User talk:JDiala/Archive 1

Hello, JDiala, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read up on the topic its obvious you have no knowledge of the Khalsa. Guru Hargobind, the 6th Sikh Guru clearly stated that if a Sikh doesn't have weapons that Sikh should not visit him and that Sikh is not his Sikh. Even today if you go into almost any Gurdwara you will see swords, spears etc infront of the Guru Granth Sahib as signs of respect. In the Harminder Sahib there are guards with spears. Every baptized Sikh must have a kirpan, a small dagger at all times, and your saying that baptized Sikhs cant come into their own places of worship?

 

Jujhar.pannu (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between symbolically carrying a kirpan spears etc. and using a Gurdwara as an armed fortress. Khalsa is a strictly religious term, and is defined as "the collective body of all initiated Sikhs". All initiated Sikhs did not participate in this battle, and many of them did not agree with Bhindranwale. It's an extremely vague and potentially offensive generalization, and it erroneously implies that this battle was the Indian Army vs Sikhism. JDiala (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The armed fortress part makes no sense because their are Ramgarhia Bunga's in the Harmandir Sahib Complex are clearly put there for militaristic purposes. That's incorrect definition of Khalsa. The fact is the Indian Govt were trying to suppress Sikhs by doing this attack and other violent methods technically does make this a war with the Sikhs and the Indian Government but it is not a sikhs duty to fight back it is a Khalsa's duty to fight back so there for its not all that weird that it says Indian Government on one side and Khalsa on the other side. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the government was trying to suppress the Sikhs. When you have an armory with foreign weapons, including rocket launchers, in a place of worship that thousands of people visit daily, it's the government's duty to perform such an operation. They were not necessarily representative of the Khalsa in general, and calling it that is a vague generalization offensive to all baptized Sikhs who did not support Bhindranwale. JDiala (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Your wrong there is heaps and heaps of evidence that the entire Sikh culture was being repressed think why was Punjabi not allowed to be taught in any public school in Punjab between 1947 and 1966? That time the Harminder Sahib, or Golden temple was invaded by police in 1955 and the head jathedar of Akal Takht were arrested for a peaceful Punjabi Suba movement. The civilians were beaten and shot at and the army entered the place of worship with shoes and paraded around amirtsar for 3 days just to put the message that the Sikhs are second class citizens in India and that they are not allowed to peacefully protest. Sikhi allows weapons in its Gurdwaras and the Revolutionaries of 1984 were threatened for their safety and kept those weapons for Self-defense. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this operation. If you can conclusively prove with a WP:Reliable source that this operation was the Indian Army v. Sikhism, and the belligerents were representative of the whole khalsa and everyone in it, then I maybe I will take you seriously. The "revolutionaries" cannot keep foreign-made military grade weapons, including RPGS in an area that thousands of people visit daily. This group of "revolutionaries" who were actually terrorists that on numerous occasions slaughtered buses full of hindus and assassinated Nirankari leaders were not representative of the entire Khalsa.JDiala (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The Akal Takht represents the entire Khalsa Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You're getting yourself embroiled in an edit war on Operation Blue Star. If I took further action you would be blocked as you have already breached WP:3RR, however, I'm giving you a chance to discuss on the talk page with editors. Thanks SH 13:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

 

Your recent editing history at Operation Blue Star shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SH 13:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fellow editor, Let me explain my reason for my actions. The other two editors engaged with you stopped short of 3rd reverts. You've done far more than 3 in a 24 hour period. Secondly, I agree with you on the Khalsa issue but not the Civilian Casualties. The civilian casualties issue at Operation Blue Star is a central reoccuring issue from Human Rights groups and journalists. At the time of the operatiion a big play was made as to this operation was being taken against Militants and terrorist (terrorists incidently Gandhi herself created). The analogy I would use would be the SAS storming the Iranian Embassy siege not a battle during war in Stalingrad. I've read through the article, and there is a section and many references to civilian casualties, and the reason for this was they stormed it during the celebration of the birthday of a Sikh Guru when 1000's of piligrims would be there. That is why the civilian casualties but should stay. On a side note it wasn't only Sikh Militants who fought, the Nihang Sikh's who are guardians of the temple fought as well. Not because they supported Bhindranwala, but because it's their instinct to fight any invaders. Thanks SH 17:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Iranian Embassy Siege section DOES have a section on losses and cites hostages i.e. civilians, and you keep refering this to a battle. It wasn't a battle. It was a military Operation to flush out Militants (same as the Iranian Embassy Siege) but on a larger scale. The Indian Army however, got it horribly wrong and were forced to use much heavier equipment. The reality is from all Independent accounts many Civilians lost their lives. Whether I am Sikh or not is irrelevant. I used to be a Hindu as well, is that relevant? I always respect WP:NPOV. General Brar is one source there are other sources that contradict him like General SK Sinha. I suggest WP:Mediation as I don't think you are willing to give way on this point, but I must warn you that this version of this article has come aout through WP:Mediation and WP:Consensus. Thanks SH 06:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I started discussion on the talk page regarding the use of specific words in the info box. I think we should discuss this case on the one place (talk page of article) rather than talk page(s) of individual editors. Hopefully, we will find solution via WP:Consensus. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

 

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia). Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

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

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hello! I completely agree with your thinking that the title and content of "History of the world" do not match. Unfortunately, this has been a sort of deadlocked situation for years. Just look at this page: Talk:History of the world under the section "Requesting your help at History of Earth" and the section below it. People are opposing and supporting a name change left and right in those sections! The main arguments for those opposed to name changes are that (a) there is no name that they really like better and (b) the phrase "history of the world" is apparently traditionally used to refer exclusively to human history in the English language (like how maybe in secondary school you had a "World History" class that really should have been called "World History of Relatively Recent Human Civilizations"). How anthropocentric our language has been historically! Wolfdog (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you referenced the UNHCR claim to this document. I've had a quick read through, and I can't find where it says that the majority are legitimate asylum seekers. Could you point me to the specific bit? Thanks, Number 57 12:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't even see where it says most are asylum seekers. Number 57 12:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

We can't assume anything. I'll remove the UNHCR bit and leave it at the NGOs. Number 57 13:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't say anything about "most". Number 57 15:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

But then all the report is saying is that there are asylum seekers coming, so isn't relevant to a sentence about whether most of the arrivals are asylum seekers or not. Can we keep this together on the article's talk page, rather than disjoined here? I am going to copy across all the comments. Thanks, Number 57 16:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the Israel article's talk page. I have tried to add a

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

to this article. I would appreciate your thoughts on this on the Israel talk page. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Did you edited previously under any other username?--Shrike (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: No. Why? JDiala (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The area of WP:ARBPIA is contentious area many people were restricted anyhow as you editing the area you should aware of editing restrictions.--Shrike (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

 

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Israel lobby in the United States may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• key [pro-Israel] groups do lobby, and because the term 'Israel lobby' is used in common parlance (along with labels such as the 'farm lobby', 'insurance lobby', 'gun lobby' and other ethnic lobbies,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please participate the discussion. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Are these news (1, 2 and 3) reflected in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict? Mhhossein (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Don't see why they would be necessary. We already have the actual report cited, what's the point of news reports? JDiala (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I had not noticed the actual report. Where is it mentioned in the article? Mhhossein (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict#Destruction_of_homes fourth paragraph. JDiala (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no mention of "war crime" in this paragraph. While most of the news reports maintain that Israel is accused of war crime by this report. By the way, I reckon that the report its self is a Primary Source for this subject, isn't it?. Mhhossein (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein:The report [I've read it] never explicitly accused accused Israel of war crimes; it used deliberately vague language to try and minimize the conclusions that should have been made as a result of its damning evidence (most likely for PR reasons). What the report actually says should be given credence over what news media, dishonest as they are, say it says, for the simple reason that the text of the report is directly available. It is not a primary source, moreover; it is a published secondary source by a WP:RS organization. JDiala (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The source is counted primary per ALLPRIMARY, so we have to find reliable secondary sources regrading this subject. Mhhossein (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Well then you should start a discussion in the talk page as to how that should be done. It just seems odd to me that corroborating news reports, even though those news reports clearly misrepresent what was written in the report, should be given as much credence as the report itself. JDiala (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Those comments put you in violation of the A-I sanctions. Please strike them. Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I will appreciate it if you refer to my notes at [[1]]. thanks. Ykantor (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly argue that "Zionist Enterprise" is an offensive slur, based on its use in anti-Israel and anti-Jewish polemics.

Fatah official: Israel is a “colonialist Zionist enterprise” in alliance with the US that seeks to weaken the entire Arab region

Fatah Central Committee Member Says ISIS "extension of the Zionist Enterprise"

Conspiracy Site: "The Rothschild family was crucial to the Zionist Enterprise; without its support, Zionism would not have the support of World Jewry and thus of the Evil Jewish Leadership."

But then again, as a Labor Zionist, I have a "perverse POV Zionist narrative" according to you. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: I will reiterate my point - it can be viewed as offensive when referring to Israel after its formal declaration, but not when referring to the pre-state. It sounds rather unencyclopedic (hence why I changed it to "movement") but I do not regard it as offensive. It depends on the context of course; it obviously sounds more derogatory when coming from blatantly anti-Semetic websites, but in and of itself it's not a serious issue. It is ultimately a matter of opinion, so yes, we shall agree to disagree. JDiala (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Upon looking it up, I found it's actually used by some Jews and Zionists, albeit less frequently. The negative connotation is likely more recent in origin, though "Zionist Entity" has always been derogatory. Also, I didn't notice you changed it to movement, thanks! :) --Monochrome_Monitor 00:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

What you did here is probably a second revert, since you deleted a paragraph. And even if it wasn't, what you are doing is very silly and doesn't contribute in any way.--Averysoda (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It is. 1st revert 2nd revert. Kindly self-revert or I will have to report you.

Also Kasher is RS for ethics and strategy. Look him up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: Do you know what a revert is? Hint: it is not a synonym for edit or removal. Both of you, please see WP:REV. EDIT: Nevermind. Apparently the word 'reversion' can be construed to mean 'removal' in this context even if you're not "un-doing" a recent edit. I was not aware of this. Rather odd. Meh. Self-revert. Only ~23 hours. And no, he is not RS for strategy. He is a philosopher; an ethicist. I never denied that(which is why I didn't remove the other sentence discussing him which is more related to his field). But that's not even a rule! In fact, he's allowed. Generally speaking, notable people's opinions are allowed even if they're not experts (Chomsky, for example). I am merely playing your game. Of course, there will be not point in doing this in 24 hours. I will be able to revert your edit then again. I have tried to take both of you seriously, but it is clear that you are ideologically committed partisans. It is you, therefore, who are not contributing. JDiala (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You Just restored a contested edit to the Hamas article. This is the third time you've tried to put this in the article in 3 days, despite knowing you do not have consensus for the edit. Kindly self-revert or I will report you for edit warring. Please read WP:EW and WP:BRD before replying. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: My principal objections have not been responded to for that same time period. Additionally, it is clear that the first editor who contested the edit has conceded. I quote: "However, since many reliable sources use indistinctly "kidnap/abduct/capture", I accept your edit.--Averysoda (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)" Thus, the number of people who accept my edit is, in fact, 4-1 in my favour (myself, Nishidani, Averysoda and IRISZOOM). I shall also quote something directly from WP:BRD: "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." You have failed to do those three things, and have generally failed to engage in meaningful discussion. WP:BRD is not taking place, is it. Regarding the claim that I am engaging in edit warring, I refer you to the following statement from WP:EW: "Communication is the key to avoiding conflict". You have refused to communicate with me. Rather, you revert. In light of these facts, and your failure to provide a satisfactory argument (please read WP:CONSENSUS; belaboring the same point without addressing issues raised by other parties does not constitute "quality" argument, as defined by the aforementioned page, required to attain consensus), I refuse to revert anything, as the discussion stands in my favour, as you, the sole dissenter, have not offered any rebuttal. JDiala (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

JDiala: Without mentioning that her comment about bombing Gaza was made while Hamas's was firing 1,500 rockets on civilian targets in Israel you are depriving readers of the timing, which is critical. She didn't make her comments in a vacuum, which is the false impression you give by removing the context. Zozoulia (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zozoulia: If a Hamas leader made an anti-Semetic comment towards Jews, would we be "depriving readers of" context by not discussing the initial dispossession of the Palestinian people and the subsequent 48-year long occupation of Palestinian territory by the state purporting to represent international Jewry? No, we would not, as that information is not pertinent and the addition of it serves only to advance a particular viewpoint. That statement you wish to include, at least in the manner in which you have phrased it, is a violation of WP:NPOV, for it gives credence to the Israeli narrative that the bombing of Gaza (in 2012) was a justifiable act of self defence and that Judy Shalom Nir-Mozes' reprehensible comments can be somehow rationalized as understandable given this supposed context. In other words, it's taking an active political position (albeit in a subtle manner) on a controversial topic--something which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The sentence does not sound appropriate or encyclopedic. Moreover, for future reference, please note that discussions such as this are meant to take place on the talk page of the article, not on user pages. JDiala (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, and your assertions above ("the state purp[orting to represent international Jewry," "reprehensible", etc.etc) are a NPOV? Sorry for drawing your attention. Zozoulia (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zozoulia: Yes...this is an informal discussion. It's not going on any article. Furthermore, hoping that Gaza ought to be "destroyed" and that the people of Gaza deserve to "suffer" is despicable. Why is the word "reprehensible" not an appropriate word to describe these statements; they are beyond reasonable political disagreement--they are wicked, and the fact that you are making excuses for such a vicious woman says quite a lot about you. JDiala (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Israel does not purport to "represent international Jewry." Where on earth did you come up with that? Please name one Israeli law that makes that assertion. Perhaps your unfamiliarity with Israel leads to mistaken judgments on your part regarding this article. For example, while Israel claims that the last war in Gaza was an act of self-defense, citing Hamas's rocketing of Israeli civilians does not in and of itself establish that as a juridical fact. As we speak Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen, but citing that fact does not establish who is acting in self-defense and who is an aggressor. In the case of Judy Shalom Nir-Moses, mentioning the Hamas rocketing of Israel supplies the context that drove her to make her remarks. Without any context it sounds like she woke up one lovely morning with the desire to bomb Gaza out of existence. That in and of itself is not a NPOV. Zozoulia (talk)

Oh, and one more item: I notice that in the past you have been suspended from editing due to your prejudices. I am not "making excuses" for this woman, just trying to supply all the information a reader needs. How do you know she is "a vicious woman?" She's obviously a stupid woman, but vicious? Your readiness to employ such absolute adjectives, borrowing from your own formulation, says quite a lot about you. Perhaps you need to mature a bit more before editing Wikipedia. Zozoulia (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zozoulia: It defines itself as the "Jewish" state, so it claims to represent the Jewish people (independent of where they happen to reside). Netanyahu himself has claimed to represent American Jewry, and he actively urges European Jews (ie Khazars) to move to Israel. How am I wrong? Your point that "citing Hamas's rocketing of Israeli civilians does not in and of itself establish that as a juridical fact" I will accept, but that this implies that the statement is somehow neutral is absurd. It clearly supports the Israeli narrative. It says that "during the conflict...Hamas fired almost 1,500 rockets on Israeli civilian sites". This is an evidently one-sided statement meant to portray the conflict in a certain light. Thus, several "facts" have been established that the (uninformed) reader can interpret as true - Israel is the lachrymose victim, the Palestinians are the villains, and Hamas is deliberately targeting civilians, whereas the "counter-argument" to these facts--the broader occupation and the disproportionate Israeli massacre--is not discussed. Hence it is not NPOV. We are not expected to "[supply] the context that drove her to make her remarks" in the same sense that, as I have noted, we are not expected to supply the context that drives Hamas to make anti-Semetic statements. If the reader wishes to understand what happened in the 2012 war(ie the context), the article should be linked. If this issue is really bothering you, try re-wording the sentence to make it less clearly biased.

Lastly, I have been suspended for (inadvertently) violating 1RR. I am hardly unique in this regard. I do not claim to be a perfect editor, and I always hope to improve. Nevertheless, I must stress that this is a user page, and therefore my usage of adjectives reflects my personal opinion, in the same sense that your user page reflects your personal opinion as a neoconservative. JDiala (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Israel defines itself as a Jewish state in its Declaration of Independence but you can't jump from that to your conclusion that it therefore represents the entire Jewish people. It can only represent its own citizens, who are a *majority* of the Jewish people. It cannot usurp for itself any ability to represent the minority who do not have Israeli citizenship. Your claim about Netanyahu is ridiculous. instead of making outrageous claims, provide the citation instead. You also reveal your ignorance in classifying "European Jews" as Khazars. All DNA testing conducted on Ashkenazi Jews (which is not the same as European Jews) have "concluded that the Y chromosome of most Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews contained mutations that are also common among Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general European population. This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced mostly to the Middle East." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jewish_origins#Y-DNA_of_Ashkenazi_Jews And despite your ignorance, you arrogate to yourself the capacity to edit articles about Jews? The "broder occupation?" Are you unaware that Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005, removing every soldier, every settler and even every Jewish grave? Employing the term "occupation" under these circumstances not only ignores history, but reveals an urge to misrepresent reality. Yes, more Gazans die in conflict than Israelis, but only because Israel invested in early warning systems, underground bunkers and reenforced safe rooms for its entire population and missile interceptors. Had it not done so, there would ahve been many more Israelis to have died, which I'm sure would make you very happy. A "disproportionate" result in casualties does not automatically mean Israel committed a "massacre." As a mere 18-year-old sitting in far-away land with no actual knowledge of the Arab-Israel conflict, you are too immature and uneducated to edit these articles. I do hope that a more senior editor comes along to properly adjudicate this. Zozoulia (talk)

@Zozoulia: I am, of course, too "immature" and "uneducated" to know anything about the conflict. Why don't we use Netanyahu's own words then? "“I went to Paris not just as the prime minister of Israel but as a representative of the entire Jewish people". I simply cannot understand the Zionist psyche. Israel is the Jewish state, yet it doesn't represent Jews; criticizing Israel is anti-Semitism, yet Israel does not speak for the Jewish people. I am not interested in debating you with regard to the other issues. If you have a substantive response to the issue of the edit(rather than belaboring minor points), then I will care to respond. JDiala (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that you edited under another account in the last two years. Welcome back.

You made an edit, I reverted it, you reverted my revert less than 24 hours after your original edit.

Perhaps you don't remember, in this area you are supposed to discuss your changes and not edit war over them. Please self-revert and try to gain consensus for your changes on the article's talk page. “WarKosign” 07:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@WarKosign: You are correct. Mea culpa. JDiala (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, JDiala, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

It appears from this talk page that you are aware of the 1RR restriction on pages that relate to Palestinian/Israeli topics.

It appears thaat you have recently exceeded that restriction on the article page with your recent edits.

Please self-undo enough of your edits, whichever ones you choose, to bring your history there into compliance.

Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC) @JDiala: I see that you have resumed editing the page in the past hour. I'd like to get the matter of the 1RR resolved promptly so we can both move on. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: With all due respect, why are you nerding out over some technicality? You and I both know that, even if I do undo the revert, I can un-undo it again in a few hours after the 24-hour period has passed. This is a meaningless matter. JDiala (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

My note is not about any particular revert. It's a restriction we all must follow per Arbcom. You can ask any Admin, if you think this is meaningless. I raised this here with you rather than going to WP:AE as a courtesy. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, JDiala. You have again breached the 1RR restriction at the Israel-Hamas war article. It appears to me that, per your edit summaries, these are not just immaterial copyedits. Please self revert whichever edits you choose to get back down to 1RR. SPECIFICO talk 03:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

If this was their revert of my removal of an independent source/blurb of text about it, then I changed that back as I meant to move it instead of deleting it. See whatever that was below. Chuckstablers (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Take a step back, I'd strongly suggest taking a one day break here. I have the right to moderate content on my talk page, please see policies on talk pages concerning this. You need to back off. Chuckstablers (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers: I am asking you to follow Wikipedia policy and stop disruptive editing, which you have failed to do despite repeated warnings. I am posting onto your talk page as a courtesy, especially considering that you are new user. Considering your refusal to engage constructively, further issues will be dealt with via WP:ANI. JDiala (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

You are free to go through whatever channels you feel appropriate here. I've done literally nothing wrong. Please refrain from posting to my talk page in the future unless you have a specific issue that you wish to address. You're assuming bad faith and threatening to seek administrative sanctions over literally... nothing. I had a reliable source, made a change, you disagreed and you reverted. That's fine. In my view it was a minor edit. That's not assuming good faith, and if you're getting this upset over it you REALLY NEED to take a step back and come back in a few days. Just my two cents. Cheers. Chuckstablers (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers: You removed "The Independent" source and the entire accompanying paragraph based on said source without disclosing this in the edit summary or providing justification. This is absolutely not a minor edit and it is disingenuous to suggest this. Bringing up WP:GF is comical: I did assume good faith, made a respectful critique of several of your edits, and you responded by asking me to "quit whining" and blanked your talk page. This is inappropriate and is not concert with WP:CIV. JDiala (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

When? I'm 99% I moved it higher up.... this is why you need to follow Wikipedia's policies and assume good faith; in other words, don't be an ass. Chuckstablers (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a GREAT example of why the WP:ASSUME policy exists. Because it was a mistake. I intended, as I just did with my last edit, to move it further up the page where it belongs more (given I had just added significant amounts of text about the blockade).

If instead, as you should per wikipedia policy, politely have asked why it was removed and not assumed bad intent, I would've politely answered you and made the intended change myself. I don't respond to threatening walls of copy pasted text. Which is why it's suggested that you refrain from templating the regulars. What an enormous waste of both of our time.

Hopefully this is a good learning experience. Cheers mate. Chuckstablers (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers: You need to relax with the sanctimony and condescension. You labelled a substantial rewrite of multiple sections "minor edits." In fact, you have labelled virtually all of your edits for the past several weeks "minor edits" when they clearly were not. I would suggest reading WP:MINOR. You attacked me personally by indicating that I was "whining" when I pointed out that you were the one who on multiple occasions made egregious grammatical errors which I was forced to correct. You are citing the templating the regulars essay when in fact I never even cited a template the first time (I simply wrote on your page discussing what I thought were your low-quality submissions). I only cited a template when you clearly were not interested in good-faith interaction and chose instead to blank your talk page instead of communicating with me, which ironically is itself a violation of a norm suggested in the essay you cited. Lastly, you are in fact a very new editor, with the substantial portion of your edits having been this month and (as I pointed out, and as you have admitted) many of them have been of demonstrably low quality, so I am not sure that you fall into the "regular" audience that essay was referring to. JDiala (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is just drama at this point and comes down to you complaining about me. I have zero interest in engaging with that. If you have a serious issue that you think deserves my attention; bring that up on my talk page. I'm not going to be reading your responses on here anymore, so feel free to archive this if you'd like. Cheers. Chuckstablers (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, this was meant to be in response to your last comment, doesn't appear that it was. Wish you the best. Chuckstablers (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, JDiala. You've again violated the 1RR restriction, with the following two edits: [2] [3].

I have not previously been involved with this content, but once it has been challenged by reversion, the WP:ONUS is on you, not the editors who have removed it, to seek consensus for the content on the article talk page.

Please self-revert your reinstatement of this and use the talk page until there's affirmative consensus for it. @Triggerhippie4:. SPECIFICO talk 19:41, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JDiala reported by User:Andrevan (Result: ). Thank you. Andre🚐 11:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating the one-revert restriction, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of one week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

  Hello, I'm Andrevan. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andre🚐 10:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to ask if it's possible that you refer to Israel as Israel and not "the zionist state" on the 2023 Israel-Hamas war talk page? You used that term here.

See this discussion and comments by more than one admin stating why this terminology needs to be avoided unless it's being discussed in the context of the opinions/views of a reliable source. Summarizing; it decreases the likelihood of productive discussion, increases the likelihood of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment for these types of topics.

Thanks for your time. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see you opened already a topic section. Regarding this [4], I think it's important we try and keep our cool and stay civil. Statements such as what you said: "The Zionist state has demonstrably produced false atrocity propaganda regarding the October 7th resistance operation, like the 40 beheaded babies lie, which incidentally the uncritical Western media has parroted. We thus have reasonable suspicion that these sexual assault allegations are likewise fabricated. " can be perceived in a way which is not positive especially without reliable sources. Also note that you shouldn't speak in the language of "we" since you may not represent other editors.

On a positive note, Happy New Year :). Homerethegreat (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this edit. What does allegations being disputed in a main article have to do with "reportedly" being a WP:WEASEL word, per MOS:AWW? Respectfully, Kire1975 (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kire1975 The word "reported" is used in the main article 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel as well i.e., "Israel and international media have reported rape and sexual assault by Hamas fighters with documentary footage and photographs, which Hamas has denied." This is done to highlight the contentious and disputed nature of the allegation. This is a disputed matter in general and there have been RfCs regarding this. I do not believe we can unilaterally assert the truth of the allegations as a statement of fact at this time. JDiala (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I see. How would you feel about "allegedly" in that instance. I think it serves the purpose you are describing quite well. "Reportedly" is a bit different from the way "Reported" is used on the page you quoted from. Also, it's a bit discordant to have two adverbs ending in -ly so close together (Additionally, and reportedly). I definitely think you've identified a legitimate problem. Well done. Kire1975 (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kire1975 I have no objections to the word "allegedly." JDiala (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

As used here the phrase is inflammatory. Can you redact? Coretheapple (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Why is it inflammatory? "Zionist" is a fairly generic descriptor of those who are supporters of the state of Israel and its policies. They often describe themselves as such. JDiala (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Soapboxing like this is unconstructive and needlessly inflammatory, especially as there is already a RM open. If this behavior continues you'll be topic banned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Is calling Hamas a terrorist organization soapboxing? I'm curious if these standards are applied to each side. JDiala (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have warned editors in the past for referring to Hamas that way in discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Understood. OK, I apologize, and I'll be more circumspect with language going forward. JDiala (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

You are a vile person celebrating death. 2A06:C701:4749:B300:EBA1:751F:21E9:899F (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Kindly note that it is WP:BRD not WP:BRRD, I wont discuss anything with edit warriors. Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Your concern was the paragraph count. You reverted other aspects of my edit which had nothing to do with the paragraph count. The edits that you reverted went beyond the scope of the edit description you provided, which was the paragraph count issue. See e.g., WP:CAUGHTUP. This is bad-faith. It's also bad-faith to ad hominem someone on their talk page. JDiala (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe read my edit summary again, my objection was not solely to the para count, so that's a misrepresentation on your part, and yes, BRRD is edit warring, editing to force through your desired edit. I have also tagged the "newsy" part of the article since I will not engage in discussion with persons who edit war. Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

shalom, Hello, I'm speaking to you from Israel, could you help me improve the English of this article Maor Ahzkenazi. I translated it from Wikipedia in Hebrew into simple English and several users already warned me that they could delete it just because it was not written properly, thanks Acartonadooopo (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Acartonadooopo: Not sure what the problem with the article is. The deletion request has been withdrawn I see. JDiala (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The request has been withdrawn but an administrator has not attended to it, I see that they also want to include another alleged editorial error, I really don't understand, it's a simple, quick and simple wiki, that's why it's called Wikipedia in simple English, then they observe the article that I translated as irrelevant and they question me about its supposed lack of notoriety when the article is relevant in Israel. But it seems that I am on the original English wiki and not a simpler one please help. Sorry for my terrible English, I don't speak it well. --Acartonadooopo (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Acartonadooopa was a sockpuppet, now blocked. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be discussed that popularisation of the word genocide is wrong. 39.60.195.153 (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I know there are about 100 better times to say this (note my apology on the article talk page regarding snark), but: I have noticed the quotes on your user page, believe that the Sinwar quotes are not permitted, per Wikipedia:User pages. Do you disagree with that assessment? FortunateSons (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons:If I am asked to remove any particular material on my user page by an administrator, I will oblige. However, I do not believe that anything on the page is currently violating any policy. Quoting the page you linked: "[Statements] or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone these behaviors: vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence. ("Acts of violence" includes all forms of violence but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence.)" The Sinwar quotes would fall squarely into the bolded section. JDiala (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the quote meet the standard for both offensive content (for rather obvious reasons), and condoning violence. Thank you for your consideration :) FortunateSons (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The ANI close was ambiguous, but I am asking you as an Administrator to remove them. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: They have been removed. Pursuant to the discussion and in accordance with WP:UP, I will also add further meaningful non-political material onto my user page. I ask for a week to do this as designing a good user page will probably take a few hours of my time. JDiala (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.FortunateSons (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

In the spirit of the recent close by @Floquenbeam, I would like to clarify that my goal is exclusively removal and not sanctions of any kind. FortunateSons (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not really appropriate to get into this stuff at AN so I'm responding here instead. Some of the things you wrote there really surprised me.

• Hamas is an elected political party in Palestine and enjoys widespread support among the Palestinian people. Not in a free and fair election, and not very widespread ("44% in the West Bank said they supported Hamas, up from just 12% in September. In Gaza, the militants enjoyed 42% support, up slightly from 38% three months ago." [5]; "Hamas has not tolerated dissent among Gazans in the 17 years it has ruled the tiny territory, choked by an Israeli-led blockade. But dissent against the Islamist militant group is now widespread and out in the open, voiced alongside Gazans' fury with Israel." [6]; "But a survey undertaken by Arab Barometer, a nonpartisan research network, between September 28 and October 8 2023 revealed dwindling confidence in Hamas (the surveys in Gaza were completed on October 6). Asked to identify the amount of trust they had in the Hamas authorities, 44% said they had no trust at all, while 23% said they had little trust." [7]). Consider the details of how Hamas got to power, the Hamas-Fatah wars, and Hamas's internal security, e.g. what it does to stay in power and eliminate dissent within and among Palestinians: [8] [9] [10]
• Many consider it a legitimate resistance group. Can you name three people who have publicly said Hamas, specifically, is a legitimate resistance group? (Not that Palestinian resistance in general is legitimate, but that Hamas specifically is "legitimate".)
• It is not recognized as a "terrorist organization" by the vast majority of the countries of the world, including major regional powers like China, India and Russia. The vast majority of countries in the world do not recognize terrorist organizations at all, any terrorist organizations. Among countries that do formally recognize terrorist organizations, what percentage list Hamas? Also, why would you name China, Russia, or the current Indian govt as examples? I mean are you really arguing that somebody is not a terrorist because Putin says so? More to the point: do YOU think they're a terrorist organization? They're holding civilian hostages in order to trade. Is that not terrorism, the very definition of? Is there any doubt here? Or do you actually believe holding civilian hostages to trade is OK, is not terrorism, is a legitimate or justified tactic even in war?
• Support for the Palestinian resistance is a mainstream political view... Sure, but not support for Hamas.
• I doubt that users would be sanctioned for having Israeli flags or American flags on their user pages, despite the fact that these states are perpetrating an ongoing genocide in Gaza, and these states have been either perpetrators of or accomplices to other genocidal atrocities far worse than anything Hamas may have done in e.g., Lebanon, Cambodia, East Timor, Vietnam, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Chile, Hiroshima. "Flags" is a lark; nobody is complaining about anyone displaying the Palestinian flag. Also, Israel didn't do anything in any of those countries except Lebanon, unless I'm missing something? And I think you forgot to include Palestine on that list? Finally, you cheapen "genocide" by mixing it up with mass murder or other war crimes. I agree with you that Israel has pursued genocidal policies in Palestine, but nobody considers Hiroshima "genocide." That was a war crime (IMO), mass murder, but not an attempt to kill all Japanese people. Same for the other examples you give. And the genocide in Cambodia wasn't done by the US or Israel, the bombing in Cambodia was again a war crime but not an attempt to kill all Cambodians. The Khmer Rouge did commit genocide there, but not with US or Israeli support (AFAIK).
• Hamas claims ... that "[if] there was any case of targeting civilians it happened accidentally." They are not holding 100+ hostages accidentally.
• That there are war crimes or atrocities in a war does not imply that the war itself is illegitimate per se. Not the war itself, but the people who committed the war crimes or atrocities are illegitimate per se.
• There would be no objection to quotes from Obama, Bush, Churchill, Kissinger etc. which express support for Western military conduct, despite Western military conduct being far worse than anything Hamas has ever done with respect to following the Geneva conventions, among other things. Obama, Bush, Churchill, and Kissinger are all responsible for some war crimes, but not for all "Western military conduct," and not for anything "far worse than anything Hamas has ever done". None of those four ever held civilian hostages for trade. And "Western military conduct" (dozens of countries, thousands of years) is far broader than even "Palestinian military conduct" (1 country, 100 years) nevermind "Hamas military conduct" (1 group, 40 years). It's a weird comparison, to compare Hamas to the entire west, it'd be like comparing the Proud Boys to Arab civilization.

Quoting Hamas about Palestinian resistance is like quoting Putin about Russian freedom. Putin is responsible for oppressing Russians. Hamas is responsible for oppressing Palestinians. So is Israel. Neither Hamas nor Israel are friends to the Palestinian cause IMO. Hamas are not the champions of Palestine, and I think it rather undermines the Palestinian cause to glorify, support, or legitimize Hamas, or equating Hamas with Palestine. I mean you're entitled to your opinions like anyone else, but these are my opinions. Levivich (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich:

1. For the three people, consider Dr. Maryam Jamshidi, Dr. Sara Roy and Dr. Tareq Baconi. This is in addition to the professors in the ADL link (which I also sent earlier), many of whom openly praise the 7 October attack.
2. On the support for Hamas in Palestine, I think it's fair to say that they enjoy significant but not unanimous support from the Palestinians. As in America, some politicians or political parties may have lower approval ratings on some occasions (even Biden isn't doing well on that front right now), due to a variety factors. The point isn't that every Palestinian supports Hamas, but rather they are a legitimate political player with support from many Palestinians. Hamas-Fatah have engaged in attempts to reconciliation over the past few decades, and the original animosity between them (mainly in ~2006-2007) was because of a US-backed coup attempt following Hamas' election win, which I note was recognized as fair and proper by international observers (including Jimmy Carter).
3. On terrorist designations, it's crucial to note that Russia and China have not only not recognized Hamas a terror group, but have also engaged diplomatically with Hamas. See here for China and here for Russia. Turkey, Qatar, Malaysia and Iran are similar. The fact that many major countries engage with this organization diplomatically does mean something. You suggest that since Putin is a criminal his opinion should not matter. It is fair to criticize Putin for many actions. I disagree with his attack on Ukraine. But what bothers me most are the double standards. The US has invaded far more countries than Russia has, and with less justification. Why should its terrorist designations be given more weight?
4. On targeting civilians, I draw a firm distinction between acts of civilian hostage-taking and act of rape or murder. For obvious reasons, these are morally different acts. There is no evidence Hamas leadership supported the rape or murder of civilians on 7 October. They did support civilian hostage taking. While this is technically a war crime, it is important to understand the context. They do not take hostages for fun. They take hostages as leverage to (i) release their own people, and (ii) to incentivize Israel to moderate its military responses for fear of the hostages' fate, as historically Israel has engaged in very disproportionate retaliation.
5. On the West, I think it's fairly clear that, since the end of WWII, Western countries have engaged in war crimes and atrocities at a frequency and scale incomparably greater than those they demonize, including Hamas. The '82 Lebanon war was a war of aggression started by Ariel Sharon to basically create a Maronite puppet state in Lebanon and neuter Palestinian nationalism. Tens of thousands of innocents were killed. Israel currently provides arms support for genocidal atrocities by Azerbaijan and Myanmar. The mention of Cambodia was not the genocide, but rather the bombing campaigns green-lighted by Kissinger. I should note that you might have misinterpreted me; not all of the Western crimes I mentioned were genocides per se, but they were war crimes and atrocities on par if not worse than whatever Hamas did on 7 October. The ongoing Israel-Hamas war is in fact a genocide.
6. On whether I support Hamas, it depends on what you mean by that. I am not a Muslim so I cannot agree with their Islamist ideology. I do not agree with their treatment of homosexuals or women. I also do not necessarily agree with all of their military tactics. But I do support them insofar as they are resisting an ongoing genocide of their people. I don't view them as pariahs who must be demonized and condemned at every turn. They are the representatives of their people. The demonization of Muslims, the hypocrisy, the double standards, is what I find problematic. JDiala (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence Hamas leadership supported the rape or murder of civilians on 7 October.

These articles may be of interest:

1. Hamas 'abduction manual' shows that hostage-taking was a central aim of attack; regarding the hostages, Hamas issued orders to Kill anyone that may pose a threat or cause distraction or disturbance.
2. A deadly cascade: how secret Hamas attack orders were passed down at last minute; this article describes orders to attack civilians, and describes an interrogation of a captured militant who said the mission was to kill … anyone we saw.
3. 'Top secret' Hamas documents show that terrorists intentionally targeted elementary schools and a youth center; this article describes written orders to kill as many people as possible.
4. In coded doc, Hamas instructed terrorists to kill civilians, take captives – report; A coded document found in a vehicle used by Hamas terrorists in their shock assault on Israel showed they were instructed to massacre civilians and take captives, according to a television report Saturday.

BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: These are wholly unreliable as they're sourced from Israel. JDiala (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources disagree, and consider there to be considerable evidence that their leaders supported these acts - as far as I know, there is no suggestion in reliable that the evidence in the articles I linked was fabricated.

As a general note, Hamas targets cities - indisputably civilian targets - with their rockets. If their leaders support targeting and killing civilians there, are you really surprised that they supported it on October 7? BilledMammal (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: WP:RS does not apply here. It only applies to adding material to articles, which this conversation has nothing to do with. As this is a talk page, I am allowed to indulge in some WP:OR. I will cautiously exercise that indulgence by dismissing the correctness of the articles you've cited. It is well-known that Israel fabricates claims (e.g., the UNRWA terrorism thing being a recent example — even Israel's Western allies recognized the sham) and it is well-known that Israel tortures prisoners (e.g., Haaretz). Therefore I see no reason to give the evidence you cited significant weight, as it is based on documents produced by Israel (which there is good reason to find prima facie unreliable) and confessions are quite likely coerced.

Hamas' rockets do not target civilians. Per Sinwar himself, they are unfortunately forced to use indiscriminate weapons as they lack precision weaponry. Civilians die as Hamas fires rockets, but this is regrettable collateral damage in wartime. Hamas' collateral damage is many orders of magnitude lower than that of Israel. JDiala (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I feel this won’t be a productive conversation, so I’ll just make one further comment - choosing to target civilian targets because you lack the ability to target military targets is still choosing to target and kill civilians.

Further, for someone unwilling to accept evidence sourced from Israel, even when endorsed by reliable sources, you are remarkably willing to take the word of a Hamas leader as fact. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There are many things about this conflict that we assume, but for which there is no real evidence. Yet they are repeated so often they are just accepted. Has anyone actually sat in on Hamas' internal deliberations regarding their rocket firing? It is quite plausible that their engineers, to the best of their ability and with their knowledge of classical mechanics (Gazans are in fact very well-educated), do what they can to aim at military installations, but the rockets simply end up in civilian areas because of the high inaccuracy. This is systemic bias. JDiala (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours per page for pages within this topic. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 09:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

How about some Ghassan Kanafani? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Hi! Thank you for sharing. Yes, I know of Kanafani and will definitely consider him as a possible addition, especially since he's much less controversial. JDiala (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, as far as I can see you've closed the RfC that you yourself have initiated. This looks like a violation of the Closure procedure, which says that the closure must be made by an uninvolved editor. As the initiator of the RfC who also voted for one of the alternatives, you are clearly an involved user. Unless I'm missing something, please revert your closure. If you believe that the discussion has ended, you can request a closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Alaexis_¿question? 06:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis See WP:RfC#Reasons and ways to end RfCs. This looks ok. Doug Weller talk 07:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't look okay. None of the 5 conditions listed there have been met. Alaexis_¿question? 11:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

False. No. 4 says "if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an involved editor may summarize the discussion." Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier looks like the conclusion wasn’t obvious if I read the ANI discussion correctly. Doug Weller talk 20:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

If I was closing it, I would have used different words, same outcome tho. Selfstudier (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Frankly if the RfC reopens I would !vote the same way you did - but, as I said at the closure review, I don't think that it's appropriate to have an involved editor close a contentious RfC, especially when it hasn't got that many responses yet. Simonm223 (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an RfC that you've closed. The thread is RfC_closure_review_request_at_Talk:Israel#RfC:_Apartheid_in_Lead. The discussion is about the topic Israel. Thank you. — Alaexis_¿question? 12:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the views you've expressed in a number of controversial topics concerning Israel and Jews in general, it seems to me that your "I think he did it" gives me concern that you're simply not able to edit according to sources in some areas. We're not concerned with what you "think" or believe, we deal with what the sources say. Acroterion (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion: If you're claiming that I cannot "edit according to sources in some areas", you have to in fact identify an edit made without a source, not an offhand remark on a talk page. JDiala (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

You asked about sourcing, it was answered on that talkpage, and you expressed your own opinion on the talkpage which appeared to disregard those sources. Talkpages aren't soapboxes for personal opinions, and that talkpage has been a magnet for problematic conduct of that kind. Acroterion (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala the alert you received above about this topic area applies to ALL pages. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Please try to stay on topic and assert information only insofar as relevant, particularly in contentious areas such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, crime, and Jewish people, unlike you did here and here.

In addition, both this style of commenting and referring to “sides” in the manner in which you did here is not optimal, and I would kindly ask you to consider not doing so in the future.

Thank you. FortunateSons (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons: There was nothing uncivil about the comment on the Israel-Hamas talk page. "Sides" obviously exist in debates. In this case, the "sides" are clear: those who want to change the title and those who do not. As for the Leo Frank thing, this is discussed immediately above and you've contributed nothing new. It is deeply concerning to me that you feel the need to tone-police critics of Zionism so aggressively. I feel targeted as this is the second time you have chosen to attack me for dubious reasons (previously it was for my support of Sinwar on my user page). You have done this with others as well. Making redundant, frivolous or baseless allegations against fellow editors is, in my estimation, far more egregious than taking a position on a legal case from a century ago. You are starting drama when none exists. JDiala (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

1. I have no idea what prompted you to consider can definitely be phrased in a nicer way, particularly considering it’s directed at someone ‘on your side’. ‘Sides’ is simply an unfortunate framing, it’s better to specifically address actions, not editors and their actual or perceived positions, but there is indeed a valid AGF interpretation here. Here is a suggestion for an alternative text, though you are obviously free to phrase you contributions however you wish: It would have been better to use Title, as that phrasing would have been more likely to be supported by the community and made voting in support of your proposal easier, because …
2. Me requesting admin assistance when something similar almost got a very experienced editor topic banned (who also agreed that there was significant overlap between those actions taken) is reasonable IMO. Could you explain why you believe that it isn’t?
3. I have no desire to target you specifically, and you might notice that my noticeboard vote regarding your recent close was relatively neutral in tone, specifically to avoid antagonism of any kind.
4. Considering that there was a non-insignificant number of editors that stated that quote on your talk page (“support”, you say) is at best unwise and at worst a policy violation, perhaps it’s not merely me who has an issue with this sort of conduct.
5. You’re not being “tone-policed” or baselessly targeted, you are being asked to comply with rules, policies and general editing conventions set forth by the community to allow us to build an encyclopaedia. As long as you do that, I have no issue with your editing, and have repeatedly and respectfully disagreed and nevertheless productively interacted with others prior.
6. Considering you seem to be looking through my contributions, you might have also found me explaining to an editor one might describe as being on my ‘side’ of the discussion I was having (see how that kind of othering gets us into trouble) how and why aspersions are unproductive and to be avoided. My opposition to being uncivil is generally equal regardless on my individual degree of political overlap with the person.
7. Lastly: if you think my claims are redundant, frivolous or baseless, feel free to request an admin take a look at my conduct/ request feedback at one of the relevant noticeboards. Otherwise, please be aware of WP:Aspersions.

FortunateSons (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons:

1. On the issue of "sides", I'm sorry but I'm just not convinced by your explanation. This is frivolous and baseless. There is a debate. People take sides in debates. This is not uncivil or controversial in any way. I am wondering if this might be an English-not-as-a-native-language issue or otherwise some cultural issue. It's also not clear to me why discussing the "actual positions" of other editors is somehow inappropriate.
2. On the Sinwar quotes, it is indeed true that some people suggested it was unwise. But there's a difference between thinking something is unwise, and thinking it worthy of starting proceedings on WP:AN to have said quotes forcibly removed. As you have been told on that thread, people will inevitably encounter things in life that do not please them to witness. It does not follow that it is prudent to attempt to silence anyone whose views displease you. You also should consider that the mere act of you bringing up the issue would prompt otherwise disinterested or neutral third-parties to conclude that the quotes ought to be removed, not necessarily because they view the quotes as inherently problematic to the integrity of the project, but because the fact that other editors (i.e., you) are upset over the quotes suggests disruption. In other words, it was your complaint that prompted their position, not the quotes per se. It is also interesting to note that one of your most emphatic voters against me (ElLuzDelSur) was identified as a sockpuppet, and another (Galamore) is viewed by many as highly suspicious. Their opinions should be weighted much less. The discussion was also brought up on Wikipediocracy with most people objecting to your position. Excluding the possible sockpuppets, the number of people who took the strong position that the quotes should be removed involuntarily, which was your position, was shockingly low.
3. WP:Aspersions mentions only allegations made without evidence. I have evidence. The issue of "sides" is frivolous and baseless for the reasons outlined. The issue of Leo Frank is "redundant" as this was discussed above on my talk page by another editor.
4. On the issue with the other editor (Traumnovelle), the fact of the matter is that you were told by ScottishFinnishRadish that their behaviour didn't warrant any sanction. In fact, even in the case of the Sinwar quotes, ScottishFinnishRadish basically took my side, which is why you went to WP:AN. It is interesting how twice within a two-month period you explicitly make a demand of an administrator to sanction another editor only to be turned down. You state that "something similar almost got a very experienced editor topic banned" except it was very clearly pointed out in that discussion why the situations were in fact not similar.
5. You have in another instance alleged a user is "antisemetic" baselessly. Now, to be clear, in this case your criticism was not entirely invalid. The other editor was acting contrary to WP:GF by attacking other editors. However, the other editor was not antisemetic, as he did not attack Jews. He only alleged some users were engaged in "hasbara", which can be perceived as an attack on Israelis and Zionism but not more than that. It is one thing to critique someone, but another to accuse them of "antisemitism", a serious charge (and a crime in many countries). These disproportionate and exaggerated slanders are disruptive to the project, even in cases where some criticism is merited.
6. All of the above is indicative of a pattern. The pattern is that you seem to enjoy complaining about things and slandering others, doing this by hiding behind Wikipedia policies: WP:LAWYERING. This is far more uncivil and disruptive to the project than anything I have ever done or said. It is important for you to understand that every instance where you complain about a non-issue, is time stolen from administrators and other editors to do more important tasks. This is disruptive conduct at its core. You need thicker skin.
7. This last bit might be speculative, but it's nonetheless important to discuss and I feel it might be a cause of some misunderstandings here. The cultural norms around I/P in the Anglosphere is somewhat different than in Germany. Pro-P positions are far more taboo in Germany, and in Germany dubious accusations of antisemitism are made far more regularly. Support for Hamas is completely verboten in Germany. In the Anglopshere (e.g., America) it is much more relaxed (for instance, there are regular pro-Hamas chants at American universities). We can also look at some of the article title names on the German Wikipedia versus the English one: Terrorangriff der Hamas auf Israel 2023 versus 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. I am concerned that some of your editing tendencies could be based on a cultural misunderstanding. JDiala (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

1. It’s possible that there is a language connotation issue as well (with sides being maybe interpretable closer to factions), but I vaguely recall that someone got criticised for using sides like that before, but that also wasn’t my primary complaint (and wouldn’t be something I would have brought up by itself, it was just an issue that was compounded by other concerns). Nevertheless, I maintain that the way I described the use of sides as not optimal is valid and non-frivolous, even if you disagree with it being bad. I stated in the second comment that an AGF interpretation is plausible, and I think we can both agree that (just to be clear, hypothetically) grouping editors into ‘factions’ (as in: by voting pattern) would have been inappropriate, while referring to them simply by the way they voted specifically is valid.
2. I did reach out to both you and an admin first, so AN was third, not my first option, I asked first (and hoped that you would do it voluntarily, I wasn’t looking to get you sanctioned). I’m also not interested in re-litigating the discussion, and think that the outcome should rest as is (unless you are looking to add new quotes and try again without a ‘recall condition’, which I of course can’t stop), no matter what Wikipediocracy says.
3. I don’t think that’s what frivolous or baseless means, but I could be interpreting those overly literally. Me describing something as “not optimal” requires me to show a better version (which I think I have) and you not to show that your version is equal or better (which I think you haven’t, but you of course might disagree). Nevertheless, the “meat” of the complaint is the first half anyway, you being ‘direct’ with someone else who hasn’t complained isn’t an acute problem, it just contributes to the already heated atmosphere. Just as a minor point, but mentioning similar behaviour which you defended when mentioning a pattern is not redundant, I’m not writing to AE, I’m just asking you for a slight change.
4. Regarding TN, SFR did explain the difference between acceptable and problematic behaviour well, and while I disagree with the outcome (particularly failing to see the clear difference between TNs and the warned users behaviour), I trust SFRs discretion as an admin. Just out of curiosity: would you describe the two cases as materially different? Would you specifically disagree with the statement: I believe a reasonable person can interpret as antisemitic at worst. Hasbara is used as a dog whistle against those who are or are perceived to be Jews (discussed at the comment, so should be easy to find), so saying that the personal attack against the handful of people targeted could be directed at the perceived ethnicity of some member of the group in question is not implausible in my opinion. It was also not challenged by anyone but one person at the time (including at least one admin), so it doesn’t seem like it was a particularly offensive or misleading statement. However, you are right that I can’t know if it was targeted at ethnicity (or at least informed by unconscious bias), but I feel like I qualified the statement appropriately to account for that. I apologise if I didn’t succeed.
5. And I think this is the crux of the issue: reporting someone for something that a reasonable person could consider against the letter and spirit of a policy is not slanderous or lawyering, and I often (though of course not always) see either an action being taken or an explanation why the behaviour is concerning but excusable. I’m also often not the only one with an issue regarding the behaviour, though of course that is not unexpected in any polarised area. You can disagree with how I use admin resources, but if they mind, they can just say no (which is a valid response), everyone else except the reported person is engaging voluntarily. I don’t tend to over-burden the noticeboards (except RSN about one specific article, but it’s a bit technical, so it’s better than having someone clean it up after me) either. Usually, some admin action is taken; could you link to a few complaints about specific users that you find completely frivolous (as in: no reasonable editor could believe that this conduct is improper)? I would like to understand your perspective.
6. That’s a valid assumption, and also probably true, considering I (here I go, Foruming on a noforum discussion) consider much of German culture around this topic overly lax and particularly tolerant of left-wing-antisemitism. There can definitely be a culture gap at play, but Germany is not the only country where public support for a (designated) terrorist group or their actions can in some cases have criminal consequences, though I must confess that I paid limited attention on that part of my comp. law class, so I could be embarrassing myself here. However, systemic bias goes in both directions, and a “more German” view should be considered as much as any other non-anglophone perspective.

FortunateSons (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Feel free to respond as you wish, but I doubt that we will find consensus here, so no hard feeling from my end if you only respond to some points; as you vaguely know in which time zone I am, I think you can figure out that I’m quite past a reasonable sleep schedule. FortunateSons (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons:"reporting someone for something that a reasonable person could consider against the letter and spirit of a policy is not slanderous or lawyering" The term "reasonable person" is doing significant heavy lifting here. Taken in a vacuum, an individual borderline reasonable complaint is not an issue. However, when taken in aggregate, and considering the pattern of conduct, repeatedly making even borderline reasonable complaints is definitionally litigious and inappropriate, especially if the matters complained about are clearly low-priority. Controversial userpage quotes and the word "hasbara" fall into the latter category. You can consider checking out this video depicting an analogous situation, also from Germany incidentally. But even that is more sensible than what you are doing because at least parking laws are completely objective. You are appealing to entirely subjective notions of reasonability based on your own ideological tendencies.

"Germany is not the only country where public support for a (designated) terrorist group or their actions can in some cases have criminal consequences, though I must confess that I paid limited attention on that part of my comp. law class, so I could be embarrassing myself here. However, systemic bias goes in both directions, and a “more German” view should be considered as much as any other non-anglophone perspective."The Wikimedia foundation is based in America which has the First Amendment. Thus, while the US designates Hamas as a terror group, it is also allows for statements in support of it (provided they are not material or financial). Support for Hamas and armed Palestinian resistance (including open support for October 7th) is something many American academics are engaged in (Joseph Massad is one example). It is also worth noting that we do not designate Hamas as a terrorist organization on the English Wikipedia because our (mostly Anglophone) WP:RS do not regard it as such. Purely on cultural norms, I personally weight the American perspective far more highly than the censorious German perspective, since America is the largest Anglophone country and has a disproportionate number of editors around here. An ideologically committed Zionist German demanding offensive content be taken off from English WP is no different than an ideologically committed Muslim zealot demanding (for instance) pictures of Muhammad be removed from the corresponding article, which unfortunately is also a common occurrence, but which we have a firm stance against.

"Hasbara is used as a dog whistle against those who are or are perceived to be Jews" This is just false. I don't know what else to say. This is just a mischaracterization of the word and its usage. It is entirely unreasonable. JDiala (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, but do not believe that engaging with this in parallel to the AE is likely to contribute to a productive editing environment. FortunateSons (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is JDiala. Thank you. FortunateSons (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I think it would be good for all parties if you put your Wikipedia efforts into other positive topics. Thank you.Rajoub570 (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I see now that another editor has filed a complaint just today Rajoub570 (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Just a note - your comments at AE are only supposed to be under your own section, not others'. Please move them out of CoffeeCrumbs and BilledMammal's and to your own, or an admin will at somepoint as a clerking action. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing, please move your comments to your own section of the case. It's improper to comment in the sections of other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: @The Kip: Removed but this is an odd policy unless I'm misunderstanding something. I'm only allowed 500 words in my section in total which isn't adequate to respond to a torrent of what I consider disingenuous allegations. This gives a structural advantage to one's opponents. JDiala (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

All editors are limited to 500 words and 20 diffs unless granted an extension, which you may request. The policy is in place in order to ensure AE cases remain concise/orderly, and don't become a never-ending wall-of-text argument as seen elsewhere on WP.

As an aside, referring to editors who've disagreed with your conduct as "opponents" doesn't help to assuage the WP:BATTLEGROUND concerns you've been accused of. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

As The Kip states, the rules exist for all editors. They can be frustrating but it prevents wall-of-text comments. As stated, you can request an extension but even with that you have to stay within the stated limits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey JDiala. So I saw you were topic banned from articles related to the Israeli-Arab conflict. I also saw the discussion on User talk:Doug Weller#Appeal, where a key point was made. Before you work to appeal the topic-ban, you should edit in other areas on Wikipedia. I was once topic-banned (U.S. politics), but after editing for a year on other topics, I was able to successfully appeal that topic ban. I know it may seem useless or hopeless to try, but it can be done.

With that said, I wanted to mention that if you wanted to edit about the weather (like tornadoes, hurricanes, snowstorms, heat waves, floods, ect...), WikiProject Weather is a nice place to build up edits. I know my name is "Weather Event Writer", but prior to my U.S. politics topic ban, I had barely edited weather topics on Wikipedia. After my topic ban, I discovered that it is very easy to edit on the topic and after a while, I loved it so much that I stick around, despite being un-topic banned.

So, if you have any interest at all, my talk page is open! I can help you get started and such, as well as introduce you to other members of the WikiProject. If not, that is totally fine! There are hundreds (actually over 2,000) of other WikiProjects where you can edit. I just wanted to make a pitch for WikiProject Weather since (1) I like it and (2) it is extremely hard to intersect something like a tornado with the Israel-Arab conflict, so you can edit basically any weather article without worry of violating your topic ban rules. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: Thank you for these suggestions and for your concern regarding my situation. Yes, I'll indeed have to look for a new topic. I'm glad you were able to find your niche in weather, and I'll definitely consider it. JDiala (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)