User talk:SeattliteTungsten

Hello SeattliteTungsten, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed your recent contributions and apologize for the late welcome.

Here are some tips to help you along:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Read the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Ramallite (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 4 tildes... thanks, I was looking for how to do this. -SeattliteTungsten 17:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier
Hi - please read the no original research policy page. According to the page, "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation'." Creating a new chart and extrapolating data based on your own research violates this policy. Hope this helps. Ramallite (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have read the no original research policy page but do not believe this is original research. See more details in IWBB talk page. SeattliteTungsten 21:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't responded yet - I still have a few points to address but I'll get to them as soon as I can. As for the chart, I was approaching it strictly from a scientist's perspective, in which data illustrating change, introduced in such a manner, would be immediately tossed out and the presenter would be disemboweled with an aluminium toothpick. But I realize now that this is how %GDP is illustrated, so you were right about that. I also agree that if we want to present information, we should do that as neutrally as possible. I still feel the text is a thinly veiled attempt to push a POV that the barrier actually improved the economy (which in my opinion would be something to be proud of, to have a recovering economy in the face of such adversity), but unfortunately we can't really introduce an original concept like that since it would be OR and also inaccurate. I also don't understand why you deleted the most recent reference to the actual GDP (2004) and replaced it with the older 2002. More later, I'll post on the discussion page itself as soon as I can. Ramallite (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Separation barrier
Is there any reason for cutting the link between articles Israeli West Bank barrier and Separation barrier? Gregkaye ✍ ♪  14:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. Please see discussion on separation barrier talk page. (Sorry- I do not mean to dismiss you but to move the discussion there. My Google research suggests that the English language term "separation barrier" does not have a generic meaning that is primarily a barrier separating people and that this meaning is used almost exlusively to refer to the IWBB. Among the definitions of "separation barrier" where the unqualified, generic meaning is "barrier separating people" this is, at best, the 4th or 5th meaning and not nearly the primary meaning.)
 * I changed it once and reverted once. By my count, you get another revert tomorrow but I won't complain if you change it back now. I won't be changing it again any time soon.
 * SeattliteTungsten (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be very interested to learn (and will congratulate you) if you can find and cite a source that defines the term "separation barrier" as "barrier separating people" that is not self-referential to the Wikipedia page. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you and have a wonderful day! SeattliteTungsten (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Seattlite, I can quite imagine separation barrier to be a neologism and would not be surprised if it were a Wikipediologism. That search gets a single result today which may be doubled in a few days time. I have not checked on the ins and outs of the guidelines but I would think that the presence of the article is justified as it has a legitimate subject.  It's just the name that is up for debate. thanks Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  11:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your comments but I am not sure that I am following you. (I would like to.) Which search gets a single result, and what is the result?
 * I am not suggesting that any of the content is not useful. I am merely questioning whether "separation barrier" is -- generically -- a term in the English language that an English speaker would understand, by itself and without context, to mean "a barrier separating people." I do not think so. I am beginning to appreciate the nuance here and why the current state/status exists: that "border barrier" might be more appropriate but for people who believe expressly that the Green Line is not, nor was ever intended, nor should be a political border, they do not want to call the IWBB a "border barrier" since there is no "border-ness" to it. (Also, "separation" is redundant because "separation" is an intrinsic attribute to "barrier" in all contexts.) SeattliteTungsten (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The search just gave an indication of another neologism that had appeared on Wikipedia. I am agreeing that the title separation barrier is likely a neologism.  Its also a bit like Repetition (rhetorical device) like describing something like a toasting toaster or, perhaps, Snow White.  I still think that the article content and subject area is valid but agree about the title.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  03:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think the article content justifies its own article (good to keep this content in an article but the article should probably be renamed) vs. do you think the article content should be scattered to the nearest other article on a sentence-by-sentence or paragraph-by-paragraph or section-by-section basis? (I think the latter is probably true and that when the content of "separation barrier" is scattered to other places we will discover that 85% of it already exists in the other places, 10% has references that help the other places and only 5% has actual content that is in this article and not in another place.) SeattliteTungsten (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I do. There can be moves by elements that want to absolve Israel of responsibility for actions to remove any links that are viewed as unfavourable.  If the content were placed under border barrier then a justification would be created to say, well its not by a border.  In any case I just got a prompt to look at the article name in Hebrew, (גדר הפרדה lit. fence (of) caused separation).  It pretty much counts as official name.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  09:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

StandWithUs
Thanks for your message. I'm sorry to see that your statement of respect for me on your user talk page was replaced with a condemnation of "loud-mouths" shortly after we had a conflict a number of weeks ago :) So as for ad hominem attacks, I have had enough experience with various editors (including the one in question, who insinuated that s/he thought I was "smarter than that" right on my talk page a few inches above where you left your comment) to safely declare when one's edits (and not personalities) are well-intentioned or not. Basically, when one gets on Wikipedia and commences to edit with the sole intention of delegitimizing or defaming the entire Palestinian people based on actions of a few, such a person clearly has an agenda in mind that I would not call "well intentioned". But then again, that's just me. Thanks again for your note. Ramallite (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is obviously some misunderstanding (or perhaps it's not that obvious). On the Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier page you wrote: "While well-meaning, this is not the best addition to this article". In my edit, I just disagreed with you that it was "well-meaning", that's all. So it was a response to you rather than a direct address to anyone else. Plus, my sentence was "I would hardly call adding propaganda sites like StandWithUs "well-meaning"". In other words, the act of using propaganda sites of the caliper of StandWithUs is something I do not consider well-meaning. Now, do you often go after people who you accuse of making personal attacks on other editors and confront them on their user pages? Or are you just, for whatever reason, focusing on lecturing me? If so, why just me? I'm really curious... Ramallite (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Active arbitration remedies - Israel/Palestine conflict
Zerotalk 12:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

1RR
Hi. Your edits and  constitute a plain breach of WP:1RR, simply in the first section (the lede). I request you revert it. -DePiep (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 1RR breach by SeattliteTungsten. Thank you.


 * I don't want you to write on my talkpage any more. -DePiep (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Caution
Please don't antagonise or provoke other editors with comments like these, or edits like this, especially after an editor has asked you not to post on their talk page. It's only likely to aggravate a dispute and needlessly personalise it. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground and that editors who conduct themselves in this way in the long term will likely be sanctioned, in this case under the provisions of discretionary sanctions. This caution is not a sanction per se, but I will log it on the case page, which means that it will be taken into consideration should you come to administrators' attention for this sort of conduct again. It is my sincere hope that that won't be necessary. Regards, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thank you.
 * The context of my comment -- which was made on an article talk page and not a user talk page -- is that (A) DePiep did not like one edit I made, (B) I stopped making edits briefly with the intention of discussing before editing, (C) I responded on the Talk page with discussion of the change, I disagreed with DePiep's view and expressed my own view, I proposed other related changes before making them, I explicitly solicited the input of other people to determine whether there was an area of consensus in advance of making the other changes; and (D) DePiep then stated that DePiep in the future would not "dive into this" which I understood to mean "not continue" ("not continue to discuss"? "not continue to edit"?] the particular subject matter on the particular page.
 * In response to DePiep's unsolicited description of DePiep's own future conduct I wrote, (E) "Your promise not to continue is accepted" and you have now asked me not to respond like this.
 * I am sorry that I appear to have been born without the gene that enables me to understand what is wrong with (E), why I should not accept (D), why I should not agree with DePiep's decision regarding Depiep's own future conduct, and why I should not write, "Your promise not to continue is accepted." This is mysterious to me, a failing which I fully accept about myself and for which I must occasionally apologize as I am now doing.
 * In the future, should somebody again state that they will not "dive into this" per your request that I not "antagonize" or "provoke" someone with the a response like, "Your promise not to continue is accepted" I propose that I instead respond, "OK." OK? 20:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Separation barrier
You need to read WP:OWN. Unfortunately you exhibit this behavior by reverting practically everything that you don't like. Zerotalk 01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. I have read WP:OWN and I do not believe I own articles on Wikipedia nor do I believe I act like I do. For the record, I see a lot of content that I do not like and I do not revert so your statement that I revert practically everything I do not like is untrue. Sometimes, I even initiate changes that I do not like but that I believe are correct. Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, your revert of my edit is your second within a 24 hour period and therefore is a violation of 1RR. I'll give you a brief chance to revert yourself so that I don't need to report you. Zerotalk 01:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have checked changes I made recently and I do not believe I have violated 1RR. I see that I reverted your edit re: GPF once, not more than once, and I do not intend to revert it again anytime soon. If I am mistaken about this, please let me know. If you are mistaken about this, please count better. Note that it is now around 02:19 UTC, 23 September 2014 and if you are referring to any change made prior to 02:19 UTC, 22 September 2014, then I could legitimately change it now without violating 1RR so if this is the case then you would be simply wasting time. Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a revert and this is also a revert. They were less than 4 hours apart.  You are not permitted more that one revert per day in this article.  I am preparing a complaint against you so you had better revert yourself quite fast if you want to preempt it. Zerotalk 08:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The two examples are from different sections and the purpose of 1RR is to prevent "edit wars" which means repeated restorations to the same text.
 * The first example is not a revert: it is an edit. Reversion is the act of restoring the text to a previous state. The first example is not an action that restores text to a previous state. It is an example of edits that created new text. The text I submitted did not previously exist in a previous version so it is not a revert. I made... (looks like...) eight changes to the section which were various types of changes including capitalization, links, singular/plural, word changes, paragraph break changes and additions of new text. None of these changes (to the best of my knowledge but I have not checked every previous version) previously existed. One of the eight changes involved restoring reference to BBC guidelines which I edited and substantially shortened down to fourteen words from significantly longer prior text. WP policy states, "The first and foremost alternative to reverting when you find you disagree with an edit is to find a third version of the text that incorporates at least some of the elements of the prior text and the current text." This is exactly what the first example does: a previous editor thought the BBC reference should be deleted; I incorporated some of this by deleting the majority of the original text; I kept less than the majority of the previous text. Hence, the action was editing not reverting.
 * It should be clear from the history of my edits that I do not engage in edit wars. I do not even believe I know how to use the "undo" or "revert" links. Why not just make the change you want?
 * If you were "preparing a complaint" against me in a United States federal district court or you were "preparing a complaint" to the file with the Securities and Exchange Commission that I thought would not be immediately dismissed and might cost money or otherwise harm me, I might be concerned. I am not sure what you hope to accomplish because I have no emotional or monetary investment in this account. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave you much more opportunity to get out of this than I usually do. Your statement #1 is simply wrong. Your statement #2 is also wrong, and would be wrong even if you didn't yourself call it a revert in your edit summary.  Your statement #3: I didn't just revert you back because I would have been violating 1RR myself. About #4, you can be blocked or banned from editing, but that is not up to me as I will be just the reporter.  There is no point in responding more here, I will notify you where to write.  Zerotalk 10:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The case against you can be found at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. According to the protocols of that page, you should only write in the section called "Statement by SeattliteTungsten". Zerotalk 11:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=626847116 your edit] to Israeli West Bank barrier may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating the WP:1RR rule applying to WP:ARBPIA topics, as described in the recent AE thread concerning you, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.  Sandstein  09:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

SPI notice
Sockpuppet_investigations/SeattliteTungsten Zerotalk 07:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Another AE notice
You are reported again: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Zerotalk 00:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:WestBankGDP3.png


The file File:WestBankGDP3.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused and redundant to File:WestBankGDP2.jpg."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)