Hello, JDiala, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to
sign your messages on
talk pages by typing four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! Vigyani
talk
ਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Please read up on the topic its obvious you have no knowledge of the Khalsa. Guru Hargobind, the 6th Sikh Guru clearly stated that if a Sikh doesn't have weapons that Sikh should not visit him and that Sikh is not his Sikh. Even today if you go into almost any Gurdwara you will see swords, spears etc infront of the Guru Granth Sahib as signs of respect. In the Harminder Sahib there are guards with spears. Every baptized Sikh must have a kirpan, a small dagger at all times, and your saying that baptized Sikhs cant come into their own places of worship?
Jujhar.pannu ( talk) 04:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Your wrong there is heaps and heaps of evidence that the entire Sikh culture was being repressed think why was Punjabi not allowed to be taught in any public school in Punjab between 1947 and 1966? That time the Harminder Sahib, or Golden temple was invaded by police in 1955 and the head jathedar of Akal Takht were arrested for a peaceful Punjabi Suba movement. The civilians were beaten and shot at and the army entered the place of worship with shoes and paraded around amirtsar for 3 days just to put the message that the Sikhs are second class citizens in India and that they are not allowed to peacefully protest. Sikhi allows weapons in its Gurdwaras and the Revolutionaries of 1984 were threatened for their safety and kept those weapons for Self-defense. Jujhar.pannu ( talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You're getting yourself embroiled in an edit war on Operation Blue Star. If I took further action you would be blocked as you have already breached WP:3RR, however, I'm giving you a chance to discuss on the talk page with editors. Thanks SH 13:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Operation Blue Star shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SH 13:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fellow editor, Let me explain my reason for my actions. The other two editors engaged with you stopped short of 3rd reverts. You've done far more than 3 in a 24 hour period. Secondly, I agree with you on the Khalsa issue but not the Civilian Casualties. The civilian casualties issue at Operation Blue Star is a central reoccuring issue from Human Rights groups and journalists. At the time of the operatiion a big play was made as to this operation was being taken against Militants and terrorist (terrorists incidently Gandhi herself created). The analogy I would use would be the SAS storming the Iranian Embassy siege not a battle during war in Stalingrad. I've read through the article, and there is a section and many references to civilian casualties, and the reason for this was they stormed it during the celebration of the birthday of a Sikh Guru when 1000's of piligrims would be there. That is why the civilian casualties but should stay. On a side note it wasn't only Sikh Militants who fought, the Nihang Sikh's who are guardians of the temple fought as well. Not because they supported Bhindranwala, but because it's their instinct to fight any invaders. Thanks SH 17:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi JDiala! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Hi, I started discussion on the talk page regarding the use of specific words in the info box. I think we should discuss this case on the one place (talk page of article) rather than talk page(s) of individual editors. Hopefully, we will find solution via WP:Consensus. Thanks Theman244 ( talk) 22:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia). Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the " Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 17:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I see you referenced the UNHCR claim to this document. I've had a quick read through, and I can't find where it says that the majority are legitimate asylum seekers. Could you point me to the specific bit? Thanks, Number 5 7 12:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the Israel article's talk page. I have tried to add a
The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
to this article. I would appreciate your thoughts on this on the Israel talk page. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 20:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Did you edited previously under any other username?-- Shrike ( talk) 09:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Israel lobby in the United States 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 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) 08:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Please participate the discussion. Thanks. Mhhossein ( talk) 11:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Please read this notification carefully:
A
community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to the
Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described
here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Are these news ( 1, 2 and 3) reflected in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict? Mhhossein ( talk) 13:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The source is counted primary per ALLPRIMARY, so we have to find reliable secondary sources regrading this subject. Mhhossein ( talk) 11:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Those comments put you in violation of the A-I sanctions. Please strike them. Dougweller ( talk) 22:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I will appreciate it if you refer to my notes at [ [1]]. thanks. Ykantor ( talk) 07:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Mike V •
Talk 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I would certainly argue that "Zionist Enterprise" is an offensive slur, based on its use in anti-Israel and anti-Jewish polemics.
Fatah Central Committee Member Says ISIS "extension of the Zionist Enterprise"
But then again, as a Labor Zionist, I have a "perverse POV Zionist narrative" according to you. -- Monochrome_ Monitor 23:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
What you did here is probably a second revert, since you deleted a paragraph. And even if it wasn't, what you are doing is very silly and doesn't contribute in any way.-- Averysoda ( talk) 05:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You Just restored a contested edit to the Hamas article. This is the third time you've tried to put this in the article in 3 days, despite knowing you do not have consensus for the edit. Kindly self-revert or I will report you for edit warring. Please read WP:EW and WP:BRD before replying. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 06:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
JDiala: Without mentioning that her comment about bombing Gaza was made while Hamas's was firing 1,500 rockets on civilian targets in Israel you are depriving readers of the timing, which is critical. She didn't make her comments in a vacuum, which is the false impression you give by removing the context. Zozoulia ( talk) 13:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Wow, and your assertions above ("the state purp[orting to represent international Jewry," "reprehensible", etc.etc) are a NPOV? Sorry for drawing your attention. Zozoulia ( talk) 14:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI: Israel does not purport to "represent international Jewry." Where on earth did you come up with that? Please name one Israeli law that makes that assertion. Perhaps your unfamiliarity with Israel leads to mistaken judgments on your part regarding this article. For example, while Israel claims that the last war in Gaza was an act of self-defense, citing Hamas's rocketing of Israeli civilians does not in and of itself establish that as a juridical fact. As we speak Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen, but citing that fact does not establish who is acting in self-defense and who is an aggressor. In the case of Judy Shalom Nir-Moses, mentioning the Hamas rocketing of Israel supplies the context that drove her to make her remarks. Without any context it sounds like she woke up one lovely morning with the desire to bomb Gaza out of existence. That in and of itself is not a NPOV. Zozoulia ( talk)
Oh, and one more item: I notice that in the past you have been suspended from editing due to your prejudices. I am not "making excuses" for this woman, just trying to supply all the information a reader needs. How do you know she is "a vicious woman?" She's obviously a stupid woman, but vicious? Your readiness to employ such absolute adjectives, borrowing from your own formulation, says quite a lot about you. Perhaps you need to mature a bit more before editing Wikipedia. Zozoulia ( talk) 14:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Israel defines itself as a Jewish state in its Declaration of Independence but you can't jump from that to your conclusion that it therefore represents the entire Jewish people. It can only represent its own citizens, who are a *majority* of the Jewish people. It cannot usurp for itself any ability to represent the minority who do not have Israeli citizenship. Your claim about Netanyahu is ridiculous. instead of making outrageous claims, provide the citation instead. You also reveal your ignorance in classifying "European Jews" as Khazars. All DNA testing conducted on Ashkenazi Jews (which is not the same as European Jews) have "concluded that the Y chromosome of most Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews contained mutations that are also common among Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general European population. This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced mostly to the Middle East." See /info/en/?search=Genetic_studies_of_Jewish_origins#Y-DNA_of_Ashkenazi_Jews And despite your ignorance, you arrogate to yourself the capacity to edit articles about Jews? The "broder occupation?" Are you unaware that Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005, removing every soldier, every settler and even every Jewish grave? Employing the term "occupation" under these circumstances not only ignores history, but reveals an urge to misrepresent reality. Yes, more Gazans die in conflict than Israelis, but only because Israel invested in early warning systems, underground bunkers and reenforced safe rooms for its entire population and missile interceptors. Had it not done so, there would ahve been many more Israelis to have died, which I'm sure would make you very happy. A "disproportionate" result in casualties does not automatically mean Israel committed a "massacre." As a mere 18-year-old sitting in far-away land with no actual knowledge of the Arab-Israel conflict, you are too immature and uneducated to edit these articles. I do hope that a more senior editor comes along to properly adjudicate this. Zozoulia ( talk)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.I see that you edited under another account in the last two years. Welcome back.
You made an edit, I reverted it, you reverted my revert less than 24 hours after your original edit.
Perhaps you don't remember, in this area you are supposed to discuss your changes and not edit war over them. Please self-revert and try to gain consensus for your changes on the article's talk page. “ WarKosign ” 07:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, JDiala. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, JDiala. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, JDiala, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
It appears from this talk page that you are aware of the 1RR restriction on pages that relate to Palestinian/Israeli topics.
It appears thaat you have recently exceeded that restriction on the article page with your recent edits.
Please self-undo enough of your edits, whichever ones you choose, to bring your history there into compliance.
Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC) @ JDiala: I see that you have resumed editing the page in the past hour. I'd like to get the matter of the 1RR resolved promptly so we can both move on. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, JDiala. You have again breached the 1RR restriction at the Israel-Hamas war article. It appears to me that, per your edit summaries, these are not just immaterial copyedits. Please self revert whichever edits you choose to get back down to 1RR. SPECIFICO talk 03:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Take a step back, I'd strongly suggest taking a one day break here. I have the right to moderate content on my talk page, please see policies on talk pages concerning this. You need to back off. Chuckstablers ( talk) 05:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, JDiala. You've again violated the 1RR restriction, with the following two edits: [2] [3].
I have not previously been involved with this content, but once it has been challenged by reversion, the WP:ONUS is on you, not the editors who have removed it, to seek consensus for the content on the article talk page.
Please self-revert your reinstatement of this and use the talk page until there's affirmative consensus for it. @ Triggerhippie4:. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JDiala reported by User:Andrevan (Result: ). Thank you. Andre 🚐 11:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily.
Daniel Case (
talk) 18:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "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."
Hello, I'm Andrevan. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andre 🚐 10:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to ask if it's possible that you refer to Israel as Israel and not "the zionist state" on the 2023 Israel-Hamas war talk page? You used that term here.
See this discussion and comments by more than one admin stating why this terminology needs to be avoided unless it's being discussed in the context of the opinions/views of a reliable source. Summarizing; it decreases the likelihood of productive discussion, increases the likelihood of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment for these types of topics.
Thanks for your time. Chuckstablers ( talk) 04:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this edit. What does allegations being disputed in a main article have to do with "reportedly" being a WP:WEASEL word, per MOS:AWW? Respectfully, Kire1975 ( talk) 23:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Enjoy! Abo Yemen ✉ 08:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
As used here the phrase is inflammatory. Can you redact? Coretheapple ( talk) 21:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
You are a vile person celebrating death. 2A06:C701:4749:B300:EBA1:751F:21E9:899F ( talk) 16:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Kindly note that it is WP:BRD not WP:BRRD, I wont discuss anything with edit warriors. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
shalom, Hello, I'm speaking to you from Israel, could you help me improve the English of this article Maor Ahzkenazi. I translated it from Wikipedia in Hebrew into simple English and several users already warned me that they could delete it just because it was not written properly, thanks Acartonadooopo ( talk) 13:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I think it should be discussed that popularisation of the word genocide is wrong. 39.60.195.153 ( talk) 01:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I know there are about 100 better times to say this (note my apology on the article talk page regarding snark), but: I have noticed the quotes on your user page, believe that the Sinwar quotes are not permitted, per Wikipedia:User pages. Do you disagree with that assessment? FortunateSons ( talk) 12:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
"[Statements] or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone these behaviors: vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence. ("Acts of violence" includes all forms of violence but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence.)"The Sinwar quotes would fall squarely into the
boldedsection. JDiala ( talk) 13:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FortunateSons ( talk) 18:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hamas is an elected political party in Palestine and enjoys widespread support among the Palestinian people.Not in a free and fair election, and not very widespread ("44% in the West Bank said they supported Hamas, up from just 12% in September. In Gaza, the militants enjoyed 42% support, up slightly from 38% three months ago." [5]; "Hamas has not tolerated dissent among Gazans in the 17 years it has ruled the tiny territory, choked by an Israeli-led blockade. But dissent against the Islamist militant group is now widespread and out in the open, voiced alongside Gazans' fury with Israel." [6]; "But a survey undertaken by Arab Barometer, a nonpartisan research network, between September 28 and October 8 2023 revealed dwindling confidence in Hamas (the surveys in Gaza were completed on October 6). Asked to identify the amount of trust they had in the Hamas authorities, 44% said they had no trust at all, while 23% said they had little trust." [7]). Consider the details of how Hamas got to power, the Hamas-Fatah wars, and Hamas's internal security, e.g. what it does to stay in power and eliminate dissent within and among Palestinians: [8] [9] [10]
Many consider it a legitimate resistance group.Can you name three people who have publicly said Hamas, specifically, is a legitimate resistance group? (Not that Palestinian resistance in general is legitimate, but that Hamas specifically is "legitimate".)
It is not recognized as a "terrorist organization" by the vast majority of the countries of the world, including major regional powers like China, India and Russia.The vast majority of countries in the world do not recognize terrorist organizations at all, any terrorist organizations. Among countries that do formally recognize terrorist organizations, what percentage list Hamas? Also, why would you name China, Russia, or the current Indian govt as examples? I mean are you really arguing that somebody is not a terrorist because Putin says so? More to the point: do YOU think they're a terrorist organization? They're holding civilian hostages in order to trade. Is that not terrorism, the very definition of? Is there any doubt here? Or do you actually believe holding civilian hostages to trade is OK, is not terrorism, is a legitimate or justified tactic even in war?
Support for the Palestinian resistance is a mainstream political view...Sure, but not support for Hamas.
I doubt that users would be sanctioned for having Israeli flags or American flags on their user pages, despite the fact that these states are perpetrating an ongoing genocide in Gaza, and these states have been either perpetrators of or accomplices to other genocidal atrocities far worse than anything Hamas may have done in e.g., Lebanon, Cambodia, East Timor, Vietnam, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Chile, Hiroshima."Flags" is a lark; nobody is complaining about anyone displaying the Palestinian flag. Also, Israel didn't do anything in any of those countries except Lebanon, unless I'm missing something? And I think you forgot to include Palestine on that list? Finally, you cheapen "genocide" by mixing it up with mass murder or other war crimes. I agree with you that Israel has pursued genocidal policies in Palestine, but nobody considers Hiroshima "genocide." That was a war crime (IMO), mass murder, but not an attempt to kill all Japanese people. Same for the other examples you give. And the genocide in Cambodia wasn't done by the US or Israel, the bombing in Cambodia was again a war crime but not an attempt to kill all Cambodians. The Khmer Rouge did commit genocide there, but not with US or Israeli support (AFAIK).
Hamas claims ... that "[if] there was any case of targeting civilians it happened accidentally."They are not holding 100+ hostages accidentally.
That there are war crimes or atrocities in a war does not imply that the war itself is illegitimate per se.Not the war itself, but the people who committed the war crimes or atrocities are illegitimate per se.
There would be no objection to quotes from Obama, Bush, Churchill, Kissinger etc. which express support for Western military conduct, despite Western military conduct being far worse than anything Hamas has ever done with respect to following the Geneva conventions, among other things.Obama, Bush, Churchill, and Kissinger are all responsible for some war crimes, but not for all "Western military conduct," and not for anything "far worse than anything Hamas has ever done". None of those four ever held civilian hostages for trade. And "Western military conduct" (dozens of countries, thousands of years) is far broader than even "Palestinian military conduct" (1 country, 100 years) nevermind "Hamas military conduct" (1 group, 40 years). It's a weird comparison, to compare Hamas to the entire west, it'd be like comparing the Proud Boys to Arab civilization.
There is no evidence Hamas leadership supported the rape or murder of civilians on 7 October.
Kill anyone that may pose a threat or cause distraction or disturbance.
attack civilians, and describes an interrogation of a captured militant who said the
mission was to kill … anyone we saw.
kill as many people as possible.
A coded document found in a vehicle used by Hamas terrorists in their shock assault on Israel showed they were instructed to massacre civilians and take captives, according to a television report Saturday.
You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours per page for pages within this topic. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 09:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
How about some Ghassan Kanafani? Iskandar323 ( talk) 13:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, as far as I can see you've closed the RfC that you yourself have initiated. This looks like a violation of the Closure procedure, which says that the closure must be made by an uninvolved editor. As the initiator of the RfC who also voted for one of the alternatives, you are clearly an involved user. Unless I'm missing something, please revert your closure. If you believe that the discussion has ended, you can request a closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Alaexis ¿question? 06:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an RfC that you've closed. The thread is RfC_closure_review_request_at_Talk:Israel#RfC:_Apartheid_in_Lead. The discussion is about the topic Israel. Thank you. — Alaexis ¿question? 12:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Given the views you've expressed in a number of controversial topics concerning Israel and Jews in general, it seems to me that your "I think he did it" gives me concern that you're simply not able to edit according to sources in some areas. We're not concerned with what you "think" or believe, we deal with what the sources say. Acroterion (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, JDiala, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to
sign your messages on
talk pages by typing four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on
my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! Vigyani
talk
ਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Please read up on the topic its obvious you have no knowledge of the Khalsa. Guru Hargobind, the 6th Sikh Guru clearly stated that if a Sikh doesn't have weapons that Sikh should not visit him and that Sikh is not his Sikh. Even today if you go into almost any Gurdwara you will see swords, spears etc infront of the Guru Granth Sahib as signs of respect. In the Harminder Sahib there are guards with spears. Every baptized Sikh must have a kirpan, a small dagger at all times, and your saying that baptized Sikhs cant come into their own places of worship?
Jujhar.pannu ( talk) 04:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Your wrong there is heaps and heaps of evidence that the entire Sikh culture was being repressed think why was Punjabi not allowed to be taught in any public school in Punjab between 1947 and 1966? That time the Harminder Sahib, or Golden temple was invaded by police in 1955 and the head jathedar of Akal Takht were arrested for a peaceful Punjabi Suba movement. The civilians were beaten and shot at and the army entered the place of worship with shoes and paraded around amirtsar for 3 days just to put the message that the Sikhs are second class citizens in India and that they are not allowed to peacefully protest. Sikhi allows weapons in its Gurdwaras and the Revolutionaries of 1984 were threatened for their safety and kept those weapons for Self-defense. Jujhar.pannu ( talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
You're getting yourself embroiled in an edit war on Operation Blue Star. If I took further action you would be blocked as you have already breached WP:3RR, however, I'm giving you a chance to discuss on the talk page with editors. Thanks SH 13:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Operation Blue Star shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SH 13:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fellow editor, Let me explain my reason for my actions. The other two editors engaged with you stopped short of 3rd reverts. You've done far more than 3 in a 24 hour period. Secondly, I agree with you on the Khalsa issue but not the Civilian Casualties. The civilian casualties issue at Operation Blue Star is a central reoccuring issue from Human Rights groups and journalists. At the time of the operatiion a big play was made as to this operation was being taken against Militants and terrorist (terrorists incidently Gandhi herself created). The analogy I would use would be the SAS storming the Iranian Embassy siege not a battle during war in Stalingrad. I've read through the article, and there is a section and many references to civilian casualties, and the reason for this was they stormed it during the celebration of the birthday of a Sikh Guru when 1000's of piligrims would be there. That is why the civilian casualties but should stay. On a side note it wasn't only Sikh Militants who fought, the Nihang Sikh's who are guardians of the temple fought as well. Not because they supported Bhindranwala, but because it's their instinct to fight any invaders. Thanks SH 17:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi JDiala! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Hi, I started discussion on the talk page regarding the use of specific words in the info box. I think we should discuss this case on the one place (talk page of article) rather than talk page(s) of individual editors. Hopefully, we will find solution via WP:Consensus. Thanks Theman244 ( talk) 22:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia). Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the " Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 17:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I see you referenced the UNHCR claim to this document. I've had a quick read through, and I can't find where it says that the majority are legitimate asylum seekers. Could you point me to the specific bit? Thanks, Number 5 7 12:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the Israel article's talk page. I have tried to add a
The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
to this article. I would appreciate your thoughts on this on the Israel talk page. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 20:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Did you edited previously under any other username?-- Shrike ( talk) 09:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Israel lobby in the United States 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 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) 08:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Please participate the discussion. Thanks. Mhhossein ( talk) 11:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Please read this notification carefully:
A
community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to the
Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described
here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Are these news ( 1, 2 and 3) reflected in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict? Mhhossein ( talk) 13:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
The source is counted primary per ALLPRIMARY, so we have to find reliable secondary sources regrading this subject. Mhhossein ( talk) 11:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Those comments put you in violation of the A-I sanctions. Please strike them. Dougweller ( talk) 22:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I will appreciate it if you refer to my notes at [ [1]]. thanks. Ykantor ( talk) 07:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Mike V •
Talk 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I would certainly argue that "Zionist Enterprise" is an offensive slur, based on its use in anti-Israel and anti-Jewish polemics.
Fatah Central Committee Member Says ISIS "extension of the Zionist Enterprise"
But then again, as a Labor Zionist, I have a "perverse POV Zionist narrative" according to you. -- Monochrome_ Monitor 23:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
What you did here is probably a second revert, since you deleted a paragraph. And even if it wasn't, what you are doing is very silly and doesn't contribute in any way.-- Averysoda ( talk) 05:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You Just restored a contested edit to the Hamas article. This is the third time you've tried to put this in the article in 3 days, despite knowing you do not have consensus for the edit. Kindly self-revert or I will report you for edit warring. Please read WP:EW and WP:BRD before replying. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 06:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
JDiala: Without mentioning that her comment about bombing Gaza was made while Hamas's was firing 1,500 rockets on civilian targets in Israel you are depriving readers of the timing, which is critical. She didn't make her comments in a vacuum, which is the false impression you give by removing the context. Zozoulia ( talk) 13:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Wow, and your assertions above ("the state purp[orting to represent international Jewry," "reprehensible", etc.etc) are a NPOV? Sorry for drawing your attention. Zozoulia ( talk) 14:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
FYI: Israel does not purport to "represent international Jewry." Where on earth did you come up with that? Please name one Israeli law that makes that assertion. Perhaps your unfamiliarity with Israel leads to mistaken judgments on your part regarding this article. For example, while Israel claims that the last war in Gaza was an act of self-defense, citing Hamas's rocketing of Israeli civilians does not in and of itself establish that as a juridical fact. As we speak Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen, but citing that fact does not establish who is acting in self-defense and who is an aggressor. In the case of Judy Shalom Nir-Moses, mentioning the Hamas rocketing of Israel supplies the context that drove her to make her remarks. Without any context it sounds like she woke up one lovely morning with the desire to bomb Gaza out of existence. That in and of itself is not a NPOV. Zozoulia ( talk)
Oh, and one more item: I notice that in the past you have been suspended from editing due to your prejudices. I am not "making excuses" for this woman, just trying to supply all the information a reader needs. How do you know she is "a vicious woman?" She's obviously a stupid woman, but vicious? Your readiness to employ such absolute adjectives, borrowing from your own formulation, says quite a lot about you. Perhaps you need to mature a bit more before editing Wikipedia. Zozoulia ( talk) 14:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Israel defines itself as a Jewish state in its Declaration of Independence but you can't jump from that to your conclusion that it therefore represents the entire Jewish people. It can only represent its own citizens, who are a *majority* of the Jewish people. It cannot usurp for itself any ability to represent the minority who do not have Israeli citizenship. Your claim about Netanyahu is ridiculous. instead of making outrageous claims, provide the citation instead. You also reveal your ignorance in classifying "European Jews" as Khazars. All DNA testing conducted on Ashkenazi Jews (which is not the same as European Jews) have "concluded that the Y chromosome of most Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews contained mutations that are also common among Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general European population. This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced mostly to the Middle East." See /info/en/?search=Genetic_studies_of_Jewish_origins#Y-DNA_of_Ashkenazi_Jews And despite your ignorance, you arrogate to yourself the capacity to edit articles about Jews? The "broder occupation?" Are you unaware that Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005, removing every soldier, every settler and even every Jewish grave? Employing the term "occupation" under these circumstances not only ignores history, but reveals an urge to misrepresent reality. Yes, more Gazans die in conflict than Israelis, but only because Israel invested in early warning systems, underground bunkers and reenforced safe rooms for its entire population and missile interceptors. Had it not done so, there would ahve been many more Israelis to have died, which I'm sure would make you very happy. A "disproportionate" result in casualties does not automatically mean Israel committed a "massacre." As a mere 18-year-old sitting in far-away land with no actual knowledge of the Arab-Israel conflict, you are too immature and uneducated to edit these articles. I do hope that a more senior editor comes along to properly adjudicate this. Zozoulia ( talk)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.I see that you edited under another account in the last two years. Welcome back.
You made an edit, I reverted it, you reverted my revert less than 24 hours after your original edit.
Perhaps you don't remember, in this area you are supposed to discuss your changes and not edit war over them. Please self-revert and try to gain consensus for your changes on the article's talk page. “ WarKosign ” 07:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, JDiala. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, JDiala. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, JDiala, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
It appears from this talk page that you are aware of the 1RR restriction on pages that relate to Palestinian/Israeli topics.
It appears thaat you have recently exceeded that restriction on the article page with your recent edits.
Please self-undo enough of your edits, whichever ones you choose, to bring your history there into compliance.
Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC) @ JDiala: I see that you have resumed editing the page in the past hour. I'd like to get the matter of the 1RR resolved promptly so we can both move on. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, JDiala. You have again breached the 1RR restriction at the Israel-Hamas war article. It appears to me that, per your edit summaries, these are not just immaterial copyedits. Please self revert whichever edits you choose to get back down to 1RR. SPECIFICO talk 03:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Take a step back, I'd strongly suggest taking a one day break here. I have the right to moderate content on my talk page, please see policies on talk pages concerning this. You need to back off. Chuckstablers ( talk) 05:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, JDiala. You've again violated the 1RR restriction, with the following two edits: [2] [3].
I have not previously been involved with this content, but once it has been challenged by reversion, the WP:ONUS is on you, not the editors who have removed it, to seek consensus for the content on the article talk page.
Please self-revert your reinstatement of this and use the talk page until there's affirmative consensus for it. @ Triggerhippie4:. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JDiala reported by User:Andrevan (Result: ). Thank you. Andre 🚐 11:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily.
Daniel Case (
talk) 18:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "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."
Hello, I'm Andrevan. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andre 🚐 10:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to ask if it's possible that you refer to Israel as Israel and not "the zionist state" on the 2023 Israel-Hamas war talk page? You used that term here.
See this discussion and comments by more than one admin stating why this terminology needs to be avoided unless it's being discussed in the context of the opinions/views of a reliable source. Summarizing; it decreases the likelihood of productive discussion, increases the likelihood of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment for these types of topics.
Thanks for your time. Chuckstablers ( talk) 04:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this edit. What does allegations being disputed in a main article have to do with "reportedly" being a WP:WEASEL word, per MOS:AWW? Respectfully, Kire1975 ( talk) 23:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Enjoy! Abo Yemen ✉ 08:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
As used here the phrase is inflammatory. Can you redact? Coretheapple ( talk) 21:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
You are a vile person celebrating death. 2A06:C701:4749:B300:EBA1:751F:21E9:899F ( talk) 16:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Kindly note that it is WP:BRD not WP:BRRD, I wont discuss anything with edit warriors. Selfstudier ( talk) 16:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
shalom, Hello, I'm speaking to you from Israel, could you help me improve the English of this article Maor Ahzkenazi. I translated it from Wikipedia in Hebrew into simple English and several users already warned me that they could delete it just because it was not written properly, thanks Acartonadooopo ( talk) 13:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I think it should be discussed that popularisation of the word genocide is wrong. 39.60.195.153 ( talk) 01:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I know there are about 100 better times to say this (note my apology on the article talk page regarding snark), but: I have noticed the quotes on your user page, believe that the Sinwar quotes are not permitted, per Wikipedia:User pages. Do you disagree with that assessment? FortunateSons ( talk) 12:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
"[Statements] or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone these behaviors: vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence. ("Acts of violence" includes all forms of violence but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence.)"The Sinwar quotes would fall squarely into the
boldedsection. JDiala ( talk) 13:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FortunateSons ( talk) 18:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hamas is an elected political party in Palestine and enjoys widespread support among the Palestinian people.Not in a free and fair election, and not very widespread ("44% in the West Bank said they supported Hamas, up from just 12% in September. In Gaza, the militants enjoyed 42% support, up slightly from 38% three months ago." [5]; "Hamas has not tolerated dissent among Gazans in the 17 years it has ruled the tiny territory, choked by an Israeli-led blockade. But dissent against the Islamist militant group is now widespread and out in the open, voiced alongside Gazans' fury with Israel." [6]; "But a survey undertaken by Arab Barometer, a nonpartisan research network, between September 28 and October 8 2023 revealed dwindling confidence in Hamas (the surveys in Gaza were completed on October 6). Asked to identify the amount of trust they had in the Hamas authorities, 44% said they had no trust at all, while 23% said they had little trust." [7]). Consider the details of how Hamas got to power, the Hamas-Fatah wars, and Hamas's internal security, e.g. what it does to stay in power and eliminate dissent within and among Palestinians: [8] [9] [10]
Many consider it a legitimate resistance group.Can you name three people who have publicly said Hamas, specifically, is a legitimate resistance group? (Not that Palestinian resistance in general is legitimate, but that Hamas specifically is "legitimate".)
It is not recognized as a "terrorist organization" by the vast majority of the countries of the world, including major regional powers like China, India and Russia.The vast majority of countries in the world do not recognize terrorist organizations at all, any terrorist organizations. Among countries that do formally recognize terrorist organizations, what percentage list Hamas? Also, why would you name China, Russia, or the current Indian govt as examples? I mean are you really arguing that somebody is not a terrorist because Putin says so? More to the point: do YOU think they're a terrorist organization? They're holding civilian hostages in order to trade. Is that not terrorism, the very definition of? Is there any doubt here? Or do you actually believe holding civilian hostages to trade is OK, is not terrorism, is a legitimate or justified tactic even in war?
Support for the Palestinian resistance is a mainstream political view...Sure, but not support for Hamas.
I doubt that users would be sanctioned for having Israeli flags or American flags on their user pages, despite the fact that these states are perpetrating an ongoing genocide in Gaza, and these states have been either perpetrators of or accomplices to other genocidal atrocities far worse than anything Hamas may have done in e.g., Lebanon, Cambodia, East Timor, Vietnam, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Chile, Hiroshima."Flags" is a lark; nobody is complaining about anyone displaying the Palestinian flag. Also, Israel didn't do anything in any of those countries except Lebanon, unless I'm missing something? And I think you forgot to include Palestine on that list? Finally, you cheapen "genocide" by mixing it up with mass murder or other war crimes. I agree with you that Israel has pursued genocidal policies in Palestine, but nobody considers Hiroshima "genocide." That was a war crime (IMO), mass murder, but not an attempt to kill all Japanese people. Same for the other examples you give. And the genocide in Cambodia wasn't done by the US or Israel, the bombing in Cambodia was again a war crime but not an attempt to kill all Cambodians. The Khmer Rouge did commit genocide there, but not with US or Israeli support (AFAIK).
Hamas claims ... that "[if] there was any case of targeting civilians it happened accidentally."They are not holding 100+ hostages accidentally.
That there are war crimes or atrocities in a war does not imply that the war itself is illegitimate per se.Not the war itself, but the people who committed the war crimes or atrocities are illegitimate per se.
There would be no objection to quotes from Obama, Bush, Churchill, Kissinger etc. which express support for Western military conduct, despite Western military conduct being far worse than anything Hamas has ever done with respect to following the Geneva conventions, among other things.Obama, Bush, Churchill, and Kissinger are all responsible for some war crimes, but not for all "Western military conduct," and not for anything "far worse than anything Hamas has ever done". None of those four ever held civilian hostages for trade. And "Western military conduct" (dozens of countries, thousands of years) is far broader than even "Palestinian military conduct" (1 country, 100 years) nevermind "Hamas military conduct" (1 group, 40 years). It's a weird comparison, to compare Hamas to the entire west, it'd be like comparing the Proud Boys to Arab civilization.
There is no evidence Hamas leadership supported the rape or murder of civilians on 7 October.
Kill anyone that may pose a threat or cause distraction or disturbance.
attack civilians, and describes an interrogation of a captured militant who said the
mission was to kill … anyone we saw.
kill as many people as possible.
A coded document found in a vehicle used by Hamas terrorists in their shock assault on Israel showed they were instructed to massacre civilians and take captives, according to a television report Saturday.
You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours per page for pages within this topic. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 09:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
How about some Ghassan Kanafani? Iskandar323 ( talk) 13:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, as far as I can see you've closed the RfC that you yourself have initiated. This looks like a violation of the Closure procedure, which says that the closure must be made by an uninvolved editor. As the initiator of the RfC who also voted for one of the alternatives, you are clearly an involved user. Unless I'm missing something, please revert your closure. If you believe that the discussion has ended, you can request a closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Alaexis ¿question? 06:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an RfC that you've closed. The thread is RfC_closure_review_request_at_Talk:Israel#RfC:_Apartheid_in_Lead. The discussion is about the topic Israel. Thank you. — Alaexis ¿question? 12:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Given the views you've expressed in a number of controversial topics concerning Israel and Jews in general, it seems to me that your "I think he did it" gives me concern that you're simply not able to edit according to sources in some areas. We're not concerned with what you "think" or believe, we deal with what the sources say. Acroterion (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)