I suggest you read WP:V. It's a core policy of Wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion of material in an article is that it was published by reliable secondary sources, not our own interpretation of primary sources. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 08:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
My delegation cannot agree with the assertion that the territory and frontiers of the State of Israel have not been established, are undetermined and vague. It holds the view that the territory of Israel has been defined by an international document, namely, the General Assembly's resolution of 29 November 1947, which is still in force. Not only does the resolution define precisely the territory of the State of Israel, but it even includes an appended map, which can be seen at any time by any member of the Security Council. The question is therefore beyond dispute. See [1] page 22 of 45
In our opinion the territory of the State of Israel has been determined and delimited by an international instrument, that is, the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947, and which remains in force. Not only does that resolution delimit the territory and boundaries of the State of Israel, but the resolution has a map appended to it which can be consulted by any member of the Security Council or by anybody else. Thus, the question is indubitable. See [2] page 5 of 20
You have made two [5] [6] reversions to the above article within less than two hours. The article is under a one revert per 24 hours restriction, as you can see on the top of the article's talk page. I believe I have already pointed this restriction out to you in the talk page discussion.
You should self-revert your last edit or you will be reported. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 12:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Have it your way. Reported here. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 16:33, 1 April 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.
You are notified here per the result of WP:AN3#User:Talknic reported by User:No More Mr Nice Guy (Result: Notified of discretionary sanctions). This notice will be logged at WP:ARBPIA#Log of notifications. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
..how Wiki policies are used to perpetrate propaganda, prevent the addition of informative material, slowly remove the Palestinians from the picture, turn what could be simple discussions into marathons talknic ( talk) 17:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I started a discussion about you here. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 11:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Reported here. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 17:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course. Thx talknic ( talk) 17:07, 28 April 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."
![]() |
The Modest Barnstar | |
Thanks for your recent contributions! - Mike Restivo ( talk) 20:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC) |
See this result of an AE discussion. You are banned for three months from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, including talk pages. The authority for this action is here. The ban expires on 2 August 2011. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I really don't need lessons in deportment and etiquette from you. Since you're in a minority of one on most issues that you've been discussing on that page, and you keep on raising the same discredited nonsense again and again and again no matter how many times other people point out very serious problems (not to mention your old habit of including gratuitous insults in edit summaries), you would appear to be the one who's being "disruptive"... AnonMoos ( talk) 00:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
You consider pointing out flaws in your arguments to be a personal attack. In any case, if it comes to any kind of formal Wikipedia process, then your habit of including gratuitous insults in your edit summaries will be weighed in the balance (as I told you once before long ago). AnonMoos ( talk) 17:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Talknic, I really don't need lessons in etiquette and deportment from you, since you frequently act very poorly in continually aggressively repeatedly pushing unproductive and unconstructive lines of argument on article talk pages, in spite of the fact that you must know from repeated past evidence that it will not result in any article article improvement. Someone has said that fanaticism is knowing that what you're doing won't get any results, but continuing to do it anyway... AnonMoos ( talk) 22:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
As a result of an RFC you filed, I was pointed at Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War. I am strongly concerned that your language and tone are overly emotive. You must collaborate with other editors, even those you disagree with. Please try to remain calm. Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry my dinnertime schedule disappoints you. Please stop harassing me. I will respond on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not use rollback (it was impossible to do so as there had been a subsequent edit), I did not accuse anyone of being a vandal, and I have no idea what you mean by an "unattributed" article? They are both legitimate sources that show what the Hebrew name for the war is. What on earth makes you think that those Hebrew names for the war is POV? This is one of the few things in the article that isn't contentious. Perhaps what is appropriate is an apology for false accusations of inappropriate rollback usage and vandalism claims? Number 5 7 09:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Talknic, I really don't need any lessons in deportment and etiquette from you, considering that the basic problem is, and remains, that you keep relentlessly and aggressively trying to push nonsense into the articles, long after it has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people that it's blatant nonsense (not necessarily always by those on the quasi-"pro-Israel" side, by the way -- both Zero0000 and ItsMeJudith have lost patience with you at times). Frankly, several people are wondering at this point whether your continual relentless and aggressive pushing of the same old tiresome tedious exposed and debunked blatant nonsense indicates that you're consciously and deliberately disingenuous, or possibly even a mere troll. Your incredible obtuseness on the Alec Kirkbride discussion, where you completely and utterly failed to grasp extremely basic and obvious simple points no matter how how many times they were explained to you at great length certainly had the flavor of a deliberately cultivated or calculated disingenuous obtuseness. Furthermore, you behave worse in your edit summaries than I do on the article talk pages, and pointing out flaws in your arguments, or that you're repeatedly re-raising red herrings that have been discredited and found to be ineffective in the past, is not a "vendetta"[sic]. Frankly, if you invoke some kind of formal Wikipedia bureaucratic process, then your past behavior will be nothing to be proud of, and will not make a very good impression on uninvolved third parties. AnonMoos ( talk) 03:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Reported here. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 05:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Anything to please you all ... talknic ( talk) 17:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I recommend you read WP:Vandalism, especially the section titled "What is not vandalism". Calling the work of editors with whom you disagree vandalism is inappropriate. Labeling non-vandalism edits as vandalism as an attempt to circumvent the 1RR restriction are strongly frowned upon.
After you read WP:Vandalism, you may wish to consider undoing your last edit at 1948 Arab–Israeli War, since you were not reverting vandalism. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 05:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The reasons given by NMMNG for reverting on the last two occasions were simply false, not a matter of disagreement over content ... talknic ( talk) 10:35, 8 November 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."
Talknic ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
This is not how to appeal against an arbitration enforcement block. please follow the link in the block notice (above) to see how to do so. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Thanks James ... Claro ... talknic ( talk) 17:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
In reply to your posting to my page. The 3RR rule specifically says "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." -- PBS ( talk) 07:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. However [22] there's no valid reasons given for reverting ... talknic ( talk) 09:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I have removed your RfC from Talk:Citing sources because it is a talk page for an article, Citing sources, which consists of a redirect to the article Citation. That article is about citations in general throughout scholarly writing, and is not specific to Wikipedia. Thus it is not the appropriate place to discuss how citations are done within Wikipedia. Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes I realize it appeared on Talk:Citing sources. I tried to resolve it before [24]. But removing it from Talk:Citing sources also removes it from [25]. How do I get it to appear only on [26]? thx ... talknic ( talk) 00:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
OK Thanks for your help. Seems someone is determined by any means not to have the proposal put forward ... talknic ( talk) 01:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, some comment that I wrote more than a month ago was not properly aligned. I'm not interested in maintaining ancient discussions. They should be archived. If it bothers you, please feel free to delete any of my comments that are more than a month old, which you feel intrude on your comments. Jsolinsky ( talk) 14:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Sheeeeesh, in the time you've wasted deleting a reasonable request from your own page, you could have rectified the problem. Thanks for being so cooperative. I'll add it to what is becoming a rather long list ... talknic ( talk) 15:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiProject Animation Award | |
Had to give you something for your effort there - hilarious! Oncenawhile ( talk) 00:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi. Did you see my post under Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Threaded_discussion? Nice idea, but unless I'm mistaken, this irreparably damages your proposal, so it might be best to withdraw it. — SMALL JIM 18:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Reported here. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 19:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You were engaged in a previous conversation on this topic, please join the ongoing discussion here. Greyshark09 ( talk) 15:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I added the words "in the territory of" before the British Mandate, which I think addresses your objection about the Mandate itself not technically being a territory.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 15:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
A Mandate is a set of conditions. Sets of conditions do not have any territory. Nor was it the British Mandate. The official name was Mandate for Palestine. [27] The primary document does not contain the words "British Mandate" ... talknic ( talk) 17:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Talknic. You have been banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces for six months, for reasons given in the Result section of this AE request. This ban expires on 26 June 2012. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack ( talk • contribs)
Friday, 5 March 1948 Rabbi Silver stated:
"Nevertheless, reluctantly but loyally, we accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations"
"We feel under the obligation to make our position unmistakably clear. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision. of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we. are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision. "
Why are editors preventing the Official Jewish Agencies reaction from being accessed by readers?
Friday, 19 March 1948 Rabbi Silver replacing Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine stated:
"We are under the obligation at this time to repeat what we stated at a [262nd meeting] meeting of the Security Council last week: The decision of the General Assembly remains valid for the Jewish people. We have accepted it and we are prepared to abide by it. If the United Nations Palestine Commission is unable to carry out the mandates which were assigned to it by the General Assembly, the Jewish people of Palestine will move forward in the spirit of that resolution and will do everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival and by considerations of justice and historic rights." and; acknowledged that "The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State."
talknic (
talk)
10:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC). Why are editors determined to prevent readers from accessing this information?
Unsourced
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mandatory_Palestine&diff=next&oldid=494875105 nonsense "The Mufti al-Husseini would spend the rest of the war in
Nazi Germany and the occupied areas in Europe, in particular encouraging Muslim
Bosniaks to join the
Waffen SS in German-conquered
Bosnia. Al-Husseini was also responsible for establishing the Arab unit of the Wehrmacht, which was largely operating on the Eastern European front.
dubious –
discuss Despite his efforts, most of the Arab pro-German volunteers were not Palestinian."
talknic (
talk)
04:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Hopelessly bogged down by POV
Arab Israeli war - Reference says nothing like The fighting took place mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon.[14]
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=h3EOJGiBBpQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+war+for+palestine+rewriting+the+history+of+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4YPRT8yxPMHWmAWdzMSMAw&ved=0CDgQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=mandate&f=false
talknic (
talk)
04:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Topic now under discussion
Can you show an official document (or a citation of one) that says explicitly that the official name was "Palestine"? I suspect there wasn't one. On the other hand, I have a good secondary source that says "Palestina (E.Y.) became Palestine’s official Hebrew name, and it consequently appeared on all official documents and notices", and several other good secondary sources that say similar things. Zerotalk 12:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC) ... The Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Covenant, The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine --- "English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic"
talknic (
talk)
04:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Topic now under discussion
Suggest one article "The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine". Rationale: Mandatory Palestine is not the official name of anything. It is a "term" used to describe a period in history where Palestine was governed by the British under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. "British Mandate for Palestine" is also only a term used to describe the British obligations under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. As it stands the document pictured on the "British Mandate for Palestine" page says "League of Nations Mandate for Palestine". Muddied waters do not belong in Wikipedia Wikipedia. talknic ( talk) 09:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Topic split is hopeless for readers we must presume know nothing of the topic. talknic ( talk) 14:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Note for Jerusalem article. The lede ought reflect the issue in light of well documented UNSC resolutions talknic ( talk) 13:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
[28] You can't say I didn't warn you. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 18:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
As expected :-)
///Comment by Nishidani Since he returned, Talnic's very detailed arguments have been only, as far as I recalled, responded to by NMMGG. NMMGG mainly (apologies if I err, but this is all very much a TLDR altercation) said the prior consensus had addressed his concerns, and he was just more or less kicking a dead horse. What little I examined suggested to me that the prior discussions were not resolutive, nor adequate. It is highly improper of NMMGG in his first diff above, to take that as some violation. Talknic turned out to be correct, and NMMGG's dismissal of his arguments as 'resolved' in a prior consensus superficial. NMMGG denied at length that the hebrew and arabic terms were synonymous. I stepped in, and showed they were synonymous. Given their synonymity, nakba had to be bolded exactly as the hebrew term. Prior to this, as talknic insisted, WP:NPOV was violated by having only the Hebrew term. NMMGG's solution is to avoid parity by removing the Hebrew term for the war, so nakba disappears. Talnic's solution is to emend the earlier stable text by adding the equivalent arabic. They disagree over this. I haven't had time to help out with the other points, but the imbalance in NPOV talknic speaks of does exist, and is very difficult to resolve. Talknic tends to undermine his case by TLDR posting, as per above, but serious issues exist, and he's fingered some. There are essentially only 2 people arguing here, and I do not think the differences can be resolved by eliminating one of the two editors at the request of the other. Nishidani ( talk) 20:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC) /// talknic ( talk) 21:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I can't help. You're stuck with it - I do not understand what you are getting at. Trahelliven ( talk) 11:45, 21 July 2012 (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."
The instructions for appeal are located at the top of WP:AE, near the bottom. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 07:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The latest diff on your talkpage is a pretty clear violation of your topic ban. I'm not going to block you for it this time, but your ban extends to all namespaces on Wikipedia; this includes your user talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 20:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Muhammad al-Durrah incident // an investigation indicated the IDF probably did not shoot the al-Durrahs and the boy was most likely killed by Palestinian fire. [1] [2]//
Talknic, if you're going to think this way, go ahead, make a similar edit, and we'll see what happens. I'm fine with that. But it's troubling that you think what Blade wrote a section right above us, "I'm not going to block you for it this time, but your ban extends to all namespaces on Wikipedia; this includes your user talkpage," is not explicit and is actually saying "would" and not that it actualy "does." -- Activism 1234 15:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston#Violation of topic ban. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
See here. -- Activism 1234 20:33, 9 September 2012 (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."
Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear user, since you have participated on a geopolitical context discussion on Palestine [39], you might be interested in expressing your opinion on a reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity?. Thank you. Greyshark09 ( talk) 21:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:V. It's a core policy of Wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion of material in an article is that it was published by reliable secondary sources, not our own interpretation of primary sources. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 08:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
My delegation cannot agree with the assertion that the territory and frontiers of the State of Israel have not been established, are undetermined and vague. It holds the view that the territory of Israel has been defined by an international document, namely, the General Assembly's resolution of 29 November 1947, which is still in force. Not only does the resolution define precisely the territory of the State of Israel, but it even includes an appended map, which can be seen at any time by any member of the Security Council. The question is therefore beyond dispute. See [1] page 22 of 45
In our opinion the territory of the State of Israel has been determined and delimited by an international instrument, that is, the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947, and which remains in force. Not only does that resolution delimit the territory and boundaries of the State of Israel, but the resolution has a map appended to it which can be consulted by any member of the Security Council or by anybody else. Thus, the question is indubitable. See [2] page 5 of 20
You have made two [5] [6] reversions to the above article within less than two hours. The article is under a one revert per 24 hours restriction, as you can see on the top of the article's talk page. I believe I have already pointed this restriction out to you in the talk page discussion.
You should self-revert your last edit or you will be reported. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 12:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Have it your way. Reported here. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 16:33, 1 April 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.
You are notified here per the result of WP:AN3#User:Talknic reported by User:No More Mr Nice Guy (Result: Notified of discretionary sanctions). This notice will be logged at WP:ARBPIA#Log of notifications. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
..how Wiki policies are used to perpetrate propaganda, prevent the addition of informative material, slowly remove the Palestinians from the picture, turn what could be simple discussions into marathons talknic ( talk) 17:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I started a discussion about you here. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 11:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Reported here. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 17:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course. Thx talknic ( talk) 17:07, 28 April 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."
![]() |
The Modest Barnstar | |
Thanks for your recent contributions! - Mike Restivo ( talk) 20:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC) |
See this result of an AE discussion. You are banned for three months from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, including talk pages. The authority for this action is here. The ban expires on 2 August 2011. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I really don't need lessons in deportment and etiquette from you. Since you're in a minority of one on most issues that you've been discussing on that page, and you keep on raising the same discredited nonsense again and again and again no matter how many times other people point out very serious problems (not to mention your old habit of including gratuitous insults in edit summaries), you would appear to be the one who's being "disruptive"... AnonMoos ( talk) 00:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
You consider pointing out flaws in your arguments to be a personal attack. In any case, if it comes to any kind of formal Wikipedia process, then your habit of including gratuitous insults in your edit summaries will be weighed in the balance (as I told you once before long ago). AnonMoos ( talk) 17:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Talknic, I really don't need lessons in etiquette and deportment from you, since you frequently act very poorly in continually aggressively repeatedly pushing unproductive and unconstructive lines of argument on article talk pages, in spite of the fact that you must know from repeated past evidence that it will not result in any article article improvement. Someone has said that fanaticism is knowing that what you're doing won't get any results, but continuing to do it anyway... AnonMoos ( talk) 22:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
As a result of an RFC you filed, I was pointed at Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War. I am strongly concerned that your language and tone are overly emotive. You must collaborate with other editors, even those you disagree with. Please try to remain calm. Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry my dinnertime schedule disappoints you. Please stop harassing me. I will respond on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not use rollback (it was impossible to do so as there had been a subsequent edit), I did not accuse anyone of being a vandal, and I have no idea what you mean by an "unattributed" article? They are both legitimate sources that show what the Hebrew name for the war is. What on earth makes you think that those Hebrew names for the war is POV? This is one of the few things in the article that isn't contentious. Perhaps what is appropriate is an apology for false accusations of inappropriate rollback usage and vandalism claims? Number 5 7 09:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Talknic, I really don't need any lessons in deportment and etiquette from you, considering that the basic problem is, and remains, that you keep relentlessly and aggressively trying to push nonsense into the articles, long after it has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people that it's blatant nonsense (not necessarily always by those on the quasi-"pro-Israel" side, by the way -- both Zero0000 and ItsMeJudith have lost patience with you at times). Frankly, several people are wondering at this point whether your continual relentless and aggressive pushing of the same old tiresome tedious exposed and debunked blatant nonsense indicates that you're consciously and deliberately disingenuous, or possibly even a mere troll. Your incredible obtuseness on the Alec Kirkbride discussion, where you completely and utterly failed to grasp extremely basic and obvious simple points no matter how how many times they were explained to you at great length certainly had the flavor of a deliberately cultivated or calculated disingenuous obtuseness. Furthermore, you behave worse in your edit summaries than I do on the article talk pages, and pointing out flaws in your arguments, or that you're repeatedly re-raising red herrings that have been discredited and found to be ineffective in the past, is not a "vendetta"[sic]. Frankly, if you invoke some kind of formal Wikipedia bureaucratic process, then your past behavior will be nothing to be proud of, and will not make a very good impression on uninvolved third parties. AnonMoos ( talk) 03:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Reported here. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 05:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Anything to please you all ... talknic ( talk) 17:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I recommend you read WP:Vandalism, especially the section titled "What is not vandalism". Calling the work of editors with whom you disagree vandalism is inappropriate. Labeling non-vandalism edits as vandalism as an attempt to circumvent the 1RR restriction are strongly frowned upon.
After you read WP:Vandalism, you may wish to consider undoing your last edit at 1948 Arab–Israeli War, since you were not reverting vandalism. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 05:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The reasons given by NMMNG for reverting on the last two occasions were simply false, not a matter of disagreement over content ... talknic ( talk) 10:35, 8 November 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."
Talknic ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Decline reason:
This is not how to appeal against an arbitration enforcement block. please follow the link in the block notice (above) to see how to do so. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Thanks James ... Claro ... talknic ( talk) 17:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
In reply to your posting to my page. The 3RR rule specifically says "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." -- PBS ( talk) 07:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. However [22] there's no valid reasons given for reverting ... talknic ( talk) 09:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I have removed your RfC from Talk:Citing sources because it is a talk page for an article, Citing sources, which consists of a redirect to the article Citation. That article is about citations in general throughout scholarly writing, and is not specific to Wikipedia. Thus it is not the appropriate place to discuss how citations are done within Wikipedia. Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes I realize it appeared on Talk:Citing sources. I tried to resolve it before [24]. But removing it from Talk:Citing sources also removes it from [25]. How do I get it to appear only on [26]? thx ... talknic ( talk) 00:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
OK Thanks for your help. Seems someone is determined by any means not to have the proposal put forward ... talknic ( talk) 01:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, some comment that I wrote more than a month ago was not properly aligned. I'm not interested in maintaining ancient discussions. They should be archived. If it bothers you, please feel free to delete any of my comments that are more than a month old, which you feel intrude on your comments. Jsolinsky ( talk) 14:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Sheeeeesh, in the time you've wasted deleting a reasonable request from your own page, you could have rectified the problem. Thanks for being so cooperative. I'll add it to what is becoming a rather long list ... talknic ( talk) 15:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiProject Animation Award | |
Had to give you something for your effort there - hilarious! Oncenawhile ( talk) 00:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC) |
Hi. Did you see my post under Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Threaded_discussion? Nice idea, but unless I'm mistaken, this irreparably damages your proposal, so it might be best to withdraw it. — SMALL JIM 18:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Reported here. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 19:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
You were engaged in a previous conversation on this topic, please join the ongoing discussion here. Greyshark09 ( talk) 15:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I added the words "in the territory of" before the British Mandate, which I think addresses your objection about the Mandate itself not technically being a territory.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 15:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
A Mandate is a set of conditions. Sets of conditions do not have any territory. Nor was it the British Mandate. The official name was Mandate for Palestine. [27] The primary document does not contain the words "British Mandate" ... talknic ( talk) 17:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Talknic. You have been banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces for six months, for reasons given in the Result section of this AE request. This ban expires on 26 June 2012. EdJohnston ( talk) 16:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack ( talk • contribs)
Friday, 5 March 1948 Rabbi Silver stated:
"Nevertheless, reluctantly but loyally, we accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations"
"We feel under the obligation to make our position unmistakably clear. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision. of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we. are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision. "
Why are editors preventing the Official Jewish Agencies reaction from being accessed by readers?
Friday, 19 March 1948 Rabbi Silver replacing Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine stated:
"We are under the obligation at this time to repeat what we stated at a [262nd meeting] meeting of the Security Council last week: The decision of the General Assembly remains valid for the Jewish people. We have accepted it and we are prepared to abide by it. If the United Nations Palestine Commission is unable to carry out the mandates which were assigned to it by the General Assembly, the Jewish people of Palestine will move forward in the spirit of that resolution and will do everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival and by considerations of justice and historic rights." and; acknowledged that "The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State."
talknic (
talk)
10:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC). Why are editors determined to prevent readers from accessing this information?
Unsourced
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mandatory_Palestine&diff=next&oldid=494875105 nonsense "The Mufti al-Husseini would spend the rest of the war in
Nazi Germany and the occupied areas in Europe, in particular encouraging Muslim
Bosniaks to join the
Waffen SS in German-conquered
Bosnia. Al-Husseini was also responsible for establishing the Arab unit of the Wehrmacht, which was largely operating on the Eastern European front.
dubious –
discuss Despite his efforts, most of the Arab pro-German volunteers were not Palestinian."
talknic (
talk)
04:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Hopelessly bogged down by POV
Arab Israeli war - Reference says nothing like The fighting took place mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon.[14]
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=h3EOJGiBBpQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+war+for+palestine+rewriting+the+history+of+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4YPRT8yxPMHWmAWdzMSMAw&ved=0CDgQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=mandate&f=false
talknic (
talk)
04:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Topic now under discussion
Can you show an official document (or a citation of one) that says explicitly that the official name was "Palestine"? I suspect there wasn't one. On the other hand, I have a good secondary source that says "Palestina (E.Y.) became Palestine’s official Hebrew name, and it consequently appeared on all official documents and notices", and several other good secondary sources that say similar things. Zerotalk 12:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC) ... The Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Covenant, The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine --- "English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic"
talknic (
talk)
04:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Topic now under discussion
Suggest one article "The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine". Rationale: Mandatory Palestine is not the official name of anything. It is a "term" used to describe a period in history where Palestine was governed by the British under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. "British Mandate for Palestine" is also only a term used to describe the British obligations under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. As it stands the document pictured on the "British Mandate for Palestine" page says "League of Nations Mandate for Palestine". Muddied waters do not belong in Wikipedia Wikipedia. talknic ( talk) 09:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Topic split is hopeless for readers we must presume know nothing of the topic. talknic ( talk) 14:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Note for Jerusalem article. The lede ought reflect the issue in light of well documented UNSC resolutions talknic ( talk) 13:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
[28] You can't say I didn't warn you. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 18:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
As expected :-)
///Comment by Nishidani Since he returned, Talnic's very detailed arguments have been only, as far as I recalled, responded to by NMMGG. NMMGG mainly (apologies if I err, but this is all very much a TLDR altercation) said the prior consensus had addressed his concerns, and he was just more or less kicking a dead horse. What little I examined suggested to me that the prior discussions were not resolutive, nor adequate. It is highly improper of NMMGG in his first diff above, to take that as some violation. Talknic turned out to be correct, and NMMGG's dismissal of his arguments as 'resolved' in a prior consensus superficial. NMMGG denied at length that the hebrew and arabic terms were synonymous. I stepped in, and showed they were synonymous. Given their synonymity, nakba had to be bolded exactly as the hebrew term. Prior to this, as talknic insisted, WP:NPOV was violated by having only the Hebrew term. NMMGG's solution is to avoid parity by removing the Hebrew term for the war, so nakba disappears. Talnic's solution is to emend the earlier stable text by adding the equivalent arabic. They disagree over this. I haven't had time to help out with the other points, but the imbalance in NPOV talknic speaks of does exist, and is very difficult to resolve. Talknic tends to undermine his case by TLDR posting, as per above, but serious issues exist, and he's fingered some. There are essentially only 2 people arguing here, and I do not think the differences can be resolved by eliminating one of the two editors at the request of the other. Nishidani ( talk) 20:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC) /// talknic ( talk) 21:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I can't help. You're stuck with it - I do not understand what you are getting at. Trahelliven ( talk) 11:45, 21 July 2012 (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."
The instructions for appeal are located at the top of WP:AE, near the bottom. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 07:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The latest diff on your talkpage is a pretty clear violation of your topic ban. I'm not going to block you for it this time, but your ban extends to all namespaces on Wikipedia; this includes your user talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 20:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Muhammad al-Durrah incident // an investigation indicated the IDF probably did not shoot the al-Durrahs and the boy was most likely killed by Palestinian fire. [1] [2]//
Talknic, if you're going to think this way, go ahead, make a similar edit, and we'll see what happens. I'm fine with that. But it's troubling that you think what Blade wrote a section right above us, "I'm not going to block you for it this time, but your ban extends to all namespaces on Wikipedia; this includes your user talkpage," is not explicit and is actually saying "would" and not that it actualy "does." -- Activism 1234 15:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston#Violation of topic ban. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
See here. -- Activism 1234 20:33, 9 September 2012 (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."
Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear user, since you have participated on a geopolitical context discussion on Palestine [39], you might be interested in expressing your opinion on a reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity?. Thank you. Greyshark09 ( talk) 21:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)