User talk:Shrike/Archives/2011/March

Porath, Meretz, etc.

"Prominent" seems hardly controversial - Porath is surely a prominent historian of the Palestinians. As to whether having once been a member of Meretz (and when he wrote the review, in 1986, he was obviously not yet a member of Meretz, since it didn't exist until 1992) makes one a "leftist," that seems dubious to me. Meretz isn't really all that left wing in the traditional sense of the word. It is perhaps a pro-Palestinian party, but I don't understand why "pro-Palestinian" should translate to "left-wing." In terms of domestic politics, Meretz seems to be a fairly standard issue center-left party. And Porath, of course, is not any longer left wing at all (as I think you know from the fact that you stated on my talk page that he was "a leftist back then." To take a rather more extreme case, would he ever refer to Mussolini as "Leftist journalist Benito Mussolini"?). Calling him a "leftist historian" implies that he's a figure like Norman Finkelstein or Noam Chomsky. He is obviously not, and we shouldn't be trying to mislead readers into thinking that he is. But if you want to take out "prominent", I won't revert you, so long as you don't add "leftist". john k 21:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should I take seriously the comments of someone who says "defiantly" when they mean "definitely?" Beyond that, Porath's rather considerable defection from the "pro-Palestinian" camp means that we should not so describe him. even if he was relatively pro-Palestinian when he wrote the review, his later development (towards a more hardline position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) makes it fairly clear that this was not due to any inherent anti-Israel bias, and means that it is misleading to refer to him as "pro-Palestinian." If you want to start an article on Porath, though, that'd be worthwhile. john k 22:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Mitigating comments on confirmed Israeli attacks on ambulances and hospitals

Please see Talk:2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict/POV#Mitigating_comments_on_confirmed_Israeli_attacks_on_ambulances_and_hospitals AdamKesher 21:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

I noticed you have twice removed an image and called it POV. I am curious, how is it POV? ~Rangeley (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This does not make it POV. You dont need to show both sides in the same image, and most images for wars do not show both sides. Take a look at Six Day War, Iraq War, Yom Kippur War, Battle of France, Battle of Berlin, Battle of Iwo Jima. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any pictures of their side from this conflict that qualify for fair use. If we find one that is better quality than the artillery fire image, we can use it. It all depends on quality of the image. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism of 2006 Qana airstrike conspiracy theories

Please stop this, it is childish and futile. The timeline and additions to it will continue to be made to hightlight just how idiotic is really is. 82.29.227.171 20:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Check the original post- took place where? on the weBLOG. duh 82.29.227.171 20:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Check the homepage for Israel Insider, look top right, see the link saying "today's weblog"? duh. Dont mess with the page again please unless you can raise you contribution above vandalism 82.29.227.171 20:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Also:

" A New Insider Blog System: We believe in blogging. For those of you who have been sleeping for the last year or two, blogs (short for "web logs") are online diaries which express a person's private thoughts and public perspectives, combining intimate commentary and links to external web sites. We know from the thousands who use and view our wildly successful Talkback system that you have strong opinions! If a blog can propel a guy like Howard Dean to national prominence, just think of what it will do for our current readers and future bloggers. Look for this interactive feature soon, free for registered Insiders" From [1] thats where it first appeared. 82.29.227.171 20:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising the Qana conspiracy page

Korets political sympathys, ie. that he is a zionist, are self attested to. They are not in dispute. His political views are relevant to the theories he came up with. Take it to the talk page if in doubt. 82.29.227.171 18:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?

My edit to Cluster Bomb article removed a phrase of 'political spin' which had obviously been added to express POV by renaming an incident from its article name to one used pretty much only used by supporters of that conflict. The name, which you have now reverted back to, is blatent POV and only seeks to confuse and mislead rather than present a link to the article by a name everyone understands (which is why it is the actual name of the article). The wikipedia norm is overwhelmingly to refer to conflicts like the one in question by a commonly understood and descriptive name, not by the politically assigned military codename (try find any other war referred to by it's military codename and not a common, more descriptive name). As you did not state in the comment box why you reverted my edit (something which is actually against Wikipedia's code of conduct) I am asking you here to please explain why you performed the revert? Canderra 17:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

POV-pushing in pie chart removal

Regarding [2]. Shrike, since say you are new, I advise you to read all prior discussion and documentation on the matter of this pie chart (which only says what is already stated in the article itself!) and not hop on the censorship bandwagon that did not propose anything better in the request for mediation and discussion. Reading your talk page, it seems as if you seem to also be pushing some sort of stong pro-Zionist ideology on Wikipedia... please leave your personal beliefs out of articles trying to be objective and encyclopedic (see WP:NPOV). ~ clearthought 21:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

See my reply. ~ clearthought 22:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah casualties

You are doing a great job resisting the POV chart of Hezb casualties. You might be interested in 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict where there is an on going attempt, invoving sock puppets, to censor the information that several groups have reproted 500-700 hezbollah casualties. Isarig 19:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Carbonate posted an RfA here Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Israeli_POV but for some reason "forgot" to list you as an involved party Isarig 16:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverting edits on Jerusalem page without discussion

I've noticed you've reverted twice now the change I made to the introduction of the Jerusalem article on the number of mentions of Jerusalem in the New and Old Testaments. You haven't participated in the discussion or argued any of the reasons why you have done this. Could you please explain on the Jerusalem talk page what your thinking is? I'm asking you this in good faith because from my vantage point it's quite irritating and seems POV Saurav 02:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your revert of Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident

If you revert an article, such as Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident, could you please make sure that you revert it to the proper version, instead of reinstating a highly pov vandalized version? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Defamation warning

This is your last warning. The next time you add defamatory content, as you did to Ilan Pappé, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

It was mistake.I just reverted and don't paid attantion to which version.

Kataeb

הסרת שורה לגבי ההשראה (שבראייתך לא) שאב פייר ג'ומייל מהפלנחות הספרדיות להקמת מפלגתו. אולם פייר ג'ומאייל כן נפגש עם חברים מהפלנחות במהלך אולימפיאדת 1936 (בה הוא השתתף כספורטאי). שם המפלגה גם כן מעיד בבירור על השפעת הפלנחות על ג'ומאייל. אני מזמינה אותך להעיף מבט בערך שכתבתי בעברית. בתור ישראלית גם אני יחסית אוהדת את המפלגה, אך לא ניתן להתכחש לאספקטים פשיסטיים מסויימים שהיו קיימים בפלנגות. Lizrael 22:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Xerox-star-8010-large.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Xerox-star-8010-large.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Shalom

Welcome. Just be carefull around here. obey rules, regulations, policies and be polite even to those who are pushing their agenda to every article. Best, Zeq 19:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

finkelstein addition on memri

Shrike, I accept your deletion of the 'famous' part was correct. Can you please give your opinion in the discussion seeing as you have already read the addition, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute#finkelstein_reverts Rm uk 03:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kamsha

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kamsha, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamsha. Thank you. Mr Stephen 10:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:NewNightWatchcover.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:NewNightWatchcover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Quit editing the Jonathan Pollard page

You claim there's widespread controversy over his jailing but you keep reverting to his official site as the source. It seems pretty clear cut to me - he broke the law, broke his plea agreement and got sent to jail. Find an external source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakdakdak (talk • contribs)

Possibly unfree Image:Shrike-Hyperion.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Shrike-Hyperion.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 10:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring reminder

Regarding the ongoing edit war on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which you are involved, I'd like to remind you of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule's prohibition of reverting as an editing technique. Please note that "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." I would request that you bear this in mind and use the article discussion page or dispute resolution to resolve your dispute. -- ChrisO 15:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Canada Park. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. VegitaU 15:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete content, it's as simple as that. And don't go adding nonsense warnings to my talk page. Happy editing! -- VegitaU 15:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletions on Canada Park

You have reverted "POV edits" there, commanding me to "Find WP:RS sources for your info". As you know, this is exactly what I already did. The edits you removed contained no less than four sources. The statement that Canada Park "was founded by the Jewish National Fund on the razed Palestinian villages of Imwas, Yalu and Bayt Nuba, which were demolished by Israel after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war in order to widen the Jerusalem corridor." was sourced to Ha'aretz, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Outlook, an "independent, secular Jewish publication with a socialist-humanist perspective" out of British Colombia. The previous version, which inserts language that this is only "according to the Palestinians", is a clear lie; even the park's own signage says this when it hasn't been vandalized by people like yourself (it's in the Ha'aretz source).

The statement that "The former residents of the villages fled to refugee camps in the West Bank and Jordan, where most of them remain today," is sourced to a P.A. official in a Canadian government run conference. I do not see how it could possibly be contentious, as it's an utterly mundane and obvious claim, but to accommodate any concerns I have changed it to include, "according to the Palestinian Authority".

At this point, there are absolutely no grounds to challenge the article on WP:RS. If you continue to remove information with patently false justification, you will face sanction from the wider Wikipedia community. Eleland 22:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your POV tag placement at Al-Shaykh Muwannis

Hi there. I've made a number of changes to the article since your last comment. I would appreciate it if you could respond at the talk page to my request to remove the POV tag, in light of these changes. Thanks. Tiamut 16:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a change in response to your latest concern. In order to move forward further, you are going to have to provide sources you think would be useful toward improving NPOV. If there are none, I will be removing the tag. Tiamut 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

About Raafat el-Haggan

We have to talk, can't just keep undoing forever! first of all let's agree on not undoing anything.

the first line says "Refaat Ali Slueiman el-Gammal (Arabic: رفعت علي سليمان الجمال‎) (July 1, 1927 – 1982), better known as Raafat el-Haggan (Arabic: رأفت الهجّان‎) in Egypt and as Jack Beton in Israel, was an Egyptian spy who spent 17 years performing clandestine operations in Israel. Most information about him is still confidential.[1]"

what don't you agree on this?

you always undo it to

"Refaat Ali Slueiman el-Gammal (Arabic: رفعت علي سليمان الجمال‎) (July 1, 1927 – 1982), better known as Raafat el-Haggan (Arabic: رأفت الهجّان‎) in Egypt and as Jack Beton in Israel,"

which is meaningless!! Refaat was a spy and he was indeed Egyptian and spent 17 years performing clandestine operations inside Israel what's wrong about that?!!

let's first agree on this line then we will continue to the other parts ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usama707 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese 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) 17:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

Please don't call my good faith edits 'vandalism'. Especially when I've made the effort to discuss them on the talk page while you've failed to do so. --Duk 14:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit is a SOLDIER

He was captured in battle. Don't revert the page unless you have a good reason to do so.

Israel and the apartheid analogy

Hi, you reverted an edit of mine, I've started a discussion on the subject here. Please join the discussion, Passionless (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Your warning

I am discussing my edits on the talk page for United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict please engage in the discussion rather than threatening blocks. The 1RR warning on the talk page was also added after my revert. Pexise (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pexise (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I also agree that your editing is quite disruptive, you have broken both WP:POINT and WP:UNDUE while editing United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, please read both. Passionless -Talk 21:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Refaat Al-Gammal

YOur edits to this article, and edit summaries go against many standards, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), WP:UNDUE, WP:WEASEL, WP:No Personal Attacks, WP:MOSCAPS. As you have a long history of unheeded warnings it may soon be time to take you to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, if your actions continue. Passionless -Talk 22:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Refaat Al-Gammal

Hi Shrike! I am afraid that I don't have sufficient knowledge of Refaat al-Gammal to significantly contribute to the article or the discussion. However, I saw that there was a dispute about sources, so if there's a source that another editor is promoting as RS which you dispute, please open a discussion at WP:RSN and other editors will give their opinions.

I will add that messaging other editors to ask their opinions on a matter is called canvassing and is not a good thing to do on Wikipedia, ranging from bad form to a blatant violation of policy. If you want to ask other editors' input, there are generally other ways to do it (unless a particular editor has access to a rare source you want to verify, or something like that). Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

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 uninvolved administrator and logged here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Refaat Al-Gammal/User:Passionless

{{adminhelp}} Hello, I'm having problems reaching consensus with this user, he keeps deleting material, removing references, and placing fringe theories as the fact and pushing his POV, .I have reached compromise with former editor that both theories are valid but he keep pushing only one POV though the second theory is substantiated by WP:RS.Here is an example [3].Also he was already warned for his disruptive behavior on this topic. [4].What can be done to stop such disruptive behavior?--Shrike (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If the article falls under the scope of an arbitration case (as this one seems to do), please use WP:AE for conflicts concerning violations of such restrictions. Regards SoWhy 18:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE

I have brought you to WP:AE for your editing habits, please visit Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Shrike. Passionless -Talk 08:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic-banned from all Palestine-Israel articles for three months

Per this WP:AE thread, I must regretfully ban you for three months from editing any article relating to Palestine-Israel. If you edit any such article within the next three months, your account will by way of enforcement of the ban be blocked. AGK [•] 00:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you not understand what the topic ban was? For this edit, you are blocked for 1 week. AGK [•] 23:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

With AGK's agreement, per this AE thread, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, you are:

• admonished for using Wikipedia as a battleground, and warned that escalating sanctions may be imposed if the disruption continues.
• banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, until 00:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC), and thereafter banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions and other content related to Refaat Al-Gammal, broadly construed across all namespaces;
• limited to one account (the account "Shrike"), and may not edit using any other account, or while logged out;
• is indefinitely limited to one revert per page per 168 hours on all articles and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces.

These sanctions replace AGK's topic ban, effective immediately. Your block remains in effect. T. Canens (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing yet another POV inserted to the article by user:Passionless. I missed on it. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It was OK to vote. We have never been involved before as much as I could remember. I understood you followed my contributions, and voted, which is an absolutely proper thing to do. May I please ask you to put your vote back? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I was banned from I/P topic though its a user page I am not sure if I can vote I will ask an admin on that--Shrike (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. In that case of course it is better to be safe than sorry. No worries about the vote. I'll be fine :-) Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your attempt, but I believe it is a lost cause, so do not worry. That page that is full of PA, false accusations, assumption of bad faith, and that was made and linked to with the only purpose to harass me, is going to be kept. I guess nothing new here, simply wikipedia on its best. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)