|This user talk page might be talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.by friendly|
As a result of this arbitration enforcement request, you are warned not to accuse others of being a sock without sufficient evidence. Otherwise, adverse blocks or topic-bans may issue. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for everyone's patience over there. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Non-free rationale for File:Keren Hayesod poster 1946.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Keren Hayesod poster 1946.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
clean up 78.48.187...
RE: "clean up 18.104.22.168's edit. see Al-Quds rocket edit summaries for details. this content is only in the lead at the moment, which is inconsistent with WP:LEAD. needs moving to body with summary in lead."
contrastin' your thoughtful notes, please have the look at this quasi wikipedia-standard notation:
"The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law..."
This formulation is spread all over Wikipedia also WP:LEAD ... so please have the nerve and let this one also stay despite of WP:LEAD ...
See, e.g.: Tekoa,_Gush_Etzion
.. to me looks like a wikipedia political statement and also WP:LEAD , but is heavily protected by the "usual subjects" revertists in wikipedia ;) and no quick wikipedia one to revert it -- makes you question... Why did they put my initial original notation of "international community" out?? Geneva convention is a corpus of the international community..
- I'm aware of that statement. The statement about settlements is the product of a very long and detailed policy based community discussion based on a large sample of reliable sources. It isn't the product of one person on the internet unilaterally deciding to do something for whatever reason, probably advocacy on behalf of the State of Israel, which is of course not allowed as I'm sure you are fully aware but do it anyway. I removed "international community" because I think it's redundant. There's no real dispute over it so I think it's better to include it as a simple factual statement about the laws of war. Even groups that target what the international community would regard as non-combatants/civilians not engaged in combat, organizations like Palestinian militant groups or the IDF (e.g. when they target Gaza policeman or activists), they usually do so by arguing that they do not qualify as non-combatants (for various reasons) and can therefore be targeted. So, they're not actually disputing the conventions. It's not the same as the statement about settlements because the community decided that should contrast the positions of the international community and the Israeli government on the conventions. Another difference stems from our obligation to reflect the approach used by RS as far as possible. For Israeli settlements, reliable sources (apart from some of the Israeli media) almost always include a statement about the illegality of settlements under international law when they discuss settlements in general or individual settlements. Consequently, so should we. But when RS report on the many events and groups that violate the laws of war during combat (like suicide bombs in Iraq etc) they usually don't mention the anything about legality so it's less clear whether we should (although I don't see why not) and it becomes more of a case by case issue for us, and more complicated. I haven't really given any thought to the question of body vs body+lead for a statement like this about the laws of war because I'm more concerned about the practical aspects of cleaning up the wording and sources used. I think it's content that should be included but each article will need to be looked at individually (including articles about Israeli actions and many other articles of course). It has nothing to do with "having the nerve". If I think something complies with policy and will improve an article I'll do it. A generic statement like this about the laws of war has a far wider potential impact across article space than the statement about settlements, which only applies to Israeli settlements. Colonies (and colonization) are things of the past. There are almost none left because the days of colonization are over, apart from the Israeli settlement enterprise (and a couple more instances), but there are groups and actions that violate the laws of war all over the world and consequently all over article space.
- Here's something for you to think about. You have created a statement about the laws of war. Do you have the nerve to include a statement like that in other articles about groups or events that have been accused (by HRW and many others for example) of violating the laws of war; the IDF, individual brigades of the IDF, articles about actions by the IDF or the weapons they use, all sorts of articles actually, without any bias ? You have only included it in articles about Palestinian groups and related things. Why ? Is it because you support Israel's actions and oppose the actions Palestinian groups ? If so, that biased approach isn't allowed by policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Saudade7 17:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)