Talknic

I suggest you read WP:V. It's a core policy of Wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion of material in an article is that it was published by reliable secondary sources, not our own interpretation of primary sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

A minor correction is in order. You certainly may use any analysis or interpretations that have been reliably published in primary sources. WP:PSTS only applies to unpublished original research done by Wikipedia editors.

In Robert Donovan, "Conflict and crisis: the presidency of Harry S. Truman, 1945-1948, University of Missouri Press, 1996,ISBN 082621066X, page 382 the author wrote that Under Secretary Lovett was asked to provide the President's Legal Counsel, Clark Clifford, an advisory opinion from a senior legal counsel at the State Department, Ernest Gross. It was used by the President and his staff in making decisions regarding US recognition of the newly partitioned states in Palestine. It was decided that neither state would be recognized if it attempted to form a unitary state governing all of Palestine or tried to obtain more territory than had been agreed upon in the international forum. There are a number of published accounts which say that Ben Gurion and the Provisional Council had decided to leave the matter of borders "open to developments". In Simha Flapan, "The birth of Israel: myths and realities", Pantheon Books, 1987, page 35 the author wrote that Ben Gurion was very displeased when he discovered that Elihu Epstein's request for US recognition contained a stipulation that Israel had been established within the boundaries of the 29 November UN resolution. Years later Clark Clifford, wrote an account explaining that he had personally insisted upon that written clarification regarding Israel's borders.

Here is the account via the JCPA: "Epstein was ecstatic. He did not realize that the President had still not decided how to respond to the request I had just solicited. It was particu­larly important, I said, that the new state claim nothing beyond the boundaries outlined in the UN resolution of November 29, 1947, be­cause those boundaries were the only ones which had been agreed to by everyone, including the Arabs, in any international forum.

A few minutes later, Epstein called back: "We've never done this before, and we're not quite sure how to go about it. Could you give us some advice?" I told him that I would check with the experts and get back to him... ...I asked Epstein to be sure the letter explicitly referred to the November 29 UN resolu­tion. the JCPA harlan (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

In December 1948 the Security Council considered the membership of the State of Israel. During the 384th Session the representative of the USSR objected to suggestions that the application be delayed until Israel's borders could be determined. He said

My delegation cannot agree with the assertion that the territory and frontiers of the State of Israel have not been established, are undetermined and vague. It holds the view that the territory of Israel has been defined by an international document, namely, the General Assembly's resolution of 29 November 1947, which is still in force. Not only does the resolution define precisely the territory of the State of Israel, but it even includes an appended map, which can be seen at any time by any member of the Security Council. The question is therefore beyond dispute. See [1] page 22 of 45

During the 386th Session the views of the USSR and SSR Ukraine on the subject were repeated:

In our opinion the territory of the State of Israel has been determined and delimited by an international instrument, that is, the General Assembly resolution of 29 November 1947, and which remains in force. Not only does that resolution delimit the territory and boundaries of the State of Israel, but the resolution has a map appended to it which can be consulted by any member of the Security Council or by anybody else. Thus, the question is indubitable. See [2] page 5 of 20

There were dozens of remarks like that during the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee meetings on the application for membership. It was stated repeatedly, without objection from the representative of the Provisional Government of Israel, that it had been created by an act of the General Assembly. The day Israel was admitted to the UN, the Arab States extended it tacit recognition. The Arabs and Israel signed the joint protocol which agreed that the map from the plan of partition would be the basis of the negotiations during the Lausanne Conference, 1949. harlan (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Harlan. Ok have read WP:PSTS through again. Still discussing this at No More Mr Nice Guy

Thanks for the JCPA Article. The actual letter sure isn't flashed around. These either :

Border confirmation 22nd May 1948

Again 15th June 1949

Claim to territories after confirming the extent of it's Sovereignty, being recognized, confirming territories held under military control (occupation). talknic (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

In the example above, the advisory opinion is a primary source that provides its own published analysis. There is no requirement to supply a secondary source, since the analysis has already been reliably published and its origins are not Wikipedia or a Wikipedia editor. That sort of thing comes up all the time. Here are the last two discussions I had on the subject at WP:NOR [3][4] harlan (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Harlan, Thx... I'm not sweating on any of this .. most of it'll end up on my blog re-edited in excruciating detail .. :-) "wikI/Pedia where general consensus can = 2 " talknic (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Claro talknic (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have made two [5] [6] reversions to the above article within less than two hours. The article is under a one revert per 24 hours restriction, as you can see on the top of the article's talk page. I believe I have already pointed this restriction out to you in the talk page discussion.

You should self-revert your last edit or you will be reported. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nice try

One revision - removing the JPost source you added without the consensus you demand of others by misconstruing the guidelines.

You can show everyone where it says -- (Undid revision [nnnnnnnnn] by No More Mr Nice Guy -etc- ) yes?

One reversion - your replacement of the JPost source. The second source you have added without the consensus you demand of others by misconstruing the guidelines.

(Undid revision 421797941 by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) This is the second time No More Mr Nice Guy has added a source without the consensus he seeks.in talk.)

By your twisted criteria you could call my removal of your weird incorrection, reversion. (Removed No More Mr Nice Guy's addition of 'Mandate'. The source specifically emphasizes that the agreement did not say 'Mandate' Palestine) And why would it? The Mandate expired May 14th 194

But again, can you show everyone where it says -- (Undid revision [nnnnnnnnn] by No More Mr Nice Guy -etc-) If it was reversion, the rest of your changes to that post would not have remained

Now here you are again, misconstruing the guidelines talknic (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Calm down and think about what you are doing. Take a break and work out some priorities. If you are not careful you will wind up every single editor who works on Israel-Palestine pages - people with every viewpoint and no viewpoint on the substantive issues. NMMNG is actually correct, it is not only by the undo that changes are reverted. Lots of help and advice are available for work on pages like this. I suggest you get some help and advice, not from me because it is too late and you don't trust me, but perhaps by posting for comments on WikiProject Israel-Palestine Collaboration. Otherwise, you are quickly heading towards being banned for good. Then you can write all you like on your blog about Wikipedia bias, but actually it isn't that at all, but you not taking the time to learn the procedures. Give yourself a break and take the chance you have; this is blunt because I don't see any other way of getting through. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but no thanks. The record speaks for itself. A record I'm sure even an intermediate mathematician would be ashamed to witness talknic (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Have it your way. Reported here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fine by me. Thx talknic (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

  The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision.

You are notified here per the result of WP:AN3#User:Talknic reported by User:No More Mr Nice Guy (Result: Notified of discretionary sanctions). This notice will be logged at WP:ARBPIA#Log of notifications. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

..how Wiki policies are used to perpetrate propaganda, prevent the addition of informative material, slowly remove the Palestinians from the picture, turn what could be simple discussions into marathons talknic (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I started a discussion about you here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

How cute... talknic (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry guys, but I couldn't stop laughing about this... AdvertAdam ^talk 08:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Me too. talknic (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reported here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Of course. Thx talknic (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

See this result of an AE discussion. You are banned for three months from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, including talk pages. The authority for this action is here. The ban expires on 2 August 2011. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I really don't need lessons in deportment and etiquette from you. Since you're in a minority of one on most issues that you've been discussing on that page, and you keep on raising the same discredited nonsense again and again and again no matter how many times other people point out very serious problems (not to mention your old habit of including gratuitous insults in edit summaries), you would appear to be the one who's being "disruptive"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

You were warned [7] ... talknic (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

And you were the one who was topic-banned, and may be again... AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

You consider pointing out flaws in your arguments to be a personal attack. In any case, if it comes to any kind of formal Wikipedia process, then your habit of including gratuitous insults in your edit summaries will be weighed in the balance (as I told you once before long ago). AnonMoos (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please keep the conversation where it started .. thx --18:20, 14 October 2011‎ User:Talknic

Talknic, I really don't need lessons in etiquette and deportment from you. I may be more vocal in sometimes letting drop exclamations which betray annoyance ("Dude" and such), but in most other respects, you behave far worse than I do -- since you're extremely aggressive in continually pushing your original research theories long after it's become very clear that no one but you finds any merit in them; and you continually ignore whatever Wikipedia policies you feel like (WP:OR to start with), yet you also continually invoke Wikipedia acronymic polcies to try to control the behavior of other users. I really can't figure out why you still continually include abrasive and annoying remarks in your edit summaries, well over six months after it was made very clear to you that this habit is found to be objectionable -- unless it's because you enjoy being abrasive and annoying. AnonMoos (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

AnonMoos:Please keep the conversation where it started .. thx ... talknic (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

People are winding you up like clockwork, and you take any bait that is offered. You will end up banned unless you learn to let comments go or take them up in the appropriate forum. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I think he's the one trying to do the winding up. The appropriate forum sounds like a good idea though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Itsmejudith - Odd .. you admit someone is provoking, yet they're not once taken to task

NMMNG - The records show who first begins 'winding up' and making personal remarks. On every instance BTW. It's an interesting list for any 'appropriate forum'

Far better to just address the topics. No? ... talknic (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Like I told you earlier, I strongly encourage you to go the appropriate forum and make your case. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

NMMNG - I strongly encourage you to address the topic/s, sans any personal affronts what so ever, lest I take your advice ... talknic (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Talknic, I really don't need lessons in etiquette and deportment from you, since you frequently act very poorly in continually aggressively repeatedly pushing unproductive and unconstructive lines of argument on article talk pages, in spite of the fact that you must know from repeated past evidence that it will not result in any article article improvement. Someone has said that fanaticism is knowing that what you're doing won't get any results, but continuing to do it anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

As a result of an RFC you filed, I was pointed at Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War. I am strongly concerned that your language and tone are overly emotive. You must collaborate with other editors, even those you disagree with. Please try to remain calm. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hipocrite -- What 'emotive' language would that be. Please quote an instance. Meanwhile I have been called: "troll" - "dude" addressed with "whatever".

I note though you don't seem concerned about the constant and deliberate provocation by others[8] (in reply to the chronological order of events). Containing the false accusation "You can call me whatever names you like in your snarky edit summaries," I have never called anyone a name anywhere. Failure to provide any sources at all in his dialogue with me. Failure to provide edit summaries.

Obfuscation: [9]. NMMNG's first reply (to me) @ 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC), "First of all not only the Palestinians refer to it as the Catastrophe" However, the change I'd suggested was an attempt to reconcile the first paragraph with the last, to include Israel's neighbouring Palestinian Arabs. Not about the Nakba.

More Obfuscation:" Second I think that "the neighbouring Palestinian Arabs" is not clear. Neighboring to whom? Syria? Lebanon?" Bizarre.

Then this "Also it's incorrect to say that the Palestinians were left under the military control of Israel, Jordan and Egypt." I then showed numerous secondary sources, for which he then required second secondary sources.

Moving goal posts: "The State of Israel and its Arab neighbors" obviously refers to neighboring Arab states. Alas that is NOT what it actually said. Nor does it now. I afforded the opportunity to collaborate and change it to say 'Arab States'. It went completely unheeded as did the secondary sources provided for which he then claimed I needed a second secondary source. Indicating he'd not even bothered to read the secondary I'd provided at his behest.

Leaving information un-sourced by consensus[10].

Refusal to address the topic: Literally HUNDREDS of instances

All of which make collaboration virtually impossible

As for calm: [11] ... talknic (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry my dinnertime schedule disappoints you. Please stop harassing me. I will respond on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

A)Sorry, I had no idea what your dinner schedule was B) OK ... talknic (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Maybe we should all have our time zones display on our User pages...   — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

That IS a really good idea!! ... talknic (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not use rollback (it was impossible to do so as there had been a subsequent edit), I did not accuse anyone of being a vandal, and I have no idea what you mean by an "unattributed" article? They are both legitimate sources that show what the Hebrew name for the war is. What on earth makes you think that those Hebrew names for the war is POV? This is one of the few things in the article that isn't contentious. Perhaps what is appropriate is an apology for false accusations of inappropriate rollback usage and vandalism claims? Number 57 09:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Number 57 - OK. My apologies. I saw this [rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)] at the top of [12]

Never the less both sources are un-attributed. Unknown authors. Please revert ... talknic (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Where do you see the word "Vandal" on the diff you linked? It does not appear on my page.

It doesn't matter that the authors are unknown. We frequently use sources that do not necessarily have the authors written (many BBC news stories for instance). Can I ask why you are demanding those names are cited? It is clearly the case that they are the Hebrew names for the war. I am slightly bemused as to why you are challenging it. Number 57 10:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't yet understand why the rollback thing appears at the top of the page when I view it. Never the less, I have apologized.

The first reverted link to Ynet gives the date for the war from 19th Nov 1947. The Arab-Israeli war is dated from May 15th 1948. Under discussion in Talk

The second [13] appears to be an unattributed Primary Source about the Kibbutz Degania -- WP:SOURCES "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications" ... talknic (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you answer the question about why you are questioning the Hebrew names? Number 57 14:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not questioning the Hebrew names ... talknic (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Then why are you demanding a reference for them? Number 57 14:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Israeli Government Web site Article on Israel's wars, attributed to an authoritative Israeli Historian, says the War of Independence was from Nov 1947.

NMMNG, Itsmejudith say an authoritative Israeli Historian on the Israeli Government Web sit, is not WP:RS. I seriously doubt that an un-attributed Primary Source article about a Kibbutz meets their criteria, although they are willing to have un-sourced information when it suits them Talk [14] ... talknic (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, let's see what they do then with the new reference. This very much sounds like disruption to make a point to me. Number 57 14:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Ynet source shows the wrong date for the article. The other, a Primary Source about a Kibbutz. They probably won't notice the second source ... talknic (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Talknic, I really don't need any lessons in deportment and etiquette from you, considering that the basic problem is, and remains, that you keep relentlessly and aggressively trying to push nonsense into the articles, long after it has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people that it's blatant nonsense (not necessarily always by those on the quasi-"pro-Israel" side, by the way -- both Zero0000 and ItsMeJudith have lost patience with you at times). Frankly, several people are wondering at this point whether your continual relentless and aggressive pushing of the same old tiresome tedious exposed and debunked blatant nonsense indicates that you're consciously and deliberately disingenuous, or possibly even a mere troll. Your incredible obtuseness on the Alec Kirkbride discussion, where you completely and utterly failed to grasp extremely basic and obvious simple points no matter how how many times they were explained to you at great length certainly had the flavor of a deliberately cultivated or calculated disingenuous obtuseness. Furthermore, you behave worse in your edit summaries than I do on the article talk pages, and pointing out flaws in your arguments, or that you're repeatedly re-raising red herrings that have been discredited and found to be ineffective in the past, is not a "vendetta"[sic]. Frankly, if you invoke some kind of formal Wikipedia bureaucratic process, then your past behavior will be nothing to be proud of, and will not make a very good impression on uninvolved third parties. AnonMoos (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Noted: Anonmoos's completely un-supported rant ... talknic (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

And I kind of left out what is currently the main point -- which is that your baseless allegation of "tag-teaming"[sic], based on no valid evidence or information whatsoever, is far more of a direct personal attack than anything I've said... AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Noted: Another of AnonMoos's false accusations ... talknic (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

You were warned [15] ... talknic (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

And you have been topic-banned before, and may be again. Meanwhile, please don't leave any more gibberish data-dumps on my user talk page (consisting of highly-condensed and unreadable excerpts of past discussions in which you by and large behaved worse than I did), because doing so comes pretty close to being pure vandalism... AnonMoos (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Whatever dude - you have been warned ... talknic (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reported here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Anything to please you all ... talknic (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I recommend you read WP:Vandalism, especially the section titled "What is not vandalism". Calling the work of editors with whom you disagree vandalism is inappropriate. Labeling non-vandalism edits as vandalism as an attempt to circumvent the 1RR restriction are strongly frowned upon.

After you read WP:Vandalism, you may wish to consider undoing your last edit at 1948 Arab–Israeli War, since you were not reverting vandalism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The reasons given by NMMNG for reverting on the last two occasions were simply false, not a matter of disagreement over content ... talknic (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

 

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

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

---

Request reason:

1st instance. Adding information to the previous Itsmejudith edit, with Secondary, Verifiable, RS sources. :Accordingly justification for that edit and its additional information was taken to the Talk page [16] :Before reverting, No More Mr Nice Guy did not try to resolve the issue on the article Talk page in respect to the specific additional information or the validity of the sources. In fact he states the reason for his revert was "..not in source. also restoring "mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate"." adding see talk shortly. :The information relevant to both sources is in the sources, verbatim. No More Mr Nice Guy also restored a completely un-sourced and contested statement: "mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate", which I had earlier taken to Talk in order to resolve 11:23, 29 September 2011 :2nd instance : [17] was to undo what I can only describe as vandalism. I.e., Not a dis-agreement over content, but a false reason for his revert "..not in source". The specific additional information [18] IS in the sources I provided. :This is the second time No More Mr Nice Guy has reverted an edit of Secondary, Verifiable, RS information [19] using using the accusation "editoralizing and primary source". In this instance, the sources I'd provided were Secondary, Verifiable and RS in that they accurately conveyed the meaning of documents they cited. :My reason for reverting what I considered vandalism in that instance[20] was again not a dis-agreement over content, but a false reason for reverting. I took this to the appropriate Talk page [21] talknic (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

This is not how to appeal against an arbitration enforcement block. please follow the link in the block notice (above) to see how to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

---

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

Thanks James ... Claro ... talknic (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

In reply to your posting to my page. The 3RR rule specifically says "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." -- PBS (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK. However [22] there's no valid reasons given for reverting ... talknic (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I posted a comment to the talk page at 01:56, 26 November 2011, I made the revert at 02:02, 26 November 2011. So while you may think "there's no valid reasons given for reverting", I clearly though those were valid reasons, and your comment could be construed as an Ad hominem as you did not prefix it with "I think". I could just as easily comment "you reverted with no valid reasons given for reverting", but both are a matter of opinion and to tread such a path does not help us reach a consensus. Therefore suggest that we continue the conversation about the content on the talk page of the article. You will find that I posted this comment at 08:31, 26 November 2011 and I await your reply. -- PBS (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

PBS - "I clearly though those were valid reasons" you gave only ONE reason. No consensus. It is not a reason unless there has been a discussion. The only discussion on pre - 1947 information you were defeated by consensus 3:1 (now 4:1)

"I could just as easily comment "you reverted with no valid reasons given for reverting"" The record shows my rationale for the original edit, and the restore and; that I took it to Talk. The record also shows your rationale was 'not having consensus', when in fact consensus was NOT in your favour [23] for removing pre - '47/48 information ... talknic (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have removed your RfC from Talk:Citing sources because it is a talk page for an article, Citing sources, which consists of a redirect to the article Citation. That article is about citations in general throughout scholarly writing, and is not specific to Wikipedia. Thus it is not the appropriate place to discuss how citations are done within Wikipedia. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Jc3s5h - The RFC appeared on Editing Wikipedia talk:Citing sources | a page that says - "This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines" Please revert or assist in having it appear where it was needed thx (also posted on your talk page)... talknic (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here is the diff which confirms that my reversion was to Talk:Citing sources. If you review the history of Wikipedia talk:Citing sources you will see I did not edit that page at all in the relevant time frame. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes I realize it appeared on Talk:Citing sources. I tried to resolve it before [24]. But removing it from Talk:Citing sources also removes it from [25]. How do I get it to appear only on [26]? thx ... talknic (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The RfC template was removed from Wikipedia talk:Citing sources in this edit and has nothing to do with the removal from the wrong page, Talk:citing sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK Thanks for your help. Seems someone is determined by any means not to have the proposal put forward ... talknic (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

If I understand you correctly, some comment that I wrote more than a month ago was not properly aligned. I'm not interested in maintaining ancient discussions. They should be archived. If it bothers you, please feel free to delete any of my comments that are more than a month old, which you feel intrude on your comments. Jsolinsky (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sheeeeesh, in the time you've wasted deleting a reasonable request from your own page, you could have rectified the problem. Thanks for being so cooperative. I'll add it to what is becoming a rather long list ... talknic (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Did you see my post under Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Threaded_discussion? Nice idea, but unless I'm mistaken, this irreparably damages your proposal, so it might be best to withdraw it.  —SMALLJIM  18:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Smalljim -- Yes. seen that issue. Now answered on the Talk page ... talknic (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I really can't see why you're persisting with this. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, so please - would you explain to me how the Google Books system that by design ignores everything after the 32nd word can verify the existence of a passage that's longer than 32 words?  —SMALLJIM  21:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The fault with Google is not mine, nor does it necessarily negate the idea in the long term. Google's code can be changed. Can we keep this conversation to the relevant Talk page please so others a can follow the results of our conversation ... talknic (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reported here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You were engaged in a previous conversation on this topic, please join the ongoing discussion here.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I added the words "in the territory of" before the British Mandate, which I think addresses your objection about the Mandate itself not technically being a territory.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

A Mandate is a set of conditions. Sets of conditions do not have any territory. Nor was it the British Mandate. The official name was Mandate for Palestine. [27] The primary document does not contain the words "British Mandate" ... talknic (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The mandate was a legal authority granted to the British over an area of territory. As such, it would be technically accurate to refer to it as the British Mandate as the British are the ones possessing that mandate. Said mandate gave them authority over territory, as such it is technically accurate to refer to the "territory of" the Mandate as it can be understood to refer to that territory over which the British were still exercising that mandate. You should also look up WP:PLACE as it concerns this dispute. Most reliable sources refer to this territory as the British Mandate for Palestine. Referring to the territory as Palestine is a generally-accepted shorthand, but the term "British Mandate for Palestine" provides much-needed context to the lede and is not a controversial term for historians to use so we should not treat it as controversial wording.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Correction. The Mandate for Palestine entrusted "to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine" It's the first sentence of the Mandate for Palestine, which doesn't even contain the word 'British' or 'Britain'. Reliable Secondary Sources are required to accurately reflect the documents they refer to in order to be first considered reliable Secondary Sources.

"Most reliable sources refer to this territory as the British Mandate for Palestine" Once upon a time most reliable sources said "the world is flat" so most people believed it was, even though they could stand on a hill and look at the horizon and see it wasn't. Were their eyes deceiving them? Or reliable sources who didn't bother to go stand on a hill to have a look? Or was it those who used reliable sources for their own purposes, to convince people to believe the world was flat? "Say, where have all our serfs gone Jeeves?" .. "They sailed off to look for something better than serfdom your Lordship" .. "You mean I'll .. er .. you'll have to work the fields myself .. er .. by yourself?" .. "I'm afraid so your Lordship"

"it is technically accurate to refer to the "territory of" the Mandate as it can be understood to refer to that territory over which the British were still exercising that mandate. " Problem is, they were not 'still exercising that mandate' during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

It is most accurate to refer to "Palestine" during the respective periods as: 1) 'Palestine from 1922 to 1946' when referring to the period before Jordanian independence. 2) 'Palestine from 1946 to 1948' when referring to the period between Jordanian Independence and Israeli Independence. 3) 'Palestine, post 1948' when referring to the period after Israeli Independence. The dates tell readers something was different before, during and after those dates.

E.g., a tombstone marked 'John Brown 1921 - 1999', tells us three things. John Brown didn't exist before 1921, did exist from 1921 til 1999 and; John Brown didn't exist after 1999. Readers then know to look in the archives for John Brown's ancestors before 1921. Look in the archives for John Brown from 1921 to 1999 and look in the archives for John Brown's descendants after 1999.

Applied to the territory in question: 1)'the territory of Palestine from 1922 to 1946'. 2) 'the territory of Palestine from 1946 to 1948'. 3) 'the territory of Palestine post 1948'. ... talknic (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Talknic. You have been banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces for six months, for reasons given in the Result section of this AE request. This ban expires on 26 June 2012. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please note that "Namespaces" includes editor talk pages. I will not take this to AE right now but please don't do this again. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Brewcrewer - Thx for that :-) talknic (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs)

This user can't participate in that discussion, as he's topic banned. You should probably remove this invitation, lest he succumb to temptation. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

1. 15 December 2011 Revert and false accusation of my not having Secondary Sources. Maintains POV bias
2. 15 December 2011 Several false accusations pointing to entirely different consensus
3. 28 June 2012 Total failure to attempt to collaborate in any manner what so ever in order to resolve an obvious NPOV issue
4. 4 July 2012 Complete revert for one word, when a partial revert is all that was necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy's comment "If you make smaller edits I won't need to revert the whole thing to correct your made up stuff. " Fails to show anything "made up". Argues Hebrew isn't a Jewish language.
5. 4 July 2012 Began to seek solution and gave notification NMMNG's talk page

Friday, 5 March 1948 Rabbi Silver stated:
"Nevertheless, reluctantly but loyally, we accepted the decision which appeared fair and reasonable to the United Nations"
"We feel under the obligation to make our position unmistakably clear. As far as the Jewish people are concerned, they have accepted the decision. of the United Nations. We regard it as binding, and we. are resolved to move forward in the spirit of that decision. "
Why are editors preventing the Official Jewish Agencies reaction from being accessed by readers?

Friday, 19 March 1948 Rabbi Silver replacing Mr. Shertok at the Council table as representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine stated:
"We are under the obligation at this time to repeat what we stated at a [262nd meeting] meeting of the Security Council last week: The decision of the General Assembly remains valid for the Jewish people. We have accepted it and we are prepared to abide by it. If the United Nations Palestine Commission is unable to carry out the mandates which were assigned to it by the General Assembly, the Jewish people of Palestine will move forward in the spirit of that resolution and will do everything which is dictated by considerations of national survival and by considerations of justice and historic rights." and; acknowledged that "The setting up of one State was not made conditional upon the setting up of the other State." talknic (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC). Why are editors determined to prevent readers from accessing this information?Reply

Unsourced http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mandatory_Palestine&diff=next&oldid=494875105 nonsense "The Mufti al-Husseini would spend the rest of the war in Nazi Germany and the occupied areas in Europe, in particular encouraging Muslim Bosniaks to join the Waffen SS in German-conquered Bosnia. Al-Husseini was also responsible for establishing the Arab unit of the Wehrmacht, which was largely operating on the Eastern European front.^{[dubious – discuss]} Despite his efforts, most of the Arab pro-German volunteers were not Palestinian." talknic (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Hopelessly bogged down by POVReply

Arab Israeli war - Reference says nothing like The fighting took place mostly on the former territory of the British Mandate and for a short time also in the Sinai Peninsula and southern Lebanon.[14] http://books.google.com.au/books?id=h3EOJGiBBpQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+war+for+palestine+rewriting+the+history+of+1948&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4YPRT8yxPMHWmAWdzMSMAw&ved=0CDgQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=mandate&f=false talknic (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Topic now under discussionReply

Can you show an official document (or a citation of one) that says explicitly that the official name was "Palestine"? I suspect there wasn't one. On the other hand, I have a good secondary source that says "Palestina (E.Y.) became Palestine’s official Hebrew name, and it consequently appeared on all official documents and notices", and several other good secondary sources that say similar things. Zerotalk 12:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC) ... The Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Covenant, The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine --- "English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic" talknic (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Topic now under discussionReply

Suggest one article "The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine". Rationale: Mandatory Palestine is not the official name of anything. It is a "term" used to describe a period in history where Palestine was governed by the British under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. "British Mandate for Palestine" is also only a term used to describe the British obligations under the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. As it stands the document pictured on the "British Mandate for Palestine" page says "League of Nations Mandate for Palestine". Muddied waters do not belong in Wikipedia Wikipedia. talknic (talk) 09:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Topic split is hopeless for readers we must presume know nothing of the topic. talknic (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Note for Jerusalem article. The lede ought reflect the issue in light of well documented UNSC resolutions talknic (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

[28] You can't say I didn't warn you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

See here for the result of the thread. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

As expected  :-)

///Comment by Nishidani Since he returned, Talnic's very detailed arguments have been only, as far as I recalled, responded to by NMMGG. NMMGG mainly (apologies if I err, but this is all very much a TLDR altercation) said the prior consensus had addressed his concerns, and he was just more or less kicking a dead horse. What little I examined suggested to me that the prior discussions were not resolutive, nor adequate. It is highly improper of NMMGG in his first diff above, to take that as some violation. Talknic turned out to be correct, and NMMGG's dismissal of his arguments as 'resolved' in a prior consensus superficial. NMMGG denied at length that the hebrew and arabic terms were synonymous. I stepped in, and showed they were synonymous. Given their synonymity, nakba had to be bolded exactly as the hebrew term. Prior to this, as talknic insisted, WP:NPOV was violated by having only the Hebrew term. NMMGG's solution is to avoid parity by removing the Hebrew term for the war, so nakba disappears. Talnic's solution is to emend the earlier stable text by adding the equivalent arabic. They disagree over this. I haven't had time to help out with the other points, but the imbalance in NPOV talknic speaks of does exist, and is very difficult to resolve. Talknic tends to undermine his case by TLDR posting, as per above, but serious issues exist, and he's fingered some. There are essentially only 2 people arguing here, and I do not think the differences can be resolved by eliminating one of the two editors at the request of the other. Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC) /// talknic (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Replied on my page. Best Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I can't help. You're stuck with it - I do not understand what you are getting at. Trahelliven (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Click Here! ... Cheers! talknic (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

For clarity's sake; this was a clear violation of your topic ban, as the UN resolution explicitly deals with Israel and Palestine. If you still don't understand, let me know and I'll try to clarify further. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Blade of the Northern Lights - Were the subject of one's topic banning to have been for example Types of sugar. Is it then the case that one cannot mention sugar if editing an article about making making jam? Tea? Coffee?

My topic ban reads: "indefinitely banned from all I/P articles and discussions, broadly construed". The article in question is not an I/P issue and does not carry an I/P ACTIVE ARBITRATION WARNING and; the edit was not in reference to the I/P issue but in respect to the similarity of what was said by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and what was said by the UNSC. Or is it the case that I cannot edit any topic mentioning Israel? talknic (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Broadly construed", you are right. Anything that is related to Isreal or Palestine is taboo for you to edit. Apart from that, your drawing of parallels to the UN resolution from that source was a textbook case of synthesis and should've been removed for that reason too. De728631 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

De728631 -- A) The issue here is not about content. B) My topic ban reads "I/P articles and discussions, broadly construed". If it is as you say, the ACTIVE ARBITRATION WARNING ought surely read Israel and/or Palestine, broadly construed. C) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not Arab he's Iranian/Persian. Where can I find WP policy relating to "broadly construed"? thx talknic (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

His comments, broadly construed, are related to I/P conflict. Also, if you're confused about WP:OR, please take the time to review it, as your edit violated OR, as De728631 pointed out as well, and wouldn't have been acceptable anyway. This way, you hopefully won't repeat it in the future. --Activism1234 02:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Activism1234 - The Blade of the Northern Lights or De728631 ought be answering questions addressed to administrators. thx talknic (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I'll refrain from commenting here in the future. --Activism1234 03:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Activism1234 - A rather extremist reaction talknic (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Let me try this one more time. First, although I don't edit the I/P area on Wikipedia so I can tackle the administrative side of it, I know plenty about its machinations. I also happen to know Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ethnicity and a lot about his politics. Although the article doesn't directly deal with I/P, what you were inserting were extrapolations from his comments on a UN resolution that directly dealt with the I/P conflict; I'm not sure how that would be ambiguous, but now you know for sure. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Blade of the Northern Lights - I've not questioned your status and your knowledge of the subject is entirely irrelevant. I would like direct answers to my reasonable questions A) about sugar and; B) whether 'broadly construed' means I cannot edit any topic mentioning Israel? If so, then Judaism? The Torah/Bible/monotheism? Would it also apply to any UNSC resolution on Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, even the UNSC itself? Exactly how far does 'broadly construed' extend and where is this defined? talknic (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

UNSC resolutions on said countries are fine, as long as they aren't dealing with I/P conflicts. The sugar thing isn't a part of the I/P conflict, so you'd be fine there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Blade of the Northern Lights - Does 'broadly construed' mean I cannot edit any topic mentioning Israel? (sans sugary sarcasm) .. thx talknic (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The instructions for appeal are located at the top of WP:AE, near the bottom. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The latest diff on your talkpage is a pretty clear violation of your topic ban. I'm not going to block you for it this time, but your ban extends to all namespaces on Wikipedia; this includes your user talkpage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

It was my understanding that banning was very specifically worded, to that end I have been seeking clarification and getting answers bit by bit, like baking bread while being supplied only one grain of wheat at a time. I did ask before Does 'broadly construed' mean I cannot edit any topic mentioning Israel?, for which I have yet to receive your specific answer.

The current indefinite ".. banned from all I/P articles and discussions, broadly construed." has no mention of "all namespaces on Wikipedia" ... unlike ..

the previous expired block;".. banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces for six months.... "

I'd like to point out in respect to both those topic bans that; attempting to address the willful violation of WP:NPOV is surely an inherent responsibility, even if doggedly pursued over a period of some 16 months and numerous discussions [29] - [30] - [31] - [32] - [33] - [34] - [35] - [36] and ask how my pursuit of the matter can possibly be seen as tendentious? Especially when;

The main protagonist eventually conceded to the breech of NPOV, conceded to there being no actual consensus as he had previously claimed, made the correcting edit himself but only after willfully maintaining the breech of WP:NPOV in all the above discussions, while actively encouraging other editors to reach a consensus in a blatant breech WP:NPOV, all the while mis-representing the BRD essay as policy ("BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow") talknic (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Muhammad al-Durrah incident // an investigation indicated the IDF probably did not shoot the al-Durrahs and the boy was most likely killed by Palestinian fire.^[1][2]//

The comment "most likely killed by Palestinian fire" in the Haaretz article is Avi Issacharoff's unsupported opinion. --- The NYTimes article states "could have been" ... "the army did not rule out the possibility that one of its soldiers had killed the boy. But General Samia said the army had "great doubt" that it was responsible and believed that the evidence indicated a very reasonable "possibility" that the boy was hit by Palestinian gunfire." talknic (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your name has been mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston#Violation of topic ban. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

See here. --Activism1234 20:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear user, since you have participated on a geopolitical context discussion on Palestine [39], you might be interested in expressing your opinion on a reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity?. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply