Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:KIBBUTZ SUFA ROCKET 04-16-08.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 22:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello GHcool. A complaint about you has been filed at WP:AN3#User:GHcool reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness. The Hezbollah article is under a 1RR/day restriction due to WP:ARBPIA, which you can easily see at the top of Talk:Hezbollah. If you respond at the noticeboard and promise to stop warring on this article you may still be able to avoid sanctions. You should also promise not to edit the article for seven days. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
Per WP:AN3#User:GHcool reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 24 hours). EdJohnston ( talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The
Arbitration Committee has permitted
administrators to impose, at their own discretion,
sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the
Arab-Israeli conflict 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 engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision.
EdJohnston (
talk)
15:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear friend. You edit here is in contrast with WP:Civility. Wikipedia users are not speakman of their countries foreign minister. In matters like Hezbollah's one, there are controversial view points and Wikipedia reserves equal weight for all of them. Such comments don't have any place in Wikipedia. Try to respect, else you'll encounter further problems. Thanks.-- Aliwiki ( talk) 08:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi GHcool, thanks for your kind words. Even if we may not always see eye to eye, I'm glad that we can work together constructively, and hopeful we can continue to do so in the future. Working under an umbrella of civility makes dealing with our differences of opinion much more manageable I think. Cheers. ← George talk 07:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You are mentioned here -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 18:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
In accordance with WP:ARBPIA#Dscretionary sanctions and the consensus of uninvolved administrators, I am hereby informing you that you are banned from editing any page or taking part in any discussion (regardless of namespace) related to the area of conflict covered by the case, broadly construed. This restriction is in place for 62 days from the expiry of your current block (0137, 26 March 2011, UTC) and, if necessary, will be enforced by escalating blocks.
You may appeal this sanction at any time to the relevant noticeboard, currently WP:AE, or directly to ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
You might wish to comment here [1] in a matter that concerns you-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 19:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I've lifted your topic ban and amended WP:ARBPIA to reflect this. In lieu of the remaining month on your topic ban consider this a caution to edit within the letter and the spirit of ARBPIA and all applicable policies and guidelines. Consider it a chance to prove that the topic ban was unnecessary. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
for yuour own sake refrain from [pov as youve already one had sanctions. Lihaas ( talk) 20:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Please self-revert. Thank you. -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
You still need to self-revert. Please do so now. Thanks. -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 06:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
"Apparently, the problem with Gold is that he is an Israeli." -- This is your only warning, next time I'm filing a report. Zero talk 13:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello GHcool. It seems that you've missed reading some of Zero's posts. That's an easy mistake to make, especially when discussions become lengthy. May I kindly ask you to check if you haven't missed some? -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 17:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
If urging editors to be tolerant of other editors' points of view is "POV pushing", then I want to one of those POV pushers. Shirt58 ( talk) 11:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC) |
Israel in the borders 1949-1967 may or may not have been an apartheid state. However the West Bank has been occupied by Israel for so long that it is for all intents and purposes part of Israel. Even the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies in its website has a section on the Geography of Israel suggesting just that. http://www.nswjbd.org/Geography/default.aspx NSW Jewish Board of Deputies: Geography of Israel: Retrieved 27 April 2012 I can go no further than to agree with Peter Beinart from the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/opinion/to-save-israel-boycott-the-settlements.html?_r=1&hp Op-Ed Contributor: The New York Times: Opinion Pages: To Save Israel, Boycott the Settlements By PETER BEINART: Published: March 18, 2012: Retrieved 27 April 2012] The West Bank fulfils all the criteria in User:GHcool:
Trahelliven ( talk) 05:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Trahelliven ( talk) 09:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Could you let me have your opinion of the issues I raise on the talk page please? In addition to thosementioned there, do you think it would be worth getting rid of the quotes in the Hamas paragraph. I can understand using a quote when it sums up the issues succinctly but at the moment it looks as if Hamas' position is hard to characterise given that different members of the organisation have different views and may be competing with each other. Instead of using the quotes at the side, wouldn't it be better to highlight the complexities and emphasise that neither of the two individuals actually cited is the leader of Hamas, possibly with a short explanation about Hamas' council based structure? 92.225.176.163 ( talk) 14:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The first official document of the new state was the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel of 14 May 1948. [2] In its key section, it commits two fundamental errors:-
Possibly the second document of Israel is the Letter from the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States of May 15, 1948. [4] Its opening words are as follows:- I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,... Nowhere in the Declaration of 14 May 1948 is there even a reference to any frontiers of the new state, let alone any refering to any in the Resolution of 29 November 1947. The Preident was deliberately misled as to the content of the Declaration of 14 May 1948. Trahelliven ( talk) 03:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Trahelliven ( talk) 05:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
[5]] Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs: History: foreign Domination: The Road to Independence contains a number of inaccuracies:-
The Committee did not recommend anything. The Report of 3 September 1947 contained alternative proposals for considereration and possible recommendation by the UNGA. The Plan attached to Resolution 181(II) was the plan proposed by the majority, slightly amended. As a matter of strict interpretation, the UNGA did not even adopt the Plan of Partition attached to the Resolution. It adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan. Further both the Report and the Plan referred to the proposed Arab state before the proposed Jewish state. There is also no reference to the City of Jerusalem.
My objections may seem petty, but the slight distortions to the Resolution seem to suggest that the proposed Arab state was an afterthought and that the Resolution was legally binding. Trahelliven ( talk) 00:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:KIBBUTZ SUFA ROCKET 04-16-08.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn ( talk) 22:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello GHcool. A complaint about you has been filed at WP:AN3#User:GHcool reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness. The Hezbollah article is under a 1RR/day restriction due to WP:ARBPIA, which you can easily see at the top of Talk:Hezbollah. If you respond at the noticeboard and promise to stop warring on this article you may still be able to avoid sanctions. You should also promise not to edit the article for seven days. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
Per WP:AN3#User:GHcool reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 24 hours). EdJohnston ( talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The
Arbitration Committee has permitted
administrators to impose, at their own discretion,
sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the
Arab-Israeli conflict 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 engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision.
EdJohnston (
talk)
15:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear friend. You edit here is in contrast with WP:Civility. Wikipedia users are not speakman of their countries foreign minister. In matters like Hezbollah's one, there are controversial view points and Wikipedia reserves equal weight for all of them. Such comments don't have any place in Wikipedia. Try to respect, else you'll encounter further problems. Thanks.-- Aliwiki ( talk) 08:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi GHcool, thanks for your kind words. Even if we may not always see eye to eye, I'm glad that we can work together constructively, and hopeful we can continue to do so in the future. Working under an umbrella of civility makes dealing with our differences of opinion much more manageable I think. Cheers. ← George talk 07:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You are mentioned here -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 18:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
In accordance with WP:ARBPIA#Dscretionary sanctions and the consensus of uninvolved administrators, I am hereby informing you that you are banned from editing any page or taking part in any discussion (regardless of namespace) related to the area of conflict covered by the case, broadly construed. This restriction is in place for 62 days from the expiry of your current block (0137, 26 March 2011, UTC) and, if necessary, will be enforced by escalating blocks.
You may appeal this sanction at any time to the relevant noticeboard, currently WP:AE, or directly to ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
You might wish to comment here [1] in a matter that concerns you-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 19:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I've lifted your topic ban and amended WP:ARBPIA to reflect this. In lieu of the remaining month on your topic ban consider this a caution to edit within the letter and the spirit of ARBPIA and all applicable policies and guidelines. Consider it a chance to prove that the topic ban was unnecessary. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
for yuour own sake refrain from [pov as youve already one had sanctions. Lihaas ( talk) 20:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Please self-revert. Thank you. -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
You still need to self-revert. Please do so now. Thanks. -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 06:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
"Apparently, the problem with Gold is that he is an Israeli." -- This is your only warning, next time I'm filing a report. Zero talk 13:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello GHcool. It seems that you've missed reading some of Zero's posts. That's an easy mistake to make, especially when discussions become lengthy. May I kindly ask you to check if you haven't missed some? -- Frederico1234 ( talk) 17:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
If urging editors to be tolerant of other editors' points of view is "POV pushing", then I want to one of those POV pushers. Shirt58 ( talk) 11:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC) |
Israel in the borders 1949-1967 may or may not have been an apartheid state. However the West Bank has been occupied by Israel for so long that it is for all intents and purposes part of Israel. Even the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies in its website has a section on the Geography of Israel suggesting just that. http://www.nswjbd.org/Geography/default.aspx NSW Jewish Board of Deputies: Geography of Israel: Retrieved 27 April 2012 I can go no further than to agree with Peter Beinart from the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/opinion/to-save-israel-boycott-the-settlements.html?_r=1&hp Op-Ed Contributor: The New York Times: Opinion Pages: To Save Israel, Boycott the Settlements By PETER BEINART: Published: March 18, 2012: Retrieved 27 April 2012] The West Bank fulfils all the criteria in User:GHcool:
Trahelliven ( talk) 05:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Trahelliven ( talk) 09:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Could you let me have your opinion of the issues I raise on the talk page please? In addition to thosementioned there, do you think it would be worth getting rid of the quotes in the Hamas paragraph. I can understand using a quote when it sums up the issues succinctly but at the moment it looks as if Hamas' position is hard to characterise given that different members of the organisation have different views and may be competing with each other. Instead of using the quotes at the side, wouldn't it be better to highlight the complexities and emphasise that neither of the two individuals actually cited is the leader of Hamas, possibly with a short explanation about Hamas' council based structure? 92.225.176.163 ( talk) 14:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The first official document of the new state was the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel of 14 May 1948. [2] In its key section, it commits two fundamental errors:-
Possibly the second document of Israel is the Letter from the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States of May 15, 1948. [4] Its opening words are as follows:- I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,... Nowhere in the Declaration of 14 May 1948 is there even a reference to any frontiers of the new state, let alone any refering to any in the Resolution of 29 November 1947. The Preident was deliberately misled as to the content of the Declaration of 14 May 1948. Trahelliven ( talk) 03:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Trahelliven ( talk) 05:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
[5]] Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs: History: foreign Domination: The Road to Independence contains a number of inaccuracies:-
The Committee did not recommend anything. The Report of 3 September 1947 contained alternative proposals for considereration and possible recommendation by the UNGA. The Plan attached to Resolution 181(II) was the plan proposed by the majority, slightly amended. As a matter of strict interpretation, the UNGA did not even adopt the Plan of Partition attached to the Resolution. It adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan. Further both the Report and the Plan referred to the proposed Arab state before the proposed Jewish state. There is also no reference to the City of Jerusalem.
My objections may seem petty, but the slight distortions to the Resolution seem to suggest that the proposed Arab state was an afterthought and that the Resolution was legally binding. Trahelliven ( talk) 00:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)