Misplaced Pages

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Israeli settler violence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IDF (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) 10:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Your Mandate sources

Hi Dlv, I thought i'd make sure your work getting all those sources doesn't get lost, so i've turned them into cite quotes and am about to them all to the British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument). Oncenawhile (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the backup:)

Many thanks for dropping all those useful sources off on the Menachem Begin talk page. Did the trick perfectly - the brick wall I had been talking to suddenly opened and became co-operative - they'll provide a useful resource should anyone want to take up that poisoned chalice in the future. I'd give you a barnstar or something similarly clique-ish if I wasn't so anti all that back scratching stuff. Good job and thanks again.1812ahill (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Discussion at Talk:Controversial tactics in the Gaza War

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Controversial tactics in the Gaza War. Shrike (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Counting reverts

To clarify, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". See WP:3RR. It doesn't make much sense but that is how reverts are counted. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversial Tactics

I apologise for not providing an explanation. I have responded on the Talk page in question.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

Ha'aretz Report

Hi,

Thanks for bringing that report about the Shin Bet chief to my attention. I've contacted Barak Ravid, who wrote the report, and asked what exactly Diskin was referring to, and whether Ravid's statistics disagree with Amos Harel's statistics (1:30 ratio) or they're discussing two different topics. I await a response, and will let you know as soon as I can. I will attach a photo if necessary (as proof).

Thanks!

--Activism1234 (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear what Mr Ravid has to say on the matter, but I don't think his personal comments to you would be suitable for inclusion in an article as they would not have been published by RS. Let me know the outcome, we can raise the issue on the reliable sources notice board if necessary. Dlv999 (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Overuse of cn tag

Edits like this results in difficulty in reading an article. It is better to use a "Unreferenced" template at the top of the article instead of overusing the inline cn tag. --SupernovaExplosion 10:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the information. I take your point and will bare it in mind for future edits. But for me the main issue with the article is that editors are deleting referenced content from the article and replacing it with totally unsourced material. Dlv999 (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see the original version which you created. --SupernovaExplosion 11:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It was not perfect by any means and needed plenty of work. But I had hoped to move it forward by finding further RS to cover all significant opinions published in RS - not by deleting sourced material and replacing it with unsourced work. Dlv999 (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please rectify this and use the unreferenced template instead. It is very unsightly.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

<- Dlv999, you are perfectly entitled to delete unsourced information in the topic area on sight. You don't need to tag it, you don't need to discuss it or try to be nice. You can just remove it. Adding unsourced material in the topic area covered by discretionary sanctions is not okay. Editors soon learn that content they add will be removed if it doesn't cite reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There is not much I can do if multiple editors are intent on re-adding unreferenced material and repeatedly deleting referenced material without explanation. At least tagging it alerts readers to the unverifiable nature of the article. Dlv999 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've requested action at AE

AE:Talk] --Shuki (talk) 14:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings

Could you please explain how did you came to this article?Becouse I see that you never edit it before.Following other users edits to propose opposing POV in areas that you don't edit together could be considered WP:HOUND.--Shrike (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to stick my nose where it don't belong, but 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings is a "hot" article. It had been linked from the news portal for very many days.VR _talk 18:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Vice. I wouldn't take too much notice, it is is not the first time that, apropos of nothing, this editor has left insinuating remarks questioning the intentions of my involvement in the Misplaced Pages project. Dlv999 (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that it is you who failing to WP:AFG.It was only a friendly notice to a new editor that probably was not aware of all the rules.If I really thought you hound someone I would go to the relevant board instead living a message on the talk page .--Shrike (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Holy Land Map

My own original translation from the Latin was fairly poor, and was corrected some time ago by people brighter than me. Obviously, the relevant dates are the specific Biblical dates to which each place on the map is relevant. I am also hardly an expert on this; I obviously never even noticed that the overwhelming number of place names on the map were purely Biblical in origin.

I seem to recall -- again, under the false illusion that this was an 18th century map merely with a Biblical overlay -- that I originally restored it to the "Middle Ages" section of Palestine, rather than where it resides now.

As far as your general point about ancient maps, the Lotter family were very reputable mapmakers in their time. It's very hard to determine whether Tobias had access to sources ~250 years ago that are simply no longer extant, and, in turn, whether those sources themselves were reliable. Archaeology is hardly an exact science either. Maybe you dig up 3 square feet of land, but there is a dreidel buried five feet away?

Perhaps it's just in my nature as a Catholic, but I just end up giving old sources a lot of leeway as to being right. -- Kendrick7 23:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Heat

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Heat. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Greetings

It is reassuring to see familiar old faces on here AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ankh, welcome back to IP. Have you seen this yet? I came across it the other day and thought it might be interesting to pick one article to "write for the enemy" (you will do Palestine POV and I will do Israel). Nothing major like Gaza War or anything, just a minor neglected article we could do a little work on and improve. Dlv999 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC

I think that should be fun. You can select an article for me if you want; gosh I hope I don't develop some kind of dissociative identity disorder and become a confused figure.AnkhMorpork (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I don't have anything in mind right now, but I will keep a lookout for a suitable article. Dlv999 (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

IDF use of Human Shields

There is a lot of overlap and reiteration of the same material cited in "Accusations of misconduct by IDF soldiers" as well as inclusion of immaterial content that does not discuss use of human shields. I aim to trim this and would appreciate of you could give the paragraph a look over and remove what you agree should not be included.

e.g irrelevancies - "Richard Falk, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian territories, alleged that Israel had confined Palestinian civilians to the combat zone in Gaza and prevented them from leaving during bombardment. Such a practice was a "new crime against humanity", Falk said and called for Israel to be held accountable." "...and the targeting of medics and hospitals. The paper also found evidence of attacks on clearly distinguishable civilian targets"
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to solely remove Israeli duplication and ignore your own repetition, I must protest this breach of 1rr, 12 and request you revert.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 18:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the warning. I have self reverted. I have also removed (self rv) the Falk comments and the Breaking the silence material per your concerns. Dlv999 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks indeed. I agree that Richard Kemp's sentiments should not be repeated. Bizarrely, they have been mentioned in "Use of densely populated areas by Hamas combatants" from where I intend to remove them. In my view, they probably are best located in the "Accusations of misconduct by IDF soldiers" paragraph.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I also observed that the "Disproportionate force" paragraph also repeats content and could do with modification. A suggestion, you remove extraneous anti-Israel in a way that you see fit, and I shall remove all pro-Israeli repetition that you point out, and that way, we will be in agreement with each others edits and can present the information once in a manner of our choosing.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 19:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In your Revision as of 18:27, 4 April 2012 you introduced a named reference without defining it: <ref name="unchildren"/>. Please provide the intended reference, or remove the ref entirely. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I have fixed the reference. Dlv999 (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoops

Didn't realise you had amended article. Restored content in lie with 1rr.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 17:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Dlv999 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your 'tabloid newspaper' was actually a verbatim assessment of the Shaw report
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't care. There is no other article in the encyclopedia that uses such inflammatory language. Look for example at the Rape of Nanking, I don't see that kind of language. The worst crimes in history are not described with this language, why are we using it just because the Palestinians are involved? And FYI the Shaw report is not a third Party RS on this matter. The British were the colonial regime and were committed to imposing Zionism on the indigenous population. The British are inherently an involved party in this matter and their official report of the event dating from the 1920's is not a third party RS. We don't use the Goldstone report for unattributed statements of fact on the Gaza War page - we attribute to the Goldstone report. In fact Goldstone has a much better claim to being third party as he was not a party to the conflict, nor was the UN. Shaw on the other hand was a member of the British establishment that had a commitment to Zionism and had been responsible for the overwhelming majority of the Arab deaths in the incident in question.Dlv999 (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You make a valid point which your edit summary did not do justice to.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 09:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Just for an insight into the Colonial mindset of the time, in the early 1930's Britain had blocked a proposal at Geneva to ban the use of planes for bombing purposes on civilian populations. Former Prime minister David Lloyd George is quoted as commenting "we must reserve the right to bomb niggers". So yes, according to their way of thinking, an Arab riot against colonial oppression and displacement by Zionists is "vicious" and "wanton" on the other hand bombing "niggers" (that is to say the very same Arab population) is perfectly acceptable. The moral universe that the British establishment of the time operated in is certainly an interesting topic, but it should never be introduced into a 2012 encyclopedia article as statements of fact without comment. Dlv999 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

shaw report

if you email me i can email it to you. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sri Lanka

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sri Lanka. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. When you recently edited List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lydda (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) 09:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hi Dlv999. Just dropping you a note because I thought you might be interested in Misplaced Pages:Requests for JSTOR access. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, that would be be a big help. Dlv999 (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Palestine

Thank you for your support. My legitimate changes were being culled while equivalent ones on the opposing side were not. That is unfair. I have also sorted the complaints of Nice Guy. One of the complaints in particular I felt was completely unreasonable; I have nevertheless dealt with it.
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Three-dimensional chess

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Three-dimensional chess. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1929 Palestine riots

Hi there. Ankh asked me to look at your interaction as he was unhappy with it. I examined it and while I agree that you haven't made any personal attacks, I would implore you to continue to strive to discuss edits rather than editors. I recognise this is difficult sometimes and that this topic can inherently be a sensitive one. Please don't hesitate to use me as a sounding board if you need help, support or advice in this area going forward, and please don't take this as a formal warning, it is just meant as friendly advice. --John (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input, I will bear your advice in mind. Dlv999 (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. --John (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of the idea of asking at the RS noticeboard whether the sources used support "Some sources stated...while others..." and asking only editors from outside the I-P area to advise? Would you be interested in drafting a suitable question since it would be quite pathetic if the same disagreement with the same participants was merely relocated to a new forum.Ankh.Morpork 22:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think some form of dispute resolution is probably a good idea at his stage, but RSN isn't the right forum to address all of the aspects of this issue. For instance one of the main reasons I oppose your text for the lead is that it contradicts the factual statements made in the article body. I think Shrike's proposal complies with WP:LEAD while yours doesn't, and this is just not going to be addressed at RSN. Also there are two proposals on the table, yours and Shrike's, so any form of dispute resolution should be weighing up the pro's and con's of both, not just looking at your preferred option. Dlv999 (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I was addressing specifically the language used in the lead which you and Oncenawhile state is not supported by RS. Presumably, this feedback may influence your feelings?Ankh.Morpork 23:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think RSN is the appropriate venue to resolve the dispute as all the issues involved will not be dealt with as I have already explained. Dlv999 (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I do not want to solve "all the issues" there, just whether those sources support that particular formulation.Ankh.Morpork 10:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the dispute resolution board is more appropriate. We have already been discussing this issue for a long time, to go through another long drawn out discussion at RSN, which will not even resolve the dispute seems counterproductive. Dlv999 (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sure we both are curious of what third parties have to say. If you think I have misrepresented something, please say so and I shall modify my initial statement. It is in everyone's interest that both views are fairly represented and I have no issues with further clarity being provided, what I would rather avoid is the rehashing of the same familiar arguments all over again. It is time this issue is put to bed once and for all. Ankh.Morpork 23:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

RSN will not resolve the dispute because you have only added your preferred edit. You have not added the alternative solution that has been proposed, so RSN will not give an answer as to which of the proposed edits is a better representation of the sources. Dlv999 (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You have broken 1RR on The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

Though article wasn't marked under ARBPIA is clearly belonged to the conflict per WP:ARBPIA "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related."As you never received any official warning on the sanctions I am going to warn though 1RR didn't require a warning to be sanctioned I will assume WP:AGF and will not report you.--Shrike (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Please explain how those two edits are not 1RR ,.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that you wrote "This is the third time now you posted on my page, questioning my behavior in the topic area without good reason... I vehemently deny that I have done so and I demand that you withdraw your accusations in full, or make a report through the appropriate channels." Do you still stand by this, or perhaps you wish to withdraw your accusations?Ankh.Morpork 11:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, I don't need to make my case to you. You are not an appropriate person to act as Judge and Jury to rule that I have violated the policy. It is enough that I have stated that I vehemently deny the accusation. You now have two options, you can withdraw the accusation in full, or make a report through the appropriate channels. Dlv999 (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This is what happened.

• 19:52, 6 May 2012‎ - Dlv999 removed information for which there is no evidence of NPOV compliance.
• 10:07, 7 May 2012‎ - AnkhMorpork reverted with the edit summary "Restore. Discuss 'notabilty' prior to removing content".
• 10:21, 7 May 2012 - Dlv999 opened a talk page section.
• 13:29, 8 May 2012‎ - Having waited for a day without any evidence being presented by Ankh, his edit was reverted "No evidence has been presented that Alex Safian is a significant opinion that has been published in RS on this topic. See talk"
• 03:39, 9 May 2012‎ - Brewcrewer ignores the talk page and reverts on based on an evidenceless edit summary assertion "notable group reliable for its own opinions. one sentece in large article dues not run afoul of any UNUDE or notaiblity issues". The only good thing about this is that it says UNUDE.
• 08:56, 9 May 2012‎ - Dlv999 reverts with the edit summary "Theory of general notability allowing opinion to be inserted into any and all articles is not compatible with policy. see talk".
• 09:23, 9 May 2012‎ - Top of the Tower, clearly a sock, probably NoCal, also ignores the talk page and simply reverts based on an evidenceless edit summary assertion "notable view"

Yes, there was may or may not have been a 1RR violation but the 1RR violation seems to be the least problematic aspect of this sequence of events.

This is the kind of sequence of edits that I would like to see being addressed at AE because "any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process may be blocked up to one year, topic-banned, further revert-restricted, or otherwise restricted from editing." Sean.hoyland - talk 11:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sean, the page was not labeled as falling under the IP topic area until after the fact. The topic is a book about US Politics and Foreign Policy written by two US academics. I have not read the book. I came to the page via your link of all CAMERA's citations on the encyclopedia. I did not look at the whole page, I was merely interested with the CAMERA citation, which is a quote about the quality of the books scholarship (Safian is a Phd in Physics), and the evidence that had been provided that he was a significant opinion that had been published in RS on the topic. I checked that the article was not considered part of the I-P topic area, and that the material that I removed was not related. I strongly believe that acting in good faith at all times I did not breach the rules. Dlv999 (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, whether it's a 1RR vio or not really doesn't matter me, I don't think it's important (and I've amended my statement above). It's arguable as you say but focusing on that aspect is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The sequence shows clearly how bad things are in the topic area, how it's impossible to make progress by following the normal editorial process. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Or the Mavi Marmara as the case may be. Would it be fair to say that your initial impression, Sean, was that "there was a 1RR violation"?Ankh.Morpork 12:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

My view is that anything, even slightly related to the conflict, is covered by the sanctions whether there is a template or not, even if it is just one sentence about a controversial donut factory in a giant article about donuts. That is just my opinion though and I know for sure that others don't agree with me. So, yes, for me this is a 1RR violation. I were an admin however I would also block you and Brewcrewer for 24 hours, and indef'd the sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"As I've got older I've realised that I actually know very little about anything and what I thought I knew often turns out to be wrong" - Sean Hoyland Ankh.Morpork 14:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, subjectivity, self-negating statements, and the paradox of self-reference. These are a few of my favorite things. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

1RR violation

Hi Dlv999,

With this edit you've clearly violated the 1RR restriction on I-P related material (see WP:ARBPIA). I strongly urge you to revert yourself before someone is tempted to take administrative action. Jayjg 11:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What Clare Short may or may not have said about Israel and Global warming has nothing to do with Israel Palestine as far as I am concerned. I ask that you withdraw the accusation or make a report through the appropriate channels. Dlv999 (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Given recent events, it seems I will have to be more careful in future about my assessment of topics that are not ostensibly related to the IP conflict. However in this case my three edits were addressing a BLP violation (the use of an opinion piece as a verification of facts in BLP) and the edit summaries made this clear. According to WP:EW, these edits are exempt and I think it would be detrimental to the project to re-add an opinion piece as a verifying source for facts in BLP, so I shall not do so. I would hope anyone "tempted to take administrative action", would also look at the editors who were repeatedly adding an opinion piece as a verifying source for facts in BLP against policy. Dlv999 (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

When stating the reason for the block the blocking admin made a false statement which leads me to believe he may not have been fully aware of the facts and thus the block may not be warranted.

Blade states that "User was clearly given proper notifications, refused to self-revert." This is not true. When I made the edits the page was not tagged as being part of the IP topic area, and prior to this incident I have never received any notification of the ARBPIA regulations. The article was only tagged as being part of IP area after my final edit on the page had been reverted by another user, at which time there was no possibility of me self reverting. Likewise I only received my first and only ARBPIA notification after my final edit had been reverted, at which time I was unable to self revert.

In total I have made three edits to the page , , over the course of of 61 hours. My understanding of the rules covering the IP area is that if an article is not judged by the community as specifically related to the topic then material in that article not related to IP is not considered to be under the sanctions.

The article in question is a book about US internal politics and foreign Policy. I specifically checked that it was not tagged as being part of the IP area and assumed that if it was considered to be related to IP by the community it would have been tagged given that this is an old article on a controversial topic that has been heavily edited. The specific material my edits involved was the opinion of a US pro-Israel group on the quality of the scholarship of the work. My honest belief was that as the material I was editing did not concern IP and the topic of the article had not been included in the IP topic area, the normal edit rules of 3RR would apply and not 1RR.

I honestly believe that I have not breached the 1RR rules in this case. If taking into account the facts the reviewing admin comes to a different conclusion then I fully accept the decision. If this is the case I would like to offer a few mitigating factors which I hope will make the admin reconsider whether a block is necessary.

1. This is the first time I have (potentially) fallen afoul of the 1rr restrictions
2. The article was not labelled as being part of the IP area and the material I edited was unrelated
3. During the edit period I had opened up a talk page discussion on the issue, non of the editors who reverted me have made a single comment in response.
4. It likely that one of the editors involved in reverting me is a sock with a brand new minted account
5. I have edited extensively in the topic area without receiving even a formal notification of the ARBPIA rules prior to this incident. There is every reason to believe that once Shrike added the IP tag that I would fully adhere to the rules as I have done in all articles that I know to be part of the IP area.

Thank you for reviewing this information. I will happily accept any decision without any complaint.Dlv999 (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• @ Shrike thanks for the comments, to clarify, my opinion was that it was unrelated. I wanted to make sure that the community had not decided otherwise. That is why I specifically checked.
• @ Blade. Appreciate the comment. Just to clarify, at the time I was given the notification, I had already been reverted by another user, so there was no possibility I could self revert at that point. (see diffs in response to Ankh)
• @Brewcrew, I can only remember commenting at 1 AE but maybe you are right. I am not arguing that i am unaware of the regulations. I have made it clear in my comments that I make an effort to abide by them. The point of mentioning it was 1) because it contradicts the statement made by the blocking admin, so could be considered a reason to reconsider the block 2) I think it gives an indication that I am able to follow the regulations. In any case I am happy for my actions to be judged on the basis that I am fully aware of the regulations.
• * @Ankh, as I have already explained, at the time the article was tagged by Shrike as being part of the IP area ], and Shrike accused me of breaking 1rr ], my final edit had already been reverted by another user , so there was never any possibility of me self reverting my edits.

Dlv999 (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

This isn't an acceptance of your unblock request, just an observation that the block has expired. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

I specifically checked that it was not tagged as being part of the IP area

I wanted to explain to him without filing any report and thus I give him notice about the case but he denied that he did anything wrong and insisted that I will file a case to relevant board so I did.--Shrike (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999, I'll say in your defense that I didn't check to see when the notice had been added to the talkpage. I'll also say that it does appear you were given a notification before the AN3 report was filed. To the reviewing admin; you can make whatever decision you feel is appropriate, and if you decide to unblock or reduce to time served you don't have to notify me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999, can you explain why you did not revert once you were informed that your actions did constitute a 1rr violaton?Ankh.Morpork 18:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

@Dlv999 - After you were informed about the 1rr violation, you stated, "I vehemently deny that I have done so and I demand that you withdraw your accusations in full, or make a report through the appropriate channels". It is this aspect that is puzzling me as you now seek to mention the possibility of you self reverting. Do you think you could have handled this in a less combative manner?Ankh.Morpork 19:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dlv999, I suggest you don't engage. Just speak directly to the admins. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I could care less whether DLV is unblocked but I feel obliged to point out one misleading aspect of this unblock request. As part of his argument DLV asserts he was never given the ARBPIA warning. Please note that in his short Misplaced Pages career DLV has already found himself at the AE Noticeboard commenting twice at length specifically regarding 1RR violations based on ARBPIA. He clearly was constructively notified and his arguments about not being notified appears to be wikilawyering, at best. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Palestinians

Hi, love and respect for your desire to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages's presentation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think List of Palestinians is a great list, doncha think? We're on the same page.

There is no sources on that whole page, unless you call wiki-links sources, which aren't RS sources, but you know that already. I admit the source is not the best, but I wanted to add it, the first on L of P, because there was no wiki-link.

Do you think Tamer Khuweir is not notable or object to the wiki-link to suicide bomber? This is reasonable, like you and me. Perhaps the source is no good. I don't look forward to adding sources to all the names on that already mentioned great list. Maybe a funner project, a funner project for you and me would be to make a wikipage for Tamer Khuweir? Anyway, I wanted to hit up the D of WP:BRD here, for convenience, and to be personable like a handshake with a firm shoulder touch. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think if a person does not have a wikipedia page indicating that they are an existing Palestinian person of note, we need something that tells us this person is a real person, Palestinian and notable to be included on the list. For me that would mean an RS, I think you must have been thinking along similar lines because you added a source, but unfortunately it did not meet RS requirements. I have to admit that I have never heard of this person, the source supplied was not sufficient for me to verify that this was a real Palestinian notable for the list so I reverted you on that basis. Dlv999 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe or will work, or maybe will convince readers he is a real Palestinian hero.

Let me remind you that Misplaced Pages is a view of reality, and not the other way around. Having a Wiki does not make one notable, notables should have wikis. So, let's make that Tamer Khuweir page. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Dlv999, I appreciate your intervening on my behalf on the dispute resolution board. It’s easy for people to gang up together against another person, especially when that other person is voiceless and can’t respond, as I was because of the block. So I just wanted to say thanks. VivaWikipedia (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you are interested in some friendly advice, if I were you I would try to get to grips with the basic rules and policies. Most importantly don't edit war, especially on articles related in any way shape or form to Israel-Palestine, in which you are only allowed to make one revert per day per article. Try to remember that the article will be based on consensus of the community and policies, not who edited the page last. Thus it is usually more productive to make your case on the article talk page to build consensus than it is to revert an edit of another. Sorry if this sounds like a lecture, but the reason I am telling you is because if you contravene a policy again, most likely the same editors will file another case painting you as a disruptive editor and you will end up with another sanction. Dlv999 (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Please kindly don't post in my section in AE

As your answer is not "statement by Shrike".Thank you--Shrike (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks.Dlv999 (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murasaki Shikibu

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Murasaki Shikibu. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"At least seven" - 1929 Palestine riots

Can you list the sources that support this version?Ankh.Morpork 11:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never proposed such a version. Dlv999 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I would to make a list on the talk page of all the sources and what they say to help decide upon a consensual position. On the talk page, only Mathews was presented as stating that "at least seven" were caused by Jews although I may have overlooked others so I would like to know which other sources support this. Ankh.Morpork 18:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, the sources have already been well documented on the talk page. Perhaps you could answer the reasonable questions you have been asked numerous times, and so far refused to answer, as to why you advocate the insertion into the lead of information based on poor quality tertiary "popular history" sources when they contradict academic sources and the well documented information in the article body. If you are willing to do that then I will be happy to recite the sources that I have previously cited to you on the talk page. Dlv999 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Another "Have you stopped beating your wife?" classic. See this and this, in which I responded to this question. If you wish to conceal the sources that is your prerogative, but be aware that you obstructing collaborative attempts.Ankh.Morpork 18:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced popular history books are not suitable sources for historical encyclopedia articles, especially for inserting contentious content into the lead which contradicts well documented information in the article body and high quality academic secondary sources. The lead is supposed to summarize the article body, not contradict it, with the introduction of poorly sourced material. As to blocking consensus, I was happy to accept the consensus solution offered by Shrike, but you rejected it. Anyway, this is not rlevent to my talk page, if you have any further comments about the content of the article you should leave them at the article talk page.Dlv999 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

amnesty

dlv - really? seriously? because you see an edit as "anything more than the standard Israeli government/NGO-monitor biolerplate" (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Amnesty_International&curid=18947898&diff=496424973&oldid=496419381) therefore it is reverted? so many issues with this dude/dudette. let's say it is standard. so what? it is official responses as reported in RS. this particular one has received significant and varied coverage in RS. but you just want to brush it away. and the ngo monitor information is not only RS in these articles, their source of info is all documented as well. it is not an opinion, or a standard anything. you really need to read this more carefully and think it through. i am asking you to self-revert the edit and your sweeping categorizations.... Soosim (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is there is a long list of governments that have criticized AI after AI has released a report documenting their human rights abuses. We haven't documented the statements by Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the People's Republic of China, Vietnam, Russia, the United States etc that they have made criticizing AI after they themselves have been criticized by AI. So why is it justified to include a passage devoted entirely to Israeli criticism of AI following an AI report critical of Israel?

Also, just to clarify, the term "biolerplate" was not directed at your edit. I was referring to the statements released by NGO-monitor/Israeli government in response to the AI report. They do not seem significant in terms of an overall article on Amnesty International. They are just the sort of stock comments ("biolerplate") that Israel (and other governments) release when a report by Amnesty is critical of their policies. I won't revert the edit as I believe it is in line with policy (WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM), but I would be happy to continue this discussion on the article talk page, where I will of course accept whatever consensus develops. Dlv999 (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Soosim, the criticism section should match the lead of the Criticism of Amnesty International article. All the pay controversy material should be moved over to the main article too per WP:SUMMARY. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Problematic Source

I'm not sure how best to deal with that source you tagged re: RS but it looks highly questionable to me. It includes things like this: "November 4, 1999, Athens, Greece. A group protesting President Clinton's visit to Greece hid a gas bomb at an American car dealership in Athens. Two cars were destroyed and several others damaged. Anti-State Action claimed responsibility for the attack, but the November 17 group was also suspected" which has nothing to do with the Middle East, let alone the Palestinians (see BBC report on that bombing here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/514368.stm). BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC). My guess is that they confused the November 17 group, which is an anarcho-leftist Greek organisation, with the Palestinian Black September group. But if they are making mistakes like that I don't see how we can put any weight on the source at all. BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I would like see a high bar on sources in the IP topic area, as I think it would resolve a lot of the problems. Even purely battleground/advocate editors would benefit the project if they were forced to use high quality sources. Unfortunately the article in question has a number of citations to questionable, advocate sources such as Palwatch and myths and facts. If you have advocate editors using advocacy sources all you end up with is POV garbage. Dlv999 (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaza War and Racism in Israel

At Racism in Israel you reverted a rewriting of an incident that replaced old sources close to the event itself with newer ones benefiting from a more informed perspective. How do you reconcile that attitude with these comments of yours made at Talk:Gaza War:

The issue that I see here is that the Haaretz report was published the morning after the attack so is probably not the best source for establishing the facts about the civilian/combatant ratio, given that the UN fact finding mission, the mainstream human rights organizations, the Israeli government, pro Israel NGO's Palestinian sources etc. all conducted investigations and published on the issue long after the Haaretz initial report. If you want to bring the initial Haaretz claim then we are going to have to document all the counter claims and explain the discrepancies between the different sources and the various rebuttals that have been offered by involved parties.

There was a comment of mine that you misconstrued recently as meaning something entirely the opposite of what it was actually suggesting. This is a routine request for clarification. You'll be repeating the same mistake if you read anything other than that into it.—Biosketch (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have already pointed out in the talk page discussion that the later Haaretz report is entirely consistent with its earlier report. The later article reports a further development that after heavy criticism from the media the Police attempted to downplay the incident. It is certainly notable for the article that the Police attempted to downplay the incident, but that does not mean we should downplay the incident. We should simply report the further development as it is described by RS. Dlv999 (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

damm Edit conflict

I have re-added your comment due (edit conflict), (edit conflict), (edit conflict), damm --DℬigXray 10:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Thank you. Dlv999 (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Syrian civil war

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Syrian civil war. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Welcome back. Ankh.Morpork 10:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I was planning to stay out of IP, but I still have all my old articles on watchlist, and I couldn't resist looking at the recent changes and sticking my oar in...Dlv999 (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Its difficult to stay away from the areas that interest you the most. I'll try not to rock the boat too much so that your stabilizing oar won't be oft required. Ankh.Morpork 12:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You might find this of interest. Ankh.Morpork 09:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Interface looks a bit awkward. If you want a game look me up :- http://www.chess.com/members/view/Dlv999 Dlv999 (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The cumbersome interface lends a homely and affable ambiance, and allows for days of disregard before completing a move. I hope you didn't create that new account just for me; it's a good thing they tolerate sockpuppetry! Ankh.Morpork 13:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam article

Your requested article is ready for download. OhanaUnited 01:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you, much appreciated. Dlv999 (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Thank you Shrike, much appreciated. Dlv999 (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iraqi people

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iraqi people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

AE

Please see here. Ankh.Morpork 13:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Email

Please email me a copy of this message or present it in full on my talk page. Thank you Ankh.Morpork 15:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have forwarded you the email. Let me know if you have not received it. Dlv999 (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom appeal

I've appealed the restrictions on that article. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Hi, I would appreciate it if you'll add your opinion here: Talk:Jerusalem#Better wording#We are running out of bits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Mouin Rabbani for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mouin Rabbani until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ankh.Morpork 20:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth have you hounded me to this article? Dlv999 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

E-mail

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Gaza

Actually, OXFAM is not a reliable source at all. It is an advocacy organization and the findings of its report should not be there are all. However, I left most of it with attribution to the group. With your reversion, the chronology is mixed up and you have restored silly statements such as a rise in the price of baby powder (which is so trivial as to be nonsensical) being cited as an example of rising food prices.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleting material and claiming you are carrying out a copy edit is not okay. If you feel that material shouldn't be in the encyclopedia explain why that is. the report was actually carried out by a group of Development and humanitarian organiosations, and is reported by RS such as the BBC wrt this topic, so it is clearly relevant and appropriate to include in the article. Dlv999 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Just to say a belated thanks for the link and support on my talk page. More importantly though, I wanted to acknowledge all the great work you've been doing over the last few months. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I wish I could have been of more help. Dlv999 (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion you might be interested in

There's a discussion you might be interested in at User_talk:Greyshark09#.22Palestinian_territories.22_vs_.22Palestinian_Authority.22. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I'm not sure there is anything that I can say that will change the editors mind on this issue. He doesn't like the use of "Palestinian Territories" or "Occupied Palestinian Territories", and tries to remove it from articles. The problem is, the term is used by a wide variety (governmental, media, academic) of what Misplaced Pages defines as reliable sources. I have pointed this out to him several times already. Dlv999 (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

I am sure you understand why changing a link after it has been commented on constitutes "substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deprive the reply of its original context." Please take greater care to adhere to these guidelines. Ankh.Morpork 13:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The citation, which was given in full, has not been changed, only the link to help editors find the cited page more easily. Do you want me to revert the change? Dlv999 (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at this

User_talk:Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman#Warning. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Houla massacre

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Houla massacre. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to participate in this

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint_on_personal_attacks_by_user_Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at this

You might want to take another look at this Talk:Palestinian_territories#.22Palestinian_territories.22_vs_.22Palestinian_Authority.22. It's started back up and I'd like your input. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Never seen so much canvassing from a single user :)Greyshark09 (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

New requested move of Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority

There's a new requested move of Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority at Talk:Human_rights_in_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#Requested_move. You participated in the previous one so I thought you might want to know about this one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. But just to let you know, if I have contributed to an article or talk page, I will have that page watchlisted (unless i have made a conscious decision not to contribute further to the page), so I am aware of further developments on that page. Dlv999 (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Aslo, I forgot to tell you about Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority#Organization_or_Place.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 19:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

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. 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in participated in the discussion at Talk:Gaza_Strip#Infobox

You might be interested in participated in the discussion at Talk:Gaza_Strip#Infobox because you participated in a similar discussion at Talk:Palestinian_territories#Infobox. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Line of succession to the British throne

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Line of succession to the British throne. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sabra and Shatila massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lebanon War (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) 11:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Warning

" Regarding your contributions to Operation Pillar of Cloud, this edit is not consistent with WP:NPOV."

I have to disagree it is a direct quote from the referenced source. They have recorded "116 rockets and 55 mortar shells fired against Israel"

These edits

This edit is supported in the background "Main article: Gaza–Israel conflict" do I need to re-cite and re-post the info from there?!

] areWP:OR, not supported by the cited sources.

This info supported in at least 2 cited resources on this page and "Main article: Gaza–Israel conflict". Also I dont have much experience with your bureaucracy, but I consider this part "some sources (including Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan) suggest the operation was timed to improve the current government's electoral prospects. Israel denies that the operation is related to the elections." to be not consistent with your WP:NPOV(even though it cited) as it is present an opinion on current events, not a background information. Regardless I haven't removed it, I offered cited facts from wikipidea on the previous operation. so people can decide on their own. --Mor2 (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the first edit, if you are quoting The Israel Security Agency it must be attributed as they are not an RS for facts being a participant in the events. The original language said "The agency states that..." You removed that language which clearly attributed the agency.

Misplaced Pages articles are not regarded as Reliable sources for information in other articles (see WP:CIRCULAR). Your second and third edits removed work of other editors that was supported by reliable sources and accurately reflected those sources with unsourced information. Can you see why that could be seen as problematic?

Look, if you think the material is supported by other sources bring them to the page and add inline citations so that the material is verifiable by other editors.

Regarding your comments about Erdogan, they are probably better addressed on the article talk page where other editors can be involved in the discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry maybe its my English, but when you say "states" it sounds like it is their version, but as seen here there is a one by one record of those attacks, so isn't it suppose to be a "record"? (I can change it back)

I'll try to add other sources.

I have just edited the Operation_Pillar_of_Cloud#Background using to info from the section main(not cited there) and including info on the previous operation. I would appropriate if you have some more pointers for me. --Mor2 (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The main point here (in my opinion) is that it is important to remember that just because something has appeared in a Misplaced Pages article, it does not mean that it is accurate (as anyone can add material to wikipedia). If you want to add something to the Operation Pillar of Cloud page from another page, you need to check the sources on the original page and add them to the Operation Pillar of Cloud to support the new material. Saying something has appeared on another Misplaced Pages page is not a legitimate way to source new additions - see WP:Circular Dlv999 (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have answered you on the latest issue. --Mor2 (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...

• the subject line "JSTOR"
• your English Misplaced Pages username
• your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Warburg source

Hi, if you send me email I'll reply with the chapter of Warburg that you requested on the resource noticeboard. Zero 15:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Your input

Because you participated in this your input might be useful here. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Transport in the Palestinian territories

You may want to participate in Talk:Transport in the Palestinian territories#Requested move because you participated in Talk:Economy of the Palestinian territories#Economy of the Palestinian Territories. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joan Crawford

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Joan Crawford. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please comment on Talk:United States

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kukri

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kukri. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Dlv999. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zero 09:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

revert

Regarding your revert is there any objection with me restoring its last part, the "The commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Major Ge..." part? it seems like a simple ce, only removing undue stuff like Ali Larijan.--Mor2 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with removing the Ali Larijani quote. As for the Mohammad Ali Jafari quote, I don't like the ce because it removes the denial of supplying weapons and the mention of the blockade. Dlv999 (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable. Personally, I always thought that Iran was given a little to much due in this section, I'll try to compact it, but it will have to wait, since I don't want to get into another editing fiasco, between two guys.--Mor2 (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC

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 12:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 17:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius 16:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aćif Hadžiahmetović

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Aćif Hadžiahmetović. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Israeli settlement

I only added that section there because it was on the Judea and Samaria Area article and I thought it fit better on the Israeli settlement article. If you have a problem with the lack of RS, take it up with User:RayneVanDunem. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. By the way, did you have a look at my queries re:List of Israeli cities. Looking at the cited sources I am a bit concerned that the article contains a lot of Original Research. Dlv999 (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 04:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Dlv999. You might have noticed this already, but I redacted some parts of your comment in the step two discussion. This isn't meant to be a judgement, or to imply that you have done something wrong - I fully understand that after such a long and protracted dispute it is easy to think of other editors as being on one "side" or another, and as "fighting" with the other participants in a discussion. It is just that it is almost always easier to resolve a dispute, and to communicate effectively, if we avoid labelling editors like this. I hope this explains my actions a little bit, but please do let me know if you have any questions about the specific parts of your comment that I redacted. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 00:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If we can't be honest about what the dispute has been about how can we resolve it? Do you have any problems with me deleting my comment in full? I will take no further part in the discussion.,Dlv999 (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon, Div, don't be such a wimp! Strad has his approach, and, even if you don't like parts of it, it has a hell of a lot better chance of resolving the issue than what we have been doing so far. He redacted me too, and I didn't pick up my marbles and go home.

You have a lot to contribute to this discussion, and it is a shame to see you slouch out because of a personal slight. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can delete your comment in full if you really want to, but I hope that you won't feel that it's necessary to go that far. You are right that you can and should be honest about what the dispute has been about, and I agree that doing so is an important part of resolving it. It's just that I also need you to be accurate in describing what has happened. If you describe things in terms of facts, then there will be no problem whatsoever in talking about your past experiences on the Jerusalem talk page. The problem is that if you insert opinions into your comments, it often has the effect of escalating the dispute, and I hope you can agree that further escalation is not a good idea.

Let me give you an example. The first part of your comment that I redacted reads "But the proposal was not even seriously discussed." The word "seriously" here has the effect of implying that other editors did not give the proposal any serious thought. Now, the other participants may have given it serious thought, or they may have dismissed it entirely on first seeing it. The point is that we have no way of knowing, unless all the other editors actually say "I didn't give this proposal any serious thought". A more accurate way to describe it might be, "The proposal only received sixteen replies over the course of four days, seven of which focused on user conduct and were not directly related to the proposal itself." In fact, if you are really creative, you can use the facts in such a way that the impact is a lot stronger than it would be just to say that the proposal was not treated seriously. And editors will always agree with facts, because they are facts, but they may well not agree with opinions. Does this explain my position a little bit better? — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 08:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding accuracy, my comment was that the Ravpapa's proposal was not "seriously discussed", I provide the link to the discussion in support of that comment. You claim that this comment implies editors gave it no serious thought. But that is not correct. I make a statement that there was no serious discussion of the proposal (which is verifiable through the link I provide), I make no comment on editor's private thoughts, which as you say are unknowable.

I would be very surprised if you could find en editor that would believe that the linked discussion constituted a "serious discussion" of the proposal and I believe my comment to an accurate description. In any case I provide the link so editors can make up their own minds.

My understanding of the dispute is that there is a core question, which has a yes or no answer. Editorial opinion on the dispute has crystallized and become entrenched around the two possible answers to that question, yes or no. In my comment I do not ascribe bad faith to the group of editors who over a long period of time have favoured a yes answer to the question or the group of editors who over a long period of time have favoured a no answer to the question. Attempts to go between the horns of the question such as Ravpapa's have largely been discarded without serious discussion (in my view because of the long term entrenched positions adopted by the majority of editors). I believe these observations are pertinent to resolving the dispute.

Regarding consistency, do you consider this comment in Hertz' opening statement to be a fact: "anyone advocating a wording that happens to favor (or is perceived as favoring) Israel, will be accused of doing so because it favors Israel or represents "the Israeli point of view", and will be vilified by a subset of editors. The reaction sometimes extends to derision and harassment. I have seen that a polite conversation here, no matter how reasonable, often also attracts bullies and provocateurs."Dlv999 (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, and sorry for the delay in my reply - I have been busy today, and haven't had the chance to sit down and write a proper reply until now. I have been thinking about this, and I have come to the conclusion that this situation is mostly my fault, because I should have been a lot clearer at the start of the discussion about the standard of conduct that I was expecting. You had absolutely no way of knowing that I might be about to redact your comments, and I should have anticipated your reaction. I'm sorry to have caused you any offence.

I also think I might have misunderstood your use of "seriously discussed". In my mind, if something is "not seriously discussed", then it reflects on the attitudes of those doing the discussing, but if there is "no serious discussion", it just means that something hasn't been discussed very much. Looking at your comments again, it looks like you were using "not seriously discussed" and "no serious discussion" to mean the same thing - something that hasn't been discussed very much. My confusion might be a result of my Britishness, or some other linguistic quirk of mine. (Having lived in Japan for quite some time now, I have my fair share of linguistic quirks.) It's probably worth noting, though, that if I am confused about this phrase then other people may well be confused about it too.

Regarding your second point: I agree that the question of whether or not it is factual to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel is a central one to the dispute, and that that particular question can only have one answer, yes or no. I am not objecting to this at all. What I am objecting to is the grouping together of editors into a "yes group" and a "no group". I realise that it is very easy to develop this pattern of thinking, especially as part of a dispute that has been so contentious and lasted such a long time. It is just that this act of labelling editors according to their viewpoint almost always has the tendency to escalate disputes - it makes it harder to see each individual editor's motivations, and easier to assume that other editors won't be open to compromise. In other words, the act of grouping editors becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This situation is especially unfortunate as you were suggesting a new way of looking at the dispute - going "between the horns", as you say - and this might be exactly what we need to find a lasting consensus at the RfC. I find myself in a quandary, as I don't want to let the dispute escalate, but I also want to let everyone know about your suggestion. This is why I redacted the comment, but of course my choice turns out not to have worked well at all.

Also, regarding Hertz's comment, I didn't redact or alter any of the opening statements because editors were not allowed to reply to any of the statements, and I hoped that this structure would prevent any escalation of the dispute. Once we moved into threaded discussion, this method of preventing escalation was no longer there, and so I monitored the discussion more actively in the hope of preventing further escalation that way. Just because I did not redact or respond to any of the statements is not to say that I agree with the manner in which they were presented. Hertz's statement both grouped together editors by position and made assumptions about editors' motives, neither of which are helpful for resolving the dispute. I can see how this difference in my treatment of the statements and my treatment of the threaded discussion could be seen as a double standard, though, and I think I should formulate some standards for conduct in all parts of this discussion, and then enforce them equally over all stages of the discussion. I will have a think about exactly what to do about this, and then post my conclusions on the main discussion page in the next day or two.

Finally, let me just say again that I'm sorry to have caused offence, and that I hope that you will continue to be a part of the RfC discussion. It would be a real shame to lose your participation over this. Let me know if there is anything you want me to do to make up for it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 12:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting the conversation briefly but i was reading through the latest post and saw the redactions and wondered what had happened. Whilst i can understand the reason for wanting to avoid escalating the dispute and the process breaking down into arguments, I do fear that if we cannot state our opinions freely (within the standard rules) then it will cause more disruption than strong opinions or generalisations would. Provided there is not a constant backwards and forwards between two or more people which drags out the discussion (the statements have helped prevent that so far) it does not really seem necessary. And i do worry there may end up being far too many redacted comments because many of us may say things that could be classified in such a way. I think the overall approach so far has been very good, and i think the time given for each section of the process is working well. This is something that has lasted many years and the decision will last many years, so a few days longer for each section when necessary is not a lot in the bigger picture Anyway just my thoughts, sorry for commenting here thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You might be right about this. I can see that there is a need for me to be clearer about what standards I expect from people's comments, but I am not yet sure about exactly those standards should be. I'll bear your comment in mind while I think of the best way to go about this. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Strad, I, too, would advise you to use the redaction tool with extreme caution. It smacks of censorship. While I agree with your approach of breaking down the partisanship that has infected the discussion these many years, you also need to be attendant to the huge sensitivity of participants. That said, I have no objections to your leaving out the redacted sections of my own post. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marseille

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Marseille. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Last few days for step two of Jerusalem RfC discussion

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 13:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Northeastern United States

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Northeastern United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 08:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Israelophobia for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Israelophobia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 04:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Slavery in Africa

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Slavery in Africa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your cooperation with my attempt to rewrite Israel and legitimacy instead of deleting it. I hope you see some avenues for turning this from a bad article into a good, NPOV one, and please don't hesitate to contact me in the future if you have further issues. Shii (tock) 08:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

thank you. I appreciate the efforts you put into it. Dlv999 (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

refugee ships

Interesting, thanks. I see Astir spelled as Aster in English sources. I wonder if the OR of a wikipedia editor becomes a reliable source when a newspaper reports on it... Zero 07:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Post-colonialism and its discontents.

Dear Dlv999:

Thank you, for the back-up.

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

intl law and israel

i think you might've violated the 1RR for that page. please check and revert if necessary. thanks, Soosim (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The material is OR because the source is discussing the 4th Geneva convention in general and not its application to the OPT or the Israeli settlements , which is the topic of the article. Furthermore it is a blatant and horrendous misquote. Whoever put it there selectively quotes to support the Israeli position put omits the following sentence: "Some settlements, however, could be volentary. but even in such instances they would still be illegal under Article 49(6)"

I will self revert, but it if you have respect for the integrity of the project you should delete the material yourself. Dlv999 (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

i don't mind changing it, but your choice of words is not acceptable to me. so, yes, revert it and all other changes since it is clear 1RR now. and let's discuss an appropriate way of saying it. Soosim (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

if i wasn't clear, all changes you made to that article after my edits are in violation of 1RR. so again, either self revert all of them, or give yourself a self-imposed ban (2-4 days), or let's discuss other options. Soosim (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

1rr does not mean one edit per day. I don't think the regulations are meant to stop editors from making changes such as adding sources or fixing inline tags or clarifying wikilinks such as I did here. Dlv999 (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

i appreciate your interpretation and thoughts, but alas: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule i think this is pretty clear. your call to heed now, or you leave me no choice but to ask for official sanctions. Soosim (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Tell me exactly what you want to reverse, the adding of a source, the fixing of the broken template, or the clarification of the wikilink?

Excuse me for gatecrashing the party. I reviewed the edits in question, overall diff. Unless the Jacques source was previously in the article and deleted, in which case reinserting it might be a revert, there is no revert here and so no 1RR violation. Zero 13:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mohamed Said Ramadan Al-Bouti

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mohamed Said Ramadan Al-Bouti. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christian Science

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Christian Science. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 03:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Palestinian People

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Hope the future works out better! Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)