This is a Wikipedia
user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy. |
This edit has a misleading edit summary and can be considered vandalism since you removed important information. Please refrain from making such edits otherwise you will get blocked. Thanks Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 16:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
According to a source in the entry, those shirt designs do exist and can be verified by this image gallery [3]- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 16:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You still removed information about shirt designs backed up by reliable sources such as the Haaretz. You even removed designs verified by the gallery [4] [5] You're close to violating WP:3rr and what is worse you are removing sourced information, so I suggest you stop reverting and start using the talk page. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 16:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I did say what I had to say to you and I will say it again. You need to stop removing sourced information, go check the sources, not everything has to have picture evidence. That is a child in the crosshair, a design you removed from the article as well. The other is a mosque, note the crescent moon on top. You misconstrue my posts as bullying and threats and that needs to stop. But I apologize for saying that you were close to violating the 3rr, I thought your first edit was a revert. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 17:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.
PhilKnight ( talk) 14:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. You know, I am still fresh and new here. Simply could not stand the partial perspective and miscoverage the article provides. However, it is a long and hard process. You simply cannot change the world instantly, can you? It is simply impossible to wage war on all the fronts. So, I started with what I see most important. Casualties, disputed figures, psy war. Later, the intlaw issues. I see there is at least one subject we see the same. I kindly ask you, though you do not have to comply, if you see another issue where we have similar opinions, insert a sentence so I would know I am not alone here. Cheers. Sceptic Ashdod ( talk) 12:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
1. Next phase of the 'disputed figures' should be inserting this: 'Mounting evidence indicates that during Operation Cast Lead (and in ordinary times) members of Hamas’s internal security forces served as commanders and operatives in Hamas’s military wing (Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades).' http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/site/html/search.asp?sid=13&pid=104&numResults=2&isSearch=yes&isT8=yes. What do you say?
2. What do you say about the section I started? Man, IDF made some innovations to spare lives, and so far only negative aspects are inserted. What do you think about Kemp? The reason I brought him in was not because X or Y say something pleasant to me ears, but because the man was a high-rank officer, a commander of British forces in N. Ireland and Afghanistan. He is not a politician, he has all the expertise to make military judgement. Am I wrong here? Sceptic Ashdod ( talk) 13:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Didn't follow all the discussion there, but I wrote there what I think. He is not helpful for casualties section. But evidencies he collected and recorded could be more than helpful elsewhere. For example, the Hamas' intimidation of the population can be easily entered into Hamas' psy-war section I created: 'It was difficult to get these testimonials. In general, fear of Hamas prevails'; 'Those who recount a different version than the story imposed by the “Muhamawa” (the resistance) is automatically an “Amil,” a collaborator and is risking his life...Locals are often threatened by Hamas.'
Hamas using civilian population as human shields: 'they wanted the [Israelis] to shoot at the [the civilians’] houses so they could accuse them of more war crimes. ... Practically all of the tallest buildings in Gaza that were hit by Israeli bombs, like the Dogmoush, Andalous, Jawarah, Siussi, and many others, had rocket launching pads on their roofs, or were observation decks for the Hamas.'
Hamas using medical facilities, hospitals and of course reprisal attacks on Fatah - it should all be spread around the article. http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/01/28/cremonesi-article-in-english/. Sceptic Ashdod ( talk) 12:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
According to the 2008-2009 Israel/Hamas conflict discussion, the name will likely change to "Gaza War." I think "Gaza War political violence" is a much better title than "2009 Hamas political violence." And then we can change the lead to something like "A series of attacks against Fatah...." instead of opening with "Gaza War political violence" because that sounds awkward. I still prefer reprisal attacks though. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 19:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I was a probably a bit too bold, but I wrote something on your userpage so that it doesn't come up as red when you sign your name. I'm sorry if you preferred it to be red. Best, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You need to ask an admin to delete your user page. Such requests are normally honored- see this. You can place a {{db-u1}} template on the page, and it will be taken care of. NoCal100 ( talk) 22:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not in your head, but we may think alike because of similar circumstances. I was also nice once, but now I'm satisfied with just not being an asshole. I hope you haven't become a cynic like me. I hate cynics. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 00:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I need an honest opinion on the subject. Do you think info I provided is udeful or useless? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
well you are a tool my friend. A tool fan that is. I am glad that you enter and exit certain articles, like the baseline does in Tool songs. You must be a drummer. Well, let me tell you my friend, that Wiki does not need you at all in project like I/P conflict. But, we have great opportunities for growth, in areas like Star Trek Oral Sex Child Support and all types of offshoots that you can imagine. Please, feel free to investigate around and leave I/P for ever. Thank you, have a terrible time at the poker tables. Cryptonio ( talk) 01:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that Amnesty provides the reader with the definition: 'Article 42 of the Hague Regulations defines occupation: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” In such situations, the occupying power “shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.” (Hague Regulations, Article 43).' Nevertheless, they are firm in their verdict that Israel is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip. Funny, isn't it? -- Sceptic Ashdod ( talk) 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you be willing to file an AFD? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I was trying to assume good faith, but now it's quite obvious. You just reverted an edit I made to Moses Montefiore Windmill claiming there was no source for the name Jaffa Gate Mill, even though there was. This being after you showed up to Tawfiq Canaan, Present absentee and List of native plants of Palestine (A-D) (all quite obscure articles), it's clear to me that you are following me. I'm asking you to stop. Right now. If I see you editing directly after me at another page again, I will report you to WP:AE for stalking. K? Tiamut talk 17:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have nor did I ever have another account, nor am I stalking you. Feel free to report me for stalking right now. What's the source for "Jaffa Mill Gate"? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 17:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If you are at it, try this article. And don't forget to mention other nice fellows... -- Sceptic from Ashdod ( talk) 02:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
that is your 3rd revert on Palestinian right of return. nableezy - 15:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the wording, take it to talk. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 15:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, my first edit was not a revert.
Also, in the future, I'd appreciate it if you returned the courtesy and did not delete sections I open on your talk page.
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk) 15:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair warning, continue edit warring and AN3 is my next stop. nableezy - 20:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi No More Mr Nice Guy! It is certainly not a welcome step, and a deviation from the spirit of a certain "remedy"/ban, but I don't know if it's sanctionable. Depends on the other circumstances. Firstly, you should notify/remind the user putting up the materials on their talk page of the ban/arbitration case before proceeding, as well as the user picking up the materials. If I were the admin making the decision, I'm mostly look on the nature of the materials—those meant exclusively to push a point of view vs. actually informative and valuable materials. However, it's usually not up to a single administartor to decide based on subjective things like that. If you believe that the user(s) in question crossed the line, after sending them both a notice, feel free to open a WP:ANI case and I'll give it my opinion. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 22:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
we have dangerous history rewriting on the page Partition of Palestine by Nableezy and Harlan. Help out against it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.147.2 ( talk) 20:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
True, I added 6 paragraphs but all of my information was thoroughly researched, cross-referenced, sourced and even double sourced. They were factually correct. In any event, the reader can refer to the source and make his own assessment as to its veracity and reliability. By reverting the entire edit, The Site Administrator, Fayssalf, substituted the reader's judgment with his own, thus depriving the reader of making his own informed decision. This is an abuse of power and represents censorship in its worst form. As an aside, the sources were from mainstream papers including, Associated Press, Ynet, JPost, Haaretz, Yalibnan, among others. -- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 20:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)jiujitsuguy-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 20:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I'm new to Wiki and this was my first edit. I am not done with this article. How to you suggest I challange Fayssalf's (site administrator's) reversions? --
Jiujitsuguy (
talk) 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)jiujitsuguy--
Jiujitsuguy (
talk) 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
what brought you to that article to restore the edit of a banned user? nableezy - 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
In other words, you don't have a case. That's what I thought.
I shall continue to edit as I see fit. Please stop repeatedly threatening me with administrative action you can't follow through with. I'm sure there's some rule against that sort of behavior too. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I encourage both you and Tiamut to take your "case" to the proper venue. But I think we all know you won't because you don't have one.
Thanks for the tip about editing an article you never edited before. Have a look at
this and then go read
WP:HOUND.
Are we done here?
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk) 19:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
You're really reaching now. You'd tell AE that you highly doubt I've seen the movie? That's your case?
We're done. Your little threat has been duly noted. Ma salameh.
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Either one of you can feel free to tell me to shove off, but how about this: what if, without anyone admitting any wrongdoing, you both agree in principle to avoid, whenever possible, the other? Is that fair/useful? I speak as one who has been often followed... oh, and I have seen Paradise Now, and can't really see the big deal in terms of your disagreement. The whole topic area is fraught enough without obsessing over minutiae, yes? IronDuke 19:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi again! Do I agree with you? Yes! Do I want to start the ball rolling? No! ;) we've had small discussions on this before, but while there are still so many trolls in the I–P area, I doubt there is any interest for serious editors to start a debate about this. There are many other smaller important things to take care of for now (IMO). Maybe someday... although if you start this thing, I'll be sure to join any such discussion. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 22:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
When you start nice articles like this, you should nominate them for DKY. Historicist ( talk) 01:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful advice. I do appreciate it-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 03:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:BRD explains that BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus. As a result of your talk page criticisms, I made substantial revisions to the section on the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war regarding the rules of non-recognition that were adopted by the UN as a result of the various territorial situations created by Israel. Nonetheless, you have deleted that information entirely citing WP:UNDUE. That page says that "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each", and "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view."
The information you deleted represents both the published majority viewpoint, and the viewpoint of the majority of UN member states regarding: (1) the rules established by resolution 242 and Article 2 of the UN Charter (an international convention); (2) international custom regarding non-recognition as evidence of a general practice they have accepted as law (Stimson Doctrine, Council of the League of Nations resolutions on Manchukuo, and etc.); and (3) the judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations.
WP:VALID says that the Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. Nothing in WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, or WP:BRD policy supports the wholesale deletion of well sourced neutral narratives regarding the majority viewpoint. harlan ( talk) 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the title is what matters most, instead the article should be fixed. As you said yourself, a "place name" in Tel Aviv? I would like to see anyone who doesn't already know what Abu Kabir is understand what's written there. As for the title, it doesn't really matter as many neighborhoods and even some villages in Israel are commonly known by the previous names, famously Katamon, from which you can take an example in fixing this article. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 12:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You've already been asked to stop deleting well sourced material that represents the published majority viewpoint of the UN member states. harlan ( talk) 11:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Israel (and the status of Jerusalem as capital) has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list ( click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission. -- tariqabjotu 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I see you've named me as an involved party in the mediation regarding the Israel article. I haven't been involved in mediation before, so I have a few questions. If you don't think you're the right person to ask, please point me at someone who you think is.
Thanks, No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 20:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
My main concern is that even if mediation is successful (which I think is pretty unlikely considering some people present their position as "non-negotiable") it would probably take quite a bit of time and effort to achieve. If then anyone can restart the discussion on the talk page, the whole thing seems pointless to me. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 13:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that you're the final vote. If you decide to decline, MedCom cannot pick up this case. If you agree, we'll get a mediator as soon as possible. Xavexgoem ( talk) 11:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on State of Palestine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NJA (t/ c) 08:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You've done a fine job on Yad Mordechai. Nice additions. Good content. Just thought you should know.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 21:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm cracking up...... Breein1007 ( talk) 22:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eden Natan-Zada. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. What are you trying to achieve by reopening the ANI thread? The consensus was for an interaction ban, and Sandstein went ahead and implemented it. I know you and your mates want me to be topic banned but unfortunately there just isn't the will for it amongst the general Wikipedia community at the moment. Keeping the thread open for longer and longer won't change that, so please just reclose it and let it go, okay? Factsontheground ( talk) 13:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, No More Mr Nice Guy, I believe we have to shorten a bit the section describing recent events. Otherwise DYK nomination will be killed as it was with Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) here. They will stop at nothing. So maybe you could help me to shorten the section in question in order for DYK to pass.Of course then they might come up with something else. Thank you.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 18:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I put up a thread at the ANI board concerning what I perceive as disruptive editing on the part of User:Vexorg. Since I mentioned one or more of his diffs directed to you on the talk page, I thought it appropriate to notify you as well. It can be found here. [7] Best, Stellarkid ( talk) 04:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey dude. This discussion seems to be between you and me, so I thought it might be appropriate to post to user talk. I'm a little confused and would like clarification for your "Coatrack" characterization. My understanding of a "Coatrack" is that it's a subject that isn't notable, but exists solely to introduce bias into an article. Is this your understanding? I think we agree that saying "Some Rothchilds were Zionists, some weren't" is notable and NPOV. So I'm having difficulty understanding where you think the bias is coming from, and whom it's against. NickCT ( talk) 15:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping a line. I've been very busy with work lately and haven't had the time to engage in any productive editing but I'll be back soon. Incidentally, I was recently at Yad Mordechai and the set-up there is pretty cool. They've got the original tanks, artillery and troop carriers (Bren Gun Carriers) used by the Egyptians and the Israeli pill boxes and trenches. It's set up quite nicely and gives the visitor a real feel of the firepower the Israelis were up against. There's also a museum nearby detailing the weapons and tactics. It was really nice.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 16:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. You have repeatedly removed well sourced material from the British Mandate of Palestine article [8] and [9]
According to Wikipedia:ARBPIA, editors do not have the right to engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism of other editors across different forums. If you have genuine controversy, you are expected to avail yourself of the dispute resolution mechanism, or drop the matter. Wikipedia's communal approaches require editors to apply the principles contained in neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability in their editing. If you wish to include an opposing viewpoint in this article regarding the statehood of the Palestine mandate, you have to cite reliable published sources, not your own personal opinion. harlan ( talk) 17:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I took this discussion to the article talk page. I pointed out that the final decision in Wikipedia:ARBPIA requires editors, like yourself, to utilize reliable sources for their contentious or disputed assertions. The article cites a number of journals and legal digests regarding the boundaries of the states that were established in the British Mandate and the international and national courts which ruled that Palestine was a State.
I said that editors who claim that Palestine was not a state are welcome to add opposing views from reliable published sources and asked that they please stop deleting well sourced material representing the court decisions, so that Wikipedia can provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the issues and the positions of all the interested parties. You did not take part in the discussion, but continued to make reverts with unsourced controversial assertions: rv. for the nth time - "a court ruled that X is a state for the purpose of Y" != "X is a state".) harlan ( talk) 16:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.
Please take a look at this edit, what is your position about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gaza_flotilla_clash&action=historysubmit&diff=365274898&oldid=365274595 Marokwitz ( talk) 19:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Helen Thomas says the Jews "should go back to Poland" & Turkish "humanitarians" say the Jews "should go back to Aushwitz." Can you feel the love?-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 02:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thought you might enjoy this editorial. I'll throw in this quote as a little present to the people who will shortly be reading this since they love to hound me so religiously.
"The Arab desire to kick the Jews the hell out of Palestine did not begin in 1967, and not in 1948. It began the moment the initial groups of Jews arrived and started to make the land flower and produce crops. The Hebron Massacre of 1929, where marauding Arabs killed nearly 70 Jews and wounded countless others, took place long before a single house was built over the Green Line."
Breein1007 (
talk) 02:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Please have a read and make yourself familiar with
Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions, editors of the
Gaza flotilla raid are restricted to 1
revert per 24 hours. It appears you have made more than one revert today. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks.
Mo ainm
~Talk 16:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you made more than 1 revert in 24 hours: [12], [13]. Please note that many users, including myself, were recently blocked for 24 hours for violating the WP:1RR restriction on the article. The admins are taking it very seriously. -- 386-DX ( talk) 13:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Do you have any source to confirm this image is from a journalist?-- Brendumb ( talk) 16:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I've collapsed your comment about an individual editor. I got the impression from your posts to my talk page that you did not have the time to address complaints like this? If you do, in fact, have the time, please do so with the editor concerned, or at WP:DR, instead of leaving vague, unsubstantiated complaints on the article's talk page.
Cheers, TFOWR 11:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- 386-DX ( talk) 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If you have an issue with Physchim62 raise it with them on their talk page. If that isn't successful pursue dispute resolution. I'd recommend WP:WQA, but I'd assumed your complaint was over civility; if it's not then WP:AE may be a better option.
You're more than capable of doing all this without me holding your hand: I've told you all this before (I suspect when I hit "Save page" I'll see it a few threads up). I have to say I'm getting just a wee but suspicious of your motivations at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid with regard to Physchim62.
Cheers, TFOWR 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
See here. Cheers. IronDuke 23:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Your comment here responding to an ANI notification User:386-DX made came very close to violating our policy against making personal attacks. It was certainly not helpful or constructive.
We do not as a project expect everyone to always get along, nor that everyone will treat each other with kid gloves. But we do ask that you generally follow our civil and collegial editing policy and not make personal attacks. When people are rude it degrades the quality of conversation among all parties participating, making it harder to have constructive discussions and find consensus.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 03:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
These comments are certainly relevant to the case, but not necessarily to arbitration enforcement, as the edits were made before the ARBPIA warning and therefore, while inappropriate and appalling, aren't actionable as part of WP:AE. However, I do believe that you should not hesitate to copy the message you posted at my talk page to the AE request. I am sincerely saddened that cases of incivility on Wikipedia have reached a new low with these comments, especially so because the comments were made by someone who has been a Wikipedia editor for a very long time. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 22:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
As usual, your analysis is spot-on and I have no intention of engaging this particular "editor" in any future discourse as it is pointless. Man on a mission will never listen to reason-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 02:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoig discussion here in which you are mentioned. You may wish to participate in the discussion.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 17:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You have been removing well-sourced material from articles in cooperation with users who have been banned for using multiple accounts, including Drork, LoverOfTheRussianQueen, Accredited, and others. If you continue to edit war by deleting opposing viewpoints I'll seek a community ban. harlan ( talk) 00:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Enforcement: [14] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 14:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
For the responsible revert you performed on Erdinç Tekir's participation in the Gaza Flotilla incident. It is remarkable how eagerly people remove well-sourced information that fails to fit a favored narrative. I am always grateful to meet a responsible editor. AMuseo ( talk) 12:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, in this , if you disagree with one word, why not just change the word you disagree with? -- Dailycare ( talk) 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear 'No more Mr Nice Guy' I assume that you are the person who changed my edit in the Jerusalem section. I was just wondering why this has changed, I feel I am unaware of any previous discussions that have taken place regarding this issue. Was there anything particular that you objected to with my edit?
-- Kyuss82 ( talk) 20:14, 16 November 2010 (GMT)
This is to inform you that I have reported your breach of WP:CIV and unethical behaviour here at WP:WQA.-- Jim Fitzgerald post 05:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Your comments about how you feel about Jim Fitzgerald's sources should not be included on the Human Rights in Israel talk page. Please do not replace them. ← ZScarpia 13:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Your comment is offensive and has given offence. You should remove it. It has nothing to do with the content of the article. Bear in mind that the IP area is under special sanctions and that WP:TALK says:
← ZScarpia 17:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Wanted to drop you a note that I reverted this edit you made. The reason is that the article being cited is not an editorial so far as I can tell. If you can show me that it's an editorial I'll gladly self-revert. Cheers. ← George talk 22:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
That need for further discussion applies to "an article that has a lede paragraph, and then a body which is generally only one section" only, he's quite clear that the full wording of the 2nd statement can be incorporated into the lead of longer articles and stubs. The minor addition of "like all" won't get around the fact that removing that wording from such articles is disruptive.-- Misarxist 16:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't have it, but I do have the full 8 volumes of the History of the Haganah. I believe the book by Slotzky summarizes these volumes. Tell me if you need anything in particular, although searching for something specific in 8 volumes might prove difficult. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 19:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
but you are usually spot-on. [16]-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
* All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. o Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty * Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. o Reports of editors going over 1RR should be made to either the Arbitration enforcement or Edit warring noticeboards.
per 1
Please don't threaten to report me again if you don't have any basis to report me on. - asad ( talk) 14:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There are three sources for that statement, not just the news article from The Guardian.
As far as the Talk page discussion is concerned, I've been following it. When I feel I have something important to say, I'll be sure to contribute to it. I don't think it's necessary to post "Me too" messages. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 20:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The source does say that, search for 'psychological' and read the containing paragraph. It says that some groups are adding "psychological psychological damage to individuals as well as the lost income" such as a group of Palestinians for their property lost and the group World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries also does this to get its very high numbers. Passionless ( talk) 01:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I see you're having a spot of bother. Any idea who the sockmaster is? Meanwhile, stick to 1RR if you can (obviously I'm not going to block you for reverting on genuine BLP concerns) and, if you need a quick, uncontroversial block for a breach, ping my talk page. I decided against full protection, because it was easier to block the only autoconfirmed agressor, but if there are more of them, I might reconsider. Anyway, just stopping by to make the offer (of course ANEW and AE are open as normal). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Since those socks look they're going to keep coming, I've put the article on level 2 pending changes. This means that any edit by anybody who doesn't have the reviewer permission will have to wait for a review by a reviewer or admin before their edit appears in the "stable version". Hence the above—I figured you might need them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't intentional... honestly! I discovered something strange and I don't recall anything else. Feel free to contest.-- The Master of Mayhem 20:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't put "i wished hitler died" there. In fact, I was the one reverting the vandalism, not causing it. It was a false warning.-- The Master of Mayhem 20:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's the story. I was reverting vandalism with Twinkle, but someone edited while rolling back meaning it had no power. Therefore, I removed some of the vandalism myself but I got caught up in an edit conflict. I still removed the "La Waffle" bit but didn't notice the "i wish hitler died". The "false" warning caused me to explode- my wikimood will display that. Sorry for bothering you.-- The Master of Mayhem 06:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
OK- I have not done wrongdoing- slap the user who issued the warning with a trout.-- The Master of Mayhem 09:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I do something about it- I'll retire indefinitely if you don't get this straight.-- The Master of Mayhem 10:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Editorial policy "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
"In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt on 24 February, Lebanon on 23 March, Jordan on 3 April, and Syria on 20 July. The new borders of Israel, as set by the agreements.."
What reliable source published that load of twaddle? Armistice lines delineate areas under military control of the respective parties and over which their forces should not cross. Territory under military control is occupied. Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. “
Furthermore, the armistices were between Israel and Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. NOT between Israel and Palestine.
The Agreement with Egypt says "Article V 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question. "
Israel made it’s first official claim to territories beyond the extent of it’s sovereign frontiers on the 31st Aug 1949, after the armistice agreements were signed. Israel had no territorial claims at the time the armistice was signed.
With Jordan - "Article VI 9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto. "
Again Israel had no territorial claims at the time the armistice was signed.
Furthermore Israel confirmed the territories under Israeli military control in statements made to the UNSC by the Israeli Government 22nd May 1948 as being "outside the territory of the State of Israel" and in June 15th 1949 “As for the frontier between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan which is not included in Israel…”
Israel's declared borders "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" were confirmed 22nd May 1948 before the armistice agreements were signed.
"This was about 18% more than the UN partition proposal allotted it."
This cannot be from a reliable source either, because it's twaddle. Simple maths - 78% of Mandatory Palestine as it stood after the independence of Jordan in 1946, amounts to about 34% more than the about 56% the UN partition proposal allotted Israel. 78%-56% = 22% /// 22% of 100% of Mandatory Palestine as it stood after the independence of Jordan in 1946, is approx 34% of 56%
At the time the armistice agreements had been signed Israel had been recognized and accepted into the UN "as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947," Confirmed by statements made to the UNSC by the Israeli Government 22nd May 1948.
I suggest: In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt on 24 February, Lebanon on 23 March, Jordan on 3 April, and Syria on 20 July. The demarcation of Israeli forces, as set by the agreements, encompassed about 78% of Mandatory Palestine as it stood after the independence of Jordan in 1946. This amounted to approximately 50% of the 42% of the territories allotted for the Arab State, approximately 34% more than the 56% the UN partition proposal allotted to, accepted for and declared as, the State of Israel<ref name="notification" />. The demarcation lines were known afterwards as the " Green Line".
---
"The Gaza Strip and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively"
Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949 Article VI – 1." It is agreed that the forces of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom shall replace the forces of Iraq in the sector now held by the latter forces, the intention of the Government of Iraq in this regard having been communicated to the Acting Mediator in the message of 20 March from the Foreign Minister of Iraq authorizing the delegation of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom to negotiate for the Iraqi forces and stating that those forces would be withdrawn."
This could fully inform the reader, putting paid to any notion people might have that occupation by Egypt and Jordan were somehow illegal.
I suggest : Under the Armistice Agreements with Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively.
talknic ( talk) 18:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The overlay file now has no reference to any blog.
It's a detailed and accurate version giving the information of this map [17] by User:AnonMoos
AnonMoos can rework a very rough map poor quality map deleting information from it and it IS used. I rework a highly detailed and informative map following the exact wording of UNGA Res 181 to within a few metres so that folk can use it with the latest technology (Google earth) and it can't be used? Why have an upload facility?
The section is Aftermath. In the aftermath, Israel has not legally annexed any territory. It should surely be referenced in some manner talknic ( talk) 19:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
In answer to - No More Mr Nice Guy ( 1948 Arab–Israeli War )
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)
"Are you sure that a letter from some guy to the US government..."
A) The 'some guy' was an official "Jewish Agency representative" actually tasked with sending "an official letter to President Truman ... formally requesting the United States to recognize the new Jewish state."
B) '... qualifies as a binding deceleration of borders?' 1) A letter notifying the President of the USA of the declaration and requesting recognition, is OBVIOUSLY not a declaration of Independence. 2) The declaration itself includes this unreserved statement "AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY" 3) The letter is "formally requesting the United States to recognize the new Jewish state" as an "independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" It was not withdrawn. 4) ".. the United States, in the person of President Truman, recognized the provisional Jewish government as de facto authority of the new Jewish state (de jure recognition was extended on January 31).
C) On the May 1948 REPLIES OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL TO SECURITY COUNCIL QUESTIONNAIRE
"Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947."
Reply : "In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard."
NB: "under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel" & "adhering to international regulations" Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."
British recognition HC Deb 27 April 1950 vol 474 cc1137-41 "..that His Majesty's Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it." talknic ( talk) 07:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:ANEW#User:Mystichumwipe and User:No More Mr Nice Guy reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Should Jordan be included in the list, with info about the expulsion of Jews from territory conquered by Jordan in 1948? I.Casaubon ( talk) 10:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
...far more informative than you'd probably care to imagine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talknic ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This message is to inform you that I have initiated an administrator review of the recent editing at Old City (Jerusalem) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other problematic I/P articles. This review will result in any editors whose conduct is disruptive being sanctioned under the provision of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. You are welcome to participate in the review, which is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Israel/Palestine articles generally. Regards, AGK [ • 13:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You have reverted a report from AFP press agency from the website of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting which you claim is not a reputable source but you back up your claim with nothing but your opinion.You have also deleted information from the Anti Defamation League that was relevant to a piece before it and sourced with no good explanation.You have also deleted 3 links that are the source for a line that states that Hamas do not use their charter on their website and now use their manifesto to put forth their views, those 3 links back up that piece.I have come here to get your view and reasoning before taking it further if I have to. Owain the 1st ( talk) 16:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you have made a personal attack on another editor here [18].Please could you strike that through as personal attacks are not allowed on wikipedia.Thanks. Owain the 1st ( talk) 18:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, you removed a line on the illegality of the settlement under international law. I assume that this was simply a mistake by you and as such I have come here instead of AE. I am sure you are aware that WT:Legality of Israeli settlements established a consensus for the inclusion of the line that you removed, and further that an editor was topic banned over the same disregard for that consensus. Kindly restore the material in a timely fashion. Thank you. nableezy - 17:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Saw your name on the page edit history, thought you might like to have some input on this "controversy". Thanks. JerryDavid89 ( talk) 00:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#deleting_my_edit
Do you use, or have you used, any other accounts on Wikipedia? nableezy - 16:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Falafel". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 6, 2011.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 11:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
May I suggest that you move this comment to Talk:Requests_for_mediation/Falafel? I don't think this is an "issue" as much as it is a "discussion". -- Macrakis ( talk) 20:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Please express your opinion over the relisted suggestion to merge the article Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both articles are substantially the same, and shouldn't exist in separate. You can participate in the discussion here Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Merging with Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Greyshark09 ( talk) 19:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Falafel, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
• 21:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Arbitration Enforcement#No More Mr Nice Guy. ← ZScarpia 23:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the report you made, you might want to check the diffs. The diff of the first revert is the same diff as the "Previous version reverted to". Is that right? — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 05:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Probably would have gotten quicker action on arbitration enforcement, rather than general edit-warring board... AnonMoos ( talk) 08:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
NMMMG - Please self revert. You have reverted based on OR to a version which is all OR. You did not revert the previous edit which is OR. You have done this on several occasions, targeting only my contributions. If you do not stop hounding me, I will have no option but to take further action listing every indiscretion on your part ... talknic ( talk) 12:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG - Please stop making false accusations [19] [20] ... talknic ( talk) 02:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG -- More false accusations? The 1st [21] there are no edits in between. And the 2nd Line 324: [22] there are no edits in between. Please stop making false accusations ... talknic ( talk) 03:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
See [23] Please self revert and stop hounding me ... Thx ... talknic ( talk) 14:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi NMMNG,
I've uploaded the three JSTOR articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find links to the articles at that page. Best, GabrielF ( talk) 22:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I explained the issue with the "War of Liberation" wording in more detail on the article talk page right as you were making the revert. As for the declaration, would "following Israel's declaration" be more suitable wording for you?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 15:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
It appears that these two edits 2 1 violate the 1rr restriction. You might want to self-revert. Jd2718 ( talk) 16:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Thanks for helping me gather information on the depth of corruption in Wikipedia Dude ... talknic ( talk) 18:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Being banned from Wikipedia or the Guardian are miniscule little blips. Gloat away. Your transparency matches your soul ... dude ... talknic ( talk) 19:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I recommend that you revert your recent edit. There is an open RfC. Your statement in the edit summary 'Discussion seems to have died down' is not a good rationale. Consider asking at WP:AN for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC. It is silly to get into trouble for something where there is a procedure to use that most people would respect. Check AE for 'Nazareth' if you don't believe me. Nazareth is a certified Hot Button Issue, flashing in all caps, in case you haven't noticed. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:53, 4 January 2012 (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)
Hi. When you recently edited 1948 Palestinian exodus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Black ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I find it disturbing to see that in the last 3 days, you've reverted 3 times on Palestine. In between the first two edits was a time frame of 26 hours and 4 minutes, and in between the second two was a time frame of 24 hours and 10 minutes. It would appear that you are attempting to get in your 1 revert per day as soon as possible. Please note that, just as with 3RR, 1RR is not an entitlement. Please consider this a formal warning under WP:ARBPIA to neither edit war nor give the appearance of edit warring. Qwyrxian ( talk) 12:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
It was not my intention to edit anything on,your talk page. I must have clicked on or touched "undo" without realizing I had activated it. My apologies. -- Chefallen ( talk) 06:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC).
I understand this is a contentious article and is under the WP:1RR rule, to which I assume you are also required to abide, but I am curious as to why you deleted the category which I added, Category:Conspiracy theorists. That is an obvious one if you have read the last section of the article in question. You don't have to (and shouldn't necessarily) delete everything wholesale. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Just in case you haven't noticed it, I've addressed a request to you, dated 31 January, at the UN Partition Plan talk page. ← ZScarpia 11:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I made a number of individually explained edits to this article. You reverted them all describing them as "not balance, but obfuscation" http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rachel%27s_Tomb&diff=480958242&oldid=480956885 Please consider each edit. For example to seperate names that the tomb is known by into "names it is also known by" and "known by Muslims as" makes no sense to me, and I do not understand how you defend it. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello No More Mr Nice Guy. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Shrike ( talk) 06:33, 14 May 2012 (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. Thank you. VivaWikipedia ( talk) 10:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
In thinking about the issue, it seems clear that one cannot expect consensus in this area (I-P conflict area). There is no consensus when the vote! is roughly 50-50. There is apparently no Wikipedia policy on this, only the one essay that JJG posted(WP:NOCONSENSUS). If you rely on a single administrator to determine this as was apparently done last time, you will still get 50% disgruntled people. Wouldn't Wikipedia be better served by an actual policy on no consensus, similar to the essay? In scanning the old set of arguments it is striking how that older discussion did seem dominated by one particular point of view, with very few of the opposing editors offering their opinion at that time. Perhaps they were not aware of the discussion? Anyway, your Rfc does not seem to include eliminating the template altogether only revising it, and a willingness to accept a single administrator's determination. Is that interpretation correct? Before supporting or opposing your proposition, I would like to understand it. Thank you. Opportunidaddy ( talk) 03:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little confused at your recent comment at RSN. [24]. Shrike offered a solution to this issue a month ago in line with your comments at RSN [25], which I have consistently supported. My objection is to making a call that the exact number of Arabs killed by Jews was 6 when we have a number of high quality academic sources that report a single incident in which seven Arabs were murdered by Jews. Dlv999 ( talk) 11:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you please explain what ths means? Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 14:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Shrike ( talk) 20:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG --- Your MASS revert -- Reason given "official jewish name"? you must be joking -- :
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&diff=465970265&oldid=465937085 . Change Jewish if you think Hebrew isn't a Jewish Language. See Talk
[26]
WHY?, when a partial revert is possible and recommended
1) Revert - The chronological order of events in the lede? I didn't make up the dates
Revert - "a" when "the" no longer fitted the moved dialogue?
Revert - a reference to the Lon Mandate which shows the necessary chronological delineation of Palestine from TransJordan?
Revert - The Arab naming on the stamp, putting the section in breech of
WP:NPOV
Revert - The CN pertaining to the chronological move? It's courtesy to point out that the move necessitated clarification of a partial statement.
NMMNG -- The Article is Tagged:
This article needs additional citations for
verification. (March 2012) |
Which calls for editors to attempt to address unsourced statements, et al
Please undo, with the exception of the one word (Jewish) you objected to ( if you believe Hebrew isn't a Jewish language ) -- thx
talknic (
talk) 15:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I have done my best to adhere to the policies, answer every question you have put my way. Given reliable secondary sources and provided statements per Policy for Primary Sources. Taken issues to the talk pages per policy. Made suggestions as to how NPOV might be addressed. You have on the other hand done nothing but obstruct. Please cease hounding .. thx talknic ( talk) 15:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this at the time, but thought it may be a violation to tell you then. Re this, you can use {{lang-he|פָּלֶשְׂתִּינָה (א"י)}} or {{lang-he|פָּלֶשְׂתִּינָה (א"י)}} instead of {{lang-he|פָּלֶשְׂתִּינָה (א"י)}}. The three are, as far as I can tell, displayed exactly the same.
The trick is to type out whatever you want in a program that does right-to-left text correctly, then copy and paste while typing out the template on wiki. It wont look right in the code because rtl end parenthesis will be read as coming after the last word, and in left-to-right after is to the right. Otherwise you can play around with the lrm control character. nableezy - 20:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
There was no consensus to remove the statement. Please self revert. Thx talknic ( talk) 14:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Great spot. How the hell did you find that?! Ankh. Morpork 20:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thoughts on who? We could do this off-wiki if you really, really want. nableezy - 02:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I've asked Avraham if he is willing to moderate the RFC, and if he has suggestions on who would be a good choice to be among those who close. If you want to ask him to forward you that email chain, I dont mind. Among the names that I am open to are: NYBrad (not sure a sitting arb will want to touch this though), Moonriddengirl, Black Kite, and MastCell. Problem with any of those? nableezy - 20:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
It isnt going anywhere on the IPCOLL page, I dont think anybody actually cares about actually settling the issue, or at least nobody is saying they care. I havent heard back from MRG yet either, about to ask X if he is interested. Ill try to think of who else would be good. Have a problem with asking xeno (but again, not sure a sitting arb will want to, though Brad's recusal was unrelated to arbcom)? nableezy - 20:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
MRG said she would be willing. nableezy - 05:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
John Carter? nableezy - 22:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Avraham cant moderate any A-I discussion. He let Breein get away with socking when the evidence showed 100% it was him. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 03:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Tznkai? nableezy - 18:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
"A. If it's reported by RS it can go in the article even if some editor think it's "piling on"." You're totally right. It's just I'm so busy and really don't have that much time to argue back and forth about this. If other editors, like you did, comment on it and give their opinion, it'd be more productive. "B. Did an editor just seriously say she thinks she knows what the subject of this article meant and that's a reason to keep information out of the article?" - very confused... are you referring to me? I'm inclined to think not, since Carol is a female name and nothing about me indicates my gender, but just want to check. -- Activism 1234 02:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
No.Were I a Jew, I'd have no problem in saying 'I'm a Jew' in the face of the world. Since I'm not, and hear a lot of people use it with an edge of innuendo that makes me hear a stupid insensitive resonance from the past, I am obliged, as a non-Jew with certain prophylactic sensitivities about allowing my being-in-the-world to be contaminated by public prejudices, to avoid it. Philologos has a point, as often, but the argument doesn't affect me, and I still call people, if required, by the passport they bear, since that is neutral. I'm not, as you suggest, an 'enabler' of antisemitism in this quite personal choice. I may be a cunt in many regards, but that was, well, unjust and overreading. I hope we can drop this. Nishidani ( talk) 08:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Wikipedia email:
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Ocaasi t | c 14:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
No one else seems to object. I don't know how to change the names of pages, but I think you or perhaps GabrielF might consider making the move I suggested. Prompted by seeing it just edited again. I'd forgotten the point. Nishidani ( talk) 16:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, the dispute flared up again. Apparently the other editor, despite ignoring the notices and reminders posted on his talk page, became active again as soon as I edited my proposed changes into the article. I'm trying to engage him in a discussion on the article's talk page, and your input and advice would be appreciated. Cheers! Indrek ( talk) 19:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course it's false | |||
An original barnstar Activism 1234 23:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC) |
thank you very very much for fixing the article about jerusalem !. i write in wikipedia 8 years and in the last month some people from muslim countries are deleting information about israel and replace pictures of israel. פארוק ( talk) 06:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, there's once again a dispute at 16:10 (this issue just won't die, I guess). Even though the article sort of settled into a consensus, now a newly registered user (
User:Yokononos) has come along and
completely removed the previously disputed paragraph, with hardly any explanation given. I naturally reverted and asked the user to explain in a bit more detail, but then
User:Urklistre jumped in and
reverted back, saying the explanation (ie. the word "speculations") sounds reasonable and insisting that
everyone but me wants that content removed anyway. I'm trying to engage them both on the talk page, as usual, but I'd appreciate it you could also take a quick look and maybe chime in.
Also, I must say the whole thing looks a bit fishy. Given
User:Urklistre's past conduct, I wouldn't put it past him to resort to sockpuppetry, but there's probably not enough evidence at the moment to file a report for investigating this.
Indrek (
talk) 11:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tijfo098 ( talk) 17:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Mentioned. Regards. 71.198.248.236 ( talk) 02:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
See [27]. Tijfo098 ( talk) 19:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
AGK said (over there) that you need to be blocked. Tijfo098 ( talk) 00:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I would appreciate it if you'll add your opinion here: Talk:Jerusalem#Better wording#We are running out of bits. -- MeUser42 ( talk) 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
No I noticed only those editors who were not invited before by another editor. However, I sent request, as far as I know now to all who took part in the discussion. Some editors may have been double invited.-- Tritomex ( talk) 19:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Vandalized_grave.jpg As far as I see there is no permission for the usage of this photo. More so no place, data or any further information is given about this photo. As it is highly sensitive photo I guess such permission is required. I am wondering wetter I should ask for the deletion of this photo.I would appreciate your op pinion on this subject. -- Tritomex ( talk) 19:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't know that much about photo issues, although I don't think it would make sense that we could use any photo some random person uploaded to flicker with any description they chose. On the other hand, that wouldn't be the first thing I saw here that didn't make sense, so who knows. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 03:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi NMMNG,
I have the feeling -but I may be wrong- that you shifted more and more radical. I think that this is due to the strong involvment in conroversial and difficult topic where no censensus is achievable due to the misunderstand, the fears and/or the bad faith of people. For your pleasure and for you own, I think that it may be profitable sometimes to take some distance and/or to focus on other topics.
My two cents.
Rgds, Pluto2012 ( talk) 08:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 November 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG, I am guessing from your prolonged silence in the matter that you are not interested in participating in mediation. Is that correct? -- Ravpapa ( talk) 14:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear user, since you participated on a geopolitical context discussion on Palestine [28], 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) 21:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Curious - What is the process of withdrawing an AE you initiated? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 07:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy Please state precise the exact claim that I am making. Rather I am simply stating objectively what is on the website. If you don't want the world to know what is on the website, I suggest you email the CEO and suggest he removes it. I did that some time ago, without success it. Trahelliven ( talk) 03:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy
Take the article United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, with which we are both familiar. The opening paragraph summarises Resolution 181(II) without the necessity of an intermediate Reliable Source. The wording of the Resolution speaks for itself. The same applies to describing the Report dated 3 September 1947 from UNSCOP further in the article.
No More Mr Nice Guy If you describe the document differently, you suggest how it should be described and with any luck we come to an arrangement on how it should be described. That is exactly what happened with the first paragraph in the article United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. When you go to a Reliable Source, there is the same problem. I might say it means one thing and someone else says it means something else. With luck we agree on what it does mean. Trahelliven ( talk) 08:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The website of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies has a page on the Geography of Israel containing a description of Israel's borders, including the following:- Egypt to the south and Jordan to the east. (with the link) Trahelliven ( talk) 09:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I have taken up your suggestion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Trahelliven ( talk) 19:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your advice! I filed an SPI, and according to the admin who handled it (and the previous cases), "Obvious sock is obvious". Thanks for taking the time! Indrek ( talk) 14:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Because I have quoted you on this page, you might like to take part in the discussion. Trahelliven ( talk) 21:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
You have reverted twice. Do not revert again or you may be blocked for doing this. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 17:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:ANI#User "No More Mr Nice Guy". I'm assuming your edits don't violate 1RR because reverts of IPs do not count toward the total. Nonetheless a discussion at Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence would be welcome. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
the wording was Pappes - is he less highly thought of than Benny Morris? genuine question - is Pappe an esteemed figure. whatever , the language was borrowed from pappe - and he wouldn't have invented stuff. do you read the lead, as is, as not in the least biased? Sayerslle ( talk) 19:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This important information was removed from an article by Pluto2012, despite he is the only one who inserted repeated information about territorial and demographic changes. Perhaps you could restore the missing content and finish this nonsense. Thanks.-- 201.231.95.189 ( talk) 21:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
You might consider writing something (anything) on your WP:User page. It would get the red out of your edit summaries. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
User:TransporterMan (
talk) 22:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited October 2012 Haaretz poll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breaking the Silence ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jerusalem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, -- tariqabjotu 20:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
At 02:42, 13 December 2012, you madw a contribution to Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence: Purpose of Declaration of 14 May 1948. It is now on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard I listed you as a participant but I accidentally used Mister instead of Mr in your username. You may wish to take part. Trahelliven ( talk) 22:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, your 'buddy' ;) Nableezy is reverting an edit on "Palestinian Right of Return" tonight...and in case Nableezy reverts it again (especially if I forget to come back), please check up on this in a few days or a week. His basis was to call the following source WP:RS, despite that WP:RS section 4.7 makes it clear that such a source CAN be cited so long as its controvertial/opinionated claims ARE attributed as such (which I mostly or completely did, but you can check me on that point, I'm pretty tired as I write this), and...
My changes also addressed a concern that someone else noted (the 1st topic on the Talk page...so I'm not just crazy; someone else noticed what I did): that the lede doesn't really give any logical REASONS to support Israel's position (i.e. seems similar to what you wrote on the Talk page about anti-Israelis desiring to "define" our position, as well as their own--and then making weak-ass arguments for us to make us appear foolish) and my source also addresses the desire of the guy on the Talk page for the pro-Israeli position to be given by someone (Dr. Mitchell Bard, as I used) who represents LOTS of ppl on the pro-Israel side & does NOT make weak-ass arguments (I also used him as a source to edit some other sections which had an imbalance of strong anti-Israel arguments matched to incomplete, spurious, or almost ridiculous pro-Israel arguments). Please review & revise my work if you find that I've committed any violations of WP policy (rather than deleting it wholesale as Nableezy desires to even delete parts that I'm 100% certain don't violate WP policy & are important to provide balance to some pro-Palestinian arguments that were going totally un-rebutted within this-or-that section). Thanks if you can give that input. Also, we CAN point out that many sources in that article tread on WP:RS way more (or in some cases only a little) compared to my chosen source (JewishVirtualLibrary) if Nableezy et al really wanna push their luck: Le_Monde_Diplomatique#Controversies (even runs 911 conspiracy theories, also FAR-left/fringe), standforfacts.org (no scholarliness), al-awda (even claimed a guy later-convicted of "conspiracy to help the Palestinian Islamic Jihad," Al-Arian, was likely only a “pattern of profiling and targeting the community" and Hussein Ibish (their rep who's cited separately in that WP article) saying "the presumption has to be that this is a political witch-hunt, a vendetta...very ugly post-9/11 McCarthyism": makes anyone sane trust their judgment, right!? The presumption "HAS TO BE..."?!? They woulda been smarter to "presume" nothing cos they got proven WRONG.), ArabHRA.org, J. Cook: see antiwar.com#Reactions, Future of Freedom Foundation, Benny Morris as critiqued by many as cited on user_talk:Pluto2012 AND for "distorting Hertzl" in: meforum.org/711/benny-morriss-reign-of-error-revisited, Benny Morris gets his vengeance by critiquing the facts of 1 of his MANY critics, but joining MANY other lefties, who all criticize the fact-checking of Efraim_Karsh#Praise_and_criticism (Ephraim is also cited in this WP article & to be fair, I'll point out that BOTH sides, even 'our' side such as Ephraim, can be attacked on WP:RS grounds if JewishVirtualLibrary can be, but that we have "character assassins" on BOTH sides, and then more rarely we have SOLID/legit issues of poor fact-checking i.e. poor scholarliness even from some of the PhD's--but I've seen most mainstream sources praise JewishVirtualLibrary & only partisan "assassins" attack JVL based on Logical Fallacies rather than rational arguments), israel-wat.com cablegate.wikileaks.org sourced from a soldier who violated his oath of loyalty, a crime that goes to his credibility ...Edward_Said#Intellectual_criticism wow 'nuff said about that guy in his well-cited WP 'criticisms' section, and for the following, I've found more RE: objectivity than solid critiques of fact-checking...but what I'm writing isn't even a complete list: Jrnl of Palestine Studies (editor was even cited by some as a PLO official, also he won an award in the name of Edward Said whose own veracity is crippled in the last link), jcpa.org (run by former Israeli ambassador). My position is that MOST of this list of sources DO meet WP:RS, actually...BUT just not as strongly as JVL meets WP:RS, despite Nableezy's baseless/unfounded accusation that JVL doesn't...but you might want to hang onto this list & challenge some of the more extreme sources in this list (in bold text) even if JVL is accepted as a source. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.252.105 ( talk) 08:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings. You are the only one who can save this huge sourced content. You have reason and Wikipedia's policy on your side. The fight is not over. But you can finish it with a little more of perseverance. Or you can report this nonsense to an administrator. Besides, even helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must not be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor.-- 201.235.55.19 ( talk) 09:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2013.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, --
WGFinley (
talk) 18:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article ( 1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a new New RM of Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem at Talk:Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank_and_East_Jerusalem#Requested_move_2. I'm telling you about this because you were involved in the previous one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk • contribs) 11:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please email me if/when the Jerusalem RfC goes live? I don't have the time or patience to deal with this place and its unusually high percentage of assholes right now or in the foreseeable future. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 00:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello NMMNG. I'm writing this from my mobile phone, so my apologies if this seems rather brief. I just wanted to say, though, that I've noticed your recent comments in the Jerusalem discussion, and I have two points that I want to make. The first is, if you want to get more closely involved with the discussion there, could you list yourself as a participant at the top of the page? The second is that I'm worried that your comments are taking on an accusatory tone, for example this one where you say "Keep up the clever posts, you're this >< close to winning wikipedia!" I can appreciate that you might be frustrated by the discussion, but this sort of comment isn't going to help resolve things - on the contrary, it is very likely to escalate the dispute, and that's really something we want to avoid. To prevent further escalation it is important that everyone keeps their comments about the content and not about the other participants - would you be willing to keep your comments only about the content? If you have any concerns about users' conduct you're welcome to let me know about them by email, but I would rather that you keep them off the discussion page. Let me know if this sounds reasonable, and if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 03:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi NMMNG. I'm not quite sure what prompted this. Perhaps there are some aspects of my recent closing comments at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion that you think I should have handled differently? If so, I would appreciate it if you could let me know what they were, as I'm having a tough time trying to work it out by myself. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi NMMNG. You asked me a while ago to notify you when the Jerusalem RfC starts. Well, it has just started today, so here is your notification. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
"Says the Jewish holiday of Purim is a celebration of genocide" link is wrong. Chesdovi ( talk) 12:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you (in accordance with the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions):
You are indefinitely prohibited from contributing to arbitration enforcement requests or appeals thereof that concern the case WP:ARBPIA, except to defend yourself where any enforcement actions against you are discussed.
You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) set down in this Arbitration Enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. This sanction has been recorded on the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a topic ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 22:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I see you're reading the thread on Sandstein at ANI. I joked with someone last night about how I should email both you and Nableezy in order to get the dirt on him from both sides on when he has gone Terminator.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 09:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Will it be possible for you to contact pluto2012 and try to resolve the deletion of the "british diplomacy in support of the Arabs". He deleted this section although Wikipedia rule is: "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone."
In order to resolve the problem, I consider applying for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. As a prerequisite, there is a demand for "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem". That is the reason for asking you. thanks.
Appendix: the previous reporting of the problem.
Dispute resolution noticeboard
help desk Ykantor ( talk) 19:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 20:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You're a respected editor, and, mostly, a usefully close reader of the edits that interest you. But I think you are way too suspicious or inflexible whenever we cross paths. I brought the issue up here, not of course for sanctions, but to request some advice. Nishidani ( talk) 19:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for already making major progress in addressing the longstanding issues with this article. I spent a lot of time on it when it was at DYK, and was not happy with what went through at that time. Alas, these things can be very time-consuming, and I'm far from being an expert on Israel-Palestine. Edwardx ( talk) 10:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The above page was created on 17 May 2015 with edit summary "copy this here". There have been no edits since. Do you have any plans for the page? If it was copied from another page on Wikipedia where other editors had contributed, WP:CWW should be observed. However, it appears there might be a problem with respect to WP:POLEMIC because the page is essentially a claim that a certain editor is anti-Semitic—disguising it by not naming the editor is not sufficient. Please consider replacing the contents with {{ db-userreq}} to request its deletion. An alternative would be to follow the advice at WP:POLEMIC and immediately use the page for evidence presented at a suitable noticeboard. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Quotes and Stuff, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Quotes and Stuff and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Quotes and Stuff during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Please note that I will be filing an AE regarding your edits at 1950–51 Baghdad bombings. Oncenawhile ( talk) 21:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Monochrome Monitor is expanding his edit-war to History of Esperanto, where he blanked Wexler's idea of Esperanto being relexified Yiddish with the edit summaries rm very fringe, the vast majority of scholars reject this and its stated as true, and Hebrew is nothing like esperanto (it is not stated as true, it is introduced with "it has been suggested that") and Suggested is not adequate—by making this entire section about Yiddish you give the concept undue weight as if it were true. It's about the history of Esperanto, which has nothing to do with Yiddish except in Wexler's theory (off course the entire section is about Yiddish -- the section title is "Standardized Yiddish and relexified Esperanto", and standardizing Yiddish was another of Zamenhof's projects). — kwami ( talk) 20:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:ARBPIA3 is now open and evidence can be submitted until September 8. 62.90.5.221 ( talk) 09:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I pressed the link you provided, but it didn't open for me. Thanks for your edit. Debresser ( talk) 16:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
At Lions' Gate stabbings you again turn up to revert me. Your edit summary shows you did not read what I wrote in my edit summary. I wrote:’ stub is just that. The main article is this
Stub here, had you checked, referred to the infobox having a link to Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015), which is, precisely a pathetic stub. I replaced it with = List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015, which happens to be the main article. You misread that, I am getting tired of these misreadings, as a reference to the article Lions’ Gate stabbings. Nishidani ( talk) 17:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Note to self: I edited that article before Nisidani so his claim that I showed up to revert him is bullshit. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 19:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 23:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw on Talk:Mandatory_Palestine#Edits_to_the_FAQ that you have been calling User:Oncenawhile all kinds of names. Please be civil and correct at all times. Just stick to the issue at hand and don't play on the person. You can read up about this at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Debresser ( talk) 06:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For standing up against incessant efforts to make Wikipedia less accurate and less objective. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC) |
I wish they cared about accuracy. Objectivity is subjective. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 00:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Translations are considered derivative works of the original. That means that if the original work is copyrighted then any translation is subject to the same copyright. If you're using material from a foreign language source which you've translated into English than you need to make sure you rephrase it in your own words exactly as you would with an English source. Hut 8.5 23:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you mentioned once before that you were a big fan of his. I am sorry for your loss. Oncenawhile ( talk) 19:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Note to self: The above two posts are the only edits Oncenawhile made to Wikipedia in the past 3 5 days. Apparently he can't keep away from his unrequited love.
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk) 21:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk) 22:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani has continued the debate at Talk:Jews#Cite_grouping at another forum, namely Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Definition_of_Jews._Gross_original_research.2FWP:SYNTH_violation, the WP:NOR noticeboard. Since you have commented at the first discussion, but not (yet) at the second, I thought I'd bring this to your attention, in case you would like to comment there as well. Debresser ( talk) 20:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
If you want to discuss other users, the best idea is: don't. If you still want to do it, use their talk pages. Abusing article talk pages only to take shots at other users like you did here [32] and here [33] violates both WP:SOAP and WP:AGF. Article talk pages are only for discussing how to improve articles. Further violations could result in you being blocked. Jeppiz ( talk) 22:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz ( talk) 22:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
[34] Got a diff where they say this? -- NeilN talk to me 19:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty obvious sock. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 02:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Ref your decision to revert to the word terrorists in this article. WP:TERRORIST states that you must use have a reliable sources to describe the subject, and you must use in-text attribution. Therefore I will revert to add in line citation, i.e. source x says that this was a terrorist incident. You revert is not in accordance with wikipedia policy. Johnmcintyre1959 ( talk) 20:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Palestinian stone-throwing". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 December 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Palestinian stone-throwing, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Palestinian stone-throwing, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 22:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
We've occasioned a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Third opinion the upshot of which was that 3O contributors aren't supposed to get involved in debates. I'd like to make another attempt to reach a consensus between us before trying other DR methods. Please see my proposal at Talk:Bat Ye'or. Eperoton ( talk) 20:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Makeandtoss ( talk) 01:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Jeppiz ( talk) 01:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
For your comments at Anti-semitic anti-Zionism. Turns out Werner Bergmann defined the term several years ago, in highly similar terms to those used by Johnson. This clears up all significant issues of notability, although the drive-by merge proposal remains on the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For your vigilant efforts to stop drive-by tagging, and POV editing that makes Wikipedia less accurate and less objective. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC) |
If the source is not good... why did you not undo this edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omysfysfybmm ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not following. You did not attribute anything. You removed a clear point my brothers and sisters like to make while alleging the source was shit. Now, either it is shit, or it isn't. Make up your mind and let me know.
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Qualitatis (
talk •
contribs)
Note to self: Closed immediately as obvious BRD.
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk) 03:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:AE#No More Mr Nice Guy nableezy - 20:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi No More Mr Nice Guy, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek. 69 talk 01:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Does the 500/30 rule apply to engaging on talk pages? I want to weigh into the discussion but I also don't want to be sanctioned. Please advise. Turkeyturkeypieyum ( talk) 15:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The recently created Israel Palestine conflict page is nominated for deletion in connection to the preceding community discussion. You are welcome to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel Palestine conflict. GreyShark ( dibra) 14:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, " The New York Times and the Holocaust".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.
I see here that you are banned from AE. I don't know whether you are banned from opening requests against Nishidani as well, but please stop making personal attacks against Nishidani in edit summaries. This is simply a low workaround against this restriction. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I have closed the appeal you filed at arbitration enforcement. The result is that the appeal is granted, and the corresponding restriction on AE requests is lifted immediately. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Palestinians. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 16:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Since you were involved in the discussion, I'm alerting you to the conversation on the noticeboard regarding Hamas/Likud. Drsmoo ( talk) 20:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
An Arbitration Enforcement case [36] in which you participated has been closed with the following result:
All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case. Parties are urged to spend some time reflecting inwardly on their own conduct, and whether it is truly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. No further action is taken at this time. The parties are advised to chill. The Wordsmith Talk to me 13:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you have access to pages 76-77 of Sleimen's "Conspiracy Theories in the United States and the Middle East: A Comparative Approach" article? I suspect the material in the article tying Yinon's article to Lebanese conspiracy theories is not supported by that source, but can't verify it. Epson Salts ( talk) 02:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Tel_Dan_Stele.23Unrelated_sources Drsmoo ( talk) 14:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Did you happen to catch Malik Shabazz's screed on his userpage??? A friend alerted me about it, and it was so engrossing, it pulled KT out of retirement just to write you.
What am I missing? Is this the same Shabazz who, as an admin, called another editor "Jewboy" while referring to himself as a "nigger"? He's a Jew?! I heard those rumors floating, but never believe it... but it all makes sense now. Who else could be one of the most rabid anti-Israel editors than a Jew???
It is pretty funny... for the longest time, his userpage had a photo of the back of a big, bad, black dude, but I always envisioned him sitting in his parents Beverly Hills mansion, a little "Jewfro" with a pick in it, going after anyone who wrote anything positive about Israel. What a blowhard! I'd like to see that whitie wear a suit and bowtie to a Nation of Islam event... see what they do to him. Just another layer added to the third biggest a-hole in the Arab-Israeli area.
Cheers! Kamel Tebaast 02:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
note to self: Oncenawhile explicitly pinged me on that page [37], this is probably one of his little harassment attempts. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 19:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
[38]-- Shrike ( talk) 20:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion is explicitly not allowed at the ARCA page. Please remove your comment from underneath mine. Oncenawhile ( talk) 21:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Look at these nonsense tags? (without consensus, as usual) Russell Tribunal??? Is it a joke? Could you remove it, please? Thanks-- 186.137.109.226 ( talk) 03:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
So, are you going to remove these tags or not? Also the same POV warrior put this tag, although given source literally says: "The IDF, founded in 1948, ranks among the most battle-trained armed forces in the world, having had to defend the country in five major wars" Could you remove the misleading and false tag, please? Please do something. Thanks.-- 186.138.118.49 ( talk) 16:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 10:21, 11 May 2017 (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. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Sandstein 21:39, 15 May 2017 (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."
No More Mr Nice Guy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
While I acknowledge there might be a technical violation here, I was under the impression from previous precedent here that if someone reverts asking for a source, restoring with the source requested is not considered a revert. I would have of course self-reverted immediately if someone would have told me this is not the case or even discussed the merits of the complaint at AE.
Accept reason:
Unblocked at WP:AE, see below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll copy paste from what I wrote on Sandstein's talkpage.
Hi. First, a correction of a minor factual error in your closing statement: NMMNG's prohibition on AE discussions was lifted a few months ago. Second, at the time this request was made ARBPIA did have the consensus clause operative, but recently, after an ARCA request, it has been dropped because it leads to more trouble than it is worth. Keeping this development in mind, perhaps you might want to re-evaluate the block. In my opinion, it is not necessary and people fighting over silly rules only leads to bad blood; discussion about how to phrase the lead is proceeding (as well as can be expected) on the talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
You cannot edit AE while blocked, but an admin reviewing your unblock request can copy your appeal there if they think the appeal has merit. (But they are less likely to do so if the appeal is not in the format set out in {{ Arbitration enforcement appeal}} ). Sandstein 15:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is a case where an editor with a prior topic ban for violating 1RR, knowingly violated 1RR again, refused to discuss his edit, was given a chance to self-revert, declined, was reported, showed up at AE to say his only purpose on wikipedia is to revert people he doesn't agree with on ARBPIA articles, was given a warning and case closed. Compare with my case just above. Clean record, would have self-reverted if I had realized I was being reported for 1RR. Got a 72 hour block. Opening the floor to guesses as to why the two cases are treated differently. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 23:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I've unblocked you after the appeal at WP:AE. As I said there, the block was valid and the time given was well within admin discretion. The reason for lifting is probably more symbolic than anything, because many feel you get the point and keeping you blocked would serve no purpose. That said, tread carefully and ask if in doubt when editing 1RR articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Could you take responsibility for this well-sourced edit? Thanks-- 190.31.180.46 ( talk) 00:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
You left a message on my talk page titled as above along with a copy of the Palestine Israel enforcement template and a request that I should modify my behaviour. In my view, it is your behaviour that requires modification, not mine, although for the present I choose not to make an issue out of it beyond what I have stated publicly on the Balfour Declaration talk page. Since you appear unconvinced, I am content for you to initiate a request for administrative action and I will gladly accept the judgement of my peers in that regard. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
See here. It's pretty simple. Just drop the habit of sneering, and this can be archived. Nishidani ( talk) 13:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. 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)
"seems to have" is not an argument. How lousy this Wikipedia has become. - DePiep ( talk)
Please see here. Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:14, 20 April 2018 (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. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Sandstein 18:05, 21 April 2018 (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."
I'm happy to give more detailed feedback but it won't be today, sorry. GoldenRing ( talk) 19:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Note to self: Onceinawhile has been trying to remove the 1996 thing from the lead for years. He has participated in discussion several times, including here. He removed material he knew has consensus. Again. I should start a list. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 16:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I copied over the text to AE - let me know if I did a mistake. Regarding formatting here - something broke - you might want to check on which revision if you really want to track it down - but what I suggest you do is archiving most of the talk page (or at least 97% of the 218 items here) - e.g. per the instructions [[Help:Archiving a talk page] instead of foguring out what open tag here is unmatched by a close. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Because it was deleted while at MFD, I don't think I should undelete it. Instead, here's what it consisted of:
You then provided links to [50], [51], and no-context links to three pages that don't exist anymore. Then, links to [52], [53], and [54] with this internal link. You quoted the second paragraph of [55] but didn't link it due to some blacklist issue. And finally, you provided links to [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], and [62].
Nyttend ( talk) 01:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. 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)
Noticed you haven't been around in a while. Hoping all is well and that you simply got tired of editing, or busy with life. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC) |
I am indeed well, thanks for asking. It's mainly the fact I don't want to volunteer my time for an organization where I am treated poorly by a few admins-for-life while the rest watch on, not willing to risk their privilege to do the right thing. It's not worth it. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 23:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to hear that. I often wish that this were a more collegial, less combative place. But know that some of us appreciated the contributions you have made. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
this. Nishidani ( talk) 06:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
They mean: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Deep fried okra 06:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Huldra ( talk) 20:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello No More Mr Nice Guy! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello No More Mr Nice Guy! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia
user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy. |
This edit has a misleading edit summary and can be considered vandalism since you removed important information. Please refrain from making such edits otherwise you will get blocked. Thanks Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 16:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
According to a source in the entry, those shirt designs do exist and can be verified by this image gallery [3]- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 16:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You still removed information about shirt designs backed up by reliable sources such as the Haaretz. You even removed designs verified by the gallery [4] [5] You're close to violating WP:3rr and what is worse you are removing sourced information, so I suggest you stop reverting and start using the talk page. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 16:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I did say what I had to say to you and I will say it again. You need to stop removing sourced information, go check the sources, not everything has to have picture evidence. That is a child in the crosshair, a design you removed from the article as well. The other is a mosque, note the crescent moon on top. You misconstrue my posts as bullying and threats and that needs to stop. But I apologize for saying that you were close to violating the 3rr, I thought your first edit was a revert. -- Falastine fee Qalby ( talk) 17:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.
PhilKnight ( talk) 14:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. You know, I am still fresh and new here. Simply could not stand the partial perspective and miscoverage the article provides. However, it is a long and hard process. You simply cannot change the world instantly, can you? It is simply impossible to wage war on all the fronts. So, I started with what I see most important. Casualties, disputed figures, psy war. Later, the intlaw issues. I see there is at least one subject we see the same. I kindly ask you, though you do not have to comply, if you see another issue where we have similar opinions, insert a sentence so I would know I am not alone here. Cheers. Sceptic Ashdod ( talk) 12:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
1. Next phase of the 'disputed figures' should be inserting this: 'Mounting evidence indicates that during Operation Cast Lead (and in ordinary times) members of Hamas’s internal security forces served as commanders and operatives in Hamas’s military wing (Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades).' http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/site/html/search.asp?sid=13&pid=104&numResults=2&isSearch=yes&isT8=yes. What do you say?
2. What do you say about the section I started? Man, IDF made some innovations to spare lives, and so far only negative aspects are inserted. What do you think about Kemp? The reason I brought him in was not because X or Y say something pleasant to me ears, but because the man was a high-rank officer, a commander of British forces in N. Ireland and Afghanistan. He is not a politician, he has all the expertise to make military judgement. Am I wrong here? Sceptic Ashdod ( talk) 13:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Didn't follow all the discussion there, but I wrote there what I think. He is not helpful for casualties section. But evidencies he collected and recorded could be more than helpful elsewhere. For example, the Hamas' intimidation of the population can be easily entered into Hamas' psy-war section I created: 'It was difficult to get these testimonials. In general, fear of Hamas prevails'; 'Those who recount a different version than the story imposed by the “Muhamawa” (the resistance) is automatically an “Amil,” a collaborator and is risking his life...Locals are often threatened by Hamas.'
Hamas using civilian population as human shields: 'they wanted the [Israelis] to shoot at the [the civilians’] houses so they could accuse them of more war crimes. ... Practically all of the tallest buildings in Gaza that were hit by Israeli bombs, like the Dogmoush, Andalous, Jawarah, Siussi, and many others, had rocket launching pads on their roofs, or were observation decks for the Hamas.'
Hamas using medical facilities, hospitals and of course reprisal attacks on Fatah - it should all be spread around the article. http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/01/28/cremonesi-article-in-english/. Sceptic Ashdod ( talk) 12:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
According to the 2008-2009 Israel/Hamas conflict discussion, the name will likely change to "Gaza War." I think "Gaza War political violence" is a much better title than "2009 Hamas political violence." And then we can change the lead to something like "A series of attacks against Fatah...." instead of opening with "Gaza War political violence" because that sounds awkward. I still prefer reprisal attacks though. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 19:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I was a probably a bit too bold, but I wrote something on your userpage so that it doesn't come up as red when you sign your name. I'm sorry if you preferred it to be red. Best, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You need to ask an admin to delete your user page. Such requests are normally honored- see this. You can place a {{db-u1}} template on the page, and it will be taken care of. NoCal100 ( talk) 22:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not in your head, but we may think alike because of similar circumstances. I was also nice once, but now I'm satisfied with just not being an asshole. I hope you haven't become a cynic like me. I hate cynics. Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 00:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I need an honest opinion on the subject. Do you think info I provided is udeful or useless? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic Ashdod ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
well you are a tool my friend. A tool fan that is. I am glad that you enter and exit certain articles, like the baseline does in Tool songs. You must be a drummer. Well, let me tell you my friend, that Wiki does not need you at all in project like I/P conflict. But, we have great opportunities for growth, in areas like Star Trek Oral Sex Child Support and all types of offshoots that you can imagine. Please, feel free to investigate around and leave I/P for ever. Thank you, have a terrible time at the poker tables. Cryptonio ( talk) 01:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It is interesting to note that Amnesty provides the reader with the definition: 'Article 42 of the Hague Regulations defines occupation: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” In such situations, the occupying power “shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.” (Hague Regulations, Article 43).' Nevertheless, they are firm in their verdict that Israel is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip. Funny, isn't it? -- Sceptic Ashdod ( talk) 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you be willing to file an AFD? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I was trying to assume good faith, but now it's quite obvious. You just reverted an edit I made to Moses Montefiore Windmill claiming there was no source for the name Jaffa Gate Mill, even though there was. This being after you showed up to Tawfiq Canaan, Present absentee and List of native plants of Palestine (A-D) (all quite obscure articles), it's clear to me that you are following me. I'm asking you to stop. Right now. If I see you editing directly after me at another page again, I will report you to WP:AE for stalking. K? Tiamut talk 17:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't have nor did I ever have another account, nor am I stalking you. Feel free to report me for stalking right now. What's the source for "Jaffa Mill Gate"? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 17:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If you are at it, try this article. And don't forget to mention other nice fellows... -- Sceptic from Ashdod ( talk) 02:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
that is your 3rd revert on Palestinian right of return. nableezy - 15:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the wording, take it to talk. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 15:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, my first edit was not a revert.
Also, in the future, I'd appreciate it if you returned the courtesy and did not delete sections I open on your talk page.
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk) 15:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair warning, continue edit warring and AN3 is my next stop. nableezy - 20:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi No More Mr Nice Guy! It is certainly not a welcome step, and a deviation from the spirit of a certain "remedy"/ban, but I don't know if it's sanctionable. Depends on the other circumstances. Firstly, you should notify/remind the user putting up the materials on their talk page of the ban/arbitration case before proceeding, as well as the user picking up the materials. If I were the admin making the decision, I'm mostly look on the nature of the materials—those meant exclusively to push a point of view vs. actually informative and valuable materials. However, it's usually not up to a single administartor to decide based on subjective things like that. If you believe that the user(s) in question crossed the line, after sending them both a notice, feel free to open a WP:ANI case and I'll give it my opinion. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 22:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
we have dangerous history rewriting on the page Partition of Palestine by Nableezy and Harlan. Help out against it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.147.2 ( talk) 20:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
True, I added 6 paragraphs but all of my information was thoroughly researched, cross-referenced, sourced and even double sourced. They were factually correct. In any event, the reader can refer to the source and make his own assessment as to its veracity and reliability. By reverting the entire edit, The Site Administrator, Fayssalf, substituted the reader's judgment with his own, thus depriving the reader of making his own informed decision. This is an abuse of power and represents censorship in its worst form. As an aside, the sources were from mainstream papers including, Associated Press, Ynet, JPost, Haaretz, Yalibnan, among others. -- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 20:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)jiujitsuguy-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 20:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I'm new to Wiki and this was my first edit. I am not done with this article. How to you suggest I challange Fayssalf's (site administrator's) reversions? --
Jiujitsuguy (
talk) 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)jiujitsuguy--
Jiujitsuguy (
talk) 21:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
what brought you to that article to restore the edit of a banned user? nableezy - 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
In other words, you don't have a case. That's what I thought.
I shall continue to edit as I see fit. Please stop repeatedly threatening me with administrative action you can't follow through with. I'm sure there's some rule against that sort of behavior too. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I encourage both you and Tiamut to take your "case" to the proper venue. But I think we all know you won't because you don't have one.
Thanks for the tip about editing an article you never edited before. Have a look at
this and then go read
WP:HOUND.
Are we done here?
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk) 19:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
You're really reaching now. You'd tell AE that you highly doubt I've seen the movie? That's your case?
We're done. Your little threat has been duly noted. Ma salameh.
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Either one of you can feel free to tell me to shove off, but how about this: what if, without anyone admitting any wrongdoing, you both agree in principle to avoid, whenever possible, the other? Is that fair/useful? I speak as one who has been often followed... oh, and I have seen Paradise Now, and can't really see the big deal in terms of your disagreement. The whole topic area is fraught enough without obsessing over minutiae, yes? IronDuke 19:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi again! Do I agree with you? Yes! Do I want to start the ball rolling? No! ;) we've had small discussions on this before, but while there are still so many trolls in the I–P area, I doubt there is any interest for serious editors to start a debate about this. There are many other smaller important things to take care of for now (IMO). Maybe someday... although if you start this thing, I'll be sure to join any such discussion. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 22:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
When you start nice articles like this, you should nominate them for DKY. Historicist ( talk) 01:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful advice. I do appreciate it-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 03:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:BRD explains that BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus. As a result of your talk page criticisms, I made substantial revisions to the section on the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war regarding the rules of non-recognition that were adopted by the UN as a result of the various territorial situations created by Israel. Nonetheless, you have deleted that information entirely citing WP:UNDUE. That page says that "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each", and "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view."
The information you deleted represents both the published majority viewpoint, and the viewpoint of the majority of UN member states regarding: (1) the rules established by resolution 242 and Article 2 of the UN Charter (an international convention); (2) international custom regarding non-recognition as evidence of a general practice they have accepted as law (Stimson Doctrine, Council of the League of Nations resolutions on Manchukuo, and etc.); and (3) the judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations.
WP:VALID says that the Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. Nothing in WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, or WP:BRD policy supports the wholesale deletion of well sourced neutral narratives regarding the majority viewpoint. harlan ( talk) 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the title is what matters most, instead the article should be fixed. As you said yourself, a "place name" in Tel Aviv? I would like to see anyone who doesn't already know what Abu Kabir is understand what's written there. As for the title, it doesn't really matter as many neighborhoods and even some villages in Israel are commonly known by the previous names, famously Katamon, from which you can take an example in fixing this article. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 12:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You've already been asked to stop deleting well sourced material that represents the published majority viewpoint of the UN member states. harlan ( talk) 11:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Israel (and the status of Jerusalem as capital) has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list ( click here for details).
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission. -- tariqabjotu 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I see you've named me as an involved party in the mediation regarding the Israel article. I haven't been involved in mediation before, so I have a few questions. If you don't think you're the right person to ask, please point me at someone who you think is.
Thanks, No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 20:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
My main concern is that even if mediation is successful (which I think is pretty unlikely considering some people present their position as "non-negotiable") it would probably take quite a bit of time and effort to achieve. If then anyone can restart the discussion on the talk page, the whole thing seems pointless to me. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 13:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that you're the final vote. If you decide to decline, MedCom cannot pick up this case. If you agree, we'll get a mediator as soon as possible. Xavexgoem ( talk) 11:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on State of Palestine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NJA (t/ c) 08:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You've done a fine job on Yad Mordechai. Nice additions. Good content. Just thought you should know.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 21:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm cracking up...... Breein1007 ( talk) 22:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eden Natan-Zada. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. What are you trying to achieve by reopening the ANI thread? The consensus was for an interaction ban, and Sandstein went ahead and implemented it. I know you and your mates want me to be topic banned but unfortunately there just isn't the will for it amongst the general Wikipedia community at the moment. Keeping the thread open for longer and longer won't change that, so please just reclose it and let it go, okay? Factsontheground ( talk) 13:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, No More Mr Nice Guy, I believe we have to shorten a bit the section describing recent events. Otherwise DYK nomination will be killed as it was with Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) here. They will stop at nothing. So maybe you could help me to shorten the section in question in order for DYK to pass.Of course then they might come up with something else. Thank you.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 18:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I put up a thread at the ANI board concerning what I perceive as disruptive editing on the part of User:Vexorg. Since I mentioned one or more of his diffs directed to you on the talk page, I thought it appropriate to notify you as well. It can be found here. [7] Best, Stellarkid ( talk) 04:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey dude. This discussion seems to be between you and me, so I thought it might be appropriate to post to user talk. I'm a little confused and would like clarification for your "Coatrack" characterization. My understanding of a "Coatrack" is that it's a subject that isn't notable, but exists solely to introduce bias into an article. Is this your understanding? I think we agree that saying "Some Rothchilds were Zionists, some weren't" is notable and NPOV. So I'm having difficulty understanding where you think the bias is coming from, and whom it's against. NickCT ( talk) 15:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping a line. I've been very busy with work lately and haven't had the time to engage in any productive editing but I'll be back soon. Incidentally, I was recently at Yad Mordechai and the set-up there is pretty cool. They've got the original tanks, artillery and troop carriers (Bren Gun Carriers) used by the Egyptians and the Israeli pill boxes and trenches. It's set up quite nicely and gives the visitor a real feel of the firepower the Israelis were up against. There's also a museum nearby detailing the weapons and tactics. It was really nice.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 16:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. You have repeatedly removed well sourced material from the British Mandate of Palestine article [8] and [9]
According to Wikipedia:ARBPIA, editors do not have the right to engage in sustained editorial conflict or unbridled criticism of other editors across different forums. If you have genuine controversy, you are expected to avail yourself of the dispute resolution mechanism, or drop the matter. Wikipedia's communal approaches require editors to apply the principles contained in neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability in their editing. If you wish to include an opposing viewpoint in this article regarding the statehood of the Palestine mandate, you have to cite reliable published sources, not your own personal opinion. harlan ( talk) 17:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I took this discussion to the article talk page. I pointed out that the final decision in Wikipedia:ARBPIA requires editors, like yourself, to utilize reliable sources for their contentious or disputed assertions. The article cites a number of journals and legal digests regarding the boundaries of the states that were established in the British Mandate and the international and national courts which ruled that Palestine was a State.
I said that editors who claim that Palestine was not a state are welcome to add opposing views from reliable published sources and asked that they please stop deleting well sourced material representing the court decisions, so that Wikipedia can provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the issues and the positions of all the interested parties. You did not take part in the discussion, but continued to make reverts with unsourced controversial assertions: rv. for the nth time - "a court ruled that X is a state for the purpose of Y" != "X is a state".) harlan ( talk) 16:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.
Please take a look at this edit, what is your position about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gaza_flotilla_clash&action=historysubmit&diff=365274898&oldid=365274595 Marokwitz ( talk) 19:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Helen Thomas says the Jews "should go back to Poland" & Turkish "humanitarians" say the Jews "should go back to Aushwitz." Can you feel the love?-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 02:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thought you might enjoy this editorial. I'll throw in this quote as a little present to the people who will shortly be reading this since they love to hound me so religiously.
"The Arab desire to kick the Jews the hell out of Palestine did not begin in 1967, and not in 1948. It began the moment the initial groups of Jews arrived and started to make the land flower and produce crops. The Hebron Massacre of 1929, where marauding Arabs killed nearly 70 Jews and wounded countless others, took place long before a single house was built over the Green Line."
Breein1007 (
talk) 02:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Please have a read and make yourself familiar with
Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions, editors of the
Gaza flotilla raid are restricted to 1
revert per 24 hours. It appears you have made more than one revert today. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks.
Mo ainm
~Talk 16:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you made more than 1 revert in 24 hours: [12], [13]. Please note that many users, including myself, were recently blocked for 24 hours for violating the WP:1RR restriction on the article. The admins are taking it very seriously. -- 386-DX ( talk) 13:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Do you have any source to confirm this image is from a journalist?-- Brendumb ( talk) 16:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I've collapsed your comment about an individual editor. I got the impression from your posts to my talk page that you did not have the time to address complaints like this? If you do, in fact, have the time, please do so with the editor concerned, or at WP:DR, instead of leaving vague, unsubstantiated complaints on the article's talk page.
Cheers, TFOWR 11:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- 386-DX ( talk) 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If you have an issue with Physchim62 raise it with them on their talk page. If that isn't successful pursue dispute resolution. I'd recommend WP:WQA, but I'd assumed your complaint was over civility; if it's not then WP:AE may be a better option.
You're more than capable of doing all this without me holding your hand: I've told you all this before (I suspect when I hit "Save page" I'll see it a few threads up). I have to say I'm getting just a wee but suspicious of your motivations at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid with regard to Physchim62.
Cheers, TFOWR 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
See here. Cheers. IronDuke 23:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Your comment here responding to an ANI notification User:386-DX made came very close to violating our policy against making personal attacks. It was certainly not helpful or constructive.
We do not as a project expect everyone to always get along, nor that everyone will treat each other with kid gloves. But we do ask that you generally follow our civil and collegial editing policy and not make personal attacks. When people are rude it degrades the quality of conversation among all parties participating, making it harder to have constructive discussions and find consensus.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 03:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
These comments are certainly relevant to the case, but not necessarily to arbitration enforcement, as the edits were made before the ARBPIA warning and therefore, while inappropriate and appalling, aren't actionable as part of WP:AE. However, I do believe that you should not hesitate to copy the message you posted at my talk page to the AE request. I am sincerely saddened that cases of incivility on Wikipedia have reached a new low with these comments, especially so because the comments were made by someone who has been a Wikipedia editor for a very long time. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 22:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
As usual, your analysis is spot-on and I have no intention of engaging this particular "editor" in any future discourse as it is pointless. Man on a mission will never listen to reason-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 02:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoig discussion here in which you are mentioned. You may wish to participate in the discussion.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 17:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You have been removing well-sourced material from articles in cooperation with users who have been banned for using multiple accounts, including Drork, LoverOfTheRussianQueen, Accredited, and others. If you continue to edit war by deleting opposing viewpoints I'll seek a community ban. harlan ( talk) 00:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Enforcement: [14] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 14:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
For the responsible revert you performed on Erdinç Tekir's participation in the Gaza Flotilla incident. It is remarkable how eagerly people remove well-sourced information that fails to fit a favored narrative. I am always grateful to meet a responsible editor. AMuseo ( talk) 12:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, in this , if you disagree with one word, why not just change the word you disagree with? -- Dailycare ( talk) 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Dear 'No more Mr Nice Guy' I assume that you are the person who changed my edit in the Jerusalem section. I was just wondering why this has changed, I feel I am unaware of any previous discussions that have taken place regarding this issue. Was there anything particular that you objected to with my edit?
-- Kyuss82 ( talk) 20:14, 16 November 2010 (GMT)
This is to inform you that I have reported your breach of WP:CIV and unethical behaviour here at WP:WQA.-- Jim Fitzgerald post 05:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Your comments about how you feel about Jim Fitzgerald's sources should not be included on the Human Rights in Israel talk page. Please do not replace them. ← ZScarpia 13:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Your comment is offensive and has given offence. You should remove it. It has nothing to do with the content of the article. Bear in mind that the IP area is under special sanctions and that WP:TALK says:
← ZScarpia 17:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Wanted to drop you a note that I reverted this edit you made. The reason is that the article being cited is not an editorial so far as I can tell. If you can show me that it's an editorial I'll gladly self-revert. Cheers. ← George talk 22:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
That need for further discussion applies to "an article that has a lede paragraph, and then a body which is generally only one section" only, he's quite clear that the full wording of the 2nd statement can be incorporated into the lead of longer articles and stubs. The minor addition of "like all" won't get around the fact that removing that wording from such articles is disruptive.-- Misarxist 16:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't have it, but I do have the full 8 volumes of the History of the Haganah. I believe the book by Slotzky summarizes these volumes. Tell me if you need anything in particular, although searching for something specific in 8 volumes might prove difficult. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 19:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
but you are usually spot-on. [16]-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
* All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. o Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty * Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. o Reports of editors going over 1RR should be made to either the Arbitration enforcement or Edit warring noticeboards.
per 1
Please don't threaten to report me again if you don't have any basis to report me on. - asad ( talk) 14:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There are three sources for that statement, not just the news article from The Guardian.
As far as the Talk page discussion is concerned, I've been following it. When I feel I have something important to say, I'll be sure to contribute to it. I don't think it's necessary to post "Me too" messages. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 20:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The source does say that, search for 'psychological' and read the containing paragraph. It says that some groups are adding "psychological psychological damage to individuals as well as the lost income" such as a group of Palestinians for their property lost and the group World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries also does this to get its very high numbers. Passionless ( talk) 01:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I see you're having a spot of bother. Any idea who the sockmaster is? Meanwhile, stick to 1RR if you can (obviously I'm not going to block you for reverting on genuine BLP concerns) and, if you need a quick, uncontroversial block for a breach, ping my talk page. I decided against full protection, because it was easier to block the only autoconfirmed agressor, but if there are more of them, I might reconsider. Anyway, just stopping by to make the offer (of course ANEW and AE are open as normal). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Since those socks look they're going to keep coming, I've put the article on level 2 pending changes. This means that any edit by anybody who doesn't have the reviewer permission will have to wait for a review by a reviewer or admin before their edit appears in the "stable version". Hence the above—I figured you might need them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't intentional... honestly! I discovered something strange and I don't recall anything else. Feel free to contest.-- The Master of Mayhem 20:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't put "i wished hitler died" there. In fact, I was the one reverting the vandalism, not causing it. It was a false warning.-- The Master of Mayhem 20:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's the story. I was reverting vandalism with Twinkle, but someone edited while rolling back meaning it had no power. Therefore, I removed some of the vandalism myself but I got caught up in an edit conflict. I still removed the "La Waffle" bit but didn't notice the "i wish hitler died". The "false" warning caused me to explode- my wikimood will display that. Sorry for bothering you.-- The Master of Mayhem 06:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
OK- I have not done wrongdoing- slap the user who issued the warning with a trout.-- The Master of Mayhem 09:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I do something about it- I'll retire indefinitely if you don't get this straight.-- The Master of Mayhem 10:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Editorial policy "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
"In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt on 24 February, Lebanon on 23 March, Jordan on 3 April, and Syria on 20 July. The new borders of Israel, as set by the agreements.."
What reliable source published that load of twaddle? Armistice lines delineate areas under military control of the respective parties and over which their forces should not cross. Territory under military control is occupied. Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. “
Furthermore, the armistices were between Israel and Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. NOT between Israel and Palestine.
The Agreement with Egypt says "Article V 2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question. "
Israel made it’s first official claim to territories beyond the extent of it’s sovereign frontiers on the 31st Aug 1949, after the armistice agreements were signed. Israel had no territorial claims at the time the armistice was signed.
With Jordan - "Article VI 9. The Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of this Agreement are agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto. "
Again Israel had no territorial claims at the time the armistice was signed.
Furthermore Israel confirmed the territories under Israeli military control in statements made to the UNSC by the Israeli Government 22nd May 1948 as being "outside the territory of the State of Israel" and in June 15th 1949 “As for the frontier between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan which is not included in Israel…”
Israel's declared borders "within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" were confirmed 22nd May 1948 before the armistice agreements were signed.
"This was about 18% more than the UN partition proposal allotted it."
This cannot be from a reliable source either, because it's twaddle. Simple maths - 78% of Mandatory Palestine as it stood after the independence of Jordan in 1946, amounts to about 34% more than the about 56% the UN partition proposal allotted Israel. 78%-56% = 22% /// 22% of 100% of Mandatory Palestine as it stood after the independence of Jordan in 1946, is approx 34% of 56%
At the time the armistice agreements had been signed Israel had been recognized and accepted into the UN "as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947," Confirmed by statements made to the UNSC by the Israeli Government 22nd May 1948.
I suggest: In 1949, Israel signed separate armistices with Egypt on 24 February, Lebanon on 23 March, Jordan on 3 April, and Syria on 20 July. The demarcation of Israeli forces, as set by the agreements, encompassed about 78% of Mandatory Palestine as it stood after the independence of Jordan in 1946. This amounted to approximately 50% of the 42% of the territories allotted for the Arab State, approximately 34% more than the 56% the UN partition proposal allotted to, accepted for and declared as, the State of Israel<ref name="notification" />. The demarcation lines were known afterwards as the " Green Line".
---
"The Gaza Strip and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively"
Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, April 3, 1949 Article VI – 1." It is agreed that the forces of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom shall replace the forces of Iraq in the sector now held by the latter forces, the intention of the Government of Iraq in this regard having been communicated to the Acting Mediator in the message of 20 March from the Foreign Minister of Iraq authorizing the delegation of the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom to negotiate for the Iraqi forces and stating that those forces would be withdrawn."
This could fully inform the reader, putting paid to any notion people might have that occupation by Egypt and Jordan were somehow illegal.
I suggest : Under the Armistice Agreements with Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively.
talknic ( talk) 18:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The overlay file now has no reference to any blog.
It's a detailed and accurate version giving the information of this map [17] by User:AnonMoos
AnonMoos can rework a very rough map poor quality map deleting information from it and it IS used. I rework a highly detailed and informative map following the exact wording of UNGA Res 181 to within a few metres so that folk can use it with the latest technology (Google earth) and it can't be used? Why have an upload facility?
The section is Aftermath. In the aftermath, Israel has not legally annexed any territory. It should surely be referenced in some manner talknic ( talk) 19:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
In answer to - No More Mr Nice Guy ( 1948 Arab–Israeli War )
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)
"Are you sure that a letter from some guy to the US government..."
A) The 'some guy' was an official "Jewish Agency representative" actually tasked with sending "an official letter to President Truman ... formally requesting the United States to recognize the new Jewish state."
B) '... qualifies as a binding deceleration of borders?' 1) A letter notifying the President of the USA of the declaration and requesting recognition, is OBVIOUSLY not a declaration of Independence. 2) The declaration itself includes this unreserved statement "AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY" 3) The letter is "formally requesting the United States to recognize the new Jewish state" as an "independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947" It was not withdrawn. 4) ".. the United States, in the person of President Truman, recognized the provisional Jewish government as de facto authority of the new Jewish state (de jure recognition was extended on January 31).
C) On the May 1948 REPLIES OF PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL TO SECURITY COUNCIL QUESTIONNAIRE
"Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947."
Reply : "In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard."
NB: "under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel" & "adhering to international regulations" Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 Art. 42 SECTION III "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."
British recognition HC Deb 27 April 1950 vol 474 cc1137-41 "..that His Majesty's Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it." talknic ( talk) 07:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:ANEW#User:Mystichumwipe and User:No More Mr Nice Guy reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Should Jordan be included in the list, with info about the expulsion of Jews from territory conquered by Jordan in 1948? I.Casaubon ( talk) 10:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
...far more informative than you'd probably care to imagine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talknic ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
This message is to inform you that I have initiated an administrator review of the recent editing at Old City (Jerusalem) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other problematic I/P articles. This review will result in any editors whose conduct is disruptive being sanctioned under the provision of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions. You are welcome to participate in the review, which is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Israel/Palestine articles generally. Regards, AGK [ • 13:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You have reverted a report from AFP press agency from the website of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting which you claim is not a reputable source but you back up your claim with nothing but your opinion.You have also deleted information from the Anti Defamation League that was relevant to a piece before it and sourced with no good explanation.You have also deleted 3 links that are the source for a line that states that Hamas do not use their charter on their website and now use their manifesto to put forth their views, those 3 links back up that piece.I have come here to get your view and reasoning before taking it further if I have to. Owain the 1st ( talk) 16:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you have made a personal attack on another editor here [18].Please could you strike that through as personal attacks are not allowed on wikipedia.Thanks. Owain the 1st ( talk) 18:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, you removed a line on the illegality of the settlement under international law. I assume that this was simply a mistake by you and as such I have come here instead of AE. I am sure you are aware that WT:Legality of Israeli settlements established a consensus for the inclusion of the line that you removed, and further that an editor was topic banned over the same disregard for that consensus. Kindly restore the material in a timely fashion. Thank you. nableezy - 17:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Saw your name on the page edit history, thought you might like to have some input on this "controversy". Thanks. JerryDavid89 ( talk) 00:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#deleting_my_edit
Do you use, or have you used, any other accounts on Wikipedia? nableezy - 16:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Falafel". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 6, 2011.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 11:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
May I suggest that you move this comment to Talk:Requests_for_mediation/Falafel? I don't think this is an "issue" as much as it is a "discussion". -- Macrakis ( talk) 20:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Please express your opinion over the relisted suggestion to merge the article Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both articles are substantially the same, and shouldn't exist in separate. You can participate in the discussion here Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Merging with Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Greyshark09 ( talk) 19:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Falafel, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [
• 21:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Arbitration Enforcement#No More Mr Nice Guy. ← ZScarpia 23:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the report you made, you might want to check the diffs. The diff of the first revert is the same diff as the "Previous version reverted to". Is that right? — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 05:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Probably would have gotten quicker action on arbitration enforcement, rather than general edit-warring board... AnonMoos ( talk) 08:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
NMMMG - Please self revert. You have reverted based on OR to a version which is all OR. You did not revert the previous edit which is OR. You have done this on several occasions, targeting only my contributions. If you do not stop hounding me, I will have no option but to take further action listing every indiscretion on your part ... talknic ( talk) 12:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG - Please stop making false accusations [19] [20] ... talknic ( talk) 02:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
NMMNG -- More false accusations? The 1st [21] there are no edits in between. And the 2nd Line 324: [22] there are no edits in between. Please stop making false accusations ... talknic ( talk) 03:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
See [23] Please self revert and stop hounding me ... Thx ... talknic ( talk) 14:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi NMMNG,
I've uploaded the three JSTOR articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find links to the articles at that page. Best, GabrielF ( talk) 22:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I explained the issue with the "War of Liberation" wording in more detail on the article talk page right as you were making the revert. As for the declaration, would "following Israel's declaration" be more suitable wording for you?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 15:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
It appears that these two edits 2 1 violate the 1rr restriction. You might want to self-revert. Jd2718 ( talk) 16:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Thanks for helping me gather information on the depth of corruption in Wikipedia Dude ... talknic ( talk) 18:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Being banned from Wikipedia or the Guardian are miniscule little blips. Gloat away. Your transparency matches your soul ... dude ... talknic ( talk) 19:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I recommend that you revert your recent edit. There is an open RfC. Your statement in the edit summary 'Discussion seems to have died down' is not a good rationale. Consider asking at WP:AN for an uninvolved admin to close the RfC. It is silly to get into trouble for something where there is a procedure to use that most people would respect. Check AE for 'Nazareth' if you don't believe me. Nazareth is a certified Hot Button Issue, flashing in all caps, in case you haven't noticed. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:53, 4 January 2012 (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)
Hi. When you recently edited 1948 Palestinian exodus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Black ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I find it disturbing to see that in the last 3 days, you've reverted 3 times on Palestine. In between the first two edits was a time frame of 26 hours and 4 minutes, and in between the second two was a time frame of 24 hours and 10 minutes. It would appear that you are attempting to get in your 1 revert per day as soon as possible. Please note that, just as with 3RR, 1RR is not an entitlement. Please consider this a formal warning under WP:ARBPIA to neither edit war nor give the appearance of edit warring. Qwyrxian ( talk) 12:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
It was not my intention to edit anything on,your talk page. I must have clicked on or touched "undo" without realizing I had activated it. My apologies. -- Chefallen ( talk) 06:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC).
I understand this is a contentious article and is under the WP:1RR rule, to which I assume you are also required to abide, but I am curious as to why you deleted the category which I added, Category:Conspiracy theorists. That is an obvious one if you have read the last section of the article in question. You don't have to (and shouldn't necessarily) delete everything wholesale. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Just in case you haven't noticed it, I've addressed a request to you, dated 31 January, at the UN Partition Plan talk page. ← ZScarpia 11:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I made a number of individually explained edits to this article. You reverted them all describing them as "not balance, but obfuscation" http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rachel%27s_Tomb&diff=480958242&oldid=480956885 Please consider each edit. For example to seperate names that the tomb is known by into "names it is also known by" and "known by Muslims as" makes no sense to me, and I do not understand how you defend it. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello No More Mr Nice Guy. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Shrike ( talk) 06:33, 14 May 2012 (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. Thank you. VivaWikipedia ( talk) 10:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
In thinking about the issue, it seems clear that one cannot expect consensus in this area (I-P conflict area). There is no consensus when the vote! is roughly 50-50. There is apparently no Wikipedia policy on this, only the one essay that JJG posted(WP:NOCONSENSUS). If you rely on a single administrator to determine this as was apparently done last time, you will still get 50% disgruntled people. Wouldn't Wikipedia be better served by an actual policy on no consensus, similar to the essay? In scanning the old set of arguments it is striking how that older discussion did seem dominated by one particular point of view, with very few of the opposing editors offering their opinion at that time. Perhaps they were not aware of the discussion? Anyway, your Rfc does not seem to include eliminating the template altogether only revising it, and a willingness to accept a single administrator's determination. Is that interpretation correct? Before supporting or opposing your proposition, I would like to understand it. Thank you. Opportunidaddy ( talk) 03:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little confused at your recent comment at RSN. [24]. Shrike offered a solution to this issue a month ago in line with your comments at RSN [25], which I have consistently supported. My objection is to making a call that the exact number of Arabs killed by Jews was 6 when we have a number of high quality academic sources that report a single incident in which seven Arabs were murdered by Jews. Dlv999 ( talk) 11:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you please explain what ths means? Dalai lama ding dong ( talk) 14:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Shrike ( talk) 20:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG --- Your MASS revert -- Reason given "official jewish name"? you must be joking -- :
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&diff=465970265&oldid=465937085 . Change Jewish if you think Hebrew isn't a Jewish Language. See Talk
[26]
WHY?, when a partial revert is possible and recommended
1) Revert - The chronological order of events in the lede? I didn't make up the dates
Revert - "a" when "the" no longer fitted the moved dialogue?
Revert - a reference to the Lon Mandate which shows the necessary chronological delineation of Palestine from TransJordan?
Revert - The Arab naming on the stamp, putting the section in breech of
WP:NPOV
Revert - The CN pertaining to the chronological move? It's courtesy to point out that the move necessitated clarification of a partial statement.
NMMNG -- The Article is Tagged:
This article needs additional citations for
verification. (March 2012) |
Which calls for editors to attempt to address unsourced statements, et al
Please undo, with the exception of the one word (Jewish) you objected to ( if you believe Hebrew isn't a Jewish language ) -- thx
talknic (
talk) 15:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I have done my best to adhere to the policies, answer every question you have put my way. Given reliable secondary sources and provided statements per Policy for Primary Sources. Taken issues to the talk pages per policy. Made suggestions as to how NPOV might be addressed. You have on the other hand done nothing but obstruct. Please cease hounding .. thx talknic ( talk) 15:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this at the time, but thought it may be a violation to tell you then. Re this, you can use {{lang-he|פָּלֶשְׂתִּינָה (א"י)}} or {{lang-he|פָּלֶשְׂתִּינָה (א"י)}} instead of {{lang-he|פָּלֶשְׂתִּינָה (א"י)}}. The three are, as far as I can tell, displayed exactly the same.
The trick is to type out whatever you want in a program that does right-to-left text correctly, then copy and paste while typing out the template on wiki. It wont look right in the code because rtl end parenthesis will be read as coming after the last word, and in left-to-right after is to the right. Otherwise you can play around with the lrm control character. nableezy - 20:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
There was no consensus to remove the statement. Please self revert. Thx talknic ( talk) 14:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Great spot. How the hell did you find that?! Ankh. Morpork 20:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thoughts on who? We could do this off-wiki if you really, really want. nableezy - 02:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I've asked Avraham if he is willing to moderate the RFC, and if he has suggestions on who would be a good choice to be among those who close. If you want to ask him to forward you that email chain, I dont mind. Among the names that I am open to are: NYBrad (not sure a sitting arb will want to touch this though), Moonriddengirl, Black Kite, and MastCell. Problem with any of those? nableezy - 20:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
It isnt going anywhere on the IPCOLL page, I dont think anybody actually cares about actually settling the issue, or at least nobody is saying they care. I havent heard back from MRG yet either, about to ask X if he is interested. Ill try to think of who else would be good. Have a problem with asking xeno (but again, not sure a sitting arb will want to, though Brad's recusal was unrelated to arbcom)? nableezy - 20:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
MRG said she would be willing. nableezy - 05:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
John Carter? nableezy - 22:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Avraham cant moderate any A-I discussion. He let Breein get away with socking when the evidence showed 100% it was him. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 03:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Tznkai? nableezy - 18:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
"A. If it's reported by RS it can go in the article even if some editor think it's "piling on"." You're totally right. It's just I'm so busy and really don't have that much time to argue back and forth about this. If other editors, like you did, comment on it and give their opinion, it'd be more productive. "B. Did an editor just seriously say she thinks she knows what the subject of this article meant and that's a reason to keep information out of the article?" - very confused... are you referring to me? I'm inclined to think not, since Carol is a female name and nothing about me indicates my gender, but just want to check. -- Activism 1234 02:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
No.Were I a Jew, I'd have no problem in saying 'I'm a Jew' in the face of the world. Since I'm not, and hear a lot of people use it with an edge of innuendo that makes me hear a stupid insensitive resonance from the past, I am obliged, as a non-Jew with certain prophylactic sensitivities about allowing my being-in-the-world to be contaminated by public prejudices, to avoid it. Philologos has a point, as often, but the argument doesn't affect me, and I still call people, if required, by the passport they bear, since that is neutral. I'm not, as you suggest, an 'enabler' of antisemitism in this quite personal choice. I may be a cunt in many regards, but that was, well, unjust and overreading. I hope we can drop this. Nishidani ( talk) 08:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Wikipedia email:
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Ocaasi t | c 14:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
No one else seems to object. I don't know how to change the names of pages, but I think you or perhaps GabrielF might consider making the move I suggested. Prompted by seeing it just edited again. I'd forgotten the point. Nishidani ( talk) 16:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, the dispute flared up again. Apparently the other editor, despite ignoring the notices and reminders posted on his talk page, became active again as soon as I edited my proposed changes into the article. I'm trying to engage him in a discussion on the article's talk page, and your input and advice would be appreciated. Cheers! Indrek ( talk) 19:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course it's false | |||
An original barnstar Activism 1234 23:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC) |
thank you very very much for fixing the article about jerusalem !. i write in wikipedia 8 years and in the last month some people from muslim countries are deleting information about israel and replace pictures of israel. פארוק ( talk) 06:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, there's once again a dispute at 16:10 (this issue just won't die, I guess). Even though the article sort of settled into a consensus, now a newly registered user (
User:Yokononos) has come along and
completely removed the previously disputed paragraph, with hardly any explanation given. I naturally reverted and asked the user to explain in a bit more detail, but then
User:Urklistre jumped in and
reverted back, saying the explanation (ie. the word "speculations") sounds reasonable and insisting that
everyone but me wants that content removed anyway. I'm trying to engage them both on the talk page, as usual, but I'd appreciate it you could also take a quick look and maybe chime in.
Also, I must say the whole thing looks a bit fishy. Given
User:Urklistre's past conduct, I wouldn't put it past him to resort to sockpuppetry, but there's probably not enough evidence at the moment to file a report for investigating this.
Indrek (
talk) 11:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tijfo098 ( talk) 17:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Mentioned. Regards. 71.198.248.236 ( talk) 02:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
See [27]. Tijfo098 ( talk) 19:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
AGK said (over there) that you need to be blocked. Tijfo098 ( talk) 00:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I would appreciate it if you'll add your opinion here: Talk:Jerusalem#Better wording#We are running out of bits. -- MeUser42 ( talk) 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
No I noticed only those editors who were not invited before by another editor. However, I sent request, as far as I know now to all who took part in the discussion. Some editors may have been double invited.-- Tritomex ( talk) 19:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Vandalized_grave.jpg As far as I see there is no permission for the usage of this photo. More so no place, data or any further information is given about this photo. As it is highly sensitive photo I guess such permission is required. I am wondering wetter I should ask for the deletion of this photo.I would appreciate your op pinion on this subject. -- Tritomex ( talk) 19:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't know that much about photo issues, although I don't think it would make sense that we could use any photo some random person uploaded to flicker with any description they chose. On the other hand, that wouldn't be the first thing I saw here that didn't make sense, so who knows. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 03:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi NMMNG,
I have the feeling -but I may be wrong- that you shifted more and more radical. I think that this is due to the strong involvment in conroversial and difficult topic where no censensus is achievable due to the misunderstand, the fears and/or the bad faith of people. For your pleasure and for you own, I think that it may be profitable sometimes to take some distance and/or to focus on other topics.
My two cents.
Rgds, Pluto2012 ( talk) 08:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 November 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG, I am guessing from your prolonged silence in the matter that you are not interested in participating in mediation. Is that correct? -- Ravpapa ( talk) 14:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Dear user, since you participated on a geopolitical context discussion on Palestine [28], 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) 21:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Curious - What is the process of withdrawing an AE you initiated? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 07:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy Please state precise the exact claim that I am making. Rather I am simply stating objectively what is on the website. If you don't want the world to know what is on the website, I suggest you email the CEO and suggest he removes it. I did that some time ago, without success it. Trahelliven ( talk) 03:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy
Take the article United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, with which we are both familiar. The opening paragraph summarises Resolution 181(II) without the necessity of an intermediate Reliable Source. The wording of the Resolution speaks for itself. The same applies to describing the Report dated 3 September 1947 from UNSCOP further in the article.
No More Mr Nice Guy If you describe the document differently, you suggest how it should be described and with any luck we come to an arrangement on how it should be described. That is exactly what happened with the first paragraph in the article United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. When you go to a Reliable Source, there is the same problem. I might say it means one thing and someone else says it means something else. With luck we agree on what it does mean. Trahelliven ( talk) 08:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The website of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies has a page on the Geography of Israel containing a description of Israel's borders, including the following:- Egypt to the south and Jordan to the east. (with the link) Trahelliven ( talk) 09:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I have taken up your suggestion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Trahelliven ( talk) 19:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your advice! I filed an SPI, and according to the admin who handled it (and the previous cases), "Obvious sock is obvious". Thanks for taking the time! Indrek ( talk) 14:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Because I have quoted you on this page, you might like to take part in the discussion. Trahelliven ( talk) 21:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
You have reverted twice. Do not revert again or you may be blocked for doing this. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 17:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:ANI#User "No More Mr Nice Guy". I'm assuming your edits don't violate 1RR because reverts of IPs do not count toward the total. Nonetheless a discussion at Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence would be welcome. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
the wording was Pappes - is he less highly thought of than Benny Morris? genuine question - is Pappe an esteemed figure. whatever , the language was borrowed from pappe - and he wouldn't have invented stuff. do you read the lead, as is, as not in the least biased? Sayerslle ( talk) 19:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This important information was removed from an article by Pluto2012, despite he is the only one who inserted repeated information about territorial and demographic changes. Perhaps you could restore the missing content and finish this nonsense. Thanks.-- 201.231.95.189 ( talk) 21:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
You might consider writing something (anything) on your WP:User page. It would get the red out of your edit summaries. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
User:TransporterMan (
talk) 22:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited October 2012 Haaretz poll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breaking the Silence ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Jerusalem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, -- tariqabjotu 20:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
At 02:42, 13 December 2012, you madw a contribution to Talk:Israeli Declaration of Independence: Purpose of Declaration of 14 May 1948. It is now on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard I listed you as a participant but I accidentally used Mister instead of Mr in your username. You may wish to take part. Trahelliven ( talk) 22:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, your 'buddy' ;) Nableezy is reverting an edit on "Palestinian Right of Return" tonight...and in case Nableezy reverts it again (especially if I forget to come back), please check up on this in a few days or a week. His basis was to call the following source WP:RS, despite that WP:RS section 4.7 makes it clear that such a source CAN be cited so long as its controvertial/opinionated claims ARE attributed as such (which I mostly or completely did, but you can check me on that point, I'm pretty tired as I write this), and...
My changes also addressed a concern that someone else noted (the 1st topic on the Talk page...so I'm not just crazy; someone else noticed what I did): that the lede doesn't really give any logical REASONS to support Israel's position (i.e. seems similar to what you wrote on the Talk page about anti-Israelis desiring to "define" our position, as well as their own--and then making weak-ass arguments for us to make us appear foolish) and my source also addresses the desire of the guy on the Talk page for the pro-Israeli position to be given by someone (Dr. Mitchell Bard, as I used) who represents LOTS of ppl on the pro-Israel side & does NOT make weak-ass arguments (I also used him as a source to edit some other sections which had an imbalance of strong anti-Israel arguments matched to incomplete, spurious, or almost ridiculous pro-Israel arguments). Please review & revise my work if you find that I've committed any violations of WP policy (rather than deleting it wholesale as Nableezy desires to even delete parts that I'm 100% certain don't violate WP policy & are important to provide balance to some pro-Palestinian arguments that were going totally un-rebutted within this-or-that section). Thanks if you can give that input. Also, we CAN point out that many sources in that article tread on WP:RS way more (or in some cases only a little) compared to my chosen source (JewishVirtualLibrary) if Nableezy et al really wanna push their luck: Le_Monde_Diplomatique#Controversies (even runs 911 conspiracy theories, also FAR-left/fringe), standforfacts.org (no scholarliness), al-awda (even claimed a guy later-convicted of "conspiracy to help the Palestinian Islamic Jihad," Al-Arian, was likely only a “pattern of profiling and targeting the community" and Hussein Ibish (their rep who's cited separately in that WP article) saying "the presumption has to be that this is a political witch-hunt, a vendetta...very ugly post-9/11 McCarthyism": makes anyone sane trust their judgment, right!? The presumption "HAS TO BE..."?!? They woulda been smarter to "presume" nothing cos they got proven WRONG.), ArabHRA.org, J. Cook: see antiwar.com#Reactions, Future of Freedom Foundation, Benny Morris as critiqued by many as cited on user_talk:Pluto2012 AND for "distorting Hertzl" in: meforum.org/711/benny-morriss-reign-of-error-revisited, Benny Morris gets his vengeance by critiquing the facts of 1 of his MANY critics, but joining MANY other lefties, who all criticize the fact-checking of Efraim_Karsh#Praise_and_criticism (Ephraim is also cited in this WP article & to be fair, I'll point out that BOTH sides, even 'our' side such as Ephraim, can be attacked on WP:RS grounds if JewishVirtualLibrary can be, but that we have "character assassins" on BOTH sides, and then more rarely we have SOLID/legit issues of poor fact-checking i.e. poor scholarliness even from some of the PhD's--but I've seen most mainstream sources praise JewishVirtualLibrary & only partisan "assassins" attack JVL based on Logical Fallacies rather than rational arguments), israel-wat.com cablegate.wikileaks.org sourced from a soldier who violated his oath of loyalty, a crime that goes to his credibility ...Edward_Said#Intellectual_criticism wow 'nuff said about that guy in his well-cited WP 'criticisms' section, and for the following, I've found more RE: objectivity than solid critiques of fact-checking...but what I'm writing isn't even a complete list: Jrnl of Palestine Studies (editor was even cited by some as a PLO official, also he won an award in the name of Edward Said whose own veracity is crippled in the last link), jcpa.org (run by former Israeli ambassador). My position is that MOST of this list of sources DO meet WP:RS, actually...BUT just not as strongly as JVL meets WP:RS, despite Nableezy's baseless/unfounded accusation that JVL doesn't...but you might want to hang onto this list & challenge some of the more extreme sources in this list (in bold text) even if JVL is accepted as a source. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.252.105 ( talk) 08:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings. You are the only one who can save this huge sourced content. You have reason and Wikipedia's policy on your side. The fight is not over. But you can finish it with a little more of perseverance. Or you can report this nonsense to an administrator. Besides, even helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must not be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor.-- 201.235.55.19 ( talk) 09:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2013.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, --
WGFinley (
talk) 18:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article ( 1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a new New RM of Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem at Talk:Jordanian_occupation_of_the_West_Bank_and_East_Jerusalem#Requested_move_2. I'm telling you about this because you were involved in the previous one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk • contribs) 11:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please email me if/when the Jerusalem RfC goes live? I don't have the time or patience to deal with this place and its unusually high percentage of assholes right now or in the foreseeable future. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 00:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello NMMNG. I'm writing this from my mobile phone, so my apologies if this seems rather brief. I just wanted to say, though, that I've noticed your recent comments in the Jerusalem discussion, and I have two points that I want to make. The first is, if you want to get more closely involved with the discussion there, could you list yourself as a participant at the top of the page? The second is that I'm worried that your comments are taking on an accusatory tone, for example this one where you say "Keep up the clever posts, you're this >< close to winning wikipedia!" I can appreciate that you might be frustrated by the discussion, but this sort of comment isn't going to help resolve things - on the contrary, it is very likely to escalate the dispute, and that's really something we want to avoid. To prevent further escalation it is important that everyone keeps their comments about the content and not about the other participants - would you be willing to keep your comments only about the content? If you have any concerns about users' conduct you're welcome to let me know about them by email, but I would rather that you keep them off the discussion page. Let me know if this sounds reasonable, and if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 03:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi NMMNG. I'm not quite sure what prompted this. Perhaps there are some aspects of my recent closing comments at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion that you think I should have handled differently? If so, I would appreciate it if you could let me know what they were, as I'm having a tough time trying to work it out by myself. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi NMMNG. You asked me a while ago to notify you when the Jerusalem RfC starts. Well, it has just started today, so here is your notification. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
"Says the Jewish holiday of Purim is a celebration of genocide" link is wrong. Chesdovi ( talk) 12:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you (in accordance with the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions):
You are indefinitely prohibited from contributing to arbitration enforcement requests or appeals thereof that concern the case WP:ARBPIA, except to defend yourself where any enforcement actions against you are discussed.
You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) set down in this Arbitration Enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. This sanction has been recorded on the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a topic ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 22:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I see you're reading the thread on Sandstein at ANI. I joked with someone last night about how I should email both you and Nableezy in order to get the dirt on him from both sides on when he has gone Terminator.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 09:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Will it be possible for you to contact pluto2012 and try to resolve the deletion of the "british diplomacy in support of the Arabs". He deleted this section although Wikipedia rule is: "do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone."
In order to resolve the problem, I consider applying for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. As a prerequisite, there is a demand for "at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem". That is the reason for asking you. thanks.
Appendix: the previous reporting of the problem.
Dispute resolution noticeboard
help desk Ykantor ( talk) 19:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 20:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You're a respected editor, and, mostly, a usefully close reader of the edits that interest you. But I think you are way too suspicious or inflexible whenever we cross paths. I brought the issue up here, not of course for sanctions, but to request some advice. Nishidani ( talk) 19:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for already making major progress in addressing the longstanding issues with this article. I spent a lot of time on it when it was at DYK, and was not happy with what went through at that time. Alas, these things can be very time-consuming, and I'm far from being an expert on Israel-Palestine. Edwardx ( talk) 10:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The above page was created on 17 May 2015 with edit summary "copy this here". There have been no edits since. Do you have any plans for the page? If it was copied from another page on Wikipedia where other editors had contributed, WP:CWW should be observed. However, it appears there might be a problem with respect to WP:POLEMIC because the page is essentially a claim that a certain editor is anti-Semitic—disguising it by not naming the editor is not sufficient. Please consider replacing the contents with {{ db-userreq}} to request its deletion. An alternative would be to follow the advice at WP:POLEMIC and immediately use the page for evidence presented at a suitable noticeboard. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Quotes and Stuff, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Quotes and Stuff and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:No More Mr Nice Guy/Quotes and Stuff during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Please note that I will be filing an AE regarding your edits at 1950–51 Baghdad bombings. Oncenawhile ( talk) 21:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Monochrome Monitor is expanding his edit-war to History of Esperanto, where he blanked Wexler's idea of Esperanto being relexified Yiddish with the edit summaries rm very fringe, the vast majority of scholars reject this and its stated as true, and Hebrew is nothing like esperanto (it is not stated as true, it is introduced with "it has been suggested that") and Suggested is not adequate—by making this entire section about Yiddish you give the concept undue weight as if it were true. It's about the history of Esperanto, which has nothing to do with Yiddish except in Wexler's theory (off course the entire section is about Yiddish -- the section title is "Standardized Yiddish and relexified Esperanto", and standardizing Yiddish was another of Zamenhof's projects). — kwami ( talk) 20:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!
With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:
Send on behalf of
The Wikipedia Library using
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:ARBPIA3 is now open and evidence can be submitted until September 8. 62.90.5.221 ( talk) 09:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I pressed the link you provided, but it didn't open for me. Thanks for your edit. Debresser ( talk) 16:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
At Lions' Gate stabbings you again turn up to revert me. Your edit summary shows you did not read what I wrote in my edit summary. I wrote:’ stub is just that. The main article is this
Stub here, had you checked, referred to the infobox having a link to Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015), which is, precisely a pathetic stub. I replaced it with = List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2015, which happens to be the main article. You misread that, I am getting tired of these misreadings, as a reference to the article Lions’ Gate stabbings. Nishidani ( talk) 17:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Note to self: I edited that article before Nisidani so his claim that I showed up to revert him is bullshit. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 19:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 23:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw on Talk:Mandatory_Palestine#Edits_to_the_FAQ that you have been calling User:Oncenawhile all kinds of names. Please be civil and correct at all times. Just stick to the issue at hand and don't play on the person. You can read up about this at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Debresser ( talk) 06:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For standing up against incessant efforts to make Wikipedia less accurate and less objective. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC) |
I wish they cared about accuracy. Objectivity is subjective. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 00:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Translations are considered derivative works of the original. That means that if the original work is copyrighted then any translation is subject to the same copyright. If you're using material from a foreign language source which you've translated into English than you need to make sure you rephrase it in your own words exactly as you would with an English source. Hut 8.5 23:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I think you mentioned once before that you were a big fan of his. I am sorry for your loss. Oncenawhile ( talk) 19:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Note to self: The above two posts are the only edits Oncenawhile made to Wikipedia in the past 3 5 days. Apparently he can't keep away from his unrequited love.
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk) 21:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk) 22:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani has continued the debate at Talk:Jews#Cite_grouping at another forum, namely Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Definition_of_Jews._Gross_original_research.2FWP:SYNTH_violation, the WP:NOR noticeboard. Since you have commented at the first discussion, but not (yet) at the second, I thought I'd bring this to your attention, in case you would like to comment there as well. Debresser ( talk) 20:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
If you want to discuss other users, the best idea is: don't. If you still want to do it, use their talk pages. Abusing article talk pages only to take shots at other users like you did here [32] and here [33] violates both WP:SOAP and WP:AGF. Article talk pages are only for discussing how to improve articles. Further violations could result in you being blocked. Jeppiz ( talk) 22:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz ( talk) 22:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
[34] Got a diff where they say this? -- NeilN talk to me 19:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty obvious sock. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 02:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Ref your decision to revert to the word terrorists in this article. WP:TERRORIST states that you must use have a reliable sources to describe the subject, and you must use in-text attribution. Therefore I will revert to add in line citation, i.e. source x says that this was a terrorist incident. You revert is not in accordance with wikipedia policy. Johnmcintyre1959 ( talk) 20:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Palestinian stone-throwing". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 December 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Palestinian stone-throwing, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Palestinian stone-throwing, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 22:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
We've occasioned a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Third opinion the upshot of which was that 3O contributors aren't supposed to get involved in debates. I'd like to make another attempt to reach a consensus between us before trying other DR methods. Please see my proposal at Talk:Bat Ye'or. Eperoton ( talk) 20:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Makeandtoss ( talk) 01:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Jeppiz ( talk) 01:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
For your comments at Anti-semitic anti-Zionism. Turns out Werner Bergmann defined the term several years ago, in highly similar terms to those used by Johnson. This clears up all significant issues of notability, although the drive-by merge proposal remains on the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For your vigilant efforts to stop drive-by tagging, and POV editing that makes Wikipedia less accurate and less objective. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC) |
If the source is not good... why did you not undo this edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omysfysfybmm ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not following. You did not attribute anything. You removed a clear point my brothers and sisters like to make while alleging the source was shit. Now, either it is shit, or it isn't. Make up your mind and let me know.
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Qualitatis (
talk •
contribs)
Note to self: Closed immediately as obvious BRD.
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk) 03:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:AE#No More Mr Nice Guy nableezy - 20:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi No More Mr Nice Guy, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek. 69 talk 01:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Does the 500/30 rule apply to engaging on talk pages? I want to weigh into the discussion but I also don't want to be sanctioned. Please advise. Turkeyturkeypieyum ( talk) 15:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The recently created Israel Palestine conflict page is nominated for deletion in connection to the preceding community discussion. You are welcome to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel Palestine conflict. GreyShark ( dibra) 14:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, " The New York Times and the Holocaust".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.
I see here that you are banned from AE. I don't know whether you are banned from opening requests against Nishidani as well, but please stop making personal attacks against Nishidani in edit summaries. This is simply a low workaround against this restriction. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I have closed the appeal you filed at arbitration enforcement. The result is that the appeal is granted, and the corresponding restriction on AE requests is lifted immediately. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Palestinians. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 16:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Since you were involved in the discussion, I'm alerting you to the conversation on the noticeboard regarding Hamas/Likud. Drsmoo ( talk) 20:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
An Arbitration Enforcement case [36] in which you participated has been closed with the following result:
All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case. Parties are urged to spend some time reflecting inwardly on their own conduct, and whether it is truly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. No further action is taken at this time. The parties are advised to chill. The Wordsmith Talk to me 13:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you have access to pages 76-77 of Sleimen's "Conspiracy Theories in the United States and the Middle East: A Comparative Approach" article? I suspect the material in the article tying Yinon's article to Lebanese conspiracy theories is not supported by that source, but can't verify it. Epson Salts ( talk) 02:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Tel_Dan_Stele.23Unrelated_sources Drsmoo ( talk) 14:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Did you happen to catch Malik Shabazz's screed on his userpage??? A friend alerted me about it, and it was so engrossing, it pulled KT out of retirement just to write you.
What am I missing? Is this the same Shabazz who, as an admin, called another editor "Jewboy" while referring to himself as a "nigger"? He's a Jew?! I heard those rumors floating, but never believe it... but it all makes sense now. Who else could be one of the most rabid anti-Israel editors than a Jew???
It is pretty funny... for the longest time, his userpage had a photo of the back of a big, bad, black dude, but I always envisioned him sitting in his parents Beverly Hills mansion, a little "Jewfro" with a pick in it, going after anyone who wrote anything positive about Israel. What a blowhard! I'd like to see that whitie wear a suit and bowtie to a Nation of Islam event... see what they do to him. Just another layer added to the third biggest a-hole in the Arab-Israeli area.
Cheers! Kamel Tebaast 02:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
note to self: Oncenawhile explicitly pinged me on that page [37], this is probably one of his little harassment attempts. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 19:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
[38]-- Shrike ( talk) 20:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion is explicitly not allowed at the ARCA page. Please remove your comment from underneath mine. Oncenawhile ( talk) 21:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Look at these nonsense tags? (without consensus, as usual) Russell Tribunal??? Is it a joke? Could you remove it, please? Thanks-- 186.137.109.226 ( talk) 03:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
So, are you going to remove these tags or not? Also the same POV warrior put this tag, although given source literally says: "The IDF, founded in 1948, ranks among the most battle-trained armed forces in the world, having had to defend the country in five major wars" Could you remove the misleading and false tag, please? Please do something. Thanks.-- 186.138.118.49 ( talk) 16:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#No_More_Mr_Nice_Guy.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 10:21, 11 May 2017 (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. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Sandstein 21:39, 15 May 2017 (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."
No More Mr Nice Guy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
While I acknowledge there might be a technical violation here, I was under the impression from previous precedent here that if someone reverts asking for a source, restoring with the source requested is not considered a revert. I would have of course self-reverted immediately if someone would have told me this is not the case or even discussed the merits of the complaint at AE.
Accept reason:
Unblocked at WP:AE, see below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll copy paste from what I wrote on Sandstein's talkpage.
Hi. First, a correction of a minor factual error in your closing statement: NMMNG's prohibition on AE discussions was lifted a few months ago. Second, at the time this request was made ARBPIA did have the consensus clause operative, but recently, after an ARCA request, it has been dropped because it leads to more trouble than it is worth. Keeping this development in mind, perhaps you might want to re-evaluate the block. In my opinion, it is not necessary and people fighting over silly rules only leads to bad blood; discussion about how to phrase the lead is proceeding (as well as can be expected) on the talkpage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
You cannot edit AE while blocked, but an admin reviewing your unblock request can copy your appeal there if they think the appeal has merit. (But they are less likely to do so if the appeal is not in the format set out in {{ Arbitration enforcement appeal}} ). Sandstein 15:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is a case where an editor with a prior topic ban for violating 1RR, knowingly violated 1RR again, refused to discuss his edit, was given a chance to self-revert, declined, was reported, showed up at AE to say his only purpose on wikipedia is to revert people he doesn't agree with on ARBPIA articles, was given a warning and case closed. Compare with my case just above. Clean record, would have self-reverted if I had realized I was being reported for 1RR. Got a 72 hour block. Opening the floor to guesses as to why the two cases are treated differently. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 23:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I've unblocked you after the appeal at WP:AE. As I said there, the block was valid and the time given was well within admin discretion. The reason for lifting is probably more symbolic than anything, because many feel you get the point and keeping you blocked would serve no purpose. That said, tread carefully and ask if in doubt when editing 1RR articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Could you take responsibility for this well-sourced edit? Thanks-- 190.31.180.46 ( talk) 00:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
You left a message on my talk page titled as above along with a copy of the Palestine Israel enforcement template and a request that I should modify my behaviour. In my view, it is your behaviour that requires modification, not mine, although for the present I choose not to make an issue out of it beyond what I have stated publicly on the Balfour Declaration talk page. Since you appear unconvinced, I am content for you to initiate a request for administrative action and I will gladly accept the judgement of my peers in that regard. Selfstudier ( talk) 22:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
See here. It's pretty simple. Just drop the habit of sneering, and this can be archived. Nishidani ( talk) 13:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. 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)
"seems to have" is not an argument. How lousy this Wikipedia has become. - DePiep ( talk)
Please see here. Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:14, 20 April 2018 (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. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Sandstein 18:05, 21 April 2018 (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."
I'm happy to give more detailed feedback but it won't be today, sorry. GoldenRing ( talk) 19:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Note to self: Onceinawhile has been trying to remove the 1996 thing from the lead for years. He has participated in discussion several times, including here. He removed material he knew has consensus. Again. I should start a list. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 16:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I copied over the text to AE - let me know if I did a mistake. Regarding formatting here - something broke - you might want to check on which revision if you really want to track it down - but what I suggest you do is archiving most of the talk page (or at least 97% of the 218 items here) - e.g. per the instructions [[Help:Archiving a talk page] instead of foguring out what open tag here is unmatched by a close. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Because it was deleted while at MFD, I don't think I should undelete it. Instead, here's what it consisted of:
You then provided links to [50], [51], and no-context links to three pages that don't exist anymore. Then, links to [52], [53], and [54] with this internal link. You quoted the second paragraph of [55] but didn't link it due to some blacklist issue. And finally, you provided links to [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], and [62].
Nyttend ( talk) 01:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, No More Mr Nice Guy. 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)
Noticed you haven't been around in a while. Hoping all is well and that you simply got tired of editing, or busy with life. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC) |
I am indeed well, thanks for asking. It's mainly the fact I don't want to volunteer my time for an organization where I am treated poorly by a few admins-for-life while the rest watch on, not willing to risk their privilege to do the right thing. It's not worth it. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 23:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to hear that. I often wish that this were a more collegial, less combative place. But know that some of us appreciated the contributions you have made. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
this. Nishidani ( talk) 06:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
They mean: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- Deep fried okra 06:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Huldra ( talk) 20:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello No More Mr Nice Guy! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello No More Mr Nice Guy! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)