User talk:Plot Spoiler/Archive 1

Wiki-Conference New York
It's for everyone! :)--Pharos (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ramallah lynching
Hi ShamWow! In order to move an article, you need to click the Move link at the top of the page and make sure that the box "also move talk page" is checked. However, there's no need to do that now, because 2000 Ramallah lynching is a proper title for this article.

About the assessment: You have done very good work! I am assessing it as C-class for now on the basis of comprehensiveness—there is a whole lot of information about aftermath and reactions, but very little about the actual incident, how it happenned, possible accounts, etc. There is also no information on Israeli investigations into the incident. More text in the reactions section would also be great.

After these issues are addressed, the article will easily be B-class, and you could nominate it for GA as well. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 16:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again! There is no simple way to merge the talk pages; technically I could merge their histories, but AFAIK this is not done for talk pages without a very good reason. Because there are no recent discussions on the Talk:Lynching in Ramallah page, it can just be redirected to the other one, with an explanatory note at the top of the current talk page (see this section, clause 8). Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Assessment
Hi ShamWow! The article you mentioned does not fall under the scope of WikiProject Israel. I have also been a strong support from removing the article Yasser Arafat from the project, but there are not enough regular editors to debate this with. I hope it can be done someday. We should be focusing more on articles that don't deal with I–P. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a known problem that WP Palestine tags are everywhere. We've had discussions about it, but ultimately it's their choice which articles they tag. I always thought that WP Palestine was very political with difficult to understand goals, but so far they have produced at least as many 'native' GAs and FAs as we have, so despite their disruptive tagging they clearly take their project seriously, so I'm not sure we should get into this dispute again and instead focus on actual Israel-related articles. There is absolutely no reason for us to increase the scope of our WikiProject, as we currently have over 3,000 stubs (some of which are top- and high-importance), and hundreds of very bad articles that need work. I only wish the 64 WP Israel participants focused on these tasks more and on I–P disputes and the "Pro-Israel Lobby in the United States" less. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! The Qassam article is start-class. I personally would not like to make it part of our WikiProject, but I am sure there are many users who feel differently. If you strongly believe that it should be, please feel free to add the template and a start-class rating. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

AFD
Would you take a look at this terrorism-related AFD. Thank you.Historicist (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Patrick Boyd
I already created Raleigh jihad group, although I am certainly willing to reconsider the name. I have not done as much editing lately as I might, but I certainly agree with you that that articles on this topic need work.Historicist (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, it is a good idea to check this page : from time to time.  Editors who work to expunge articles on terrorism from Wikipedia certainly do.Historicist (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In other terrorism plots, a page exists for the plot, in addition to separate pages for the more notable individuals involved.  Certainly the page on the jihad group needs to be expanded.Historicist (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Referencing.
Re and.

wp:v: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. [...] Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. [...] The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

wp:blp: "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability [...] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. [...] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-08-19t18:05z

RE:Jund Ansar Allah
I usually don't edit these kinds of articles specifically, but I still think it's a start. There should probably be some inclusion of the Hamas reaction (what the politicians said), the reaction from Jund Ansar Allah at the result of the Hamas operation, and if possible the position of the PA in the West Bank. If this is added, I wouldn't oppose upgrading the article to C-class since it's a relatively new group only known for two things: failed attack on Israel and failed declaration of an Islamic emirate. Nice job writing the article Sham, Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sheikh Tamimi
See Talk:Sheikh Taissir Tamimi with concerns related to the lead. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

September 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.  nableezy  - 04:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Something ought to be done about nableezy's aggressive intimidation tactics and false accusations. Ought he to be reported regularly to administrators?Historicist (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Telling somebody they are edit warring after 3 quick reverts is not a false accusation.  nableezy  - 19:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also ShamWow, this message appears to be entirely inconsistent with what we are meant to be doing here. Do you understand that this is not a battleground or does someone need to explain that to you so that you desist from encouraging users to fight ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

André Aciman.
Thanks for the note about the Aciman prod. Please see my reply at Talk:André Aciman. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-15t11:09z


 * Your input at Articles for deletion/André Aciman please. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-16t22:29z

edit warring
on International al-Quds Day. Please stop.  nableezy  - 02:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:DTTR, further silliness will be reverted sight unseen.  nableezy  - 03:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

new Terrorism

 * 2009 U.S. Al Qaeda group and Najibullah Zazi - but I haven't much time to work on them just now.Historicist (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you comment here
--WIMYV? (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've left a proposal at Talk:International al-Quds Day for an editing restriction on the article; if you have a moment, your input would be appreciated. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Qassam rocket
Hi, I'm requesting input the most active editors in this article, yourself included, regarding an edit dispute. I added the infobox template:Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel (which I recently created) to relevant articles, including this one. User:RomaC has removed the infobox, arguing that the image on it is emotive. Your input would be welcome and could prevent the situation from deteriorating into an edit war. Thanks, and good day, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Right to exist
You should not remove properly referenced valid material on a stylistic pretext. I hope you are not pushing a POV.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Thirteenth Tribe
Your goal is to convince the reader that Israel Bartal is an idiot or what? He makes a real critic to Sand, why do you want quote only the most annoying bons mots!?. All in all, since this is about Sand on not about Koestler or his book, I suppress the whole. I'd wish to move it to Schlomo Sand, but it is already done : the Bartal's critics has been clearly exposed by some other user, which do not red onl annoying excerpts... Levochik (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Username concern
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because your username is that of a product or company, and therefore violates the username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. . ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this username issue a serious concern? I like my username and there is no attempt to speak on behalf of the ShamWow product. I hope this can be dealt with in another manner.ShamWow (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a problem. The username policy specifically prohibits usernames such as this regardless of whether or not you are attempting to speak on behalf of the company or product line. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Username blocked
This account, , has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because your username does not meet our username policy.

'''Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).'''

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change. To request a username change:
 * Add  You should be able to edit this talk page even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a list of names that have already been taken. For more information, please see Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Articles for deletion nomination of Zumba
I have nominated Zumba, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Zumba. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, you may want to tone it down a bit. The use of phrases like "idiot editors" could be interpreted by some as a personal attack and you should take care to assume good faith, even among editors you disagree with.  Just take care to use a collegial tone at all times, even when people do things you do not agree with.  -- Jayron  32  06:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming your note is aimed at ShamWow, not me. :-) ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No way does a consensus hammered through by cheats stand.
No way does a consensus hammered through by cheats stand. The CIA report on the actual effect of partitioning Palestine is highly notable. 92.27.122.197 (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
If you continue reverting on United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine you will be reported to the edit warring noticeboard. Please do not continue edit warring.  nableezy  - 16:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You should report that IP for his edit warring as well as uncivil edit summaries. Unfortunately, it's unsurprising that some people are so concerned with what you do and not the blatant incivility (and possible racism) by the person who's edits you're reverting, that they try to get you to stop editing the article while not even bothering with the other guy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rudolf Kastner. 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 
 * Someone who has reverted an article 7 times in 24 hours really shouldn't be giving out 3RR warnings. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Intra-Palestinian violence
A tag has been placed on Category:Intra-Palestinian violence, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  nableezy  - 17:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC) 17:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stalking Nableezy!Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * uggh, Battle of Gaza is in my watchlist, you can't just recreate things that have gone through a deletion discussion. If you want it recreated you need to go to WP:DRV.  nableezy  - 17:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Capitalization of "g" in "Iranian Government"
Hey Plot Spoiler, Thank you for your message regarding the above matter. When used in a general sense, the term "government" is written with a lower case "g" (e.g. "the first responsibility of any government is the security of its citizens"). However, when used to refer to a specific government, an upper case "g" is used (e.g. "the Government of Iran"). This is because it is referencing an official body/entity/title, and is analogous to the use of an upper case "p" when referring to "the President of the United States". If used in a general sense (e.g. "the U.N. General Assembly meeting was attended by presidents, and heads of government from across the world"), a lower case "p" would be used.

Thanks. CrimeCentral (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha, no need to apologize. I share your passion for pointless technicalities that few others would notice - it's one of the dubious wonders of the English language!. CrimeCentral (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Oren
Hello there! I am not going to lose sleep over this, but what groups an ambassador does and does not meet does not belong here. He meets different groups on the daily basis, and often comments on this to the media. Regarding J Street, these remarks are already obsolete, as I've read more recently that Oren approved a meeting by one of his officials with J Street, saying they have moved towards mainstream... Singling out one particular group and one particular (non-)meeting does not make any sense.

Heccling of Israeli speakers on campuses occurs every week if not every day. Not even worth a back page of a paper (maybe local paper ok), let alone encyclopedia. Have you read WP:recentism?

It's not like I care either way but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a news archive. If we want to achieve some order, we should strive against chaos. It is depressing that while I make one constructive edit, 1000 edits are made that increase chaos and entropy. Cheeers from DownUnder. BorisG (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Massad
Please stop revert-warring over the lede and join the discussion at Talk:Joseph Massad instead. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.     Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. I really would appreciate your thoughts at Talk:Joseph Massad. Currently, there are two editors who are strongly against any mention of the Columbia controversy in the lede, and I'm the only editor arguing for its inclusion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WINEP
Dear Plot Spoiler, I have outlined some concerns to Talk:Washington Institute for Near East Policy (last section), including in regards to the lead. Note that George has added the same sentence to two parts of the article. This looks like WP:tendentious editing. --Shamir1 (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Rfc - Blood Libel / Israel's Brutality
You may be interested in commenting on this. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Claim
I don't see how what I did is vandalism. I added to Ariel Sharon's description that he is a war criminal and cited a source. If you feel my source isn't legitimate then I can pick from thousands of others that say the same thing. Just because you don't agree with the fact that this degenerate murderer of thousands isn't a war criminal does not make my edit vandalism. In fact majority of people in this world would most likely support my view point, which is not opinion, it is fact. If you want the validity of my edit and source called into question because you don't want the truth exposed fine, but don't attack me by calling what I did vandalism. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about suppressing the truth, but rather providing it to users. I feel you may be the one who needs to read the welcome page and not me. DaBiGg3TiTaLiaNo (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there
I saw you encountered some problems with the editing pattern of vexorg on Martin Gilbert. I am not sure, if you are aware about this  discussion. Please feel free to comment. Best wishes,--Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of properly sourced information at Martin Gilbert
Earlier I noticed you had removed some properly sourced information about Martin Gilbert. I restored it and then took the discussion to the [Talk Page]. I have just noticed you have since reverted again and have ignored my request to discuss this at the talk page. Frankly your rationale for reverting, "This doesn't define who he is -- say something about his works." , does not make any sense as the information you removed was a good part of defining this person. Please discuss this at the articles talk page. I will be restoring this information after a reasonable period of time in order to allow for further discussion. Vexorg (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Washington Institute for Near East Policy has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Washington Institute for Near East Policy 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 Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at 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.

Thank you, Shamir1 (talk)

Dalal Mughrabi
I believe you have broken the 3RR rule on this page, where you are edit-warring against 3 other users. Please rv your last edits, or you will risk being reported for 3RR violation. Thank you. Huldra (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Masada2000 on the AfD
Hi, The article seem to heavily use secondary sources, and my problem is not with that-but with that it make WP:SYN out of those. It seem like rewriting using more sources that overview it is the best solution, rather then deletions. However, if no one intending to rewrite this article -then I keep my vote on delete.--Gilisa (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for taking that to AE. You said it just RIGHT. Please make sure you add the diffs that shows that you notified the editors. I will be weighing in a bit later. Stellarkid (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBPIA)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Requests for arbitration/. This warning relates to this exchange. If you continue to allege that others engage in "hate speech" or make similar serious accusations without at the same time providing very convincing diffs to substantiate these allegations, you may be made subject to significant sanctions.  Sandstein  20:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Re In Agreement
", if you just looked at the AE page, you'd think Wikipedia only dealt with I/P"
 * Yeah. I'd agree with this.  However, I would point out that this seems to occur b/c members on both sides of this debate seem to be willing to arbitrate at the drop of a hat.  I personally avoid arbitration unless there is dramatic and clear cut behavior that warrants it.  Though I don't like battlegrounding or incivility, I think arbitrating against them often times does more to inflame than prevent the behavior.
 * Perhaps the solution is for editors closer to center of this issue to form a sort of "moderate coalition" who's goal is to work to exclude extremists on both sides of the debate. So often on WP and in real life, extremists are allowed to rule debates b/c moderates on the same "side" as the extremists are afraid to speak against them for fear of crippling their argument's chance at success. NickCT (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 1950–1951 Baghdad bombings‎. 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. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 04:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Personal attack
It's hard to see this edit summary as anything but a personal attack. I assume you are familiar with WP:AGF and WP:Civil. Whatever we may think of this person, our policies and guidelines still apply. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, no excuse. Callous edit on my part. Apologies. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

question
Hi. I was wondering why you removed Category:Jewish American sportspeople from the Youkilis article. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you saw my response to you on my talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement - an apology
Embarrassingly, I've realised that I confused you with somebody else, so I owe you an apology. In my defence I'd like to plead mental confusion due to being more than old enough to remember when the album which included Brick House was released (though, I was a bit of a punk at the time so would'nt have been capable of appreciating The Commodores).    ←   ZScarpia  00:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

explain your actions
Please explain the following edit you made to my talk page:

"This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits."

Final warning? How many warnings do I get? Where are the previous warnings?

"If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice."

I'd like you to explain this. How did I "vandalize" wikipedia in the "2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy"? Who are you to start threatening me just because you don't want people to know Israel harvests organs illegally?

"Please stop your vandalistic, biased edits that are not supported by the sources given."

The sources I gave did support my claim that an international journalist found a box of human corneas harvested in Haiti, that the Prime Minister of Haiti has claimed that organ harvesting and child trafficking is taking place in Haiti and that "T. West" has linked these facts together into the conclusion that Israel is harvesting organs in Haiti. It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion, given that Israel was the first and best hospital immediately on scene and the IDF has a history of harvesting organs without permission illegally.

"Wikipedia is not a place to promote fringe, malicious claims."

There's nothing "fringe" about Israel harvesting organs, they admit it and this is in the public domain, you are insane or ignorant or both.

"Next them this happens, you will be reported to an administrator. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)"

Who are you to be threatening me? Get lost. I'll make whatever edits I want to wikipedia, as I always have, and there's not a god damned thing you or anyone else can do about it. Don't make me prove it to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyletroyyy (talk • contribs) 22:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for MEDCAB Mediation
The request for mediation concerning Israel and the apartheid analogy, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). If you have any questions, please contact me.

Ronk01 (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Iron Dome
What are you talking about? I didn't delete the criticism section of the Iron Dome article. I moved it to the bottom of the article because it made no sense being in the middle. I also added meaningful content to the deployment section, which you have now reverted. I am reverting the article back - and please, in future, before making accusations and jumping to revert articles, take the time to actually read them. Thank you. --Sstr (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla raid
I'll add a second article as reference. thanksCcson (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * where on talk page should I disucss SS Exodus? what original research are you refering to?  what part of the section is not neutral?Ccson (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked for violation of the 1RR on Gaza flotilla raid. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Appealing a block. --  tariq abjotu  06:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, B, I agree with you. My feeling is that, if an article is plastered with notifications about how highly contentious it is, including one for an arbitration decision that restricts the article to 1RR, any editor who chooses to edit that article has been amply warned that his/her actions will be carefully scrutinized and concomitantly has a higher standard of caution to meet than that applied to 3RR. I would not disturb a 12-hour block in this situation unless there was clear-cut evidence that the blocking administrator had acted in bad faith -- which, of course, there was not here. 12 hours is the Wikipedia equivalent of a few deep breaths, not a lifetime in prison. Had I not felt that I understood the policy thoroughly, I certainly would have asked another administrator for advice or simply declined to act. Accounting4Taste: talk 14:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Accounting: I don't think that's correct at all.  I would suggest you seek input from a sysop who can confirm or deny that I am wrong. I don't at all believe that unrelated reverts are lumped together for the purpose of that rule -- the same as they certainly are not for purposes of the 3RR rule.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The three-revert rule covers any reverts (in excess of three), whether they are complete reverts to a previous version or are partial reverts of content (eg, user A edits two paragraphs, user B undoes one of those changes). The three-revert rule is not like threefold repetition in chess - it applies to any reverts, even if they are to completely different sections of the article.  Obviously, we take into account whether the intention was to edit war or not - technically, if you delete a sentence from an article it's a partial revert because obviously someone had to put that sentence in there at some point in time, so we would not normally block someone who is not intentionally reverting. --B (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I often work through long articles that are heavily edited on a section-by-section basis. If it has 10 sections, and I make two reverts, one in section a, and another in section f, I don't believe that is a 1RR violation.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, again, admins are human beings and would evaluate whether or not the intention was to edit war. Also, 1RR is a rare exception - the overwhelming majority of articles are not subject to 1RR. --B (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that B and I disagree. It seems that matters may be fuzzy, and sysops expected to review the edits to get a sense as to the nature of them.  I just actually made edits myself to the IHH article.  Because it is heavily edited, I did it on a section by section basis.  More than one edit may have contained a partial revert, but I was by no means edit warring.  The restriction to 1RR is as Accounting suggests more draconian--but I believe that the draconian nature is in the number of reverts allowed, not in the interpretation of what constitutes a revert.  Just my thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Back to back edits (with no other editors editing in between) are considered a single revert for purposes of 3RR. Also, the IHH article is not subject to 1RR anyway, so it's not a problem. Obviously there's some level of inconsistency here in the rule and that's why we have human admins, not admin bots.  If it is a heavily edited article, you might make four unrelated partial reverts but clearly are not edit warring (ie, you're working on completely different sections of the article from what anyone else is doing), but because there are other editors making intervening edits (to completely different sections of the article), it's a technical violation of 3RR.  In such a case, there is obviously no intention to edit war and we're not likely to make a block. --B (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at IHH (İnsani Yardım Vakfı). 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 the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. B (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are willing to agree to stop reverting that article and to discuss your dispute with the other editor(s) on the article talk page, I will unblock you (or, if you don't see this in the next couple of minutes, you can use the unblock template to get the attention of another admin. You need to discuss your proposed change on the talk page rather than simply reimplementing them.  If you cannot come to an agreement, there are other avenues of dispute resolution, including third opinion.--B (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request granted
Do keep a few things in mind:
 * 1) If a user reverts you, try to discuss it first. Either create a section on the article talk page or the users talk page and notify them.
 * 2) Give them a reasonable time to respond (A day, or perhaps two. Just check their contributions to see if they are around).
 * 3) Try to resolve the conflict, but don't edit the disputed section or revert the other party if they do, to prevent edit warring.
 * 4) If you can agree on something, good job! If you cannot agree, take it to WP:3O or WP:RFC. And keep in mind that reverting each other blindly will lead to nothing but friction and bad blood between editors.

That is my advice for now. Happy editing! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 13:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Octavia Nasr
I seem to have reverted you on the wrong grounds, but I hope you will accept this nonetheless. You removed the paragraph mentioning Helen Thomas being in a similar situation a month ago, but I didn't read your edit summary thoroughly so I thought you were asserting that the article would become like an opinion piece with this text, not that you requested a better source than an opinion piece. Anyway, I didn't really intend (I added this text originally) for the references to attest to more than the existence of both cases, not to establish a connection between them, as the similarities and both appearing relatively within the same time frame makes the connection so very obvious. I'm sure others in regular news articles have pointed out this, but when I reverted you now I hadn't sought to provide more sources on this. I just found a better source, and I'll insert that now. __meco (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation: Israel and the Apartheid analogy
Just an FYI, we are running a straw poll on title choices on the mediation page - see Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy. If you pitch in a vote or three, we can move this along. -- Ludwigs 2 06:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder: you have not yet voted on the straw poll. If you don't, your voice will not be heard on this issue, which would be sad.  .  -- Ludwigs 2  06:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on closure of Israel and Aparthied mediation
Current consensus seems to be to move the article to Israel and Apartheid with an appropriate disambiguation line to prevent any misinterpretations. Please weigh in over the next few days. -- Ludwigs 2 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

CNI
CNI is a blog? RomaC TALK 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nikki Yanofsky
Please see the Discussion page for the BLP article about Nikki Yanofsky before re-adding the Canadian people of Jewish descent category. While I recognize that being of Jewish descent does not necessarily imply that the person is of the Jewish religion, you failed to cite any sources regarding your claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFrozenFire (talk • contribs) 14:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sharif El-Gamal
 — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nasrin Sotoudeh
-- Cirt (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Walid Husayin for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Walid Husayin, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Walid Husayin until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 07:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC) 07:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

AfDs
Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

リッダ闘争
That last edit did not change the content, and simply made up for POV bias in article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.50.104 (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

About this, edit summaries are not the place to editorialize about other Wikipedia editors. Please don't.--Chaser (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right and I've apologized. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That was gracious of you.--Chaser (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Walid Husayin
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Asghar Bukhari
I updated the page, included reference etc... introduced neutral POV, etc.... but was accused on "POV whitewashing". Could you please discuss this before reverting? Asifkhanj (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

2011 Alexandria bombing
Thank you for restoring the removed material on 2011 Alexandria bombing. You saveed me quite some work :-) --Khips (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take another look at the article. User:Lihaas has reverted everything again. --Khips (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * also take a look at the talk page. older content was removed (as well as osources), for which the intermediate edits may have caused confusion (see als the ref "aljaz")(Lihaas (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)).

Why
Why doesn't the source meet the standards? --Coptic101 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, let me know if the source I just added is ok, and also the formatting. --Coptic101 (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Help with English?
Hi Plot, if you have a time, could you please help me to fix my English in my new article? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW I'd like to clarify that I asked for your help because I saw you were editing the shark attack article. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD
Please see Articles for deletion/Andrew G. Bostom since you contributed to the article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Some help?
Hi, if you have a time could you please help me in copy editing of my new article new article? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Bahrami
(1) You're on verge of violating WP:3RR (2) Her past criminal record can not be swept under the carpet and is very relevant to her case and conviction, and therefore belongs in the lead. If you disagree, you're welcome to file a Request for Comment for broader community input. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Executions in Iran, 2011


The article Executions in Iran, 2011 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No notable information that should not already be included in either Capital punishment in Iran or maybe reactions to 2009–2010 Iranian election protests.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Executions in Iran, 2011 for deletion
The article Executions in Iran, 2011 is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Executions in Iran, 2011 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)