User talk:Plot Spoiler/Archive 2

DYK for Zahra Bahrami
Thank you for your new article Victuallers (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Logan
Please stop edit waring that disputed content into that BLP without clear consensus on the talkpage or on the thread at the WP:BLPN - Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Island of Peace massacre
Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Zenga Zenga
Hello! Your submission of Zenga Zenga at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nomader ( Talk ) 09:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's still a minor point to fix. No biggie though. Let me know once you've fixed it and I'll approve. Nomader  ( Talk ) 01:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ZengaZengaYouTubeClip.png
 Thanks for uploading File:ZengaZengaYouTubeClip.png. 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII  Undertaker 19–0  18:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

David Jemmali
You added categories that David Jemmali is Jewish despite him denying this in interviews. It has been reversed. -NYC2TLV (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Zenga Zenga
Orlady (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Zenga Zenga
Hi,

While I agree with the fact that it does not respect Wikipedia's standards in terms of content sourcing, I decided to put that comment as a mean of encouragement to diffuse the zenga zenga video for visotors of the page as the libyan people need all he help that the free world can provide them with. I sincerly hope it did not shock you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsibo047 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation
Nice work at Victoria Affair. I'd want you on board with this, if you have the time. Feel free to make any changes you like: User:Biosketch/Iranian arms trafficking‎.—Biosketch (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Jerusalem bus bombing refs
jpost1 and jpostfatalities are names for different links. you seem to have merged it by msitake at one point and then removed eventually. see the end of the links.
 * www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=213465 and www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=213442Lihaas (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Miral: your questionable edits....
Not quite sure how it is that you are justiying your undos at the Miral page, but I am finding your edit exceedingly frustrating as it seems that you attempting to hide certain facts about the film as well as portray only specific elements of the film. Also, I am beginning to sense the beginning of an edit war as well as a 3rr vio, just want to warn you and see if we discuss the issue on the Miral talk page. Thanks. GoetheFromm (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible 3RR violation

 * Just want to let you know that within 24 hours, you've reverted my material over three times on separate occasions on the page Miral. This may violate 3RR.  WP:EW


 * FYI:
 * "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the 3RR rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation."

GoetheFromm (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Was going to report it, but I think it best to warn and discuss:
 * FYI, here is the entirety of your 3RR violation as I see it:
 * 1st revert:

Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

On second thought, I see that you've been through this before, I reported you You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

WP:ARBPIA restrictions
Hi Plot Spoiler, perhaps you did not realize it, but the Victoria Affair article, like all articles that are part of the Israel-Palestine conflict, is subject to editing restrictions of one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period. Your recent editing violated this restriction. In fairness, the notice about this was not placed on the talk page until today, so you may have violated this restriction in good faith. In the future, be mindful of this restriction. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Addition of Palestinians to List of indigenous peoples
Plot Spoiler, before you again revert my addition of Palestinians to the List of indigenous peoples please explain on the talk page what criteria you feel Palestinans do not meet for inclusion. I believe the WP:ARBPIA restrictions apply here. DieWeisseRose (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent comment
Plot Spoiler, I notice above that you were warned under WP:ARBPIA on 6 April, 2010. In the light of that, please consider removing a message you left today on the talk page of a user who is under an I/P topic ban, and is unable to respond. I perceive that your message contains personal attacks, such as the word 'psychotic.' Those who regularly participate in the I/P area need to speak carefully about editors on the other side of a dispute. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrator review of Quds Day and Ramot
This message is to inform you that I have initiated an administrator review of the recent editing at the articles and. This review will result in any editors whose conduct is disruptive being sanctioned under the provision of WP:ARBPIA. You are welcome to participate in the review, which is located at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Regards, AGK  [&bull; ] 12:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This message is to inform you that your name has been added to that administrator review wrt recent editing at the articles and. You are welcome to participate in the review, which is located at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Regards, betsythedevine (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Camp Ashraf massacre
The DYK project (nominate) 17:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the club!
Please accept my condolences :-). Good luck and happy editing.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of 2011 Manhattan terrorism plot for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Manhattan terrorism plot is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2011 Manhattan terrorism plot 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. Quasi human &#124;  Talk  14:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I responded to your hook at T:DYK--I think it's almost good to go, just one small concern. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Plot I noticed you were mentioned in the same AE I was. I admire the comment you made "if they make Israel look good, so be it (which you can't seem to accept as something that happens sometimes) and if they make Israel bad, so be it as well. " Please take a look at this discussion concerning this article. Quite telling, isn't it? Broccolo (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Socks of Passionless
Hi Plot, in case you have not seen it yet Cellarfloor is a sock of Passionless and his POVs here and in all other places could be safely reverted. Broccolo (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Zenga Zenga
As the creator of Zenga Zenga, this might interest you. Also, please accept my apology for how I behaved at Miral a few months ago. At the time I took WP:AGF much more seriously than I do now, because I thought it was truly a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. An Admin has since informed me that that's not the case in practice. Had I simply reverted the other contributor, a lot of time and aggravation could have been saved for everyone involved. I was still new and naive then.—Biosketch (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

RM alert
The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2011 Manhattan terrorism plot
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mexican pointy boots
Materialscientist (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Abdel Bari Atwan
Hey there, you have removed my last edit in the Abdel Bari Atwan article because Youtube is not a reliable source. However, it says here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC.2C_MySpace.2C_and_YouTube_reliable_sources.3F that "video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher".

Both is the case for the Youtube link I used. The incident was also widely documented through Twitter, in case that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayyou (talk • contribs) 07:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't reply to this soon I will interpret your silence as acquiescence and revert the changes you made. Please respond. contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayyou (talk • contribs) 14:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you think?
Hi Plot,

What do you think about including this source? If the article is merged to Mein Kampf in Muslim countries or something like this, then this source and many others could be added to the article as well. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Baltimore Rock Opera Society
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 05:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"It makes up a big part of our success"
Hey PS, please take a look at the discussion I opened here. Thanks. ← George talk 22:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Yossele the Holy Miser
Hello! Your submission of Yossele the Holy Miser at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 02:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Passed, thank you for this interesting Poland-related article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

 * The main suggestion I'd have is to note that WP:POLAND is really quite active, so questions posted there are likely to be answered :) Also, we have a number of tools you may find useful listed on our project main page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 03:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Yossele the Holy Miser
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Hanging of Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hanging of Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR
Please read wp:or and wp:v, these will tell you that your editing is original material, ie, that you are putting together two ideas to create the idea that Tzviki Bar-Hai is a liar. Public awareness (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring&#32; after a review of the reverts you have made on August 2010 West Bank shooting attack. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 01:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Dispute resolution noticeboard
I took Fastily's advice, and brought this to DRN. Public awareness (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Public awareness has now been blocked indefinitely as a sock of the banned editor User:Passionless.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement discussion
There is a discussion at Arbitration Enforcement here that concerns you. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

advice
you should self-revert your last revert at August 2010 West Bank shooting attack.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Youcef Nadarkhani
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Youcef_Nadarkhani#Edit_war_and_page_protection --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI
User:Public awareness was blocked as a sock so he may be reverted without penalty though I think it would be good to use talk page before.--Shrike (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: DYK
I would suggest checking with Nikkimara, sorry. I get what Cunard was saying, so I've taken the liberty to do some more rewording. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

1RR at Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange
You. broke. it.

Please self-revert or I will report it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wafa al Bass
It seemed to me that many of the incidents in which the released prisoners were involved ought to have articles. I put one up on Wafa al Bass and am now told that it is not notable.ZuccottiPark (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Thank you.ZuccottiPark (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Julio Pino for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Julio Pino is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Julio Pino 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Emergency Committee for Israel
The article has a notice of the discretionary sanctions on the Talk page and the standard 1RR edit notice (above the edit box). If somebody violates 1RR, report them to WP:ANEW or WP:AE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * About those sources: I was planning to bring the matter to WP:RSN for more opinions, but I haven't had a chance yet. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

False Accusation of Edit Warring
The warning you left on my talk page is not appropriate and falsely characterizes my actions. My most recent edit to ECI was meant to find a middle ground between opposing viewpoints by including in additional information that was not in the original edit in accordance with the arguments set forth in the talk page. This edit was not a reversion but an evolution of the article. The edit was an authentic attempt to resolve disputes and the characterization of this as "edit warring" is false. Greg Comlish (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Reported for Edit Warring
I have reported you at the WP:ANEW for edit warring because I think that you have used a socket puppet to violate the (3RR).

Truthtellers78 (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Your removal of my content
Your removal of properly sourced information in the Operation Red Coalition article

Earlier I noticed you had removed some properly sourced information I restored it and then took the discussion to the Talk Page. Discuss this at the articles talk page to avoid edit warring.

Truthtellers78 (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

E Miliband
Please do not tag team. The long term stable version was discussed at length - BRD is on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit war. When multiple people disagree with you, it's not "tag teaming", but a sign that you're likely incorrect. If you think the edit is a bad one (though it's obviously not), use the Talk: page, and stop edit-warring. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop tag teaming - BRD - well discussed content - the talkpage is where you should make your case. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
The IP 80.78.79.156 is engaging in edit warring in the article 2011 attack on the British Embassy in Iran will you report him or shall I? Truthtellers78 (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hiriya
Explain yourself here. You removed a top-quality source that anybody with a library card can verify. That isn't acceptable behavior.  nableezy  - 04:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gholhak Garden
Hello! Your submission of Gholhak Garden at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gholhak Garden
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Honor killing of Sadia Sheikh
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Improper renaming of six articles". Thank you.

Tikun Olam (blog)
Thanks for catching all those self-published claims - goes to show that I should check these things more thoroughly :) —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 19:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, completely different issue, but please accept my apologies for this: I completely misread the edit histories. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 20:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
Someone has miscounted Darkness Shines (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

DYK nomination of Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil
Hello! Your submission of Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Sim Bhullar
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library
You accused me of being "a POV IP warrior" who "remov[ed] well-sourced information." I strongly object to these characterizations. First, there is nothing wrong with not being a member of Wikipedia; if there were, anonymous edits would not be permitted.

Second, the quotes I removed are nowhere to be found on the Web sites cited. They are thus either not substantiatable, or were fabricated in the first place.

Third, I edited the claim that the JVL has received certain awards to reflect that it has only claimed to receive those awards; there is no substantiation of that claim beyond a page on the JVL itself.

Finally, the line I added tended to balance the article, not skew it. Every other statement in that article tends to lead the reader to believe that the JVL is objective; at least one notable critic has questioned that claim.

I have therefore reverted your reversions. Thank you.

68.83.233.82 (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Saeed Malekpour
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guinsberg (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Port Said Stadium clashes
Hello! When renaming pages, please remember to fix any resultant double redirects. These can create slow, unpleasant experiences for the reader, waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing. Thanks! —David Levy 03:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Golan Heights
You should explain you revert because the article has special rules to explain every revert also BBC use the wording that you reverted so it may be a problem.Maybe you should find other sources.--Shrike (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You have removed sourced information. I have reverted it back. Although you are technically required to explain your revert, if you anything else to add, please do so on the article's talk page. -asad (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You are mentioned
Please see here. -asad (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Anti-Defamation League. 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. 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. Toddst1 (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Todd, Plot Spoiler reverted 48 hours after his previous revert. That's not even 1RR, that's 1/2 RR, and he did mention BLP concerns as well. You might argue that I-P related material is on 1RR, but 1/2 RR? I've never heard of that before. Is that reasonable? Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Todd, my two reverts were nearly 48 hours apart. Secondly, I've been trying to address some serious BLP concerns that Guinsberg appears to be ignoring. The highly inflammatory nature of these two articles is evident simply by the titles or sub-titles of the two articles (1) Blumenthal: "AIPAC Cheers an Anti-Semitic Holocaust Revisionist" (2) Abunimah: "Anti-Defamation League director Abraham Foxman condemned Breivik's ideology, but he is still an enabler of Islamophobia" . In these cases I believe the burden is on inclusion rather than exclusion, and Guinsberg refuses cooperate and discuss on this regard. BLP must be protected from defamation. Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not how fast you were edit warring, but that you were edit warring. While I see this that the content involved in this edit war comes close to a BLP issue, it stops short, saying "x expressed opinion y about person z." and is solidly cited.  If anything, it might (I'm not sure) be WP:UNDUE, and I'm not going to wade into the content dispute.  As I had blocked  for edit warring on that article, it was only fair to block you for continuing the war (albeit slowly).   I've fully protected the page at this point and I'm expecting that normal WP:DR processes will be followed by all.  I'm tired of handing out blocks on this.  You have been unblocked.  Toddst1 (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute

 * All of my edits were careful to notice the charges were based on the authors' opinions of certain facts — not facts per se; the sources I had used were all reliable; and I did debate the BLP accusations. Instead of addressing my concerns, however, Jayjg kept repeating the same things -- that BLP prevents us from referencing those authors' opinions --, sometimes ignoring my counter-points by accusing me of ad hominem. Plot Spoiler removed more content bit by bit, and barely had a presence in the Talk Page. Notice that Plot Spoiler is a policy shopper -- his first allegation against Blumenthal's article is that he's a WP:Fringe figure; after I noticed it that "Fringe" applies to ideas, not people, he then accused his article of being fringe. And now he uses WP:BLP. WP:PS states that policy shopping may be evidence of POV-pushing. Read the Talk Page and you'll see that my portrayal of Plot Spoiler's editing behavior is accurate; I'm not being malicious. Moreover, what's so hurtful is noticing that, according to some opinion writers, ADL's president may be enabling Islamophobia? or that he may be employing double-standards? or that he may harbor certain prejudices? This is common language in public speech. Public figiures are not above reasonable scrutinity. The Paul Cameron entry, for instance, notices that some critics accuse him of misrepresenting research to justify prejudice against homosexuals. Does that violate BLP? There's an entry on a controvery aroused by a major Republican presidential pre-candidate, and it includes many statements by politicians, activists, journalists, accusing him of enabling intolerance. Does that violate BLP? According to Jayjig and Plot Spoiler's interpretation of BLP, I think they would. Their interpretation, if embraced by the wider Wiki community, would prevent Wikipedia from referencing everything but rosy assessment of public figures. Also notice that the Blumenthal article I tried to insert into the ADL entry has been non-controversially referenced elsewhere. Guinsberg (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can Guinsberg please comment on the content and not on the editors? He simply does not understand WP:NPA or WP:AGF. Furthermore, his analysis is mistaken. Of course criticism is allowed of individuals and organizations but we need to be cognizant of policies like WP:BLP, WP:Notability and WP:Fringe. The Abunimah and Blumenthal articles are both inflammatory opinion pieces that violate BLP and are written by top-notch anti-Israel advocates that commonly advance fringe theories which you will not find in reliable sources. Please, including critical information on the relationship between the ADL and Hagee, but propagandists like Blumenthal should not be the ones advancing those arguments, as evidenced by the defamatory accusations made in his writings (like Abunimah). Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like you to pay attention to Plot Spoiler's reply: it fails to debate any of my points. Instead he just rehashes the old justifications for content removal, without producing any argument to back them up or refute others' counter-points. I have illustrated how harsh, though reasoned, criticism of living public figures has found its way into other Wikipedia entries. And those were just some examples. The John Hagee entry, for example, leads the reader to many outside references on RSs that have charged him of anti-Semitism. And I could bore everyone on here by listing more politicians, entrepreneurs, religious figures, rappers, athletes, etc., whose entries include references to equally tough critiques. As living persons, wouldn't they all be eligible to the same protections Jayjg and Plot Spoiler want to provide the ADL and its most prominent members? Well, as this isn't the case, I can only conclude that those two users are misreading BLP -- that BLP doesn't provide the far-reaching protections they long for. Both the references that I planned on referencing on the entry -- Abunimah's and Blumenthal's articles — fulfill the Wikipedia notability guideline, including the "substantial coverage" one: many sources, as I have illustrated on the ADL Talk Page, take a critical stance towards the group; reject its relations with figures such as John Hagee; and have accused it of failing to live up to its fame, not as a pro-Israel group, but as a group for defense of minorities. As for WP:Fringe, it can't be used to disqualify those critiques of the ADL, as no scholarly, authoritative opinion on the group has been produced, in comparison to which most departing views can be said to be fringe. Plus, "Fringe" also states that Wikipedia strives to "summarize[] significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence", a message WP:NPOV also echoes. However, the edits I had inserted into the entry took but very minor portions of the article; Blumenthal's and Abunimah's criticisms, common as they are, didn't take more space than their prominence demands. And though Plot Spoiler says their views were fringe theories that couldn't be found on RSs, both articles were syndicated in sources deemed reliable by the Wiki community: Al Jazeera English and the Huffington Post, both of which are often employed by editors on other, unrelated entries. Though I don't want to disqualify myself by engaging in ad hominem, I'd like to point out that Jayjg's and Plot Spoiler's arguments are no better than what you can see on here: they seem to be based on a hurried, superficial reading of other users' edits and Wikipedia guidelines. Also notice that Plot Spoiler is violating WP:NPOV by, in my view, implying that Wikipedia shouldn't take into account the views of allegedly "anti-Israel" writers and accusing them of being "propagandist[s]" and "fringe [figures]". This doesn't strike me as an assessment based on Wikipedia guidelines — it looks to me like Plot Spoiler is confusing his own impassioned views with Wikipedia's editing rules. As noticed before, Wikipedia "strives to "summarize[] significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence". That is, even though Wikipedia advises not to give more space to views than their notability deserves, it doesn't discriminate based on authors' political biases, or in this case, whether they are pro- or non-Zionist figures. 177.17.107.67 (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to split Park51 to Ground Zero controversy
Hi. You're receiving this message because you recently edited Park51. Ed Poor has proposing splitting that off part of that article to create Ground Zero controversy. We're discussing it on the talk page here and would appreciate your feedback. Raul654 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

embassy attacks
kindly watch waht you blindly revert because "professional" edits dont include wrong information. Certainly doesnt show well in assuming AGF.Lihaas (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

NPA
do NOT attack others instead COMMENT ON CONTENTLihaas (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision page
Hi Plot Spoiler,

Thanks for your concern about the revert. We had discussed that addition in depth in the RfC. Very few people approved of it, but JakeW insisted on edit warring it in. Gsonnenf (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Since you have not provided any valid argument for your move I suggest you reply here: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk Page archiving guideline
Hello Plot Spoiler. In answer to your question why am I changing this long standing guideline? If you would have read the talk page you would have your answer. I encourage you to participate in the discussion instead of blindly reverting. Cheers Garycompugeek (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Islamophobia
Please explain why you want to exclude Eurabia from Template:Islamophobia on the talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the problem with the Ian Shapiro photo & page?
Hello, could you please explain why you took down the photograph of Ian Shapiro? There is no copyright issue with the photograph being posted here. And please be clearer regarding why you think it's like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. If you read encyclopedia articles in actual intellectual history encyclopedias, I think you'll find they read pretty much like this article. I have edited / written a few such articles myself. I have also asked several people - including two professional writer / editors completely unfamiliar with the subject - to read the article and they all felt it read like an encyclopedia article. I see that several users have also rated the article and do not agree with you. Please be VERY specific about what you want changed as it is not obvious. Thank you. SocSciHistory (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I responded to your concerns on my talk page, but just realized I probably was supposed to address them on your talk page? In any case, let's be grown-ups and work constructively and collaboratively on this. I think we both have the same goal, which is to add to and improve wikipedia. Am I right? Everyone else seems to think the article is now sufficiently well sourced and objective. I am 100% willing to address specific concerns you have about specific statements. I have already addressed the one you listed (see my talk page) and we can continue to go through line by line if you want on the article's talk page. SocSciHistory (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Freedom and Justice Party
A little while ago, you moved this page without prior discussion. In view of an earlier discussion (Talk:Freedom and Justice Party (Egypt)), I have reverted your move and recommend that you start a new move request, presenting your arguments. Favonian (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

AE
WP:AE  nableezy  - 04:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action closed
An arbitration action to which you were a party has been closed. As a result of this request, editors involved are notified that reverting but being unwilling to discuss the revert is unacceptable and disruptive behavior. If this continues to occur, we will not hesitate to formalize discussion of all reverts in the topic area as a requirement and/or issue sanctions. All involved are also reminded to approach such negotiations in good faith. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

animal conspiracies
It's obviously not vandalism. I was asking to be reverted, but please don't cast spurious accusations. And please don't template me. 24.177.121.137 (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Digital Luxury Group


The article Digital Luxury Group has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * There is passing or insignificant coverage of the company and its services, even in the few reliable sources in the article. Most of the sources are dead links or self-created web pages. This is borderline spam.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)