User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2010/June

Why did you
Well, because I did not see a consensus in that discussion. While I did not say so in the close, there is always the option to split out the articles from the occupied territories into a separate list. I'll also add that there is Category:Nature reserves in Israeli occupied territories so with a list split, there is a way to deal with the various issues. Finally I'll add that on this issue, no matter which way the decision came down, someone would be upset. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Templates
It would be best to discuss changes you wish to make to the Israeli Parks template before making the changes, since attempts to change the name of the article failed at the RfM mentioned above above. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 21:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussions at the template as can bee seen here: ]  clearly show many people discussing and showing that the occupied territories should be in it, the IP address removed it without consensus here and without participating at the talkpage:  there were no consensus to change the template. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The results were mixed, no one firm side for or against, and the debate had been effectively left hanging since your topic ban began. Just a piece of advice, since you just came off an Israel-Palestine AE topic ban, it might be best to ease your way back into editing. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? The vast majority of editors at the template discussion including several Israeli editors supported the inclusion of occupied territories. So why wouldn't I revert the edit by the IP when there was no consensus for the change? and a lot of that discussion was from 2008, so it hasn't been "left hanging" since my topic bann. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007
I notice you reported this user per 3RR, you should inform them of this. As you've been threatened by the editor, I could do the informing for you let me know. RomaC (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do whatever you want. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Have informed the editor. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Check discussion please
Hi Supreme! You recently added complaints from foreign journalists into the Israeli Military accounts section. It really doesn't belong there and in the past has been moved to a a more appropriate location in the Media reactions section.

Please either undo your change or provide support for why it should remain here: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid

Cheers,

Zuchinni one (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't see that as I copied it from the other Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid article, I have self reverted --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this ...
It seems that the NPOV of the FPA is currently in question (thought not by me since I know nothing about them). Thus placing the info in the to the flotilla & activists account section seems to be the best thing to do for now.

I suggest we add this:


 * The Foreign Press Association says the military is now selectively using footage to bolster its claims that commandos opened fire only after being attacked.

You want to add it there -> Gaza_flotilla_raid?

Zuchinni one (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid
Wehwalt is probably offline (late on the US). I recommend filing a WP:RPP report (if you haven't already) and bringing it to the attention of WP:ANI for more eyes. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 09:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason
Hello, my friend. Let me explain to you: The reason I called it "vandalism" is that you just edited it without making any proper conversation about this, and without getting any agreement. You can't just come and edit as you like, if someone would change the name of the capital of Israel from Jerusalem to Tel - Aviv, I would call it vandalism as well (and it happened few times). Look, I can tell you that I'll never just come to syria article and start fulling the article with notes: "The area is including the Golan Heights which is correctly administrative by Israel" and ect. The political situation is comlicated, this is why we should be very carefull about what we do. I hope it's clear now! I wish you have a great day! --Sipio (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I showed you Wikipedia rules - undue weight: that alone is clear that we can not go against the extreme majority view in an article, that is not neutral pov. So it is not nice to call my edit following Wikipedia rules "vandalism" specially when I clarified my edit and the rule to you at the talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Im aware the fact that "Vandalism" wasn't the right word to describe it, but I still think that you're edit wans't fair for the people who take care about Israel article. What would you feel if I will come to Syria article, which I'm sure that you worked well on it, and just edit the article with no agreement and well conversation? I already noted for you're reason in talk page. But please let's finish this subject, it will just bring unnecessary strifes. I really wish we could live in peace (and please let's dont start the "there is no peace because of you're country" subject). Have a great day. --Sipio (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Journey (video game)
✅ — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

can you take a look at this?
Yes, it is a touchy area. If you look, you will see that there is the article, Israeli-occupied territories and a category, Category:Israeli-occupied territories. Unless there is some object to that term and hence the category, that is likely a way out of the conflict. In the case of the national parks and reserves, there is no reason why these area should not be included. If fact I just added the subcategory. It is not possible to always draw a direct conclusion from an article to a template. In the case of National parks of Israel, I would probably just just leave the name Israel in the name and break the listings into two lists, one for Israel proper and the other for the occupied territories. This would maintain a distinction and yet unify the areas operated by Israel. That in my mind is probably what the template needs to show. If you do work like that and clearly expand Category:Israeli-occupied territories beyond the conflict, editors have a better way to classify the articles related to these territories. But again this whole area is subject to emotional reactions. I'm almost afraid to nominate anything that includes Jew or Jewish for discussion since it will likely always result in opposition for reasons not behind the nomination. But hey, you need a thick skin to edit here. I don't know if I answered your questions, but good luck. Maybe the lesson and wisdom is that making any change in the area is not going to be easy. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion at the page move was based on the arguments there. I suspect that any attempt to combine what is in Israeli proper and in the occupied territories is going to be problematic.  I strongly believe, and I think the discussion hints at this, that having separate articles for the occupied territories is the least objectionable direction.  I will agree with you that a no consensus decision, does not bestow consensus status across the board for renames to the no consensus name.  Each case needs to be considered on the individual merits.  As to the contents of the template which is what I think your specific question is.  This needs to be discussed on the template talk page and a decision reached there.  The RM that was closed can be considered there, but how much, if any weight, it has in that discussion will be up to the participants.  Vegaswikian (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From your last note, this sounds like it is still a problem. I still think that my suggestion above to split the lists out into sections is the best solution.  Trying to deal with this at the top of the template is an either or solution with no room for compromise.  This comes down to the template listing areas operated or designated by a specific state.  As I understand it, not all of these areas are in what is the generally accepted boundaries of the state.  It is clear that the fact that Israel's international borders remain in dispute plays a clear role here.  Do you think that breaking the template list into two parts would work?  I'm thinking groups along the lines of State of Israel and Occupied territories?  Don't really understand the politics there well enough, so I don't know if that breakout would add to the fires or cool them down. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 'State of Israel' and the 'Occupied territories' sounds very reasonable. That assumes that the politics of the area supports that two terms.  I'm not up on what is correct.  Both of those would be referring to the areas that have parks operated by the state.  Good luck.  If this does not work and talk page discussions with Breein fail, then this needs a broader airing. First stop is probably Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In looking at his editing history he seems to have been staying out of trouble since he was blocked for something else and that block was lifted. So my suggestion is to edit the template and split out the stuff into two groups.  I can do that if you like.  If he reverts that change, then let me know and I will have something to say.  As long as we keep the distinction of who runs the area and where it is located I don't see how anyone can object since the information displayed accurately.  If you want me to do the template update I can, I just need to know which are in the occupied territories.  Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I updated the template. I did not move Bayt 'Itab since my reading of the article left me unclear as to where it really is.  If you know it is the West Bank, feel free to move it to that section of the template. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Av Kalle Forssell kalle.forssell@expressen.se

Kurdish Freedom Flotilla
It looks like somebody already took care of the merger and redirect. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)