User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2010/January

Hello!
Just dropping by to see how your doing. Cheers, Abce2 |  This is  not a test  17:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, your welcome. Abce2 | This is  not a test  00:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Workshop
I have posted the first round of questions on the Workshop. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the first set of answers, and for your patience. The second round of questions are now available. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

SPI
has opened an SPI about you. You can view it here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks for the notification.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * i think sock puppet investigate need to be open on Breein1007, gilabrand, hertz1888 and nsaum75 since them all push same proisrael/projew agenda on article. Notice it only be them three that cause same trouble, and make similar edits, like them all the same person. How convient they all be appear at same time to same article! Village article be non controversial until gilabrand/nsaum start to make trouble by attempt to water down truth. I not know how to open investigate unfortunately. Ani medjool (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm. While Breein1007 makes no secret of prior acquaintance with Wikipedia, I think that this sort of fishing trip is unlikely to get anywhere and could well be refused at checkuser. I would be very surprised indeed if al;l four were the same person. Comparing gilabrand and nsaum75, one is clearly more hardline than the other. You would really need to find stronger evidence to say they are sockpuppets. Also you would need to look at various project and user talk pages etc. and eliminate perfectly innocent reasons for their arriving at the same articles before you can say that there is any grounds to suspect some sort of off-Wikipedia coordination. I also think that there would need to be stylistic analysis. If Breein1007 were a sock of one of those three, I would expect to see evidence of that account making his type of sarcastic comments before the editor decided to spin off a separate account for that purpose.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment as one of the "accused", what Ani medjool is suggesting sounds like a witch hunt designed to harass those who might take a different position than him. Concerns about individual editors aside, I think its blatantly clear from our edit histories & editing style that we, as a group, are not all puppets of the same master. -- nsaum75  ¡שיחת! 17:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Either of those are believable. In either case the old account hasn't edited for 6 months, convenirntly circumventing check user. So you would have to go for evidence of nationality etc. to match with Bree's IP.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I had noted one of those. I was wanting to avoid deductions from there which would be remotely accused of being partial outing. However, both CM and TB strike me as more consistent with these IP addresses than what I know about the other three.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Golan Mountains
The references to Syria were deleted because they were unfortunately bunched together with anti-Israel vandalism by that other user. I simply reverted his edits.99.253.230.182 (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Golan Heights belong to Israel completely and entirely. It is not up to the U.n. to dictate what belongs to whom and how a country determines what is part of its sovereignty. Since 1967 these mountains are entirely and completely a part of Israel and will remain so forever. You have no claim whatsoever considering Syria has less than nothing to do with Golan, Israel any longer, after they lost it trying to destroy Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.233.94 (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Categories
The new Israeli occupied territories categories you've created need parent categories for hierarchy purposes. I have gone through and listed the parent categories as if they are their own country. For instance, in I have listed the parent category as "Mountains by country" as opposed to Mountains of Israel and Mountains of Syria. I did it this way as I was not sure if all parties would consider the inclusion of the new category under parent categories of Israeli & Syria as being neutral. What is your take on this? -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 22:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was trying to appease both sides of the argument based partly on your comments regarding Israel/Syrian categories at Talk:Mount_Hermon_ski_resort. A number of Syrian editors are opposed to the inclusion of Israel categories while a number of Israeli editors are opposed to the inclusion of Syrian categories. In order to end the current round of edit warring/disagreements over which categories belong, I was hoping your "Israeli occupied territories" category would be a compromise for both sides.


 * The new category is not a subcategory of Israel or Syria, and makes it clear that the Golan is occupied by Israel and not owned by Israel in the eyes of the majority of the world. I also thought maybe a "Occupied Syrian territories" category could be created, since in addition to Golan Heights, the Hatay_Province is often considered Syrian territory that is being occupied by Turkey.  Anyhow, these are all just ideas, and I'm willing to work with suggestions? Its not perfect, but I'm trying to find a compromise that both sides can live with right now.    -- nsaum75  ¡שיחת! 04:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hrs for edit warring on List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel
The edit warring on List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel was inappropriate by both User:Supreme Deliciousness and User:Gilabrand. This behavior violated Wikipedia core policies such as do not use Wikipedia as a battleground, edit in a neutral point of view, treat editors with respect and in an adult manner, WP:DISRUPT, and WP:EDITWAR.

Both accounts are blocked for 24 hours for abuse of Wikipedia policies.

Find somewhere else to fight this battle. When you participate here we expect you to be adult and cooperative, and to abide by Wikipedia policies. Failure to do so is not acceptable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not edit warred, I have today added links to the village list, and in the mean time user Gilbrand was vandalizing the article, I reverted one time then reported him. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel
Template:Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

tagging, etc
Hi, I see User:Chesdovi are tagging some of your Syrian towns and villages as non-notable...well, don´t get too worked up about it. I work on the List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus...and Chesdovi routinely tagged them either for merging with other (Israeli localities) -articles, or for deletion. See my User:Huldra/Sandbox. I think he has given up now, as we have expanded all he had tagged, including getting a couple of them to DYK-standard ;D

So, just don´t get too worked up about it; just expand the articles; that is the best solution. Good luck! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)  Ps: snakker du svensk, forresten? I såfall er vi naboer!


 * Oh, btw, a user named Ashley kennedy3 is blocked for a year; but he makes notes -a lot- on his  talk-page. Recently about Syrian wine;  see User_talk:Ashley_kennedy3. Possibly useful tibits, cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

hi
i feel like i under attack by all editor everywhere. every change i make get revert or be delete or contest even when it be truth. why so many editor not see that many article lace with untruth or misinformation? all i try to do is try correct errors but nobody want to know the truth :( even when source present, it not accept. i grow tired of this. sometime feel like giving up. Ani medjool (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

so we trick the lobby and make them think we agree while look for other way to expose their lie and then bring truth to article? I will try. Has this work for you? So frustrate to deal with all liar & zionist editor. Ani medjool (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

lot of editor try to say palestine no exist because it be occupy for long time by other country. I going try to provide source that show Israel be just another occupy government because it be unilateral illegal declare in 1948 against UN mandate. Think this be ok to try? Ani medjool (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit and is especially useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. A3RO (mailbox)  09:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

answered..
on my page. not sure if you aren't watching it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
A3RO (mailbox)  10:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
A3RO (mailbox)  10:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment
I saw your comment on Breein1007's talk page. He/she has made a lot of unusual edits for a new user, which is why I "welcomed" them. It might be worth your time to open an SPI on them, if it so concerns you. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 16:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that hahaha. I originally thought better of you nsaum. Guess i was mistaken. There's a difference between someone who watches wikipedia for a while without making an account and a person with an account making a new one.Breein1007 (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Up to 500 words?
Hi. :) I note this. Is there a source for that on the website? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, page 2 in the document.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Page 2? I wondered if you meant the "about" tab (as it is second), but I don't see it there. (That website loads very slowly for me!) I see a Documents menu (http://www.badil.org/en/documents). Is that what you mean? We should provide a link to the specific page that verifies this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.golan-marsad.org/pdfs/declans%20report.pdf --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that document. Okay. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
But there is so much yet to do there. As soon as I can get confirmation that the place was also known simply as Jubbata, there will be much more to add. Good work in taking the initiative on List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel. I was hoping someone would start that one.  T i a m u t talk 16:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing RfC
Please do not remove RfC requests placed by other users. If you feel this deserves discussion elsewhere, please bring it up there, but do not delete the RfC. Thanks -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 19:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I will open a discussion on the Golan Heights article, pertaining to renaming of geographic features, as it seems that location would be the most visible for all editors. -- nsaum75  ¡שיחת! 19:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have opened RfC at the Golan Heights with notifications at WP Israel and WP Syria. The Golan is not generally considered part of the Israel-Palestine conflict, as it has always been considered part of Syria or an Israeli occupied territory. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights / whatever

 * Please leave page Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights at that neutral title until move discussion has come to a conclusion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please express your reasons at the new discussion started at Talk:Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Second Temple
Please bring your request to the talk page to gain consensus. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 10:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Second_Temple_of_Jerusalem#RfC_Archeological_categories
You are invited to join the discussion at. nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 10:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC) (Using )

Talkback
Ipatrol (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.


 * User:Arab Cowboy is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to their ethnicity or nationality for one year and is placed on a 1 revert per week restriction for one year.
 * User:Supreme Deliciousness is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to their ethnicity or nationality for one year and is placed on a 1 revert per week restriction for one year.
 * Asmahan is placed under article probation for one year.
 * Any article within the scope of this case, where an extended dispute related to the national or ethnic identity of an individual is occuring may be placed under article probation by an uninvolved administrator for up to six months.

Uninvolved administrators may perform escalating blocks on editors who do not abide by these remedies.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

re: asmahan
I can try to answer them. Wizardman 16:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Questions
1. Principles are generally just guidelines that apply to the case at hand. Ones that recite policy technically are to be followed by everybody, and if violated they are usually sanctioned by the community through a block or something else.

2. You would have to post something right after the revert, namely your reason for making the revert and why how it was before is right.

3. From the sanction page: Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. So basically, if a violation occurs on an article probation page, sanctions are more severe, like a topic ban.

4. When in doubt, if it seems like a borderline violation, like that, then i wouldn't to the revert as it could constitute a violation.

5. Yes

6. If there was a collaborative consensus on it, then someone else will revert you don't have to worry about it. Wizardman 19:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Archaeological sites in Israeli occupied territories
Category:Archaeological sites in Israeli occupied territories, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, renaming or whatever. Your input would be welcome at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 23. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI case concerning you
A discussion has been started at ANI which concerns you. You can participate in the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — Cactus Writer |   needles  13:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked you for twelve hours, the edits you have made are minor but they do cross the line. I would suggest staying far, far, far away from the Asmahan article for the time being, if you don't want this unpleasantness to escalate further.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC).
 * I have not crossed any line or violated anything. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I have reviewed the case and decided that you went over the line with this edit, among others.  You asked Wizardman if it was acceptable, and he specifically replied that it was a borderline violation and not to do it.  Then you went and did it anyway.  It is my view that this is a violation of section 3.2 of the decision in the Asmahan case.
 * Apart from the 12 hour block (which has since expired), I have not placed any additional restrictions upon you, other than what ArbCom has already done, therefore there is nothing that I can 'take back'. I would suggest however, that you avoid making any edits whatsoever that could even remotely be considered to be in violation of your topic ban.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC).
 * I disagree. If you like I will raise this with an arbitrator for a second opinion, but in my view that edit crossed the line and I don't think I'll be dissuaded from that position.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC).
 * I apologise that I have not been able to follow this up lately, as I have been ill. I have now asked an arb for a second opinion.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Unfortunately, the arb who I brought this up with has not responded. It is my view that those edits, and your consequent explanations are examples of Wikilawyering and gaming the system, and are not what the arbs intended when they imposed the various restrictions upon you.  It is also becoming evident that these discussions are not going to result in a productive outcome, so I am now going to step back and not involve myself any further in this matter.  If you still have a problem, I suggest you either bring it up at WP:AN or appeal directly to the arbitrators involved in your case to overturn the block.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

Re: comment
Right; borderline violation or extreme violation, the point i was trying to make was not to do those kinda of edits. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein/Nableezy

 * Hi Supreme Deliciousness. I would like to work on two things regarding what has happened to Nableezy. One is to file an appeal of Sandstein's decision which I will begin in my user space shortly. The second, concurrent to this, would be opening a User RfC on Sandstein regading his abuse of his admin powers. I have asked Gatoclass for some advice on how to proceed. I hope he responds soon. When I have drafts up in my user space, I will be contacting you for feedback. I hope you will co-sign both the appeal and the User RfC. Also, check out Nableezy's talk page to see what has happened most recently and why these steps are absolutely necessary. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, Nableezy has decided to file an appeal at AE.  T i a m u t talk 21:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Never say never. Are you bothered by something I've recently done? DrorK (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
Yes, I'm willing to participate. BTW, I've not had any real experience of the process. I've noticed the proposal for one involving Jerusalem but have so far resisted plunging in.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings
Just FYI, "deleted" user pages are not really "deleted", as they can still be retrieved by admins at later dates.

Cheers! -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 22:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi
ok Ani medjool (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you :) Ani medjool (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I from bourj el-barajneh camp in lebanon but begin 2008 I live in US with uncle so I go to school and learn english. Ani medjool (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Golan
Hi. I really don't have anything to add. It seems like a stalemate. I wish I could be of more help. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of quotes
You may want to read up on Wikipedia rules regarding use of quotes, as regardless of where they come from -- even the Bible or Tanakh -- sometimes over use of them can give the appearance of trying to push a POV via subterfuge. Regards -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 19:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

pic
Good evening SD, I apologize for not responding to your query promptly. I saw the picture as soon as I got the message, but I waited to get a second opinion. Unfortunately, I could not read what the sign says because it's out of focus; the other person I asked, also, could not read it. Have a nice day.George Al-Shami (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)