User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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.

• There used to be a page with Quotes and Stuff here
  
• Here is an opinion piece that gives a good explanation of a problem Wikipedia suffers from as well, and here is a more thorough treatment of the topic by the same author.
• Another hit out of the park by Mr. Schraub [1]
• Some more good stuff from Schraub - [2]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You need to stop removing sourced information. Even if it comes from one source. The information you removed is verifiable and is based a RS. Please stop. Nableezy (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I'm afraid I really screwed up. I think even if you blank it now, it will still remain blue. I'll try to contact an admin and see if anything can be done. Maybe you can move your name to "No More Mr. Nice Guy" (with the period after "Mr"). I did not dream that you preferred it remain red. Please forgive me.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for forgiving me. And I thought you weren't a nice guy! I'll try to contact admins and see if it can made red again, but the two admins that I had in mind are off-line for the next 5-6 hours. I'll contact them when they get on. Btw, just curious, why do you want a red userpage?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. The big nerd that I am, I was unaware of what's cool. A thought just popped into my head: You can color your signature red. Is that an idea? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, knock yourself out at my userpage. I'm happy to see you're cool again. I hope the time spent in blue link land did not totally kill your street cred. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 11:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, you misunderstood. I know we share the same opinion anout the police issue, I am asking you about another isse, section 15. Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Hamas tactics - removing uniform, commandeering ambulances, suicide attacks, putting launching pads on the roofs of the buildings? All of these are hardly mentioned, if at all.Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Would you be willing to file an AFD? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also, I'd like to ask you for the record, do you or have you ever had another account at Wikipedia? Tiamut^talk 17:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Of course I can back up the accusation, otherwise it would not be made. See User:Tiamut/No More for an outline of how I came to this conclusion. I think it would be best for you to admit that you have been following me around, and commit to not doing it anymore. There is really no other explanation for your edits between July 20 and July 30th. Every single one is one an article that I was either developing heavily previously or had just made an edit to. Its disingenous for you to pretend there is an alternate explanation.

I won't be reporting right now. I've given you what I consider a final warning. Do not follow me anymore. Okay? Tiamut^talk 21:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that every single one of your edits over the last ten days have been to articles I edited either directly before you did or that I had been working on extensively previously is no coincidence No More Mr Nice Guy. I've given you two warnings now, and if you edit directly after me at an article you have not edited previously again, I will file the report. This is not a threat. It's a fair warning. Take it or leave it. There are thousands of I-P articles, thousands of which I have not touched. I'm sure it will be easy to find some. The ball is in your court. Tiamut^talk 23:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be bullied into filing a report No More Mr Nice Guy. They are time-consuming and a waste of energy (just like this discussion). I've said what I want to say and you do what you want to do, and we'll see what happens in the future. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 23:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

that is your 3rd revert on Palestinian right of return. nableezy - 15:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's my second revert. Your next revert will be your 3rd though.

If you want to discuss the wording, take it to talk. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, your first edit on the page was a revert. nableezy - 15:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes it was, you removed anothers work, that is a revert. It doesnt matter if you use undo. (and Ill remove what I feel like) nableezy - 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair warning, continue edit warring and AN3 is my next stop. nableezy - 20:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and again at 3 reverts on the same page. nableezy - 14:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and now 3 reverts on Arab Capital of Culture. nableezy - 17:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

what brought you to that article to restore the edit of a banned user? nableezy - 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

since you have not answered let me give you some things to read. You can start here and while you have the time also take a look at this. Try not to do either of those things in the future. nableezy - 17:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to accuse me of something, go right ahead. Otherwise, I'm not inclined to have chit chat with someone who told me to get lost when I asked for a courtesy. This will be the last time I respond to you here unless there's a specific administrative issue.

Bye bye. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the links would make clear what it is I am accusing you of. Wikihounding and editing on behalf of a banned user. And if you continue with such behavior I will take the issue to arbitration enforcement. Bye. nableezy - 17:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I categorically deny your accusation. I believe that if you thought you could prove it, you'd have already gone to arbitration enforcement. I shall continue to edit as I see fit. Adios. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deny all you like, but the reason I dont go to AE is that I dont feel one article is big enough an issue to go through the process. Just dont do it anymore. nableezy - 17:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I do have a case, and combined with Tiamut's it is pretty strong. If on any future article that you have never edited before you show up right after me I will take that case to AE. That isnt a threat, it isnt a warning, just a fact. Edit as you see fit, but do not go through my contributions to further whatever arguments you think we have. nableezy - 18:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nope, because there is a pretty big difference. The 4th Geneva Convention article is a major topic that many, many people who edit in the topic are have watchlisted so it would be very difficult for you to say anybody followed you there. But Paradise Now is an article on a movie that people rarely edit. And you also went there to reinstate the edit of a banned user. I have many human rights articles on my watchlist even if I have not edited them. But I highly doubt you had Paradise Now on yours, I doubt you even saw the movie or read a single source about it, I doubt you have even read the article. You went there for the sole purpose of reverting my edit and reinstating the edit of a banned user. There is the difference. And like I said, 1 more time and I will go to the next step in solving the issue. The idea here is to get you to stop such behavior before it becomes necessary for an admin to stop you from continuing with such actions. nableezy - 19:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, I would tell AE that you edited an article for the first time to reinstate the edit of a banned user immediately after me and did so twice. I would then show them your history of following Tiamut around. But that isnt the point, I am just asking you not to follow me around. Ending up on obscure articles just to revert me give that impression. Please just stop doing so. Aint that complicated. nableezy - 19:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That would be great. The only problem is that Nableezy seems to patrol every single article in the IP space. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, be that as it may, if he agreed to avoid you on articles he had not yet edited (regardless of watchlist status), would you do the same? IronDuke 20:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree not to edit an article he has made major edits to. Like I said, he seems to be on almost every article in the IP space, and he's been here for a while. He's probably made at least a single edit to hundreds of articles. I can't agree to exclude articles just because he may have reverted someone there once upon a time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what about agreeing not to directly revert him on a new article? Edit away, but try not to undo his edits? IronDuke 20:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that if he agrees to do the same. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done. nableezy - 01:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks to both of you. IronDuke 01:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: 1 2

The Help Desk is in my watchlist, and I thought I was being helpful. Guess not. nableezy - 14:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit you made the edit because of the question I asked at the helpdesk, while you didn't actually bother to, oh, I don't know, answer the question I asked at the helpdesk? Very helpful indeed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the citation, what else was there to answer? Whether or not it was good enough to begin with? But yes, I fixed the cite because you asked a question at the help desk. Normally people say thank you when that happens. nableezy - 14:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to learn a bit about what is considered an acceptable citation, and how this place works in general. But never mind, I learn much more about how things work around here, not to mention many little tricks, by watching you than you'd ever tell me on the helpdesk page, so it's all good. Bye now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't have anyone in mind who'd be willing to do this. Again, this is just too big, and most of the regular editors are busy with the smaller stuff. If you feel extremely strongly about it, I suggest going about this on a case by case basis. There are some articles with similar names that don't need to merged at all, some which could be debated, and some which must be merged. Therefore, try to find the latter, and act upon it slowly, article by article, discussing it with the primary editors of both articles. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be counter-productive though. If you believe that after the "big fight" things will settle, you are incorrect. There was recently an ArbCom case about the question of Judea and Samaria vs. West Bank, and there are still quite a few revert wars about it, and no wide community agreement. The guideline was drafted, but it still leaves a lot of space for edit-warring. Moreover, none of the editors who edit-war on this stuff actually contribute to these articles, so I am of the opinion that we'd be much better off without their "contributions" and instead had more editors who wrote content on these subject. And when you write content, it takes quite a while to write each article (properly), and also gives you a better case for merger if you actually work on the article.

Moreover, as I said, many cases are not clear-cut, so there shouldn't even be a blanket guideline. Firstly, find those articles that need to be merged, and tackle them before moving on to more controversial cases. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you start nice articles like this, you should nominate them for DKY.Historicist (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful advice. I do appreciate it--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for ur advice and helpful comments. As u can see, I was blocked for violating 3R but I was offline for a few days and didn't immediately realize the block. It was actually a pretty good thing because as u know, this wiki thing sucks u in and consumes large amounts of time. So the break was nice. Be well.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's not even close to what I did. You've already been asked not to misrepresent what people say when they disagree with your edits. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did. The intro to the quoted section of the resolution said that the General Assembly had made a declaration, not me. Your edit summary attributed the declaration to me and you deleted both of the statements made by the General Assembly in the text of the cited Resolution. harlan (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your misrepresentation of what the resolution said, and the quote since it was no longer relevant. I'm going to do it again, by the way, since you're once again misrepresenting what the resolution says. For some reason you took it upon yourself to change where the resolution says "aggression" to "occupation". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi No More Mr Nice Guy. I would like to work on two things regarding what has happened to Nableezy. On is to file an appeal of Sandstein's decision which I will begin in my user space shortly. The second, concurrent to this, would be opening a User RfC on Sandstein regading his abuse of his admin powers. I have asked Gatoclass for some advice on how to proceed. I hope he responds soon. When I have drafts up in my user space, I will be contacting you for feedback. I hope you will co-sign both the appeal and the User RfC. Also, check out Nableezy's talk page to see what has happened most recently and why these steps are absolutely necessary. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why you're approaching me with this. Putting aside the way you and your gang jumped Sandstein with an aggressive campaign of insults and various personal attacks, you and Nableezy have been nothing but unpleasant towards me during the whole time I've been editing here. I understand you want your appeal to seem it has bipartisan support, but you should try people Nableezy hasn't been a complete shit to. There might be one or two. Maybe. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may not understand that in order to avoid being accused of canvassing, it is my responsibility to inform to all interested parties (all those who commented at Sandstein's page and Nableezy's of any intended initiative. I did not think you would support such an initiative, but you have the right to know about it, so that you can oppose, if that is what you wish to do. So thank you for your obscene commentary. And FYI, Nableezy has decided to file an appeal at AE. Tiamut^talk 21:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not post anything about Nableezy's ban, not on AE nor on Sandstein's page. You are indeed canvassing, but I commend you on your effort to make it seem like you're not.

As for the commentary - you're welcome. You both earned it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You responded to another editor's comments regarding Nableezy's ban on that page. If I misunderstood, and you do not want to be informed/involved in the discussions to follow, then you can simply disregard this message. Again, thank you for your commentary and have a nice day. Tiamut^talk 21:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I know you've received other reminders below already, but now that I see you've edited yesterday (or today, depending on time zone), I'd like to remind you once again that you're the last person we're waiting for on the mediation. Technically, the seven-day period expired Sunday, but it would obviously be much better for everyone if you explicitly stated your agreement or disagreement to the request. We don't want to keep waiting around guessing and, further, it would be a shame if the mediation were rejected because of your apparent disinterest when you really were interested in going forward with it (and it just slipped your mind, or you were busy, etc.). -- tariqabjotu 03:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll pass. Next time the issue comes up I won't participate on the talk page and then you guys can go to mediation. Then I'll join in the time after that since it's pretty obvious some people won't let it rest until they get want they want, which mediation is unlikely to give them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to make that decision if you want, NMMNG, but you seem to be effetively saying: "launch a new request for mediation without inviting me, then you'll get an agreement to mediate". Why not cut out the middleman and consent now on the understanding that you may not participate? --FormerIP (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm saying. Launch a new request for mediation without inviting me, then you'll get an agreement to mediate. Well, at least if the same coercion tactics are used against some editors I guess.

Not sure I'm following you on the "middleman" thing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying that you are willing to allow mediation to happen, it's just that you don't want to be involved. And yet you could make that happen immediately. Re-filing seems unecessary and I can't see how it is of any benefit to anyone - ie it's just a barrier that could easily be cut out. --FormerIP (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm the middleman? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess whoever were to do the re-filing would be the middleman. Unless they're a woman. --FormerIP (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we both meant middleperson. There is no gender bias on my talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should change your username then! (Only kidding). Anyway, my point is that we can do without any middle-people. It looks like the situation will end up the same in either case. Either you consent to mediation now, in which case it goes ahead, or you consent to a new request which doesn't involve you, in which case it goes ahead but there's a bit of additional hassle first. --FormerIP (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new request that does not involve me does not require my consent.

Also, I want to see if whoever it was that sent anonymous threatening emails to nsaum will be dragging me to arbcom. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sort of would reuqire your consent, because you would have to not insist on being listed as a party.

I don't think you can realistically expect the sender of anonymous emails to idenfity themselves. If you don't consent to mediation, then someone may decide to nominate the case, but I think that has always been on the cards.

Am I to take it that I am wasting my time here? --FormerIP (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think that I'd insist on being listed in future mediation on this topic then it's me who's been wasting his time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• What happens if I decide I don't want to participate in mediation?
• If I do participate and the mediation fails, what happens then?
• If I do participate and the mediation goes well, can other editors bring up the issue again at a later date and try to "improve" on the compromise reached at mediation?

Thanks, No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I'm a member of the Mediation Committee, I should be able to answer your questions:

• If you don't want to participate, the case will be rejected. All relevant parties must agree to mediation, and while complex, lengthy cases like this one often require very minor parties to be weeded out, I don't think you can be considered a minor party. If you disagree with the mediation, it will not go further. Someone may decide, if they like, to address the matter through other channels of dispute resolution. But RfM is generally considered the court of last resort for content disputes. ArbCom is only relevant if a user conduct issue could be formulated (e.g. some editor or group of editors is being disruptive to prevent a resolution).
• If the mediation fails, it's chalked up to yet another form of dispute resolution that was tried but failed. Once again, someone could try to go through another form of dispute resolution. Even though MedCom is the court of last resort (which is not to say mediation results are binding), people will generally go back to RfCs, endless discussions... you know... what we have now.
• Yes, they can. Mediation results are not binding, so anyone can "improve on the compromise" as you say, or bring it back closer toward the pre-mediation formulation. But the idea is that an agreement from a mediation request holds a lot of weight, and the likelihood of there being consensus to put in place anything other than the agreement should be very low. If others who followed the case, especially those who participated in it, start to ask for more than what they already agreed to with no change in situation or addition of new information and positions, there's obviously grounds for considering them disruptive. ArbCom would be a natural next step, if ignoring them is not sufficient.

I should add as a final point that the proceedings of a request for mediation cannot be used against you in an ArbCom case or pretty much anywhere else. If necessary, the proceedings may be held off Wikipedia on a more private site. -- tariqabjotu 21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to add that you can withdraw consent to mediation at any time. -- tariqabjotu 05:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay. I've told you all I needed to tell you. If you want to disagree with the mediation, you are well within your right to do so. -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what I want to do. Should I ask someone who's not involved? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh..... do what you want. This isn't a life-or-death decision. -- tariqabjotu 21:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for horning in, but I urge you to participate in the mediation. I am not a party to the mediation, but I would like to see it go forward. While the outcome of the mediation is not binding, particularly on those who are not parties, nonetheless, if the mediator succeeds in reaching an agreement, that agreement will have a lot of weight, and, I believe, will certainly be a potent argument for squelching any future bickering that comes up on the talk page.

At the present, you are the only party to the mediation who has not yet agreed to participate. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are welcome. There are two people who have not yet agreed to the mediation, and I think both of us share the same concerns.

Several editors have said their position is "non-negotiable". At least one editor has pretty much said they will continue discussing the issue until they get the result they want. In this kind of atmosphere I'm really not sure I want to waste my time on a mediation process which might not even yield results, but even if it does will just postpone the inevitable return of the issue for a couple of months. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments may be less welcome but I feel compelled to say this. If the mediation concludes, regardless of the conclusion, I will not mention the issue again. It is at least worth a try to get a discussion about this issue moderated by a disinterested party. Even if nothing is accomplished in terms of an agreement what have you lost? nableezy - 18:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with this completely. You cannot possibly lose by agreeing to mediation. Parties have to agree at the end of the process - if there is still no common ground, there is just no agreement, which would be a shame but not a tragedy for anyone. You can withdraw later if you don't like it, and you can also sign up but choose not to participate or to participate little if that's what you prefer. I do think there is a decent possibility that the matter may end up with ArbCom if mediation does not happen, which would not be a good thing and ought not to be necessary. --FormerIP (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least arbcom can make binding decisions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually actively want to go to ArbCom, then please give mediation a chance first, and in the event that agreement is genuinely not possible, I would also support this. As has been said, you can't lose anything by taking that path. I think a mediation discussion is likely to take a different character from the RfC (hoepfully, more focused), and it is worth seeing if that brings any movement or new ideas. Also, whilst mediation is not technically binding, I think the effect would be similar, since the users who care most about the issue will all have reached an agreement. --FormerIP (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to go to arbcom. You were the one who brought it up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, understood, I obviously misinterpreted your comment. That being the case, I think it makes sense to give mediation a try for all the above reasons. --FormerIP (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I received an anonymous email, outside of the wiki-email function, stating that you (NMMNG) and I would be taken to arbcom for disruptive editing if we did not agree to join the mediation. My email address has not been on my user page for quite some time, perhaps its time I have an admin go through and delete the revisions that contained it. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 23:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little disappointed that I didn't get a threat too. Oh well. I did get some implied threats, so I guess I'll make do with those.

It is my understanding that mediation is a voluntary process. Guess I'm going to find out if that's right from arbcom. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely one of the reasons why I felt nothing good would come from a mediation. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a tinderbox. There are many good editors on both sides, unfortunately each side also has a few "bad apples" who will stop at nothing to reach their preconceived outcome. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎}

Well whoever emailed me has apparently read this discussion thread because they referenced it in their latest message. Coercion sucks. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 06:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know nothing can be done to you for refusing mediation, you both can do what you want. Though I hope you would at least be willing to allow it to go through, even if you feel you want to withdraw at a later date. nableezy - 07:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you email me the threatening emails you got? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, if it were me I would refuse just on the basis of receiving those email threats. I'm not one to submit to blackmail. Plus I would love to see who fills out the disruptive editing arbcom. But I guess I'm just a bad apple. Breein1007 (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly influenced my decision, although I don't fault nsaum for ignoring it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks. There's some more I'll add when I have some more free time. I have Morris' 2008 book. Very interesting stuff.

My additions could use some formatting though, it looks like a huge block of text now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished reading Morris. Good read but a bit revisionist. Do you have an interest in other Mid-East battles aside from Yad Mordechai? I've done some editing on the Second Lebanon War (as you may recall, I was baptized under fire with that one), Gaza War, Yom Kippur War and Six Day War--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really a military buff, but I do like history. Gaza War and Second Lebanon war are not exactly my cup of tea. The anti-Israel contingent are really drawn to those and I don't enjoy these stupid little passive aggressive exchanges with them.

I think when I'm done with Yad Mordechai, I might start an article for the battle of Ramat Yohanan. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result section should reflect the most significant military outcome of the event. The delaying action impeded the Egyptian northward drive and bought the IDF precious time to organize a defense. Ultimately, this battle represented a turning point on the southern front. The Egyptian takeover of the settlement lasted barely 5 months. The temporary nature of the occupation was inconsequential in relation to the significance of the delaying action. Therefore, the delaying action should be the only component featured in the result section. Your thoughts--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't know what is usually done in such cases. I seriously doubt the article will end up without showing both POVs, so fighting it seems like a waste of time. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cracking up...... Breein1007 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You violated 3RR, making four reverts in less than four hours. I've explained why my changes are necessary on the talk page. Please respect Wikipedia policies and guidelines (per MOS:IDENTITY and WP:3RR) and refrain from reverting again. Tiamut^talk 12:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You violated BRD. You explained why your changes are necessary only after I threatened to report you and your tag team buddy. Please respect Wikipedia policies and guidelines (per WP:BRD and WP:3RR) and refrain from reverting again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BRD does not trump 3RR. You are equally obligated to initiate a discussion, and you are in no way exempt from 3RR. Acroterion _(talk) 13:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. But sometimes when you have two users tag teaming to insert a version they like after a specific BRD request, you can get carried away.

Out of curiosity, how did you happen to get involved here, Acroterion? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One person's "tag-teaming" can be another person's consensus; it's easy to lose perspective. I've seen too many people who should know better find themselves on the wrong side of 3RR this way. I don't recall how I came across this, probably via noticing an edit summary in the recent edits page, which made me take a closer look. You'd be surprised at what comes up that way. Acroterion _(talk) 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't think someone who's not an admin should close it. That's all. As you may have noticed, I didn't participate in the thread although I am aware of quite a few things you've done and said that are against policy. Accusing me (and "my mates"?) of wanting you banned is just more of the BATTLE mentality you keep displaying. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think it would make more sense to expand the other sections. A little something about the Rambam, and some more information on the synagogue. Maybe a few pictures. I don't think shortening the controversy section is a good idea. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put in everything I was able to find about the synagogue itself. Besides even if we are to add a new section or two, the claim of recentenism will still stay, would it not?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I think the article is proportioned correctly as per the available sources. I don't think the fact some people don't like the political implications of recent events is a good enough reason to hide them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Christian Europe learned a lot from Moses Maimonides. It was his Code from what the medial church learned about medieval synagogue" is from the source Encyclopedia Britannica. Please take a look. I believe it should be in.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what that sentence means. Are you sure you copied it correctly? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the sourcepage 431. BTW could you please take a look pages 149-150. I am not sure they are talking about the same synagogue, but even if they are not, maybe we could use that source? --Mbz1 (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the preview. Can you? I hope there isn't some conspiracy involving google to deny me book previews.

The other synagogue might be Ben Ezra. That's the more famous synagogue in Cairo. Where they found the Cairo Genizah. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do see preview just fine. Interesting. Let please do it that way: here's the search : [6] please hit the first link and go to page 431. I hope this will do it for you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, were you able to read the source? --Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at this source pages 220 and 221? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks. I had a look, but I prefer not to get involved in the administrative boards circus unless I am personally brought up there or somehow directly involved. I agree Vexorg's behavior should (and probably will) get him blocked soon, FWIW. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I certainly understand that perspective. ;) I was not looking for input, just letting you know. Best, Stellarkid (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Further - Re "You have my opinion on the matter" & " make sure you have consensus" - But I'd like to understand your opinion better, and would like you to be part of the consensus. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This really belongs on the article talk page. There are at least 5 other people involved in the discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... You won't humor me? Oh well. I tried. NickCT (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Did you take any pictures? Could be useful for the article. Glad to see you're back, btw. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I took a few. I wasn't thinking of Wiki when I took them but it's a good suggestion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side point about Yad Mordechai. When I was there, I saw the remnants of a WWII German armored vehicle equipped wth a 20mm cannon. It was captured by the British from the Germans and given to the Egyptians for use against the Israelis. The Israelis captured it from the Egyptians and it was pressed into Israeli service for use against the Arabs. What goes around, comes around. :)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you will take a look at the wikibias website.RockvilleMD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

Those are strong words from someone who's currently edit warring with 3 other editors on that article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you self-revert to restore the material you deleted and supply reliable sources for any opposing viewpoints. harlan (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you stop with the OR. When someone says "X was treated as a state for the purpose of Y" that doesn't mean "X is a state". On the contrary, it strongly suggests X is not a state. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been quoting and citing third-party verifiable analysis contained in the US State Department Digest of International Law. Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles [10] and Articles 46, 47, and 60 of the Treaty of Lausanne [11] do not say a "state for the purposes of". The Permanent Court of International Justice and the LoN Arbital Court didn't use that language either. Neither did Whiteman, Gil-Har, or Mark Tessler. You might want to make a good faith effort to actually read the citations that accompanied the material that you deleted. The LoN Arbital Court final decision is quoted in the League of Nations mandate article. harlan (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you did with the treaties of Lausanne an Versailles is a combination of SYNTH and OR. Neither of them speak of the British Mandate in Palestine. Neither of them say Palestine or Transjordan are states.

Anyway, the place for discussion of this content dispute is on the talk page of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteman discusses the treaties and how they pertain to the legal status of Palestine and Transjordan. This isn't a content dispute, you are violating the Wikipedia:ARBPIA sanctions by refusing to provide a verifiable source to support your edits and by making disruptive deletions of pertinent sourced content. Per WP:ASF: There is no dispute that the Treaty of Lausanne is the applicable international law, the PCIJ said so, and Whiteman noted that fact. There is no dispute that the Arbital Court's decision was final under the terms of Article 47 of the Treaty and that it held that Palestine and Transjordan were states. That is all cited and quoted from a reliable secondary source - Whiteman's Digest of International Law. Here is another quote from Whiteman :"The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne (28 LNTS 11) provided for the application of principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. Thus, Norman Bentwich, in commenting on the case of Heirs of the Prince Mohamed Selim v. The Government of Palestine (reported in [1935-1937] Ann. Dig. 123 (No. 39)), states: ". . . The Article [60] of the Treaty [of Lausanne] transferred to the Government of Palestine only those properties which were passed from the Civil List to the Ottoman State by the Irades. But there was nothing in the discussions on the Treaty of Lausanne which could upset the natural interpretation of the words of the Article, that the imperial decrees had transferred properties of Sultan Abdul Hamid to the Ottoman State and that these properties were ceded to the allied successor states." -- Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) 650, Questia, Web, 22 Apr. 2010.

Article 60 of the Treaty does not say "a state for the purposes of". This has gotten silly. harlan (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to read that. Take it to the article talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

My points were raised by others on the talk page. You are obviously misusing your sources. You are also edit warring. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because of your involvement at the Richard Goldstone article. Please don't consider it an assumption of bad faith

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.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

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.

• In relation to the above, you are informed that the Richard Goldstone article is under a blanket 1RR restriction and violations of this restriction will result in escalating blocks and/or topic/page bans. Thank you for your cooperation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this edit, what is your position about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_clash&action=historysubmit&diff=365274898&oldid=365274595 Marokwitz (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that picture demonstrates that the activists acted violently and thus will not be allowed in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think it was Jon Stewart who said that Helen Thomas is old enough to remember why the Jews left Poland and Germany. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Was Helen Thomas alive during the times of King David, King Solomon, the Maccabees, John Hyrcanus, Alexander Yanai the Great Jewish Revolt and the Bar Kokhba revolt? Perhaps she just failed to recall that Jews had been living in Israel thousands of years before the word "Palestinian" even came into existence.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think any article where indigenous-ness or someone claiming Jews should leave "Palestine" is brought up it should be linked to denying genocides carried out against the pre-Zionist indigenous Jewish population of Israel/"Palestine" such as the Safed Plunder, no? DionysosElysees (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

How does it "appear" I made more than one revert in 24 hours when I made a single edit out of the past 500 edits to the article? That's 4 days worth of edits, if you're not familiar with the use of the article history function.

I notice you gave me this frivolous warning while ignoring other users who made more than one revert in a single hour. Perhaps you're the one who should make himself familiar with the discretionary sanctions. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake no need to get your knickers in a twist, you weren't the intended recipient, but at least you are aware of the sanctions now and you wont revert another editor a minute after they make a good faith edit. Mo ainm~Talk 16:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering you didn't give the warning to anyone else after you were made aware of your "mistake", I have to wonder who the intended recipient was or if indeed there was one.
• I did not revert another editor after one minute, I reverted an edit that was made 24 minutes earlier.
• I doubt removing multiple photos that support the Israeli position could be considered "good faith edits".
• I was aware of the sanctions before you made your frivolous warning. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi. Do you have any source to confirm this image is from a journalist?--Brendumb (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for accounts of journalists who were witnesses to the event. Is there a source which shows this image was taken by a journalist who witnessed the event?--Brendumb (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not following you. Someone took the picture and it was published in a Turkish newspaper. That's journalism. Do you have an issue with the validity of the photo or are you just looking for a reason to remove it (as opposed to, say, move it to another section if you think it wasn't taken by a "journalist" but by a "passenger")?

And there is absolutely no source to confirm that it was taken by a journalist witnessing the event. It would be best if we were to get a source confirming who took the photo, and I hope you don't want to mislead anyone about the source of the photo either.--Brendumb (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the photo is a Turkish newspaper, as is clearly stated in the caption. I doubt the technical issue of whether the person who took it is an accredited journalist is really important, but I recall reading that he was. Even if he wasn't, that's no reason to completely remove the photo from the article. You removed several photos, all of which support the claims of a certain side. That's a violation of WP:NPOV. In an article under discretionary sanctions, this sort of behavior could get you blocked. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you could stop questioning my motives and simply reply to content related matters. The section the image is in is for journalists who witnessed the event. Is there any source to confirm the image was from a journalist who witnessed the event?--Brendumb (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm questioning your actions, not your motives. I think we're done here. Lets take it to the article talk page. Please note that if you continue to remove only photos that support one side's claims, I will report you and you're very likely to get blocked. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on talk now. I would appreciate it if we could just discuss the article and the photo, which I haven't been able to confirm came from a journalist witnessing the event.--Brendumb (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the source of the photos which you were able to provide, I believe it is debatable whether they are from a completely neutral journalist who witnessed the event. I think it might be better to move the image to the casualties section where we will not be passing judgment about the source. I hope you could respond to this proposal, or make others, on talk.--Brendumb (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If I had the time and/or inclination, I would address it. But since I don't, I was asking for someone else to. It is a valid complaint, you must admit. Someone noted the picture was re-inserted against consensus, and I identified who did it.

By the way, did you notice the accent Brendumb developed over the past few days? I'm starting to get the feeling I know who's sock this is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You must be kidding me. I've been nothing but polite and civil, keeping my personal opinions to myself, using the talk page and basically doing what every good wikipedian is supposed to, while this guy has been nothing but abusive and you suspect my motivations?

I don't need you to hold my hand. I need you to be an admin. You're the only admin who regularly visits that page. If you don't want to enforce anything, at the bare minimum you should point out to people they should be civil.

Of course I'll take it to WP:AE over WP:WQA. The sanctions are there for a reason and I really shouldn't be expected to take this kind of crap. 20:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You've repeatedly raised the subject of one editor on an article's talk page. I've suggested several times that the appropriate, the courteous, route to take would be to raise it with them, on their talk page, or take it to WP:DR. You've chosen to ignore that advice.

I am involved with the article. I was involved with the article before I became an admin. I have no intention — indeed, I've stated this on the talk page — of suddenly "being an admin" at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. It would be hugely inappropriate.

You do not need my permission — or, indeed, any one's opinion — to take a matter to WP:DR. You know that, you've known that for some time, so I remain surprised that you feel the need to constantly raise this editor's conduct on the article talk page. It's time for you to take it to WP:DR or move on.

TFOWR 20:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One editor has repeatedly been abusive, used the talk page as a forum and posted his personal opinion using pretty strong language, all of which clearly go against WP:TALK. So I pointed it out on the talk page. Somehow you think that is worse than the actual TALK violations.

I don't think it would be "hugely inappropriate" for you to have a word with him, considering you seem to know where his talk page is, and you were able to find your way here when you had something to say to me. Maybe I'm just naive.

Anyway, thanks for pointing out the courteous way to deal with someone who's being abusive. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you didn't intend to put words in my mouth, but I have no problem having a discrete word with anyone. Indeed, as I'm sure you're aware, I have already raised issues with this particular and several other editors. My concern here is that you have repeatedly ignored advice to take it to WP:DR - for example, here: I would still encourage you to raise concerns - general concerns at the article's talk page, concerns about editors either with them (or me, if you'd like a second opinion first). There's always WP:DR and WP:ANI, too, particularly where you feel sanctions may have been broken. You've been told how to deal with whatever problem it is you have with this editor, but "I'm not going to waste my time on the admin boards". If you have the time to moan on the article's talk page you have the time to do something about your complaints. WP:DR or WP:TEA. TFOWR 21:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Often a few words on the talk page are enough to make an editor realize he's crossing the line, particularly when accompanied by a small nudge in the right direction from someone they respect. WP:WQA or WP:ANI tend to turn into huge discussions, taking orders of magnitude more time and yielding random results. When there's a pattern of disruptive editing as is emerging here, the benefit-cost ratio becomes more appealing, particularly since WP:AE takes a pretty dim view towards this sort of disruption. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Cheers. IronDuke 23:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I already do most of what you suggested there (although I currently have a candidate for my first ever AE filing). I doubt you'll be able to get the guys who like to play on the admin boards to adhere to it though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't see that as a personal attack. I see it as an excellent observation and a fact that should not be lost on the admin who evaluates the merits of a baseless AE. An AE whose sole design and purpose is not to advance the quality of Wikipedia but rather, to muzzle and silence opposing views.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between calmly pointing out that 386-DX was making a lot of ANI reports about that article recently, and using sarcasm and borderline insults to do so.

There was no call for the abusiveness aspect of that comment. The underlying observation can be (and generally was) reasonable, but presenting it in that manner was the problem. I'm not saying the observation was wrong. I'm saying, don't attack people in making such observations. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take responsibility for being a little sarcastic, but I honestly don't see what could be construed as "borderline insults" in what I said. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By WP standards, it is extraordinarily mild. There is a lot of lower hanging fruit to harvest, if enforcing civility is the aim. IronDuke 02:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the users in question are in a sense lost cases already - they're committed to an ideology of rude and will push that until they cross lines and are blocked. Not worth leaving first level friendly warnings for them, they will take it as encouragement.

Everyone we can remind that it's a bad thing overall, who listens and is convinced not to go down that path, is a win for the project.

It wasn't worth making a huge deal out of, but it was worth talking about a bit. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful for me if someone told me what the "borderline insults" are. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also puzzled by this. George, I agree with much of what you said, but not only does NMMNG's post not come to violating NPA, it doesn't really come close to violating CIV. Put another way, I could show you posts from sitting arbitrators (to say nothing of admins) that are much worse. I think you've made a good faith misinterpretation here. IronDuke 11:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• fyi Wikibias.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.64.131 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]