User talk:RomaC/Archive 1

Arbcom candidate userbox

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Doylestown

Thanks for deleting the band-cruft. *Zero* Google hits tells the tale. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for a third opinion

Gregbrown You are listed on the 'third opinions' page, and I chose your name at random. Thank you in advance for considering this. Last week, I placed, onto the Jack Benny biography page, an External Link entitled 'Jack Benny Audio history free MP3 book.' http://www.geocities.com/jackbennyhistory Minutes after I put the link up, an Administrator took the link down. I looked at my online traffic checker (Statcounter.com), and it is almost certain that this Administrator did not even click on the link -- seeing what was on the site -- before he took the link down. If this is the case, all of the later explanations given about why he took down the link are for naught (in my opinion), because all he knew about the link were the words on the External Link: 'Jack Benny Audio History free MP3 book'

My question is how much consideration an Administrator should give to an External Link before acting upon it. Relatedly, what is the procedure an Administrator should follow when acting upon an External Link.

There is discussion about this on my talk page, and I went to the Cabal prior to coming to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-13_Easy_question_for_mediators A person on the Cabal suggested bringing in a third opinion. Thank you.

Gregbrown 00:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Greg, I don't have a lot of time right now but my gut feeling is that the link was perceived as advertising/spam and deleted for that reason. If that is the case, my concern would be with determining whether that might have been a hasty and/or incorrect conclusion based on the name of the link alone. I assume you're arguing that the link is not advertising/spam. I'll look at the discussion pages later and comment there. RomaC 02:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gregbrown Thank you very much. I truly hope that this can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Thanks again I appreciate your help here. My note to you a few hours ago (it was in this spot) said that I was trying to find the third party comment. Now, I see that you put your comment into my Talk page(I thought that all comments went to the bottom of a page), so I thank you for giving a reply. I will make more progress, and I appreciate your help. Gregbrown 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Hey there. Always nice to see someone using the policy trifecta.

I hope you have a nice holiday in Germany!

--Kim Bruning 13:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin coaching request

Hi,

I'm glad to see you are interested in developing your wiki-knowhow by seeing admin coaching. Without any prior judgement whether you are ready or not to seek others views on adminship, it is always good to see others aiming to improve themselves. If you are looking for occasional hints and tips on your editing, I would be glad to give you some to-the-point feedback and pointers, and a helping hand for a while.

(Of course what you do with them, and how others view your work, is down to you always!)

If you're interested, you'll want as a first step to set yourself up with an email account, and then let me know. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Striking your vote

Hello RomaC,

Thank you for your interest in the Wikimedia Board Election. The Election Committee regretfully informs you that your previous vote was received in error and will be struck according to the election rules, described below.

The Election Committee regretfully announces today that we will have to remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must have at least 400 edits by June 1 to be eligible to vote.

The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third party election partner) initially were wrong, and one of your account was eventually included to our initial list. There was a bug in the edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits. So large numbers of people were qualified according to the software who shouldn't be. The bug has been fixed and an amended list was sent to SPI already.

Our first (and wrong) list contains 80,458 accounts as qualified. The proper number of qualified voters in the SPI list is now 52,750. As of the morning of July 4 (UTC), there are 2,773 unique voters and 220 people, including you, have voted who are not qualified based upon this identified error.

In accordance with voting regulations the Election Committee will strike those approximately 220 votes due to lack of voting eligibility. The list of struck votes is available at https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/List_of_struck_votes.

We are aware of the possibility that some of the people affected may have other accounts with more than 400 edits, and hence may still be eligible to vote. We encourage you to consider voting again from another account, if you have one. If you have no other account eligible to vote, we hope you reach the criteria in the next Election, and expect to see your participation to the future Elections.

Your comments, questions or messages to the Committee would be appreciated, you can make them at m:Talk:Board elections/2007/en. Other language versions are available at m:Translation requests/Eleccom mail, 07-05.

Again, we would like to deeply apologize for any inconvenience.

Sincerely,
Kizu Naoko
Philippe
Jon Harald Søby
Newyorkbrad
Tim Starling

For Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee

Talk:Gordon Ramsay

sorry for the delay but I have finally replied to your last comment re the "vegetarian" pizza incident -- Barliner  talk  18:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

article note

i replied to your concerns, at the article talk page. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The case is located at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 Israeli-Palestinian conflict‎, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. I felt like it was time to open a mediation case, since in spite of all the contention, dissent and new proceedings curently going on, as well as edit-protections on several entries, there are actually very few active mediation efforts for any articles right now. so this is a step in hopefully a right direction. by the way, did you know that a single MedCab case can cover a few articles at once? so this seems like possibly an appropriate way to go. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded on Addhoc's talk page, thanks. RomaC (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for wiki-addiction

Ouch, 3rd opinion, and RC patrol? I hope you don't get *too* addicted. Have fun! :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks kim, I have actually been on Wiki for four years now, but recently found some time (chilly outside), so stepped in a bit more, and seem to have landed in the fire hehehe RomaC (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Philostophy lyrics

I'm copy-pasting this from the Greggery Peccary talkpage, just to make sure you get the heads up. The correct lyric is actually "of". It makes sense when considering the quote in the context of the song. DeNameland, being an experienced philostopher, would be loathe to give too straight an answer to either central dilemma (either the cause of the New Brown Clouds, or, on a meta level, whether Greggary is the bad guy for creating the calender or if the young hipsters are just freaking out over nothing). Saying that "time is an affliction" would be casting his vote squarely on the side of the hipsters. Rather, what DeNameland is saying is that there is an affliction attached to time - similar to saying a pregnant woman is "with child". And, specifically, that afflicition is, as he leans towards proclaiming, that the EONS ARE CLOSING. A much more notable site within the Zappa community - in fact, the site from which your link seems to have copy-pasted the lyrics - has it as "of", further reinforcing my above statement. --Badger Drink (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

what seem to be the problem with my talk page?

I have blanked it - as I always does - inorder to archive things, and keep my talk page clean. Now it apears twice - on archive and talk page? is ther any kind of problem? --Shevashalosh (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking your talk page hides warnings against your conduct. Users do not 'own' their talk pages. These are for community communication. If you read the warnings why are you persisting in moving an article without consensus? RomaC (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Even Shabazz says there is no problem with it according to policy ? but ok, i'll keep for now, not to caus dispute --Shevashalosh (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing the content of Deir Yassin (not title yet)

Would there be any problem if I ad at list additional lines to it (The jews wounded etc). I'm not talking on the title at the moment ?

--Shevashalosh (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on the article talk page. RomaC (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

List of ice hockey players of Asian descent

Thanks for your contribution to the page and also for pointing out that "half" is not a proper descriptor. However, I would like to ask for your opinion once again.

The point of the page was to highlight the ethnic background of the players, rather than their nationality. "Japanese" is both an nationality and ethnicity, where as "Canadian" is a generally considered as a nationality, but not as an ethnicity (as it is a mixed ethnic/racial culture).

In your opinion, do you believe that "Japanese, mixed ancestry" would be an acceptable term for an individual coming from biological parents of two (or more) different distict, ethnic backgrounds? "Japanese and European" is likely overkill, and hafu, I believe, is slang.

Thanks in adavance, TakTak (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi TakTak. This is an interesting and somewhat sensitive question. I started a talk page for the article and let's see what we can come up with RomaC (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that players born in Asia, from Asian/Soviet backgrounds should be included as Asian, not European. Examples are Alexander Mogilny (from Khabarovsk in the Russian far east), and Nik Antropov (or any player) from Kazakhstan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbrynen (talk • contribs) 05:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Greetings, pursuant to a request on the Third Opinion Noticeboard: I added my opinion to the article's talk page. I hope that my comments help to resolve the dispute. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Dziekański Taser incident

I've just taken a brief look at Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident. I'm concerned that the user you're dealing with isn't so much concerned with the logical points you've made on the page, but is more worried about getting a lot of people on his side and trying to gang up on you. It concerns me because everything you've said on that talkpage is absolutely right but user Ckatz would rather be disruptive and argumentative for whatever reason. I've added my own comments. Since he is so worried about third parties, maybe me stepping in and telling him he doesn't know what he's talking about will get through to him. Happy holidays! Coastme20 (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009

Excuse me, but I did NOT "blank the lead" as you have suggested in your warning on my TALK page. In fact, it is you who are reverting sourced material in the lead. As per TALK, there are issues in the lead being discussed. The version you keep reverting to is inaccurate. The conflict did not start on the 27th of December nor did it start without any reason. Nor is it one-sided. Please stop editing out important clarifications from the lead. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because material is sourced does not mean it belongs in the lead. Check talk pages before replacing large section of an article. I used too strong a warning, sorry. RomaC (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of line

What you put here at Tundrabuggy's talk page was way out of line. That tempalte's is reserved for serious vandalism, not for contentious editing. If you had an issue, you should have raised it in the talk page. I reviewed the history, and his/her edits seem contentious and WP:3RR, and of course happened without discussion, but declaring them vandalism without previous, less escalating discussion was out of line. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page. RomaC (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What ownership issues? Please explain. If you think you over did it, then just apologize, nothing bad with that. Its just now his intervention on the talk page makes much more sense. I can't control how other people feel, I can, however, control how I feel. And I feel for the most part we have been civil. Lets keep it that way, shall we? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Cerjota you are currently having arguments with several other editors, I propose a truce so you can focus there. Also things have not improved since you told me not to complain but to revert Tundra's disruptive editing, as you can see he's running roughshod over the lead. Cheers. RomaC (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Casualties in the Lead

I recently had an exchange with User:Cerejota on the issue of including a concise casualty count in the introduction. I think its very important, because this what is most important for many readers -- the impact of the war in terms of human lives. I was reverted with User:Cerejota saying that this was "per discussion". As far as I could see, in the earlier discussions a majority of editors seemed to support the inclusion of this fact. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this understanding. If not, please look at the main discussion page and also the discussion page on the Lead. Jacob2718 (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding on your Talk RomaC (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Massacre

Done, Romac. Check all those "high quality" references in the Lead ;). --Darwish07 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the references I have put are different from your proposed ones cause they weren't exactly from the middle east region. I know that this means that we should say in the lead that not only Arabs refer to the offense as Gaza Massacre but a lot of other journalists and approximately the whole Muslim world (which is much bigger than Arab world), but I'm not welling to enter another deadly debate now. Anyway, the new references handle the case of "Gaza + Massacre" very well. It's been clear that because people didn't like the term, they tried to outsmart the references by by using illogical false arguments. --Darwish07 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

totally disputed

User:Jaakobou has placed a totallydisputed tag on the page. Its quite inappropriate given that there are already tags that indicate that this is under development and documents a current war. I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia policy on this issue... but what can be done when a disruptive editor places a tag like this without even a justification on the talk page? Can the tag be removed or can any administrative action be taken against the editor involved? thanks, Jacob2718 (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that this is a very aggressive editor, there was an article years ago, "Media_coverage_of_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict" that was marred by wikilawyering nitpicking and just plain dogged determination. This editor was warned for his editing when at the highest level when a dispute on the entire series of Israeli-Palestinian articles went to arbitration. I suggest you explore all avenues, talk to some non-involved admins as well, I will try to back you up as I fear this editor will not back down and will try anything and everything to push his views on the article. RomaC (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

5+5

thanks for the message, but I would refuse to make such a compromise. I appreciate the warning, and I know this to be true. I have read almost every I/A article that wikipedia has, and almost every talk page and archived discussion, so i already know some of the players. But thanks again, peace Nableezy (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I left out one word that changed the meaning entirely hehehe. "oops" ~I would also not make that compromise... RomaC (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

all good yo, was confused for a minute. Nableezy (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

re:Dead kids are not 'porno'

V.Joe, your comments "(images of dead Palestinian children) can certainly be a form of pornography and often are to people who are members of death-cults, neo-nazi organizations and others who we might find unpleasant. To me, Hamas is all three" are highly offensive and wholly inappropriate. Consider a substitution of the word "Jewish" for "Palestinian" and "Israel" for Hamas" and tell me what sort of reaction you would expect. You were politely asked to strike out the vile comments, your blithe refusal to do so is noted. RomaC (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Roma, You did not politely ask me (and WanderSage, and Tundra Buggy)to change or strike-out our comments. You demanded it. I don't do well with demands. And I dislike your implied threat.

Unfortunately, the nature of Hamas is a death-cult, and the use by largely (but not completely) Muslim youths unhappy with their lives in both Muslim countries and non-Muslim country to compare the poverty they might face in Egypt and the discrimination (quite real) in France or Sweden. This is a form of pornography as I understand it. (Namely, literature or images to encourage fantasies.) Hamas does not belong to the level of Fatah or even the Muslim Brotherhood (alternatively non-Islamic terrorist organizations, like the PIRA or the 1930s era Ku Klux Klan or the Red Brigades), but instead to the likes of Al-Qaeda or Aztec priests with sacrificial knives dripping blood. (Instead of feeding Quetzalcoatl with blood, these men wish to feed God with blood, the blood of the Israelis, but also the blood of themselves and their children. I cannot envision a God, compassionate and merciful, who wishes these things.) This is not the faith of the Muhammad (to me, a historical figure, not a religious one) who banned female infanticide any more than the Inquisition was the faith of the historical Yeshua. I have a limited sympathy for the Palestinian people but very little for Fatah and none at all for Hamas. These images were also taken of a human tragedy, of whatever cause, and posted in a very public place to garnish sympathy for a cause. I appeal to you, where are the pictures of the dead children from Checyna (Russian and Chechnik) or from Tamil. V. Joe (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

On a procedural note, please observed that I have moved your comments on my talk page about, but have not changed a word nor a comma. V. Joe (talk)

V.Joe, I am disappointed but unfortunately not surprised that you refuse to apologize for or strikeout your reprehensible comments associating dead Palestinian children with pornography and "death-cults." Your argument above provides me no evidence of coherent thinking, I'm sorry to have wasted your time. RomaC (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks

thanks a lot for your note. Your are probably right. I agree, with Cerejota's latest suggestion that nothing needs to be done ... this lead was developed after a lot of discussion and we shouldn't get pressured by a set of POV pushing editors. Jacob2718 (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources are needed to back up OR claims

I don't see any concensus in Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict/Lead#Original Research - The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in much of the Arab World. As I wrote there, it is not enough to have a RS that describes the event in question as the Gaza Massacre. You have to find a RS that says "The conflict has been described as the Gaza Massacre in much of the Arab World." I am not aware of such a source. Until you find a source, please leave the charged "massacre" claims out of the article. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see you have an opinion, now please use Talk and get consensus before blanking the lead. Thank you. RomaC (talk)

You don't need a consensus where OR is clear: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." This is a clear case where multiple sources call the military operation a "massacre" yet no single source says that this is the widely used term. I can't believe that you don't understand it. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Your view is understood. Many other editors have discussed this, please consult the archives. RomaC (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I went through the archives, and in archive 17 I found, strangely, that no one noticed that the claim is OR and has no RS backup. I'm sure that a vote will support deleting of OR, but I don't have the energy to start a vote now, so I will leave the OR intact, hoping that someone more brave than me will do some justice to this blatantly unbalanced poor article. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

roof knocking

Hi Roma, I removed your comment from the article's talk page. Talk pages are not forums for editors to give their opinion; they are for discussing article improvement. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad to hear you don't think talk pages are for editors to give their opinion. I rephrased the comment. RomaC (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RomaC's Ill-advised Message and harm to the Encyclopedia

• RomaC, "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors." [[1]] In this case that would be you.

• RomaC, Exactly where in the vandalism policy is correcting WP:NPOV bias and unbalance and adding references to the POVs of prominent academics, heads of state (including the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Israel) as well as other noteworthy sources defined as Vandalism? That you characterize contributions of editors that don't confirm to your preferred narrative as Vandalism immediately tells us about your dispute resolution style.
• RomaC, That you instruct an editor to make their contributions of WP:RS sources to the sandbox does not demonstrate WP:Civility.
• RomaC, That you characterize the attempt to bring the article into conformance with WP policies and guidelines as arbitrary merely adds insult to injury.
• RomaC, That you request the editor discuss the edits first on the talk page only suggests that you have not been reading the talk page or have no regard for the truth.
• RomaC, I as well as others have engaged in extensive discussions on this subject as well as the references to be provided related to it.
• RomaC, You should know that WP:Good Faith does not imply the acceptance of bad behavior on your part nor does it immunize you from a questioning of your motives in the face of "particularly strong evidence."
• Doright (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The article in question is about a controversial current event, there is a box at the top requesting editors use Talk to get consensus for edits. You ignore talk, make a ridiculous reworking of the article's first sentence based on a WP:Fringe theory and then get aggressive when you are reverted? Please... RomaC (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not harass other editors with no basis

You have posted a baseless warning/threat on my user page. Do not post any more things on my page. Otherwise, I will complain to the administrators, or even Jim Wales if I have to. John Hyams (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize this is a controversial article and that you have a strong emotional opinions on the content, but your talk page comment, "You are clearly a Hamas operative on Wikipedia, and this has to be dealt with." constitutes a personal attack and implied threat on editor Nableezy, and that is unacceptable. The early reaction on the article's talk page is that you should be banned from this article. Take that to Jimbo. RomaC (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As I already said on the talk page, "has to be dealt with" is by the Wikipedia administrators or arbitrators. All the rest, regarding his endorsement of Hamas, stands. Stop harassing me. John Hyams (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say, poor you RomaC... Forget about speaking to him directly. He posted a report on the Admin noticeboard [2], so perhaps it is best that you post your comments there and an admin will deal with it. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hola Fala, no problem I have thick skin hehe. I see he was banned. RomaC (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain removal

This area, specifically heart of Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations like grad rocket launchers.

There is discussion about this in Talk page - Background section - please join. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Agada. My reversion was because the information does not reflect the source. A person firing a rocket does not make the place they are standing at the time into a "military installation." Otherwise I think the RS information that rockets have been fired from inside Gaza is well represented. RomaC (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that a soldier firing a rocket from a crowded neighborhood, hospital or mosque doesn't turn them automatically into "military installations". Quite differently, what that soldier does make himself (and, purposefully or not, also the area surrounding him) is a "military objective". From the point of view of the laws of war, the question is whether soldiers firing rockets in the middle of civilians what really want is to spark off the (intentional) collateral effect of civilians being shelled, just for the sake of war propaganda. Is there the least possibility that things really happen this way in Gaza? --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No edit war please

RomaC - I discussed this change for 2 days now. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#.22Israeli_army_said_they_shot_the_farmer.22_-_removal_request.

I think it was established that Israeli army said they shot the farmer never happened, this is not a fact. Calling Hamas reports of civilian casualties Ceasefire violations during the morning when Israeli officials announced a unilateral ceasefire but Hamas "vowed to fight on" and militants fired rockets is twisting a truth. Blackeagle said elsewhere There's a clear expectation of a quid pro quo "we'll stop shooting at you if you stop shooting at us" on both sides. Be fair. I hope you see my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgadaUrbanit (talk • contribs) 11:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345

I noticed that you had earlier warned Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) not to continue making personal attacks - Elonka and I have also warned him, though he has deleted all three warnings. I have raised the issue of his conduct at WP:AE#User:Wikifan12345 and User:Brewcrewer. If you have any views on the issue, please feel free to comment there. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I did. RomaC (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

i understand

but i think this still accomplishes what is intended. We say it has a high density and in the sections where we have quotes we say why that matters. I think that is pretty fair. But I understand why you object. Nableezy (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Zionist political violence and Palestinian political violence

These articles urgently need work to move towards neutrality.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page comments

(your post on my page)
"I am concerned about this edit. Can you please show me the Wiki policy that permits you to remove others' comments? RomaC (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)"

The user in question is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Part of his MO is to use a string of alternate accounts to target users he is upset with (i.e. anyone who has disagreed with him) and follow them around the project, reverting edits, adding targeted comments, and so on. Comments can range from mild, seemingly innocuous messages (such as what you saw) to aggressive, full-blown attacks on- and off-wiki. Banned users have surrendered their right to contribute to the project, and as such their edits can be reverted when found.I hope this answers your question. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As you deleted my comments both on the article talk page and on your Talk page, continuing this on the relevant article talk page. RomaC (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Roma, I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. The user in question is banned from Wikipedia. Not just blocked for a period, but banned for abusive practices, harassment of editors, edit warring, article ownership, the list goes on. He is not allowed to edit, his editing privileges have been revoked, and he is unwelcome on the site now or in the future. Read up on banned users and how we deal with them, please. When someone's editing privileges are removed, they forfeit the right to sneak back in under alternate accounts and target editors. Their contributions are reverted on sight. It is that simple. If you are irked about my commenting out the first sentence of your subsequent comment, I apologize. The text in question read:

"I was about to thank you for your encouragement CoastMe, but it seems you have no talkpage and now, no account!"

Looking at the sentence, it was immediately apparent that it made your post look strange given that the text you responded to was no longer present. If you like, I can restore your text, and leave it up to you to remove it if you so choose. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Quilem Registre AfD

Hi. Regarding your participation at WP:Articles for deletion/Quilem Registre Taser incident, did you learn of the AfD from the notification at Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident? There's a discussion at WT:Canvassing#AfD notifications at related articles using the notifications I posted as an example. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please explain your revert

Hey there. It's nice to see you again on the discussion page. I hope you could explain your position on OR argument on talk page on the long discussion, maybe here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi AU. I made Talk comments which I think explain my position. There were some ten sources for the term in question, these were removed to streamline the article. Were you not here when the previous discussion was held and the consensus was reached? RomaC (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You could call me Agada or AgadaUrbanit, since we know for ages now :). "Many sources" is not a strong argument in my eyes. Sounds like a terrific recipe for WP:SYNTH: take zillion of sources, stir fry all together and make a conclusion none of the sources make. In my eyes not tasty. Some editors think OR should be removed. Consensus usually required for inclusion and see a surprise in talk page discussion: some editors supporting inclusion admit that the consensous for inclusion is not "very wide". And btw 10x for removing מלחמה בדרום (War in the South). Agree it is an ugly synth, and nobody even bothered to google for the term to make zillion of sources. Stay cool RomaC :) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks God we got Google! Much more than 10 sources with this query. You could try it just for fun :). Would it be NPOV to restore מלחמה בדרום now? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you support using "War in (the) South" in translation? I see it as a media term and therefore not as important as the term that the Gaza government used. Was "War in South" or "Operation Cast Lead" more popular in Hebrew-language media, do you think? RomaC (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert, but thanks to Google (again), "Operation Cast Lead" (מבצע עופרת יצוקה) generates less (about half) hits than "War in (the) South". Surprise, surprise. Still first hit for "operation" is Hebrew language WP article describing this conflict. So I personally say be really NPOV and cut both South and Massacre out of lead, to improve encyclopedic value of this article. Do you see any logic in this? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Agada can we just keep this on the article's Talk page rather than pasting here? thx RomaC (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Photo on Robert Dziekański Taser incident

Answer is here — when I deleted the image on 29 May, it hadn't been in use since the 21st, and nonfree images need be unused for only 7 days to be deleted. If you can get consensus on the talk page to restore it (it was a version of this image), tell me and I'll be willing to restore it. I know nothing about the subject of this article, so I'm not going to restore it and add it back to the infobox in place of the current one myself. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier

Can you please explain why my contribution to Israeli West Bank barrier was not constructive, and why you reverted it. --Boatduty177177 (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Kindly conduct these sort of discussions on the article's talk page. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Linda McCartney

I uploaded a photo of her and her family when she was about 7, and two or three others (one was the last photo showing her suffering the effects of cancer) and all were deleted, even though they had the right tags, and were mentioned in the article. I found it strange at the time, as many other photos on Beatle-related pages were left alone. I took it as a personal thing against her.--andreasegde (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andreasegde. I read through the deletion discussions and it seems the family picture and the cancer picture were both seen as outside the main focus of the article which is her music and her celebrity. Can we just have a neutral picture of her from 1960s-80s or a performance picture or even her with a camera. RomaC (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Allegory

I'm not sure how to interpret your comment on "Middle earth" change suggestion. Did you have time to read sources brought? 10x AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

politburo sources

Politburo during Gaza War

January 6, 2009: Khalid Mish'al is the head of the Hamas political bureau: Israel will no doubt wreak untold destruction, death and suffering in Gaza. But it will meet the same fate in Gaza as it did in Lebanon. We will not be broken by siege and bombardment, and will never surrender to occupation.

January 13, 2009: ... at the organisation's headquarters in Damascus, 100km from the territory, Musa Abu Marzouq, the deputy head of Hamas' political bureau, told Al Jazeera why he believes his organisation is on the verge of victory against Israel ...2009 (UTC)

January 18 2009: Exiled Deputy chief of Hamas' politburo Mussa Abu Marzouk announced ... a one-week ceasefire in the Gaza Strip...

Palestinian sources describe elections mechanism of the "Political Bureau" and its role:

27/04/2009 Gaza - Ma'an - Hamas leader Khalid Mash'al has been reelected the leader of the movement's top decision-making body, the Political Bureau, for the third time, a high-ranking Hamas source disclosed on Monday.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

None use the Soviet term, please mind that. RomaC (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the welcoming

and for the double welcome! I'l do my best to edit in a NPOV manner. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack?

I didn't attack anyone. I told somebody to take an English course and some spelling lessons. You consider that a personal attack? And I never called anyone a "butcher." I said the article was being "butchered."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page. RomaC (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it permissible to say in the preview section that Israel attacked civilian infrastructure but the subject of Hamas attacking civilian targets is taboo? Moreover, at least I sourced my edits. Everything I edited was backed by credible news sources but there is no source backing claims that Israel attacked civilian infrastructure. That's not to say it didn't happen. I acknowledge that it did but all I wanted to do was to place it in proper perspective. Instead of blanket reversions, I suggest you work with me and you'll find that I'm quite reasonable.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, cut me some slack here. I'm willing to self revert and modify the edits if you just work with me. I think I'm right, you think you're right and there's got to be a middle line where we can both agree.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your claim of not being "constructive;" Unlike you, I generally don't revert. I just add sourced and relevant content. On occasion, I'll tweak something here and there. I find it interesting that you were quick to criticize me when you perceived an insult to Mr. Anon Unsigned but it's okay to accuse me of being a Zionist agent working for the Israeli government and its okay to indict and disparage an entire community based on alleged geographical location and ethnicity. These are some of the constructive messages your buddies left on the discussion page. Yet you remain silent. I thought better of you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Romac. I have always operated under the impression that if someone's editing is detrimental to the article the best place to bring it up was on that article's talk page and have done so. The recent arbitration enforcement request against me led to a 6 month restriction (I'll try to make it indefinite) on how to conduct myself. I asked the closing admin for some clarification and it essentially boils down to no personal attacks and keeping the talk page as a place to discuss content. Your recent edit there could be easily viewed as something that would have been better on a user talk page or noticeboard. It was worded in a way that spits in the face of assuming good faith and was less than civil. Just to keep a precedent and making sure all is square, I'll be reporting comments like this if I see them.Cptnono (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cpt, first I've heard of such a restriction, thanks for the heads up and agree we should all remember to focus on the content not the editor. Plenty of issues should be dealt with on those Israel-Palestine pages, but focus and civility are undoubtedly a good place to start. I will say I find you reasonable and relatively balanced in approach, sure the restriction will not be a problem for you. Maybe a good point is that it sends a message to others. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 06:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So I'm a liar now. Stop the drama RomaC. And you obviously don't ignore me since you just responded to a comment I made (that had nothing to do with you on a talk page that had nothing to do with you) yesterday. Feel free to ignore me now though. Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Gaza lead and other issues

Hi there Roma. Assuming we can come to agreement on the lead (which seems to have generated other controversies beyond our dispute), is there a way we can come to consensus on the other issues? I'm willing to work with you and we can resolve this in a matter of minutes.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Contentious Edits

First off, did you notice that I corrected a spelling mistake [3] in the lead? You were so quick to revert me that you didn't even take notice of it. By the way, it still reads "expiri." If that's an actual word, then I'm sorry for correcting it to "expiration."

Second, if you want to leave it as a battle between Israel and the Gaza Strip, do so. I really don't care. My reason for the change is as follows. Israel and Hamas are entities whereas the Gaza Strip is a geographical location. Entities interact with each other. They make war, peace, engage in commerce, etc. Therefore, I thought it made more sense to state that the war was between Israel and Hamas as opposed to a war between Israel and The Gaza Strip.

As an illustration, Israel fought a war with Syria in 1967 in the Golan Heights vicinity. The war was between Israel and Syria, not Israel and the Golan. Similarly, she battled Egypt in Sinai and the Gaza Strip. The battle was between Israel and Egypt, not Israel and Sinai/Gaza Strip.

But if you want to leave it as is, I have no objection. I just think it's a poor phrasing. Similarly, if you want to leave the spelling mistake as is, by all means do so.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I read Cordesman's 96 page report. Perhaps the word "exhaustive" should have been omitted. No objection to your revert on that ground. I do object to your revert and rephrasing of his quotes. The quotes that I cited were accurate and reflective of the article's tone but I would have no objection to adding and incorporating your quotes to the ones I cited.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Expiry?" dem words are just to fancy fer common folk like me.

The war wasn't between Kadima and Hamas. There was a coalition of parties that included Kadima at the helm. Moreover, the war had the support of Likud and the opposition and there was broad consensus for the war within Israel. Therefore, it was Israel that went to war. Israel did not wage war against the Gaza Strip. It waged war against the entity that controlled the Gaza Strip, Hamas. But like I said, I don't care. If you'd like to keep the incorrect and poor phrasing, fine by me.

Concerning Goldstone and Cordesman; Obviously, Goldstone's report carries greater political ramifications but in terms of reliability and credibility, Cordesman wins the day. Goldstone's report, sanctioned by the likes of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Cuba (all human rights champions), was motivated by a political agenda and had nothing to do with human rights. His team was composed of people who had already expressed the view that Israel committed war crimes before seeing any evidence (Christine Chinkin). He deemed credible witnesses who had on previous occasions declared that Israel imported sex gum into Gaza to corrupt the morals of the youth. He relied on (actually cut and pasted) reports compiled by Marc Garlasco who just happens to have had a Nazi fetish.

By contrast, Cordesman had no agenda and wasn't on the UNHRC payroll. He presented an analytical, in-depth, unbiased report and laid out the facts, bare and dry. So in terms of credibility, Cordesman's report is head and shoulders over Goldstone's.

Just as an aside, Goldstone's report will die in the Security Council. The most that Israel's enemies can hope for is a General Assembly resolution that Israel committed war crimes and that will just be symbolic like the 1975 "Zionism is Racism" resolution.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

59 (number)

Hi. I'd like to ask you for the 3rd opinion for this edit which I reverted as non-notable, but it has been added again (by different IP address) with no comment. Although it is listed in this article as a notable, I doubt whether it should be in the 59 (number) article. Best wishes. --Tomaxer (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Regards. --Tomaxer (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange

I find it strange that utilizing the caps lock feature merits a response from you but engaging in racial profiling does not. respectfully, cordially, courteously, sincerely--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Alleged POV edits

Those aren't my words. They are those of a Commentary magazine columnist. In any event, do you have another way to describe wide-spread desertion and a lopsided kill ratio in Israel's favor? If yes, I'm open to suggestions.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There's been lots of fighting lately. I'll take the first step. If you want me to self revert the offending sentence, I'll do it. Respectfully--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

u stalking me now?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to, your edits find me! Cheers, RomaC (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Karameh: Let's see 156 dead Fatah members and another 141 captured. Eighty-four Jordanian soldiers KIA against 27 Israeli. Oh and I almost forgot, the entire Fatah base was obliterated! Yup sounds like the Israelis lost that one, NOT! Can I ask you in all seriousness, how do you define victory? Seems like we had the same discussion regarding the Gaza ops where the IDF scored a 100 to 1 kill ratio over the enemy and you were arguing that it was plausible that Hamas actually won! So please, pray tell, how would victory be defined in the make-believe, dream world of RomaC? Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A stalker, relentless POV pushing reverter and now a tag-teamer. Wow! Terrific! looks like you've learnt well from your mentor, MUA.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

reply

@Jaakobou: p.s. love the "questionable" title. - Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I-P sanctions

Hey RomaC! Could you give me all the links you can surrounding the I-P sanctions? Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any action we can take against JG for the edits he makes on the article in disregard of the fact that there is an ongoing dispute in the article? --Sherif9282 (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Get a load of this. Tag-teaming! --Sherif9282 (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem edit discussed on talk:israel

Hi, Do you know what kind of distribution of opinion is needed for consensus? It looks like the balance would be something like 6-3 or 7-3 in favour of making the edit, is that enough? The opposing editors appear to not be engaged in an actual discussion, and just aim to block consensus. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello RomaC! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 943 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Bojoura - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

nb 1

I know, I know. I agree. I just went through the article on Music of Israel and changed all the footnotes that were not references to nb format (before this discussion, I didn't know that this was something you could do).

But what to do? Why bang your head against the wall, especially when there is virtually no chance that any casual reader of Israel will understand the colossal importance of, or even notice, the difference between [1] and [nb 1].

Now the lead is a different matter. That is something we can improve. That is something we can revise to more closely reflect the slurpy, slimy truth of Middle East politics.

That is why I focused on the lead, and suggested we ignore the infobox. You do what you can. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "tag-teaming"

Yes I totally agree. Unfortunately though I've been busy lately, which is why JG has gone on an editing rampage. I like and really respect your reasoning, so it'd be great if you could stick around with this article. This biased POV pushing is intolerable. Respectfully, Sherif9282 (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Joltinjoe56 comments

I do not share any IP with the user nor do I know who this user is. It does appear that this user is new and he/she left a comment in the "archive" section on the Yom Kippur War discussion page. Judging by the comment that he/she left, it looked as though it should have left in the "infobox" section where the comment had more relevance. I therefore pasted it there but the comment still remains in the "archive" section as the last comment on the discussion page. I clicked on this user's talk page out of curiosity and it looked as though it was a recently opened account. In any event, I pasted a beginners tutorial on his/her talk page.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't change or remove anything.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the history for the talk page to get a clearer picture of what you were talking about. I do not know who this IP address belongs to nor am I familiar with the edits made by this IP.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a misunderstanding. JG moved the editor's comments elsewhere, and the bot attributed this new edit to JG, assuming he written the comment. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Makes sense. RomaC (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Scrupulosity

Thanks for taking the time to weigh in there with a third opinion; this sort of work must be time-consuming, difficult and infrequently appreciated! Things seem to be progressing more collaboratively now, and I'm appreciative that your feedback did not further aggravate the rocky start there. (I've been called much worse than "baby" in the past :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel

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 15:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier (2)

Hello RomaC. I protected the article because the dispute involved several editors. Having taken that action, I shouldn't have blocked Mbz1 as well. I have unblocked Mbz1. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's widely acknowledged that the version of any article that's been protected is The Wrong Version.

I'm concerned that lifting the page protection will lead to more edit-warring, so I'm reluctant to do so. Of course, as you wrote, you can bring the question to WP:RFUP.

If your specific complaint is that the cartoon should be removed, I recommend that you use the {{editprotected}} template on the article's Talk page to make that request. That will give all interested editors the opportunity to comment. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#View_by_MZMcBride

You placed a comment on this proposal in the "Neutral" secion, but you labelled it as "Oppose". Did you intend to have this in the oppose section or are you neutral?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

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)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Diffs?

Hi RomaC,

I'm still waiting for diffs regarding your accusations against me; see here.

okedem (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Jiujistuguy

Hi RomaC. Thanks for your message.

As you know, the issues related to Israel and Palestine raise very strong emotions, both online and off-line. Part of the problem here at Wikipedia is that many editors appear to have lined up on one side of the dispute or the other, and they seem unwilling to consider other editors' viewpoints or suggestions. At times, they may seem to be engaging in advocacy on behalf of their position.

If you feel that Jiujistuguy has stepped outside the bounds of normal editing, inasmuch as there is any "norm" in the articles related to Israel/Palestine, I think the appropriate place to bring a complaint is WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. That gives Jiujistuguy an opportunity to respond to your complaint, and it gives other editors a chance to comment if they'd like.

Before you file a complaint about Jiujistuguy, though, consider your own behavior. In the past, both editors' actions have come under scrutiny at WP:AE. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my message seemed to bring into question your edit history. I'm not familiar with your past contributions, and I didn't mean to suggest anything about them.

My point was simply to warn you that when an editor brings a complaint to WP:AE, other editors pick apart the complainant's edit history in a game of "Gotcha!" That's something to consider before filing an enforcement request. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you conspire here? There is clearly an attempt to force political opinions into en-wp. All you need to do is check the talk page and the nature of contributions of the G-3: Harlan, Tiamut and Nableezy. Why do you cooperate with this trend? Would you like Wikipedia to turn into a political forum? This is what currently happen. DrorK (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The 3R rule does not apply when there is a clear attempt to "hijack" an article. Any Wikipedian is entitled to defend an article from an orchestrated attempt to make an article "a private mention", especially when there are significant suspicions that the motivations are purely political, and do not result from a genuine controversy about the content. I pointed out to many errors and biases on the articles, and proved them in details. The discussion went on for a long time, and these group of three did everything possible to avoid reaching consensus or acknowledge their errors. This group has also violated a consensus decision to have only one article entitled Proposals for a Palestinian state, and re-initiated the article making it a political pamphlet. Nableezy was only recently blocked for messing up issues related to Middle Eastern issues. I really don't see why these three receive so much sympathy with regard to this case. We are not talking formalities here, this is a serious thing that goes to the very credibility of WP. DrorK (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Back in action

Hey RomaC!

Love to see you join in at the Yom Kippur War. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey there!

Don't take this the wrong way, but this was unnecessary. I for one believe the article has deteriorated the past couple of months or more. However, comments like these, acting like "others" do (you know who I'm referring to), doesn't achieve anything. At the least, it doesn't improve the article, nor furthers your POV. Let's work to improve this article, and while we're at it, keep to better standards. Respectfully, --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Israeli military participating in Gaza war

Hi, I noticed your frustration with the clearly absurd notion that IDF had only 20K troops in the war. I don't have the time right now to research it, but I recommend you see if you can find some citation of not just the invasion force (which there is a citation for) but a mention of what proportion of the IDF was called-up/supporting the war. My guess is there was a major call-up of reserves or other concentration of forces (maybe you could at least get the Navy and Airforce involved), although this was planned as a surprise attack so you may not find much until after the war was underway. Let me know if you don't find a RS and I can help look. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm fine with your change to total troop strength for both sides; I'm glad you have refs for that. I looked for a while but couldn't find active participants, though I did find this about calling up an additional "tens of thousands" of reservists: Haaretz. You also expressed interest in comparative weaponry and I came across this columbia international affairs online. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Other response

I am assuming we can find estimates on defensive forces. I haven't looked hard but agree it would be problematic if there isn't something available. There actually was an attempted border incursion according to SeanHolyland's recent PDF. I doubt the numbers were big and I'm sure if they even got across so that really was just added in to my discussion over there for clarification. Units involved is the parameter. For Israel that appears to me as guys going in. Those mobilized to defend the borders should realistically be included if we have a source.

For the IDF, "#-#" or even adding "(est)" works fine. Presenting the info as if over 100k troops went in is just to much of a concern. Hardware is still a good idea.Cptnono (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Steady as she goes

Not to sure about the Nahum Shahaf issue. If it deserves discussions, perhaps highlight it on the talk page?

Re SlimVirgin - I don't doubt that she put allot of effort into Al-Durrah. I don't dispute that the article is mostly good. What frustrates me is that a number of editors have objected to just two minor sentences in the lede, and she outright refuses to any changes and simply edit wars other peoples' contributions. I think this is very unfortunate.

Please do comment here, even if only briefly.

Thanks for your message. It's interesting to hear your perspective. NickCT (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

reply from DiverDave

@DiverDave:

Sorry for the delay in my reply. I have just returned from an overseas mission, where I had only intermittent access to the internet. Thanks again for your intervention. DiverDave (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

reply

@Jaakobou: Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You will cease

And you will do so now, or run the risk of taking a richly deserved block. I'm free to rease any messages I like on my talk page; you are not free to harass me with your plaintive POV concerns. Thank you for your cooperation, and do feel more than free to delete this. IronDuke 15:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing to hide, I don't delete anything from my talk page, ever. Of course you can continue to delete things from your talk page if you choose, that's a difference between us. Do not threaten me, please. Hope you are here for the project, respectfully, but please don't issue ultimatums on my talk page, you can hide whatever comments you like from your Talk page but I do not do so on mine, so either be a mensch and engage in open communication, which is welcome, or else back off. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the difference between us is that you edit-warred to insert your POV plea onto my talk page, after I asked you multiple times not to. That's not something I would do here on your talk page. And I wasn't threatening you, sorry if I gave that impression. I was telling you a thing that would happen if you persisted. Wisely, you have desisted. I think being here for the project is a good thing: you might consider that more fully before you start goading and annoying working editors. Thanks. IronDuke 16:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, just saw you left yet another combative message on my talk. If you want to get blocked, there are many ways to go about it. Can you think of one that doesn't involve me? Your interest is flattering, but ultimately annoying. Stop. Last warning. IronDuke 16:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok Ironduke, I respond to you here because you immediately delete my comments on your talk page. Anyway you are welcome here, I have nothing to hide, and I will never delete what you or anyone writes :-) Hope you can comply with Wikipedia policy in your edits on Nahum Shahaf instead of trying to include totally unsourced content, then there will be no problems between us. Cheers 16:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the welcome, and I'll leave your sharply inaccurate comments about the article in question to the relevant talk page. Once more, with feeling, and for the record: Never ever leave anything on my talk page, for any reason. I trust that is crystal clear to you now. IronDuke 16:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope all of this is settled now, but be aware that it is very rude to revert the removal of one's comments from another's talk page. Please respect others' rights to put limits on their willingness to engage with you. I trust there will be no further problems which require administrator intervention. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, admin, and I continue to welcome everyone's comments here, no problem. But Ironduke, if you want to challenge me, again, be a mensch and take it to admin for real, but don't hide my comments from from your page then come round here spitting threats -- it's inglorious mate, dunno if you'll see this as I'm now disinclined to post on your talk, anyway, again, hope you can edit policy-compliant regarding the I-P sanctions, that would help, cheers! RomaC (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Mensch? I don't think that word means what you think it means, mate. I won't be "hiding" your comments from my talk again, because you won't be making any comments there, will you? I have your talk on my watchlist now, and can respond here to personal issues (which I'm guessing, lessons learned, you won't feel the need to introduce again). Anything related to Shahaf can go on that talk page. If you can edit without baiting people you disagree with, that would help! Cheers. IronDuke 17:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, no, IronD, I'll make comments on your Talk page no more, as you delete them and then run and complain to admins! So what's the point? But you're always welcome here, no problem, here for the project. And, I know well what "mensch" means, dunno why you'd think I didn't. Let's see, you know what "schmuck" means, no? Let's vocabulary! Cheers, RomaC (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And now childish taunting? Your getting lightly slapped down over your harrassment of me seems to have further enraged you, despite your ostensibly contrite remarks on Wehwalt's page. Perhaps you should disengage from the whole subject for a bit. IronDuke 18:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, here it seemed you wanted to compare our Yiddish. So whatzit boss, you can question my vocabulary, but I can't yours? And you can write on my Talk, but I can't on yours? You know, this sucks. Tell you what, can you do me a favour? Return to Nahum Shahaf already, and make your case for including your totally unsourced content over content sourced to numerous reliable sources. See you there, ok? If you don't want to move, let's do a RfC and see what uninvolved editors think, ok? No need to fight, can we deal with Wiki, please? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't question your "vocabulary," I questioned your use of the word "mensch." Still seems odd to me, and odder still that you'd issue a childish taunt in reply. And yes, I can write on your talk but you can't write on mine. Why is that? Because you repeatedly edit-warred in your comment, after I repeatedly told you not to. You'd only have to tell me one time not to post here, and I'd stop posting here. And BTW, I've been an editor a long time, working in highly controversial areas, battling trolls, thugs, POV warriors and worse, and in all that time, to the best of my recollection, I never had to ban anyone from my talk page. Think about it. See you back at NS. IronDuke 18:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah you said I didn't know what a word meant, that's questioning word usage, ie, vocabulary -- anyway this little spat means more to you than me, happy to drop it go away a winner. Now, as you can see I don't "ban" any unpleasant or dissenting opinions from my Talk and I've been on Wiki just about as long as you have so I decline the dick-swinging contest ok? YES, see you on NS but it's not a busy article and editing may not work with you and me, you reverted just about every edit I made. So I would say we will probably have to get uninvolved editors to have a look wouldn't you agree? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I know how long you've been here. Genitalia was not on my mind when I made my comment. I referenced my own tenure to reinforce the point that I've seen `em come and go on my talk page, and I never had to do to anyone else what I did to you. Then I invited you to think about that for a sec. I hope you did. I also don't feel that questioning whether someone is using a word correctly ought to invite a childish personal attack, but we may disagree on this point. Finally, I have already said I am happy to open an RfC, though I find they often generate little interest. I would remind you again, please formulate the question as neutrally and blandly as you can. IronDuke 19:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Just so you're aware RomaC, Wehwlat is considered an involved admin for the purposes of I-P enforcement. In his admin nomination, he pledged not to take admin action in the I-P arena due to concerns raised by editors (me among them) regarding his impartiality. You should check out his edit, for example, to Rachel Corrie where he an ID made quite a mockery of any form of NPOV treatment of her death. Anyway, if he does issue you a warning again, kindly remind him of his admin nom pledge. He should be giving warnings to you or anyone else in that domain. Tiamut^talk 20:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I do seem to recall you and possibly other inveterate POV warrior extorting some kind of a pledge from Wehwalt, presumably because you feared he would interfere with that very POV-pushing. Two things spring to mind. 1) Informing Roma that s/he is obliged to abide by Wiki norms (having nothing per se to do with IP) would be not merely his right, but his duty. Second, he doesn't have to abide by any pledge made in an RfA. None of that is binding. It may be that it should be (though this example surely argues against it) but there it is. (And PS: things seemed to have died down on this thread. It was very good of you to come along and stoke the flames again.) IronDuke 21:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You're funny cat Iron Duke. I'm not stoking anything. The embers were still burning as you were the last one to comment here less than two hours before I made my comment above. That RomaC exercised restraint by allowing you to have the last word is a credit to her, to be sure.

I commmented here to let RomaC know that Wehwalt made the pledge not to be involved in I-P article enforcement in his RfA. I didn't extort it from him. He might have chosen not to make it and take his chances and see how he fared. As it is, he volunteered to make that pledge. I view it as binding. If I ever see him take admin action in the I-P arena, I will consider a breach of that pledge, and will suggest that his admin tools be withdrawn from him for falsely advertising himself in the nom.

Have a nice evening. Tiamut^talk 22:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm more funny than you can possibly imagine. Funnier even than Nableezy, and that's saying something. I cannot speak for Wehwalt, but it appears to me that he may have felt that there would be a crapflood of pro P POV warriors coming to oppose him if he didn't pledge not to take admin action in that area (which AFAIK he hasn't, and which actions on this talk page wouldn't be). You can view anything you like as binding, doesn't make it so. This has come up in the past, where admins have made promises in RfA, then not kept them. The WP answer has always been, "Oh, well." Have a nice evening yourself. IronDuke 22:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss instead of edit warring, dude.

Dude, I was surprised by your actions, feel free to contribute to this discussion. Warm regards, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate the above sentiment in regards to a living person's biography. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Agada responded on the article Talk and your Talk, Jaak dunno what you refer to sorry. RomaC (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Rockets

Do you mean the rocket template or the line graph? Forgot all about those. Feel free to remove both if there is no consensus by now. I don't feel strongly about both either way.Cptnono (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Argh. And here is the lazy part. I removed an image to make room for the template and can't find it now. Let me know if you are familiar with the name of the rockets launching from over the city image. Nevermind, page loaded and there it is.Cptnono (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. The lazy part was in regards to fiddiling with those other two images. I didn't want to adjust them again if consensus was going to swing towards keep. It looks like people weren't interested in it so screw it. As I said, I don't feel strongly about it but wanted to make sure I wasn't rash in its original removal. And I believe it is all squared away now.Cptnono (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And I should have paid more attention to the timestamps at the talk page. Shitty on my part even commenting over there again. Have a good night/morning and I'm sure we can find something to bicker about later.Cptnono (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I know it must be shitty having the finger pointed you is. Especially on the talk page like that. I am not saying it is your fault but something similar did happen. You made a quick series of edits that cascaded into edit wars over a few different aspects. I honestly don't recall what they were. You only did some minor reverting but your edits were the catalyst. I actually started a talk page seciton on it title "Romac's recent edits" or something but deleted it within minutes because Sean or someone else had already started a discussion on it. I'll try to find it just so you can see my example. Again, it was not your fault but these are potentially similar circumstances.Cptnono (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Rash edits with little consensus sought after and subsequent edit waring Oct 7-8 2009 led to the lock that lasted until Oct 15. That led to a second lock quickly enough. There was a negative shift after you made those edits. Not saying you are to blame for other people edit warring. Cptnono (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nahum Shahaf

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nahum Shahaf, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahum Shahaf. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ← George ^talk 09:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

...for your help at Jerusalem. Could you also have a look at Old City (Jerusalem)? A situation there involving a similarly irate editor has me wondering how to proceed. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP vios

Roma, per your request I have asked for a pair of admin eyes here. I am not going to edit WP any more tonight, so you have an opportunity to restore your BLP-violating comments, but I would urge you not to. IronDuke 03:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(responding here as Ironduke has "banned" me from his Talk page) None of the other editors on Talk:Nahum_Shahaf seemed to share your opinion that my comments were "BLP-violating", so I went to AN/I, an uninvolved administrator there also saw no problems with my comments and warned you for disruptive editing, i.e. your repeated removal of my comments, and will block you if you continue. I could ask you to apologize for the disruptive behavior and to strike your accusations that I violated BLP, but I sense that you would do neither. I realize that you have something against me personally, so I simply advise you to henceforth abide policy and I think then we won't have any more problems, I will strive to do the same. Regards, RomaC (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard re Nahum Shahaf

Please note that I have raised the issue of Jaakobou's problematic editing of Nahum Shahaf at the BLP noticeboard, at WP:BLP/N#POV and sourcing problems with Nahum Shahaf, as a possible preliminary to an arbitration enforcement request under the article probation regime currently in force on Israel-Palestine articles. If you have any views on the matter, please feel free to contribute to the BLP/N discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary?

Did you actually look at my edit or did you just assume?Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was purely aesthetic and kept the number of active troops and the range in. Even if you had a problem with it, why did you revert the whole edit? It doesn't matter too much since you are edit warring and are being reported for it. If ou would have just simmered down like I had recommended I am sure something could have been worked out.Cptnono (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting to contain a POV warrior user:Jiujitsuguy is what I'm doing and you know it. Blanking is vandalism, I'm reverting blanking. Disappointed by your reaction, this article has gone into tailspin before and it would be better if editors on "both sides" took care of their own cavalier editors so that those with a pro-Wikipedia bias would not get sucked into "edit-warring". RomaC (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with his blanking but it was a content dispute worthy of discussing in more detail. He had some reasoning.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:RomaC reported by User:Cptnono (Result: ).Cptnono (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: I disagree that we have reached a compromise but like I mentioned over at the noticeboard if you are taking off on your own for a few hours then that should be good enough. I won't tinker with it for a a day or so since that would be bad form and so that can be involved in the discussion. I won't be reverting anyone though just because that was too heated.Cptnono (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

• Gaza War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am contacting you because you have made an excessive number of reverts at this article in recent days, including more than three in the last day. In such circumstances I would normally issue a short block for edit-warring. However, your recent edits suggest that a compromise is being reached. Consequently, I am simply advising you to make no further reversions and, additionally, I am adding below information on the arbitration judgment with respect to articles in this topic area.

CIreland (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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. CIreland (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Violation of WP:3RR at Gaza War

You have made 4 reverts in 24 hours. As you cited WP:3RR earlier on my talk page, I trust that you are aware of its status as a bright line rule. I am giving you the opportunity to self-revert your violation. Otherwise, I will be seeking admin action. Breein1007 (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see someone has already taken care of this. I still advise you to self-revert if you want to avoid unnecessary trouble. Breein1007 (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I hear you. I assume it is sourcable. He needs to find them fast. Thanks for chilling out for a little bit. I am going to give JJG a hard time now.Cptnono (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

All I did as fix the formatting mistake of another editor. Do it yourself.Cptnono (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like it you need to ask the other editor or make a mention on the talk page. I do see you reverted another edit though so you although I appreciate you restricting yourself you seem to be going out of your way to make some point.Cptnono (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. No.Cptnono (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There was no mistake. Someone made an intentional edit and you disagree with it. You need to take it up with that editor or see the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Chill

Dude, you've referred to me as an SPA and a vandal. I don't take it personally but I suggest you chill. You sound like you're on the verge of a nervous breakdown--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Answered this on your Talk. Dude. RomaC (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Roma, Don't mis-state what RSN said. They most certainly did not say no. And even if they did say no (which they did not) they act on an advisory level and nothing more. Second, if it was in their arsenal just 7 months prior to conflict, it most certainly was in their arsenal during the war unless of course they donated their weapons to the Salvation Army or Toys for Tots. Third, it is your source that's questionable. The writer mere rehashes what he thinks Israel may have used during the war and he also primarily relies on pre-war stats. In no way does he state the quanity of weapons deployed during the war and to suggest otherwise is misleading in the extreme. Fourth, the "Instute for Palestine studies" is itself a biased organization that goes to great lengths to vilify Israel. Fifth, I'll not stand idly by while you post a lopsided, skewed table aimed at portraying the conflict as David vs Goliath. Your bias is transparent and clear for all to see. On the Palestinian side you make mention of "steel artillery" (whatever the hell that means) as if to say that all Hamas had was a few metal pipes. I have an idea, why don't you include slingshots and fire crackers for the Hamas side and put down thermo-nuclear weapons for the Israelis. Sure they didn't use it but they could have. Get real, Roma.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Listen up. I don't have to justify myself to anybody, least of all a biased, cherry-picking POV pusher like yourself. But since you brought it up, I've made contributions in other areas as well but you've conveniently omitted these. So typical of you Roma.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a robot count of your edits:

1. 174 - Yom Kippur War
2. 147 - Gaza War
3. 76 - 2006 Lebanon War
4. 21 - Battle of Karameh
5. 19 - Battle of Yad Mordechai
6. 16 - Yasser Arafat
7. 8 - Six-Day War
8. 3 - IAI Kfir
9. 2 - Winograd Commission
10. 2 - Egypt
11. 2 - 1982 Lebanon War
12. 2 - Deir Yassin massacre

No more than 2 edits total to any other article.

I went to RS/N for a neutral opinion. "...a report published before an event can't be a reliable source for what happened during that event" -- I see no ambiguity in that but you are right it is only an advisory thing, too bad you seem immune to advice. "Steel artillery rockets" is the verbatim Wiki definition. Slingshots and rocks is a good suggestion. And one of the world's best-equipped armies vs. a blockaded territory; 1,300 killed vs 13 killed (half by friendly fire), yeah I can see where you get that David and Goliath metaphor. My bias, by the way, is pro-Wikipedia. That's what my six years here and user contributions reveal to neutral editors. I'm not here to push a POV, but to oppose those who are here to push a POV. That's how we met! Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerning your 1,300 to 13 comment, that’s testament to the proficiency of the IDF and the cowardly behavior of the Hamas “warriors” who ran from the battlefield, chose to hide under Shifa Hospital and dressed as women to save their own skin but made sure to declare “victory” from their exiled HQ Damascus. Don’t make me laugh. Second, RSN also said this about IICC, “However, professional intelligence estimate such as this (IICC) will always be notable opinions. So this report is reliable on what weapons had been used against the Israeli (Sic).” As usual you omitted this quote and I expected nothing less from you. The one editor who expressed some reservations stated that it should be used but with attribution and he further qualified his statement by saying, “WP:RSN performs strictly an advisory function; a consensus formed here is not enforceable.” At least three editors on Gaza discussion pages concur with my edit but most oppose yours. I suggest you self-revert and rid the Gaza article of embellishment and falsehood.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Pls see my response on discussion pg. Respectfully--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Moses Horns

Highly respectable dude was confused by a word taken from Exodus And they have lake horns now I'd say he was emitting rays. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Content disputes are not vandalism and should not be dealt with automatic tools. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This is kind of strange. I think we discussed this and that sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey :)

Hey RomaC,

Thanks for the post on my talk page :). I think I welcomed the block more than anything, since it gave me a much needed break from Wiki editing. Like you, I'm concerned about JJG's edits, particularly on the Yom Kippur War and Gaza war articles. However, I've taken your advice, took a deep breath, and now I'm going to give collaboration a chance on the article's talk page, hopefully with positive results. Your contribution is of course, welcome, and I'd be happy to assist you in any projects. Again, thanks for the message, and I hope I'll be talking to you again soon :). ElUmmah (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

Collateral damage for the Palestinian side is already specified in the lede.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I am more concerned with word choice -- "collateral" for Israeli attacks and "civilian" for Gazan attacks does not seem neutral, anyway continue at the article talk thanks. RomaC (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert

You made a change and it was reverted. I recommend you keep it on the talk page for now or seek dispute resolution instead of making another revert since this is how edit wars have started in the past.Cptnono (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your partial revert was the problem. So nice work forcing it back in and edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me but this is not correct -- reverting content removal is not "forcing it back in". Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaza War

Thanks. Yeah, I suppose you could say he has an agenda. The problem with the I/P area is that almost everyone has an agenda. I think JJG is wrong there. But he is wrong in a common way. We often get users at Gaza War that say basically the same thing, wanting the title to include their preferred description. In any other situation one should AGF, and presumably he will change his mind or just be outnumbered. In the I/P area it looks like on wrong editor is usually joined by others of their "side" and it becomes more of a tug-of-war. That's why I don't really edit I/P articles. But even the tug-of-war shouldn't be the end of the world. Like you've said, there's dispute resolution if editors can't talk things out. I actually enjoy WP because I find the balancing act interesting. How do you include something you might not agree with but is a fair point. I think it helps me to learn how to be more objective. I don't really understand why so many editors just want to steam-roll over everyone and put things into articles just to reflect their own vision. That sounds boring to me. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Thank you for your concern to this matter. The YouTube clip, however, is from the official channel of infolivetvenglish, a Jerusalem-based media outlet.--RM (Be my friend) 02:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the invite and the advice. The information was very helpful. Im a little new to this but noticed a few inaccuracies which were not fair to the objectivity of the article.--Truesade (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HumanitarianHeart -- Zero^talk 07:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Free Gaza

Thanks for the check.Cptnono (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaza aid shipment

Hi RomaC,

I'm going to undo the recent changes you made to the Lead here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_clash&diff=365422271&oldid=365422119

There has been a lot of discussion on the best way to maintain neutrality and the consensus seems to be the use of neutral terms to describe the ships. Rather than Humanitarian Aid ships, or 'Armada of hate'.

The reason for this is that there is an argument over what the true intentions of the convoy were ... to deliver aid ... or a publicity stunt.

Please don't take this personally, I have been changing the both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian edits.

I recommend you join the Discussion page if you would like to change the current agreed-upon tone of the article.

Cheers! Zuchinni one (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the passive voice ... I'm a bit unsure what you mean. Currently it says the ships were seized. Zuchinni one (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean Zuchinni one (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Zuchinni one (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Zuchinni is a sock puppet. The account made a few token edits and then swarmed on this article and is amazingly knowledgeable of Wikipedia rules despite a few token edits before the past two days. You can ignore what Zucchini says as they are not a legitimate user like we are. Ruy Lopez (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi RomaC! It's weird being called a sock puppet ... but whatever. I'm writing because you recently changed the Lead from "Break Blockade" to "Deliver Aid". There has been some dispute about which term to use because arguments have been made that the real goal of the convoy was to garner media attention, since both Egypt and Israel offered alternative ways to deliver the aid. I suggest we use BOTH terms since that covers all the bases. Something like: "planned to break the blockade and deliver aid.".

Thoughts?

I'm going to add this to the discussion section. Zuchinni one (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that we shouldn't try to get into their heads, but they did state that they were planning to run the blockade ... so that's a fact not an assumption of intentions. Zuchinni one (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

BBC confirmation

Hi Roma,

Here is the BBC article that confirms passengers fired. This was reported by a journalist who witnessed the events.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10203333.stm

Please revert your undo as per the above.

Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please also check Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#How_to_deal_with_the_very_large_Mavi_Marmara_boarding_section we are trying to create a list of events that are confirmed by both sides. If you feel this is not confirmed please add your thoughts :) Cheers Zuchinni one (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

At a minimum the phrase "a statement denied by the activists and reporters present" needs to change to reflect that some reporters present DID confirm gunfire by the passengers. Perhaps this could be done by removing "and reporters present", but since some reporters did refute it, that might not work either. Thoughts? Zuchinni one (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As per your request this is directly from the article

"But something more serious was happening. The reporter states that the protesters "attempted to wrest away [the soldiers'] weapons". They got hold of one handgun, he says, when one soldier, seen on the video, was thrown from the upper deck on to the lower."

Zuchinni one (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The mention of the video was in relation to a video included in the BBC article. This was a direct witness statement by a reporter on the scene. My main objection to your edit is that it implies that ALL the reporters witnessing the events denied that the passengers used firearms. This is simply untrue. Please let me know what you think of my suggestion above to remove "and reporters present" or offer an alternative wording.

Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with your assessment. The way the sentence currently reads implies that no reporters present confirmed the passengers took away the soldiers' guns. But at least one reporter did. So please make a suggestion to somehow reflect this. If you like:

"According to Israeli authorities and some reporters present, activists attacked its troops with live ammunition from pistols wrested from soldiers, a statement denied by the activists and other reporters present.[22][23]"

Zuchinni one (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard back so I will add, what is hopefully an uncontroversial change as mentioned above. I will also link the change to both of our talk pages. Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

More confirmation of weapons seized by passengers, this time by flotilla organizers, but not of those weapons being used against soldiers. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-flotilla-organizer-admits-activists-seized-weapons-from-israeli-soldiers-1.293929

Zuchinni one (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:DoostdarWKP#Not_Some just made a change to the wording that seems to make a lot of sense to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366460954&oldid=366459999 I hope this is to your satisfaction as well. Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Valuable work at Gaza flotilla raid. ManasShaikh (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Opinion

Please provide your opinion about the lead in Gaza Flotilla raid whether the fact that the activists were killed in close range should be reported. Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#close_range_shootings Here Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.243.106 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Deir Yassin vs. Hadassah Massacre

There are many differences between the incident at Deir Yassin and the Hadassah Massacre and comparison of the two is erroneous. First, the identities of those killed at Mt. Scopus were known and the number was never in doubt, never fluctuated. 77 doctors, nurses and medical students (who treated Arabs & Jews alike) were slaughtered and their bodies mutilated beyond recognition.

This stands in marked contrast to Deir Yassin where the body count fluctuated with the day of the week, the weather and whether there was a full moon. Arab propagandists alleged incidents of rape and the purposeful killing of pregnant women. Villagers, who were present, adamantly provided contrary accounts and were silenced when they protested the embellished narrative.

At Deir Yassin, all sources acknowledge that an attempt was made to warn the villagers to flee. Those who ambushed the Mt. Scopus medical convoy never warned the group of impending attack. Moreover, in light of Hadassah’s history of treating both Arabs and Jews, without regard to race, they would have no reason to suspect that they would have been targeted for ambush.

Aside from the fact that the two incidents involved Arabs and Jews and occurred in 1948, there are no similarities between the two. The Hadassah Massacre was pre-meditated butchery of medical staff by a blood-thirsty mob. Deir Yassin was hard-fought urban combat with collateral damage. Respectfully,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

All convoys had armed escorts but marked differences remain between the two incidents as noted above. I'd like to stress that the Hadassah medical personnel were trained to treat all and in fact, treated all, regardless of race or religion. By contrast, the villagers of Deir Yassin partook in the Battle of Kastel and during the weeks preceeding the Battle of Deir Yassin, harassed Jewish traffic and exchanged fire with the Israeli neighborhood of Gival Shaul. Perhaps there were more worthy targets for conquest but Deir Yassin was hardly an innocent bystander. BTW, congrats on your reviewer status--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested

See here. Cheers. IronDuke 00:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Lede

Pls revert your last edit at the lede. That is in fact summary -- the body, obviously, has much more. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me suggest that you keep edits in one place (here, since it started here). Most experienced editors will watch your page after leaving a comment.

Deletions of RS-supported content such as the IPs are vandalism.

I would happily and immediately revert you, for the reason aforesaid. But as the page is in the conflict area these days, I think it better that I ask you to revert. The prior version is indeed summary of the section on her resignation, and reason therefor. Your additional trim does harm. It obfuscates what was said. At the net gain of very few words. I don't see reason for it, quite frankly, under wp:lede, given that the material was already boiled down to such a large extent. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epee, this is unorthodox but I will agree, I'll put here my comments you deleted from your Talk page :

Yes I understand you but will leave that in the lead per WP:BRD if you or others want to revert and discuss that is fine. The reason for resignation is now mentioned in the lead, I'm ok with that and details in the body. By the way I believe your reversion edit summary characterizing the initial change by the IP editor as vandalism might have been questionable? RomaC (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Now, per WP:BRD I would not have replaced this change by another editor if you had not removed it with an edit summary terming it "vandalism"; I prefer to assume good faith. Anyway, I reverted because it seems policy-compliant. As I said you or any other editor can feel free to revert now, but, please, with a policy-based reasoning for doing so. I can't understand by looking at the edit, please, what RS content do you believe was deleted? I see it remains in the body of the article. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I repeat my request for the reasons already stated. It is self evident. What is referred to as res ipsa loquitur. I'm sure you are not asking me to provide the words deleted -- you can easily see them. As already said, it is in fact summary of what is in the body. That is the purpose of the lede. That what you deleted from the lede is in the body -- plus far, far more -- shows that what you deleted is proper lede material. Not the opposite. Again, I ask that you revert.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Obscene comment

In light of your recent asinine, groundless and gratuitous comment on my talk page, your comments on my talk page are no longer welcome and will be reverted. You share this dubious distinction with your indeffed friend, Mr Unsigned Anon--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, is it possible you are fighting so many concurrent battles in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area that you've lost track of all the demons? By the way you are one edit away from WP:3RR and left your after-the-fact content comments in the wrong Talk section on Caroline Glick. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

New

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:RomaC reported by User:Cptnono (BLP edit warring not 3rr) (Result: )Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of sixteen hours for slow-motion edit-warring on Caroline Glick. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 09:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

This is my first block in over five years, was reverting much-of-section blanking done without consensus or discussion by another editor. Anyway will stay off the page for now but have other edits to do, requesting unblock.

Decline reason:

Endorse block. If you are edit-warring with several people then there is a good chance that consensus is not on your side. Since you do not seem to understand the reason for the block, it is maintained.  Sandstein  20:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked, and what I did was wrong. I'm sorry and I've calmed down now. I won't do it again. I'm respectfully asking to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

Block has expired. Closedmouth (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment: Note that RomaC was acting alone against a tag-team of known trouble makers who repeatedly deleted some well-cited text on dubious grounds. Zero^talk 13:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Zero -- can you provide more specifics, so we can better understand your comment? Such as who the "known trouble makers" were, and how we know they were trouble makers? Tx.

Comment: See my note below, which bears on the same behavior, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epee and Tariq. Can one of you point me to policy concerning "slow-motion edit warring"? I see no such term/definition on WP:EW. I reverted two drive-by removals of sourced content that seemed to have Talk consensus (and had been arrived at as a compromise between several editors). I warned the twice-reverting editor about WP:3RR. Soon afterward the content was reverted again, and I stepped back. Two days later I tried to tweak the content a bit and again invited editors to discuss on Talk. What do you suggest I should have done instead? RomaC (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As it says in WP:EW, one does not need to revert four times in twenty-four hours to be blocked for edit-warring. In that sense, because it's not the rapid edit-warring that traditionally ends in a block, I simply called it a "slow motion edit war", a phrase that has been used many times before on Wikipedia.

Your actions during and since your block further assure me that the block was the right move, as you seem to not see the problem, even if you say you do. You reverted three different editors and, as I said on WP:AN3, I found your promise to not edit the article until hearing from Shimeru worthless; Shimeru is an involved editor, admin or not, and she has no right, regardless, to sanction edit-warring. And, yet, since your block ended, you have implied that the block might have been due to some previous content dispute between me and you or that that there was something improper about the procedure just because Cptnono has complained about you before. You have also repeated the discounted point that you never made more than four reverts in twenty-four hours.

So, why, again, do you think the block should be expunged? If you were so worried about maintaining a clean block record, you shouldn't have edit-warred; it's really as simple as that. -- tariqabjotu 12:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I am a bit unsure how to take the message you left. First, you said "Your actions during and since your block further assure me that the block was the right move" but I have not made a single article edit since my block ended.[4] I have been trying to make sense of the block -- I've never been blocked before. More importantly, you said "You have also repeated the discounted point that you never made more than four reverts in twenty-four hours." I said that because I didn't make more than four reverts in twenty-four hours. Please provide Diffs if you maintain that I did. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Actions meaning your desparate attempts to get your block log expunged (as mentioned) and your irrelevant suggestions (as mentioned) as to why you were blocked. That's what that whole paragraph was about. No, I am not arguing you made four reverts within twenty-four hours (ugh, as mentioned); I am saying that it doesn't matter that you didn't, so stop bringing it up. Did you read any part of the comment I left you? -- tariqabjotu 14:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Tariq and thanks for your patience. Yes I read your comment. You characterized my promise to not edit Caroline Glick pending comments from others as "worthless". (Where's the good faith?) Another admin, with whom I had no previous contact and who is far less invested in Israel-Palestine articles than you are or I, had supported my rewrite of a contentious section of the article, as had other editors in Talk. Yes, I reverted section-blanking twice in 24 hours. But it seems from the reasoning you made for my block -- "...I don't care what Shimeru has to say. As far as I can tell, she is involved here in this edit war, and she over-stepped her bounds my protecting a page where she was clearly involved in this dispute. Blatantly improper move." -- that you were pissed at the other admin and I made a convenient target, as you and I have had differences on I-P articles in the past. Do you think it might be useful if editors/admins less invested/partisan regarding I-P articles looked at this dispassionately? And let me say again I realize I could have behaved better when the edit-warring started. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, more unfounded theories and more deflection. No, RomaC, I don't think it would be useful to waste more people's time with this. It was a 16-hour block, for Christ's sake. And your unblock request during the block was declined. And now the block's over. Get over it. -- tariqabjotu 15:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tariqabjotu

Note the above report has been archived here I requested Tariqabjotu not use his admin tools in a topic area (Israel-Palestine) where he was involved and opinionated. Four editors responded requesting he refrain per WP:INVOLVED, but he has ignored this and a day later acted as an admin in another I-P case. Admins who flout policy do not set a good example. RomaC ^TALK 06:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit warring

Hi Roma. The description in your block above of you engaging in slow-motion edit warring mirrors my sense as to what you have been engaging in in the discussion we had above re lede in the Helen Thomas article, and your associated edits. Just wanted to mention that, as I hope it will stop. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epee, responded above. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think that Tariq captured the essence of what slow-motion edit-warring suggested to me, in his above note. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epee, yes I could infer what the term meant, a link to all instances of the phrase on Wiki didn't really help me understand it from a policy standpoint. RomaC ^TALK 12:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Breaking [3rr] is sufficient – but not necessary – to warrant a block for edit warring."WP:3RR
• "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."(emphasis not mine)WP:3RR

Attempting talk after reverting on contentious issues instead of finding an acceptable solution first, ignoring aspects of conversations, reverting the same thing over a long period of time have all come across as edit warring. "How experienced editors avoid being dragged into edit wars" is a sub section of that policy if you truly don't understand why more than one person has accused you of edit warring although you have not breached 3rr. And make sure to not "Borderline" (habitually treading the edge of policy breach or engaging in low-grade policy breach, in order to make it hard to actually prove misconduct). If you have to warn an editor about 3rr when you are reverting yourself, there is a good chance you are also edit warring. I assume that is why the related noticeboard has the disclaimer "Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption." Having a block log sucks but learn from it if possible. I hope this clarifies it.Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, was User:Jiujitsuguy also edit-warring? I'd never been blocked in five years, he's been thrice blocked for edit-warring in the last six months or so, specifically in this topic area. Not really surprising though that you reported me and not him. RomaC ^TALK 02:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

He might have been. But you were the one who pissed me off and quasi edit warring over an extended period on a couple pages (see borderlining up above) has been a trend from you. Acting like an editor who has such a block log after being here 5 years yourself means you might be doing it wrong. Also, Do not excuse what you did with what others did. Learn from it and there shouldn't be any future problem.Cptnono (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono we could discuss for a long time our perspectives on trends on Wikipedia and I think we might even be pals under other circumstances. Look, I can usually steer through the raging POV Warriors on I-P articles, but if my restraint slips with one of them, and you summarily run me to the noticeboards, policy promises me an WP:UNINVOLVED Admin. I'm not delighted when the only Admin on Wiki who has clashed with me on an I-P content debate is waiting there with his gavel. I think you can understand that. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 11:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed something similar to this before. I don't think you are a dick or anything and consider your POV to be similar to mine (leaning one direction but not over the top). I think you have walked a fine line of edit warring more than once and needed to be made aware of it. I also think that you have become more entrenched over time in the topic area over time. I think I have unfortunately. Sucks that you got a block when a 1rr might have worked but I assume the point was made crystal clear with it. I also think that although the principle of a block might suck, you aren't hampered by any additional restrictions so let it be.

In regards to the blocking admin, he brought up a decent point that you said nothing about his block of Breein. Don't blame you, though. And overall, I get your point that he could be considered involved. If your goal with the ANI is to nail him for potentially misusing his tools instead of clearing your name of any wrongdoing then more power to you.Cptnono (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it seems we have both been sucked deeper into the I-P area over time. For the record, I'm not trying to "nail" Tariqabjotu -- I don't seek or expect, nor would I welcome disciplinary action against him. He made a mistake using his admin tools against an editor he'd been involved with in a content dispute in the same topic area. He should have waited or called for an uninvolved admin to look at the report, per policy. He should know that.

I set down the incident at AN/I because I believe policy is even more important in heated topic areas. Like you, Tariqabjotu is generally a fine editor, and for his own protection he must respect policy when it comes to using his admin tools: "Editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have a conflict of interest in conflicts they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." (my emphasis)

Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 12:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, with that chumminess, you almost had me believing you were here for the project. Until you followed up reporting me for "slow-mo edit-warring" with Jiujitsuguy (but not reporting Jiujitsuguy), by reporting Nableezy for "slo-mo edit-warring" with Jiujitsuguy (but not reporting Jiujitsuguy). Seeing through a veneer of neutrality helps save time, I mean why even try to reason with practical intransigence? So from now on I'd prefer Wiki policies over chumminess when you want to discuss content with me please. RomaC ^TALK 01:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You reverted my response which just comes across as petty but I hope you can stop knee-jerking since I doubt you will find edits in the conflicted topic area that are madly contentious. And watch out for the term "boy" since it can have varying interpretations depending on your location (metro v sticks)Cptnono (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't you get it? I see through your game, I have no more respect for you, and I don't care what you have to say. RomaC ^TALK 11:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe

Hi RomaC, I see your block record bothers you a lot. There's a way to get rid of the record. Please take a look here: WP:CLEANSTART, but Roma, it was your first block in 5 years! It is nothing to worry about. Just continue editing as nothing happened. I wish you well.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz, glad you seem to be doing better was concerned about you before. What bothers me is non-policy-compliant use of admin tools in a heated topic area. I can usually deal with the rest. Clean Start is not an option because I just got my custom sig ;- ) Cheers, RomaC ^TALK 10:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Meir Hospital

Hope all is well with you. Just established an article which is not strictly on topic you call "I/P". If you plan to revert, please see again edit summary. I'd like to make it clear that there is no agreement on my side. Fortunately, the ruckus there seems to be calming down. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope the article is still on your watch list, so you could review it as it being updated. Thank you for your review. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

All I'm asking is that an administrator look further into the matter. A group of other users was clearly bullied in march on the articlesfordeletion page into changing the article into its current mutilated form and ended up giving up. It is apparent that my discussions on the talk page will lead to little or no article reform. In response to reasoned out assertions, other users respond that the article "is fine" or add nonsense comments. Once again, it appears that my discussions on the talk page will not lead anywhere with the other editors. Hence, I brought the matter to the administrators page after being blocked by mbz1 who consistently reverted my edit, he reverted out a quote which reasoned out why the the label urban myth was very controversial and two subsection headings which labeled subsections previously unlabeled siting them as pov. He didn't bother to explain why they were pov. Instead, he said its fine as it is. The subsection headings led to better readability for the article and I tried to make them as objective as possible.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Mbz1 never blocked you. It appears you blocked yourself for breaking the rules (engaged in an edit war). And thank you Preciseaccuracy for signing your posts  Davtra  ^(talk) 08:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive and gratuitous comments on other editor's talk pages, as you here. Your comments appear to constitute harassment and intimidation of other editors. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please explain what you are talking about. Are you the editor in question? Have you ever made edits under an IP or other name? thanks, RomaC ^TALK 16:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Doğan's father talked to Milliyet, a reliable newspaper in Turkey

I have used this source in Gaza flotilla raid article: http://www.milliyet.com.tr/furkan-dogan-in-babasi-oglum-amerikan-vatandasi-olduguna-guvenip-yola-cikti-/turkiye/sondakika/06.06.2010/1247396/default.htm. According to Milliyet newspaper, his father says "Benim oğlum sadece ABD vatandaşı. Çifte vatandaş değil. Orada doğdu. Sadece ABD pasaportu taşıyordu. Yapılabilecek tüm şeyleri bu ülkenin yapması gerekiyor", in English "My son is a U.S. citizen only. Not dual citizenship. He was born there. He was just carrying U.S. passport. All the things that can be done should be done by U.S." Some sources in Turkish were claiming he was also a Turkish citizen but these sources did not prove their claims and did not use a speech of Furkan's father. Furkan's father is the man who knows this issue best and a source that does not cite his speech is not as reliable as a source which cite his speech. Kavas (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of MBZ1 violating the three reversion rule

You are mentioned as having been reverted by MBZ1. MBZ1 is accused of violating the three revert rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mbz1_reported_by_User:Binksternet_.28Result:_.29 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

user:mbz1 colluding with user:broccoli

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=372275171

Mbz1 continues to collude with Broccoli. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Art_student_scam#Editors_supporting_the_proposalPreciseaccuracy (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Art scam cover for some unknown operation

RomaC, you strike me as a very reasonable person who can express thoughts clearly. At Talk:Art student scam, you made the most sensible suggestions regarding splitting off that bit about supposed art students caught poking at the DEA, leaving just the confidence trick in place. I do not trust others as much as I trust you to create a new article in a way that will make the topic stick. Interested? Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Binks and welcome back. As your above section head suggests, the article is now about 1) a thing (art student scam) and 2) an event (alleged spying with art sales as a cover). Because some editors want to swing focus one way and some want to swing focus the other way, we end up dealing with questions of both scope and content at the same time, which is not only difficult, but anti-Wikipedia. To resolve this I think we should not keep trying to conflate the thing and the event into one article, instead we should use Wikilinks to connect the relevant parts of two different articles. Both thing and event seem notable enough to pass the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, and both are verifiable through reliable sources etc. So to answer your question, yes I'm interested and I would suggest having two articles.

The first, a reworking of the present article, should be on the thing, i.e. the art sales scam, which a quick search shows has been reported in at least the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and involves not only "perps" claiming to be Israeli. Here the content should deal with the mechanics of the "scam" including types of paintings and the prices and the usual prices of oil paintings in the above markets versus the low prices of oil paintings mass-produced in Thailand, China and elsewhere in Asia. As an aside, I wonder if any (non-OR) sources could be found which address such sales while questioning whether claiming an artwork as one's own even though it was made by another is a "scam" (see appropriation art).

Then, a second article on the event, i.e. allegations of an espionage operation by young Israelis using the art sales scam as a cover. This I think should be a compact article that dispassionately looks at the dates and places, the involved and the deportations, and the investigative reports alleging an espionage operation along with those refuting such allegations as urban myths or whatever. A large amount of skepticism would be in order here because nothing has been proven.

Sorry to be so long-winded but given that the article is a mess regarding both scope and content, I really think the way forward is with a split something like this. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 03:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I've got a project on the back burner, or I would jump in and get this thing split. What's the best title for the alleged espionage article? BTW, no need to leave a talkback note for me. ;^) Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Was it RomaC's idea to split it? Oh.Cptnono (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not, and I didn't write that. I said that RomaC made the most sensible suggestions. Binksternet (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you tell me how to use the cross out feature on wikipedia? Thanks.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind me jumping in: put <s> in front of the text to be crossed out, and </s> at the end of it. Here's an example that you can examine in the edit window. The 's' stands for strikeout. Have a care not to strike out any colons, asterisks or pound signs at the beginning of a line, that is, don't strike out the punctuation bits that allow for indenting and formatting of discussion threads. Binksternet (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I had tried googling it at first, then I went and looked at Cptnono's previously crossed out comment edits and ended up figuring it out exactly before you typed this. Anyway, it helps to know about not striking out the formatting stuff. Thanks again.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

On two articles per the latest Talk suggestions

I'll write them but only if in collaboration with one of the hasbara-friendlies, I'm not eager to spend hours/days on articles only to have them dragged to AfD so a bunch of drive-by delete votes can kill 'em. RomaC ^TALK 00:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to note that your comment has been moved. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Art_student_scam&diff=next&oldid=376856783 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem was my initial mistake putting the comment where I did. RomaC ^TALK 09:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How do I report this. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_student_scam&diff=348852037&oldid=348846002 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an old case of vandalism which was reverted, we generally don't report edits that are four months old unless this IP editor has reappeared then it could be noted I suppose. But IP edits can be from shared public computers. RomaC ^TALK 00:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone else on the talkpage said the same thing recently, but they might have been just repeating something they remembered hearing 4 months ago. Anyway, are you going to write the article?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I could do the article but as I said above I'd prefer if it could be a collaboration or at least supported by some other/uninvolved/neutral editors so I don't spend significant time and energy on something that will only be deleted. RomaC ^TALK 05:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Gaza War sides

Maybe you want to share your opinion. Do you think reliable source describe Arab World as side in the Gaza War? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Good faith edits

When edits are anti-consensus after much discussion, there is no reason to believe they are good faith edits. AgF is a rebuttable presumption. It has been rebutted in this case. Its not worth our time to discuss further until/unless remedial action has to be sought vis a vis the editor.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

How was it been rebutted? You haven't argued for it, you've stated it and presumed you are right. If you had discussed it you would have to explain how you think my edits are anti-consensus when there is no consensus either way (Kitfoxxe is not, as Fan claimed, a 'stooge' of mine; and Precis has said he agrees with the lead I argue for, if for different reasons), and further I'm pretty sure that if you'll look back at the archive you'll see that the majority of opinion (not consensus, mind; but majority) does agree with me. And besides all that, my recent edits have been in response to Fan's unjustified reversion of Kitfoxxe's edit -- Kitfoxxe presented an entirely new argument which has not been discussed at all, so there is hardly a 'consensus.' Further, the consensus that you refer to (yourself, Ironduke, and Fan) includes Ironduke, who seems to base his opinion on insults. I don't know what should be able to rebutt a AgF, but going around saying "He's just a series of numbers; he doesn't deserve an explanation" seems to be a good candidate.

Whatever you think of this, you're one-man judge/jury/executioner style of handling the issue is not really fair on me. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks RomaC

I caught your response to Epefleeche the second time, just before he deleted that. I just wanted to say thanks, not just for sticking up for policy, but for doing so twice even though Epefleeche seems to usually delete such comments. I tellya, it ain't nice to be called all sorts of things that just aren't true, and the fact that you'd do what you did was nice. So, thanks. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. There is a tendency among some editors to summarily remove critical comments on their Talk pages. There is no policy violation in doing so, but anyway I'll post what I wrote below in the event that people want to reference it:

Calling good faith edits "vandalism"

You have done that here it is a violation of policy please self-revert. RomaC ^TALK 13:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed by Epeefleche: [5]

I commented on this yesterday but Epeefleche removed my comments. Policy is clear on what does WP:VAND and what does not WP:NOTVAND constitute vandalism. 203.45.146.36's edit was not vandalism. Saying it was vandalism in a revert edit summary is a violation of policy. I know because I did something like that a couple of months ago and was trotted out to the Admin noticeboards for it. I reviewed policy, then I apologized and struck my comments. It is regrettable that Epeefleche won't do the same. RomaC ^TALK 02:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed by Epeefleche: [6]

RomaC ^TALK 04:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting them up again here. And yeah, I understand the inclination to delete comments on one's talk page if one feels they are unfair, but I always feel that if a criticism of me really is unfair most people will be able to judge that for themselves (at least if I give my side of the story); and as I strive to do things that can't be fairly criticised I never get the urge to delete. And if I have been fairly criticised and someone brings that to my attention (as has happened more than once), I like to apologise as a way of making amends.

But I guess not everyone feels the same way.

Thanks again, though. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ungrounded accusations

After that I thought there was no more room to get more like those, but I was mistaking you found one. What my blocks (that were mostly unfair, and mostly had nothing to do with I/P related articles) have to do with User:Nableezy being banned? As I told once to the friend of yours "accuracy" stop counting my blocks, better count your own positive contributions, if any. D= DX --Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbz, I'm concerned about POV editing squads. I like your photos. Breathtaking! RomaC ^TALK 23:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not breathtaking anymore. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I help?

I assume that this page is indeed the one that you're planning on turning into the article just about the 2001 event? If so, do you mind if I go in and help? Silverseren^C 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The site appears to be a Chinese news site, but don't quote me on that. I can't find an About page or something that would allow me to verify its reliability, so while I say that it's okay to use, others have the right to challenge its status. And i'll see what I can do about an image. There might be some free use image out there somewhere. Does it have to be a Chinese art factory or just an art factory in general? Silverseren^C 00:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Art scam

Hello, as you requested I have moved your "spy" sandbox to a new title Allegations of Israeli espionage operation 2000-2001, and replaced the standing Art student scam article with the new sandbox version. These were done per consensus reached on the talk page. You will also notice I have added the new article about the spying allegations to several wikiprojects as well as included a notice regarding I/P General Sanctions. Hopefully, this can help defend the article objectively from some of the POV pushing and battleground mentality. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Laura and 3RR

Dear Roma, TY for your input. Please see discussion page on Laura S. You must remember {Good Faith} before you accuse another editor of violating any rules. See page [7] The citation Neo posted is not recognized as a valid source. Also review this page:[8] re: The 3 revert rule which incidentally I have not violated, as it states: Removal of poorly sourced material may be immediately removed.(exception to 3RR). Happy Editing! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Gaza Flotilla Participants

Can you please look at these edits in List of participants of the Gaza flotilla, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_participants_of_the_Gaza_flotilla&diff=381689730&oldid=381475306, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_participants_of_the_Gaza_flotilla&diff=380825052&oldid=380673239 ? I divided the list into three part, people died in the raid, people survived in the raid and the passengers of MV Rachel Corrie. They are changing the second group's name to "List of Gaza flotilla participants", I can't see what they found unsuitable in the word "survivor". If you come to the edge of death on a flotilla where 9 people were killed, then you are a survivor. Thanks. Kavas (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)