User talk:Wikifan12345/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wikifan12345. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Unless Im mistaken and your ban has been lifted, you are still topic banned. You cant edit Raed Salah or that talk page. Ill give you some time to remove your comment. nableezy - 05:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The area of conflict does not extend to everything Israel/Middle East. I'm quite certain my edits were not in violation of ARBIPA as Salah is not defined as part of the area of conflict (yet) and my edits said nothing of his supposed role. In any case, I'll strike them anyways since I don't think this is worth defending. And I could be wrong. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request

Honestly if I knew who that user was, or had a suspicion, I would create an SPI case and move it there. The problem is you can't create a sock puppet investigation only accusing the puppet without identifying a master. I could accuse you of being that master, for the purposes of getting the case opened, but I'd rather not do so as I'm pretty sure that that editor isn't you (and, quite honestly, you might get banned on behavioral evidence alone... behavior evidence that isn't strong enough to convince me). ← George ^talk 23:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

CheckUser shows all the editors that use the same IP, so it would probably show any editors that have the same IP address as yourself, though they could also check if any editors have the same IP address as All Rows4 to figure out who that is. And yes, I personally don't see strong enough behavioral evidence to say that you are All Rows4, but someone else might interpret the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. I'm somewhat hoping that some CheckUser sees my post on AE and takes it upon them self to just do a check of who All Rows4 is. Although given the age of their previous edits, any IP information is likely stale (unusable) by now anyways. ← George ^talk 23:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see enough behavioral evidence to support a ban, and I generally don't like opening investigations unless I'm confident that there is a case to be made. My concern is that I could open up a case, someone would look at the behavioral evidence alone (All Rows4 not editing for a long time, then surfacing to support your edit) and come to the conclusion that All Rows4 is your meat puppet, resulting in both of you getting banned. Having a different IP address alone is not enough to exonerate someone from those investigations. ← George ^talk 01:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The Israel/South Africa relationship which you erased was discussed in the Talkpage and subject to a consensus. Please revert your deletion. If you feel that the section did not include enough references to the IDF (which was your stated reason) please fix that problem by doing a Find/Replace of "IDF" for "Israel", rather than deleting the entire section. Thank you. Poyani (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus in the discussion. I'm opening a new page up - the original section did not mention the Israeli army once. Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Poyani (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, I feel compelled to try to stop you from repeatedly getting yourself banned. You cannot treat the 1RR as an invitation to revert once a day. Any time you make an edit or a revert that is reverted stop and gain consensus on the talk page. I can promise you, with absolutely 0 doubt, that if you keep up what you have been doing you will soon see yourself banned. I strongly suggest that you self-revert at Anti-Zionism. Things like this do not end well for you, I cant figure out why you have not realized this yet. nableezy - 07:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I explained the edit on the talk page, waited a day - no response from Roland. He is obviously active. I don't understand why you feel compelled when just yesterday you said don't care. I see no reason to self-revert unless Roland can come up with a reason why a non-RS should remain in the article. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont care about these silly things like "virtual olive-branches". But I feel compelled because you are just a kid. Its up to you if you listen to me or not, but I promise you, if you keep going through the same story and never changing your actions you will keep getting the same result. Ive done my good deed for the day, I dont plan on spending more of the next day thinking about this. Farewell. nableezy - 07:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought this could interest you: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/response_to_efraim_karsh.html.—Biosketch (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You are a recent contributor on discussion of List of conflicts in the Middle East / List of modern conflicts in the Middle East. Due to recent changes in the structure of those articles, i would like you to contribute to the renewed discussion on the structure of those article here Talk:List of conflicts in the Middle East#Criteria for modern conflicts inclusion.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Middle East Media Research Institute". 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 September 24, 2011.

something seems to have been lost in the ec, i cant figure itout but the size of the page is smaller. Its not a war/rvt, feel free to readd it back if you figure itout. im just heading to sleep.Lihaas (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove any of the content (not deliberately at least), I simply added more and moved the section down. Just scroll down, the section is actually bigger. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no probs then. I thought my edit removed something of yours, but couldnt pin-point

Also instead of ITN, of which the other arguements are absurd, maybe you want to try a DYK nom? even IF they are israeli sources and even IF there was some bias, nothing on the article cites gosepel truth from there. its all in due context, (of which only the op-eds could be said to biad not the reporting) and the attack section uses cnn and al jazeera. (which you can probs point out there, how thats pro-israel bias i havent the foggiest but they might come up with a novel arguement ;))Lihaas (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

bw- norway was posted asap without affirmation of responsibility. one comment didnt even read the page as barak claimed PRC not netenyahu as he said. (not AGF in that comment). Also death toll seems to have gone up, so it may make that more notable for ITN. try changing the blurb.(Lihaas (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)).

"with 57 "reference" links of which 25 are to the right-wing Jerusalem Post. The Post stories seem to back 100% the Israeli government position " BUT theyre all cited AS the govts point of view not truth.Lihaas (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

What? "Right-wing Jerusalem Post?" JP is an RS. If you have a specific issue go to talk, not here. I don't own the article. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

JC, thats not my op, its what was on the ITN talk page. werent you reading it?(Lihaas (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)).

Dude, ITNs shite. i know youre pissed wed all get so. but keep the favours for future. beleive me ive been there. WP:Horse(Lihaas (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)).

The arrows on the infobox were duly explained as the discussion is ongoing on the talk page. You are urged to put them back instead of warring and contribute to discussion instead(Lihaas (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)).

Hi Wikifan, I happened to notice that you (almost certainly inadvertently) reverted an edit of mine at this article when you moved a section. Basically you removed the name and identity of the two year old killed in the first strike. The relevant sentence nows reads "Sha'ath's two-year-old killed in the same home in the airstrike", it should read Sha'ath's two-year-old son Malek, killed in the same home in the airstrike." Would you mind restoring the two words in italics? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize I removed anything. So many edit-conflicts and then I worry about 1rr. Wikifan^{Be nice} 16:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we made edits at almost exactly the same time and the software got a bit confused. No harm done, thanks for the revert :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Finally someone is updating events of this bloody war, i added your summary into the main article. Well done!Greyshark09 (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello -- at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 22#Pro-Palestinian consensus was reached to retarget the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect from "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" to "Palestinian cause". On 14 August 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian cause was closed as "Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", inadvertently reversing the consensus reached at the RfD regarding the "Pro-Palestinian" redirect (the redirect was not mentioned during the discussion). In subsequent discussion at Talk:Pro-Palestinian#Extract from RFD discussion for future reference it has been suggested that both redirects ("Pro-Palestinian" and "Palestinian cause") would be better targeted at Palestinian nationalism. It was also agreed to initiate a widely-advertised RfD, with notifications to relevant WikiProjects and participants in the AfD and RfD. Accordingly, your comments are invited at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 26#Pro-Palestinian. Best, —Ireilly ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

The article 2011 Tel Aviv Night Club attack has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTNEWS

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The request for formal mediation concerning Middle East Media Research Institute, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hello, I saw that you made this edit to Elysium (film). I researched the matter, and it looks like that budget is an older figure. The Wikipedia article currently references a Feb. 2011 article that mentions $125 million for Elysium. Let's use the most recent reference. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right. I just went by the IMDB source. Not sure on the 125. this says 120.Wikifan^{Be nice} 18:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Wikifan12345. You have new messages at Jim Sukwutput's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Tel Aviv Nightclub attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Tel Aviv Nightclub attack 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 good 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. Cerejota (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the best judge of civility (ask Cptnono), but here's what I think: While the messages are a little gruff, there's only one thing that's actually "out of line". As you note, that is the statement about where the editor thinks you live. That can be considered WP:OUTING.

I recommend that you ask the editor to remove that part of his comment. If he refuses, you can either ignore it or take it to WP:AN/I, depending on how serious a matter you think it is. Before you decide to take it to AN/I, let me or any other admin know, and we can "hide" the offensive post so you don't out yourself to the world. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you familiar with this incident? Do you think it was notable enough to be included in that article? Please share your knowledge in the matter in the discussion page. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting enforcement of ARBPIA for your two reverts on Gaza flotilla raid. See this page. JimSukwutput 04:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the right thing and self-reverting. Its better to err on the side of caution.--Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 05:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Wikifan, I appreciate your enthusiasm on ITN, but a couple things currently going on are concerning me. 1, you seem to have possibly WP:CANVASSed NuclearWarfare here. 2, You and Jim are currently feuding at ITN/C. I've seen your contributions all the time since ITN/C is on my watchlist, and I noticed your post to NW since I watch his talk page too. I'm not accusing you of any wrongdoing here, I'm letting you know that some might see these two things in less than a fair light. I know we've recently disagreed regarding the Chilean plane crash; let me assure you this has nothing to do with that. I highly respect your contributions and opinions I just think you're doing a couple things that are probably hurting you more than helping. Take care. N419BH 06:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah thanks for the comment. No, I wasn't canvassing. I only know two admins who are active at ITN - Mitchel and NW. I already sent a message to Mitchel with no response. The blurb won't be posted unless an admin actually sees it. Thanks for your compliments. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It looks like NW posted the Japanese Typhoon, but not the Palmer report. N419BH 06:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's why I messaged him. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In this set of templates - should we keep the general and vague word "Terrorism" in the headline or should we change it to a word (or words) which would help define more precisely the difference between (1) any type of notable attacks committed against Israeli targets and (2) any type of Arab/foreign militia terror attacks and/or individual nationalistic-motivated terror attacks (committed not only by Arabs) committed against Israeli targets. Because I know you have a lot of knowledge in this specific topic I would appreciate if you could participate in the discussion and share your opinion on this matter. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please share your opinion on renaming "List of conflicts in the Middle East" into "List of conflicts in the Near East" in the discussion. The renaming is proposed in order to cover the pre-1918 period (when the Middle East had generally been related as the Near East), and delete post-1918 conflicts while leaving wikilink to List of modern conflicts in the Middle East). This is in order to avoid doubling of information between post-1918 section in the "List of conflicts in the Middle East" and List of modern conflicts in the Middle East article. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As authorised by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions and discussed at this request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, you are indefinitely restricted from editing any page that relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly defined at WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict). Your account can be blocked, for any period or indefinitely, if you violate this restriction at any time. You may appeal this sanction under the provisions of WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions, but to do so more than once every six months will be a further violation of this restriction. Please contact me or any other administrator if any aspect of this restriction is unclear. AGK [•] 10:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wikifan12345. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.