	If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain. − 		 − 	If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license. − 		 − 	If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate File:Sid bernstein.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Media copyright questions. Thanks. CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC) − 		 −

Please engage in cooperative editing
− 	Your repeated allegations that the subject and possibly other editors are antisemites, when you bother to engage in talk at all violate WP:Civility. Your replacing WP:RS material with unsourced material in the lead violated WP:RS. And I'm counting everybody's 3rrs. Thanks. Cooperative editing appreciated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC) − 		 −

User notice: temporary 3RR block
− 		 − 	−

Regarding reversions made on March 24 2009 to Gilad Atzmon
− 	 You have been blocked from editing for  in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI
+ 	See Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom restrictions
+ 	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. + 	 	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	  	+ 	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. + 	 	+ 	PhilKnight (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.

Editing advice
+ 	This recent talk page comment is problematic. In my honest opinion, you are being unnecessarily confrontational. Have a look at ARBPIA, you should be engaging in a calm, reasonable and courteous discussion in an effort to resolve the disagreement in a dignified fashion, with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Also, note that revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. If these problems persist then an topic ban could be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

your recent edit
− 		 − 	please revert this edit to israel shamir. i appreciate the fact that you are taking my suggestions to heart on the atzmon article, but you must know that edit is not only a blp issue, but also is in violation of the arbpia that you were recently notified of. i am not one who is quick to run off to noticeboards and file reports because it usually only increases the drama and entrenchment. but i'd appreciate if you'd self-revert - that type of statement has no place in the article as fact, and shouldn't be in the lead even attributed. thanks. untwirl (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC) −
 * thanks for removing that from the lead. could you please clarify where the moderators said it was okay? i must have missed that. your link was just to the history and i couldnt tell from the talk page, either. thanks. untwirl (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
− 	Hi Drsmoo, I'd like to clarify article talk pages should be used to discuss improvements to the article, not to expound your own views, and certainly not to express derogatory views concerning living persons, whether they are the subject of the article, or other editors. PhilKnight (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

not to belabor the point but . ..
what jzg said was, "The Board f Deputies are not rabid Zionists," which i think you are interpreting as "all zionists are rabid." to me it seemed that he was saying that they aren't extremist zionists, but moderates. can you see that interpretation? untwirl (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's clear what JZG was saying, he also talked about "some sections of the more militant Zionist community have a serious problem with any Jew who dares to speak out against the actions of the state of Israel" blah blah blah, his viewpoints are clear. Drsmoo (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i can see your interpretation, and maybe you have a pre-existing opinion of that editor that makes you sure of his intent, but if he were to say, "not rabid muslims/islamists" or "some sections of the more militant muslim/islamist community . . ." would you assume he was calling all muslims/islamists militant and rabid?  there are sections of all religious communities that are fundamentalist or radical.    untwirl (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, if he were to talk about "rabid muslims" I would think he was anti Muslim, the same when people use words like "Islamofascist" there is certainly bigotry in those words. Drsmoo (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Harrasment?
FYI: My experience with Wikiquette alerts, having both made complaints there, and been complained about there: its a waste of time. There is not much harm in trying, but take a look at the current discussions to see what you will be getting into. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Tarc (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Shamir
Hey, I saw you mentioning moderators' approval in your edit summary. It's truly sad to see the pro-antisemite spirit soar even here on Wikipedia. Please point at the aforementioned approval, I'd like to see the discussion. Drone2Gather (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I also salute you for "telling it like it is" on the Gilad Atzmon talk page. Someone really needs to state the obvious around here! Pity that's the Wikipedia reality. Drone2Gather (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Rachel-corrie-flag-02.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rachel-corrie-flag-02.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Muchness (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. tedder (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there! In a relevant topic; in recent 3RR report you were involved in, I noticed that there's a bit of a feud between yourself and User:Carolmooredc. Is there anything I can do to help you guys settle your differences? Master of Puppets  05:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've replied on my talk page. Cheers, Master of Puppets  03:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Try not to edit the Atzmon page (as you did here) without passing it by Carol. I know that sounds restrictive, but at this point Carol's asking for you to stop. If you could respect that wish, that would be great. Cheers, m.o.p  17:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please self-revert that edit. Thanks. m.o.p  18:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Lots of people have been editing the article, do you see anything POV about the edit? Drsmoo (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but Carol wasn't comfortable about having it there without her approval. I'm not saying she gets to decide everything that goes in, but it would get problematic if both of you were editing the article while having issues with each others' edits. m.o.p  02:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon
I wasn't concerned with what you wrote about Carol. I was referring to your description of Atzmon's opinions as "Mein Kampf inspired statements on Judaism". I've deleted it. Feel free to restore a sanitized version of it if you'd like. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to argue with you about it. Comparing people—especially living people—to Nazis on Wikipedia talk pages is unacceptable behavior. Read WP:BLP if you don't understand why. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed my comments, and I also edited yours. I don't know what part of WP:BLP led you to believe you could call Atzmon a "vicious anti-semite", but I removed it. If you try another stunt like that, I will block you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't try my patience. You're about one more wisecrack from getting blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As opposed to the fact that Atzmon is a saxophone player, descriptions and categorizations of his statements are necessarily interpretations (yours, mine, or those of the writer of a newspaper column). Try to stick to facts. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

antisemitism
Just wondering about the antisemitic business on the Atzmon article. I don't think I can edit it due to my topic ban, or even talk about it on talk pages of the article, although the conversation about antisemitism is another issue. Can't one say that many Jews consider him antisemitic as in this article from the Institute for Global Jewish Affairs (which appears to be an offshoot of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)? Add to this any other Jewish orgs that make the claim. If there are non-Jewish notables that make the claim that would strike me as sufficient, true or not. If people say he is antisemitic that should be sufficient, no? This would avoid the blanket issue of what constitutes antisemitism. Consider the article on Al Sharpton. His views have generated claims of racism that are clearly delineated in the article. We do not use the WP voice to make such a claim but if we have the RS that make the claim then it is a controversy that should be added I would think. Pardon my rambling. Stellarkid (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Hello Drsmoo. Per WP:ANI you and Carol might be able to arrange a voluntary topic ban from the Gilad Atzmon article for two months. Consider replying at the ANI if you have an opinion on this. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments about AN/I
Hello Drsmoo. I wanted to clear up a misunderstanding that seems to have arisen at AN/I. I never suggested that you should be permanently banned from editing all articles on Wikipedia.

One other thing: Like you, I have a POV about Atzmon -- but I've never expressed my POV and you don't know what it is. Please AGF and don't blame my actions on my (unknown) POV. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The AN/I discussion was archived because of inactivity. I've been very busy, and I'm about to go away, so I'm not going to follow up on it any time soon. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Question on Atzmon / Duke
Drsmoo -- just to clarify, is it your position that (1) there was no need to create a new subsection for the Duke information, which belongs in the "statements on Jews and Judaism" section, or (2) that the Duke information doesn't belong on the page? Cheers! RT-LAMP (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether or not it belongs in the article, but I don't think it needs its own section for sure. Drsmoo (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Could you take a look at my comment on Carol's talk page and answer on my talk page? I intended to pose the same question to both of you, but I'm editing from a cell phone at the moment. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wounded Israeli Soldier - Gaza flotilla raid.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Wounded Israeli Soldier - Gaza flotilla raid.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI Gilad Atzmon BLP
Your additions to the Gilad BLP have been mentioned here at the BLPN} [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob] (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I
As promised, discussion re your actions now on AN/I. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Gilad Atzmon. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Israelites. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Your sources do not say the Israelites are the genetic origin of the Jews, that is your interpretation. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Kitten
 Carolmooredc has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

History of Palestine (region)
Please note that I have placed a notice regarding your violation of 1RR on this noticeboard Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no 1RR rule listed as being in place for that article anywhere. Drsmoo (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at History of the Southern Levant. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC) During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Drsmoo, you were notified here that the topic area comprising our articles on Israel/Palestine and related articles has historically been highly contentious, and is consequently subject to special discretionary sanctions. You appear to be correct that the notice of 1RR did not appear on the article in question, but that does not make your edits any the less disruptive. Move warring to your preferred article name is particularly damaging to the project, especially in this politically-charged topic area. The proper procedure for renaming an article following a consensus discussion is outlined at WP:MOVE. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Injured IDF Soldier aboard the Mavi Marmara.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Injured IDF Soldier aboard the Mavi Marmara.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Southern Levant
Hi Drsmoo, good to see you back editing again. I hope you are doing well.

Thought i'd post here rather than on the various pages you amended yesterday, regarding your strongly held view that Southern Levant is a better name than Palestine. Rather than reverting your changes, I thought perhaps we could discuss here and reach a position together.

I think our disagreement boils down to our interpretations of two policies: WP:COMMONNAME vs. WP:POVTITLE.

Would you agree with that?

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If helpful, please see below a couple of google book charts showing the historical popularity of the various names of the region as a % of books in the google corpus:
 * COMPARING Israel,Palestine,Judah,Zion,Holy Land,Levant,Judea,Southern Syria,Southern Levant
 * ZOOMING IN ON THE BOTTOM TWO Southern Syria,Southern Levant
 * Obviously a number of the biblical names have other non-geographic uses, but this gives a good sense of relative scale at least.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I reverted the changes you had made to long standing article names which had been approved by the consensus that Southern Levant was a better and more apolitical name. Where possible I've included links to both articles.Drsmoo (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Drsmoo, thanks for your reply. I would really like to resolve this with you.
 * Regarding the points you just made in your post (incl those which you deleted), please note Silence and consensus, which states "Where a decision is based mostly on silence, it is especially important to remember that consensus can change". Then, if you then read WP:CCC, you will note "Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions". This is of course particularly true when there was only ever "consensus by silence", but relates even to those situations where there was positive affirmation of the consensus (albeit that was not the case here).
 * In summary, wikipedia policy requires editors to discuss the substance of our differences - we cannot hide by discussing who had consensus in old times, as it will lead to never ending debate.
 * Are you happy to debate the substance of the issue? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What are you implying then? That you will continue to attempt to have the article name changed until you can claim consensus? You've engaged in a disruptive mode of editing, changing links from one article to your new article. It is clear what you're attempting to do and it is not good etiquette. In any case, wikipedia policy is what governs wikipedia, so you are free to do what you wish. Drsmoo (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would really like to engage in a thoughtful discussion about what the right answer is. I am not interested in fighting. If you explain your position i am open to being convinced. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've explained my position, and it's the position of the other editors as well who've commented that Southern Levant is a better article name. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Southern_Levant&diff=260016828&oldid=260013223 and that it is the name of the region when used non politically http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Southern_Levant&diff=265018801&oldid=260017453. The region has gone under multiple names, Canaan, Judea, Samaria, Israel, Palestine, Syria-Palestina, Jordan, Southern Levant. To simply call the region "Palestine" is not only a political move, it is historically inaccurate and makes no sense whatsoever when there is a perfectly accurate and apolitical name to be used. Now if you wish to continue trying to change the article name you can go ahead, ultimately it is Wikipedia policy which will decide. Drsmoo (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation. Does your last sentence mean you are not interested in what I have to say in response? Or are you saying I have absolutely no chance of changing your mind? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in what you have to say sure, I do believe we've had this conversation before though. In any case, it's not what you or I think, but what the Wikipedia community decides. Drsmoo (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, great. My response to your post above is that it doesn't include any sources. The editors you linked to gave their views (the latter of which then followed their view with a shocking and offensive rant), but neither provided sources. Also, there was a very meaningful amount of additional debate on the page you linked to, which you have chosen to ignore. Either way, by linking to two editors' views you are commenting on what may or may not have been consensus. As mentioned above, wikipedia policies encourage us to discuss the substance of the issue, for the reasons given above.

Can you please provide verifiable sources which verify your claims about the correct name? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying your goal is still to change the article name? Is that the reason you've been "updating" wikilinks? Drsmoo (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No. By continually avoiding my question, are you refusing to provide sources? I would really like to resolve this discussion with you, but we will not be able to unless you engage in discussion on the actual question! Oncenawhile (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what sources you're referring to, do you want a source that proves History of the Southern Levant as the preferable wikipedia name? I've already provided the individuals who immediately agreed with the name change. I have to ask, if your "updated wikilinks" have nothing to do with changing the name of the article, then what exactly are you debating about? Because it was the "updated wikilinks" which were reverted, and then you came on my talk page to discuss the name of the History of the Southern Levant article. It seems abundantly clear that that's what this is about.


 * The article was called History of the Southern Levant for years, before that there were regular back and forths between editors changing the name from History of Palestine, to History of Israel, to history of something else and it was a big mess. After it was changed to History of the Southern Levant, a name change which was immediately praised, there weren't any disagreements whatsoever, until you decided to change the name to History of Palestine, and start replacing links. Then after it was changed back, you started "updating wikilinks" deleting references to the original article, and replacing them with references to the article you created, which it must be said is basically a copy of the original article with slightly modified content.


 * This is a flagrant example of tendentious and disruptive editing. You're free to have your intentions but don't try to hide them. There isn't going to be a non wikipedia source that says either name is better, however History of the Southern Levant is undoubtedly more accurate, and undoubtedly less POV. Drsmoo (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * All your accusations above are overly aggressive and fly in the face of my efforts to engage cordially with you. It seems to me that you are not familiar with how disagreements get resolved in wikipedia. Statements like "undoubtedly more accurate, and undoubtedly less POV" mean nothing unless (a) suppported by external sources, and (b) refer to the relevant policy (in this case wp:title). If you are not prepared to discuss this in those terms, we will not make progress here. However, if you can provide external (non-wiki) sources to support this key statement, and can frame your point in terms of wp:title, then we can move towards a conclusion to this debate. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This debate was concluded a long time ago, you changed the name of the article and it wasn't supported. Whereas the name History of the Southern Levant was supported. I don't see how going from wiki page to wikipage and removing references to a long standing article, replacing them with references to your newly created article is in any way cordial engagement.Drsmoo (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Should i take this statement to be a refusal to engage in meaningful discussion? I would like have this debate with you, but we have to structure the discussion in light of the wikipedia policies or we will go back and forth forever. It seems to me you only have one argument ("consensus by silence") which as outlined above is not adequate here. There was never a substantial debate between a wide group of editors which conluded the Southern Levant was a better name. Now I am challenging you to prove meaningful backup for your "undoubtedly more accurate, and undoubtedly less POV" belief and it seems that you are unable to do so. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've said before, us having a discussion on my talk page serves no purpose. It's wikipedia policy and the wikipedia community which decide the names of articles. Not single individuals. I've already seen your opinions and justifications on the subject and I disagree. If you believe the name should be changed than you should discuss it on the talk page of the relevant article. Drsmoo (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well i'm sorry to hear you feel that way. Your refusal to discuss leaves me with no choice. On the basis that: (1) you have continually avoided providing sources to support your claim, (2) that the google ngram sources I linked to above prove that Southern Levant is a wp:fringe term, and (3) on the basis of clear wp policy as set out in wp:article title, I have reverted your changes. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Lol, you have no choice but to change it because I informed you that the proper venue to discuss the issue was on the relevant talk page? Really?? Drsmoo (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you still not read WP:TITLE?! There is a whole subsection on "Neutrality in article titles". Anyway, to call the term Palestine non-neutral is ignorant. It is and has always been the common scholarly term for the region. Seriously, you should spend a little time reading about the other terms you referred to and you will understand. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Your question
I note your questions here Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.

Can I suggest you read the following precedent discussion, to see how WP deals with these things:
 * Talk:Israeli_settlement/Archive_8
 * ARBPIA2
 * Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence

I think it would be great to resolve this dispute in the same way (given all the overlapping articles in this space), but from what I have seen the above discussion caused so much editor discussion fatigue that there may not be appetite.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't an I/P debate, and even if it were I think it would be ok. Drsmoo (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

1 RR Richard Falk per WP:ARBPIA
This revert of existing material was done only 6 hours after this revert of existing material. Note both were problematic reverts, including of material previously discussed, and look like edit warring. But I'll give you a chance to revert the second one yourself. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 04:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL, excuse me? Neither of these were reverts. Who knew a single edit of a section on Wikipedia was edit warring. Stop trying to start fights. Drsmoo (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Removing material is a revert, and both times you did. if you look at the talk page you'll see its all material in recent contention. Richard A. Falk is under WP:ARBPIA and only 1 revert per 24 hours is allowed. See template on talk page. You've been warned on 1 RR before and blocked for other edit warring in I-P area before. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 20:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No it's not, stop starting fights. You've been threatened with being banned from Wikipedia due to your behavior, clearly you haven't changed. Drsmoo (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2013 (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. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 05:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)