User talk:Kingsindian

Reply about editing

My "new information" was provided by more carefully reading the original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.4.41 (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited José Raúl Capablanca, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Marshall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference error

Hi there Kingsindian, I noticed this edit] caused a list defined reference error in the reference section. I don't have any experience with transcluded references so I experimented by commenting out the operation polo reference, then used show preview to see the effect. It just gave more errors, so I thought you might want to take a look. Regards. CV9933 (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@CV9933: I have fixed this now. Thanks. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Great - thanks I wouldn't have figured that one out. CV9933 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Curiously though, it is still showing an incorrect formatting error here. CV9933 (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

An apology cookie for a warning that was not deserved. I sort of forgot that Twinkle did that. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For a general pattern of editorial excellence over time. LavaBaron (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to give a short description?

I assume it is enough to add short description once in an article. (Susya).

In addition, I have made those edits [1] [2] that highlighted Shulman bias per NPOV (and like you asked for Regavim) which were reverted by Huldra.

I don't blame you for anything just trying to understand if there is any kind of rules or it is just about who stands last in the ring (which is how it looks to me now as I see no overlapping logic). Settleman (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Settleman: There are no hard and fast rules, just common sense. Shulman is not primarily known for being a Taayush activist. It is as if one describes Einstein as a "socialist" or "Zionist" in a short sentence. Or as "an anti-nuclear campaigner" in a short sentence describing his views on disarmament. Secondly, what does it add? This is similar to people who on WP keep trying to add "new Historian" in front of Benny Morris or Avi Shlaim. Similarly, there are people who insist that anywhere Gideon Levy is mentioned, it must be with "leftist" or something. Finally, as I said before, one can argue a few times, but one cannot hope to convince everyone. Your "last man standing" comment is a bit like that. If there is an impasse, and you feel that it is important to add qualifiers, open a formal request, such as an RfC or use other WP:DR measures. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Here for example, Shulman is the source for derogatory term 'fanatics'. I see WP:LABEL say these term should be used with care. Maybe it is OK to be left in because it is sourced but still, letting the reader know the author isn't exactly main stream opinion but rather of an activist of far-left organization, is important. Sorry for spending your time and thanks for the ping tip. Settleman (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"bloody buffoon" wasn't a pop culture reference

Not going to address the rest (most of which were months ago) or post on ANI again per the advice of you and several other users. "bloody buffoon" was my attempt to show extreme frustration with the other user's behaviour without using foul language. I'm quite careful of that, actually (see also "fustercluck" and "English motherbleeper do you speak it"). Thank you for diligently looking through the context and commenting appropriately, anyway. Cheers, and happy editing! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Ok, there is no reason to use such comments on talk pages. One "trick" I use when I'm really angry is to write the comment, use "preview", take a couple of minutes to cool down, and delete the intemperate remarks before pressing "submit". Firstly, I would suggest that you leave humourous or otherwise unclear comments out, except with people which you know will not take offence. Humour does not carry well in text, and people misunderstand. Second, when I suggested not to reply to every comment, I didn't mean "don't reply at all". Dennis Brown, for instance, is asking you for solutions, you should reply to them. Thirdly, just for future reference, you might want to read this short essay I wrote about discussions. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for continuously being reasonable and constructive on the ANI thread, but I noticed a slight inaccuracy in your most recent post where you said I should be encouraged/forced to use WP:DR rather than engaging in unending talk page back-and-forth. On like my second or third response to CurtisNaito on the talk page I noticed we weren't going anywhere, so I proposed CurtisNaito and I work together to create a neutrally-worded RFC or go to RSN. CurtisNaito ignored my proposal and kept on reverting. If I am to be forced/encouraged to use the appropriate DR forums, the same must certainly apply to Curtis, no? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: My answer to that is twofold. Firstly, if you read WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, you should not get involved in edit-warring even if the other party is at fault and you are right. Secondly, there is no need to get an agreement with the other user. You can just start an RfC (with a neutral wording), revert the edit one more time, and point to the RfC. That will end the edit war immediately. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I've had some bad experiences with RFCs in the past, and I reason to believe that if I tried to post an RFC without getting the other party's approval of the wording in advance, the result would not be good. The same thing actually happened last time I brought such a problem to RSN. Unless I'm misremembering, I think it was you who said that Nishidani usually brings the best sources and fixes all of these problems -- do you think it was wrong of me to ask for his input specifically on the History of Japan, Emperor Jimmu and Korean influence talk page? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: No doubt, RfC wording can be tricky. In general, I always open an RfC without anyone's approval. The key is to make it brief and neutral, and then add your comments below the RfC header immediately giving your own point of view. See this RfC, which happened with an ill-tempered discussion with a sockpuppet (now banned). If you are concerned about the wording, a course of action would be to say on the talk page: let's stop discussing who is right and wrong, and agree on a neutral RfC wording. I am not sure of the point of the RSN discussion you link to. I see some disagreement on whether a tertiary source can be used. This is a common problem in historical articles: tertiary sources sometimes mess up and are contradicted by secondary sources. However, they are often more accessible and there is no general consensus to totally rule out their use, unless there are reliable reviews saying that a particular source is too inaccurate to use. Regarding CANVASS, I don't think it was canvassing, but people have weird ideas. I usually avoid pinging specific people and usually post on wikiprojects like WP:MILHIST, or WP:WikiProject_Palestine. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the RSN diff. I took your advice and showed preview first. My initial draft didn't say "the result would not be good". It said "CurtisNaito would almost certainly respond by posting another TL;DR non sequitur about how my OP was biased". Because both you on ANI and I on the recent talk page dispute mentioned both RFC and RSN, I was reminded of last time a dispute between me and CurtisNaito wound up on RSN. CurtisNaito posted ... not exactly TL;DR at that length, but still a non sequitur (even if the datum in question was accurate -- it wasn't -- it wouldn't change whether we should be using that source or not), with an obvious error in a failed attempt to "correct" external reliable sources ("-sen" is not an error; "-san" is anachronistic; I laughed when I re-read the comment today).

Furthermore -- is there any chance you could tell me your opinion of DRN? When you mentioned DR I immediately thought of the noticeboard that shares its name. But I actively avoid that pit. Each time I look at its archives it seems like it has something like a 5%-10% success rate. Several users have criticized me for taking users that I believe have CIR and conduct problems to ANI rather than taking my content disputes with them to DRN first, but when it's obvious that the users simply don't understand, for instance, WP:V, it seems like an even bigger waste of time than continuing to go around in circles with them on the talk page...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I rarely use WP:DRN, and I have little experience there. In my experience, it is quite time-intensive and only really suitable for large-scale problems, not specific disputes. I find more lightweight and informal WP:3O useful. I usually prefer WP:RfC, and sometimes WP:RSNcan be used to get more input. Sometimes though, it is too much of a bother to correct a certain portion. I just let it go and concentrate on something else. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

'Bout time this side of your many talents was recognized

		The Detective Barnstar
		For rare acumen and exceptional diligence in the otherwise tedious and unrewarding task of tracking the elusive spoors of abusive sockmeisters in the I/P area Nishidani (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

== Workshop ==

Hello Kingsindian,

I think it is useless to go on this discussion on the workshop but it may be worth continuing this here.

I totaly agree with you that it is unfair. I stated so. But isn't it unfair too that me and others who are WP:HERE, who invested 10 years of our life and thousands of hours in this project have to manage these pov-pushers. And in truth: 95 % of Israelis contributors who edit on the articles dealing with the I/P conflict are WP:NOTHERE and will never write and argue anything that could harm the image of Israel. That's totally unfair that we have to spend time arguing with them.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: Of course, it is also unfair to have to deal with POV-pushers etc. But as a matter of principle one cannot talk about punishing all members of a large group for the actions of others. One can perhaps frame it narrowly: people editing from the Knesset IPs cannot edit articles, etc., but that would lose its efficacy and thus is useless as well. I think there is no way to have a category which is narrow enough and effective enough at the same time.

Secondly, Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. As long as Wikipedia is a much-visited site, and the Israel/Palestine conflict rages in the real world, there will always be POV-pushers. This cannot be solved with arbitrary rules only dealing with Wikipedia.

Thirdly, I generally agree with John Stuart Mill (see here) when he says that the devil's advocate is useful to know and maintain the truth. Firstly, "though the silenced opinion may be in error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of the truth". Secondly, a truth which does not continuously survive challenges always runs the risk of being exaggerated and becoming prejudice or "dead dogma, not living truth". Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Pluto. I concur with KI. It would be dangerous to give to 'old hands' a privileged position with respect to potential new editors whose acceptability would be judged along ethno-national lines. The most abusive of I/P editors hail from the United States, not from Israel. 'Fairness' is not something the rules of Wikipedia consider. Or rather 'fairness' is a concept that is mandatory for WP:NPOV, regarding the drafting of texts, but not regarding the ethnicity or nationality of who participates in their construction. The problem is not editorial bias, but source bias. Let me illustrate.

I don't think Electronic Intifada qualifies, nor do I think Richard Silverstein's Tikun Olam (blog) qualifies as RS. But every day they provide crucial details that all of our mainstream RS, mainly from Israel or the Diaspora, systematically ignore, save for rare exceptions. For example the Aloun killing, after he (apparently) stabbed an Israeli youth. If you want the details, which are on video and in those two sources, with alternative translations, you have to look at Ali Abunimah Video: Death-chanting Israeli mob rejoices as Palestinian teen is executed Electronic Intifada 4 October 2015 and Richard Silverstein Jerusalem Descends into Blood Lust 4 October 2015. So, as often, an editor knows far more than what RS report, but (s)he is under constraint to give only a truncated, and often misleading version in the RS. There is no solution to this: one cannot really bend those RS criteria too much. One can only hope that newspaper coverage improves, and that some sense of contextual relevance is introduced in order to allow a little more comprehensive coverage than what at the moment we get. It's not people, in short, but sources, that worry me.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

• That's unfair and even more: masochism to manage this.

All this is a philosophical question and reminds me the If— of Kipling. Just 30 years ago when we studied this poem I surprised everybody in the classroom in giving a very hard critics of this "reference". I took the Godwin point and I stated that sometimes, a Man has to act and that the behaviour suggested by Kipling was everything but wise in some cases.

It would have been unfair to invade Germany after the Sudetes and at Munich Daladier and Chamberlain made a big mistake. If French and British had "acted" at the time whereas Germany was not ready yet for the war, world would have been better. Sometimes unfairness prevents an even greater unfairness. Let's wait for the Poland's invasion, then... Pluto2012 (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, had Tony Blair had the virtues of If, instead of thinking (publicly) that this was his Churchill hour and Saddam was Hitler, and his skeptical senior advisors in the Foreign Office Chamberlains, Bush would have found his biblical project of destabilizing the Middle East without a friend in the world, and we wouldn't have 4-5 million refugees, the destruction of 2,000 year old Christian communities, two irremediably failed states, and war in the Ukraine (the Iraq war is said to have been read by the Soviet Union geostrategists as a flanking prelude to detaching the Ukraine from Russia's sphere of influence) . . .Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani,

I think that these exemples have nothing to deal with the behaviour suggested by If. And I am quite sure that Bush (Father) had not a biblical agenda when he decided to attack Iraq.

But you are of course right that taking strong measures can have terrible consequences, worse than expected.

I keep thinking that action is better than inaction. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

In geopolitics, there is a lot to be said for not interfering, not taking (any) action. It was George Bush junior 2003. Did you know that the French Foreign Ministry telephoned theologians after Bush met with Chirac to get clarification on his mysterious allusions. GBj tried to get the French to participate by referring Chirac to the Bk of Ezekiel and Gog and Magog as the reason for invading Iraq? But I must be silent. I am abusing hospitality here.Nishidani (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: I do not have much intention of going into philosophical discussions. Philosophy can be fun, but often it is useless and boring. As you say, the alternatives can also be considered unfair. One has to look at concrete cases. So let's look at the user's edits. The user has been fighting about terrorist incidents with multiple people. If it continues, I expect a report on WP:AN3 or WP:AE and block soon. As to their points about PNA vs SoP, that is a debatable issue, and certainly not illegitimate, whatever their motives. I do not see why this calls for a draconian solution. Either their edits are legitimate, in which case, it is fine. Or they are clearly over the top, in which case existing measures suffice. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You will at least agree that you started using philosophy: "Thirdly, I generally agree with John Stuart Mill (see here) when he says that the devil's advocate is useful to know and maintain the truth.". And don't tell me Stuart Mill is not a philosoph.

If "existing measures suffice" then the workshop would be useless.

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: Indeed, I talked philosophy first, this is why I wanted to nip the stuff in the bud. As to the workshop, I already mentioned there my skepticism about the use of the workshop. In my opinion, many of the problems in this area cannot be legislated. Legislation will only make things worse in many cases, which I mentioned there. In this particular instance, I see no reason to not suppose that existing measures suffice. I do not think the workshop is useless: I think the main way it can be useful is to clarify and strengthen the rules already existing, especially regarding sockpuppets and WP:NPOV. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

My 2 cents; I would like editors in the I/P area to have more of a "distance" to what they are editing (that includes myself), however, I cannot agree with banning everyone who is from the region. Firstly, who could we "police" such a draconian measure? Secondly; there are, say, Israeli editors, who, though I mostly disagree on every "voting opportunity", I have no problem seeing that they do good work for wikipedia. Say, banning an editor like Ynhockey, just because he is Israeli, would be absurd, IMO. I would rather make it easier to ban people who consistently add only negative material about one group, while adding only positive material about the other group. Editors like CltFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comes to mind. Even if both of those two were-eventually-banned, all the articles they started remains, (Take the Armanious family massacre: the one and only reason that article was made, was that it "could" have been a Muslim hate-crime.....(...but it wasn´t).) Editors like that, who are very obviously on Wikipedia to push a certain POV, should be banned, IMO, Huldra (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: I agree, but this is simply a matter of clarifying the WP:NPOV issue mentioned before, and requires no new measures, draconian or otherwise. This is precisely the point I made in my remarks on the case page. By the way, one of the first things I do after a sockpuppet is blocked is to revert their edits per WP:BLOCKED. One could nominate the article you mention to AfD and give the history. Lastly, many of the POV-pushing pages are hardly ever visited. There are millions of pages on Wikipedia. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Lets see, Zeq started 35 articles, CltFn 132; even if each got on an average only 10 views a day; that is still half a million views every year. I would say that counts. Huldra (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: I do not understand your point here. Of course it matters that some people edit violating WP:NPOV, for years, and it is a good thing that such users are banned (I do not know about the latter user, but Zeq was in the CAMERA affair, wasn't he?) But why has the article you mention not been nominated for AfD? It is the textbook example of WP:EVENT with no lasting impact, and started by a banned editor to boot. Obviously one could not have banned Zeq/CltFn pre-emptively, one can only do so after a pattern of one-sided editing emerges. There are some things which simply cannot be helped, due to the structure of Wikipedia. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Zeq was banned for the CAMERA affair; and not for his outrageous POV-editing, which had been going on for years. And that is just the point: he should have been banned for his POV-editing years before. And I have nominated -I don´t know how many- such “Memorial”-article for AfD, the latest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing (And see: User talk:Huldra#Your record of starting unnecessary AFDs).

My point is that editors who consistently push one POV, *should* be topic-banned, but are not.

As I said about: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths and injuries caused by Israeli forces firing at alleged Palestinian stone-throwers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing: Voting “delete” on one and “keep” on the other, should stand as a strong application for a topic ban from the I/P area. There were editors who did just that, but I´m not going to waste my time going to WP:AE with it, as I simply don´t think it will be acted on.

Same thing with Balad al-Sheikh, you have editors who have gone through all old editions of Palestine Post for the 1930s-40s, finding each and every Jewish victims in the conflict, and mentioning them in the article, while *not* mentioning the Arabs killed. (See the talk-page, and this) And I am threatened with a ban, if I try to change it…(see this). You say that we don´t need draconian new measures; I say we need new rules for those editors who only see the lives of one set of people matter; we simply have no such rules (working) today. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Huldra: I of course agree with you that consistent one-sided editing should be not allowed. This was precisely my position on the Arbitration evidence page. People have a confusion about the WP:NPOV rule (even admins, see the AE case I linked there). This is precisely what I wish to made clear. As to the rest, to clarify, I am not blaming you for not nominating that article for AfD (actually I did it myself): my point was that rules already exist for handling such cases - they should be clarified and enforced. No new rules need to be made, especially rules which will do more harm than good, and are unfair as well. Kingsindian ♝♚ 03:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW

I am not sure that anyone really wants to add parties to the case, but rather more or less acknowledge the possibility that some of those individuals who have declared an interest to be a party very likely will be. That includes CurtisNaito. If he does become a party, and so far as I can remember I don't remember ArbCom telling someone that they will not be allowed to become parties to a case, it seems more or less to me a likely fait accomppli. Just an opinion, of course. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armanious family massacre

Be careful about WP:BLUDGEON at AFD, I realize that this page offends your extremely strong POV, but do try to at least read the applicable policies, as well as WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE before commenting, and try to respect the policy-based opinions of other editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: I am aware of the essay WP:BLUDGEON. I don't see why asking people to clarify their !vote counts as bludgeoning and disrespect. I have indeed also read WP:GNG, in particular the last point: Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.. I am objecting to the article based on WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, both of which are policy. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Excessive deletionism

Just noticed this [3] You seem to regularly nominate articles with copious sources for deletion. You could save other editors a lot of time if you would check your bias before rushing to AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: Actually, I very rarely, if ever, nominate articles for deletion. I probably have nominated two articles in my whole career here. The case you mention is indeed one of those cases, but note that mine was the third nomination. Two previous nominations had resulted in "no consensus", so the judgement was in no way trivial. The source which actually tipped the balance in my mind was brought up during the AfD itself - and it still isn't in the article. I planned to add it, but I forgot. As to "copious sources" (which are mostly newspaper reports copying each other), they in neither necessary nor sufficient for an article to be kept. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I read with interest the arguments you made at the two above mentioned AfDs, and was wondering if you think Zion Square assault should be deleted. It obviously fails PERSISTENCE and LASTING, don't you think? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: I agree with you, it should be deleted, by my criteria. I will nominate it for deletion myself when people (the same ones, often) stop creating 10 identical articles one side, only to turn around to clamour for deletion of one on the other. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to do anything, I just wanted your opinion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It failedersistence and lasting since I never updated it, and no one else cared to. It was an event in 2012, a mere 3 years ago, (unlike many of the Israeli victim articles which extend back 10-20 years and therefore have a wider time scale for RS to mention them) has frequent press mentions in mid 2013 when the court case concluded, and several mentions, three of them in books, for 2014-2015. For so recent an event, that probably meets persistence and lasting criteria. Kingsindian, by all means feel free to put it up for deletion. I originally wrote the article as an AfD test, but, if I recall correctly, it was never up for deletion. The principle should be tested on any such event article, regardless of what one thinks about the other articles.Nishidani (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the first time you ever mention an "AfD test". I don't recall you mentioning "lasting" or "persistence" in the discussions revolving around similar articles, either. You just argue that all articles about such events (when the victims are Israeli) should be rolled into a large list, yet here is one you created. Strange. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I see your minute tracking of my work is not impeccable. I've mentioned it before. In any case this is documented. I informed preemptively an administrator DGG in an email that that the article I would put up served this purpose. I did that because of an obscene hypocrisy in voting patterns at AfD at the time: the same editors promoting several Israeli victim articles were at the same time putting Palestinian articles (not victim articles if I recall) up for deletion. The article was meant to test their coherence. David, I hope, won't mind my mentioning this. I should add that he disagreed with what I was doing in terms of experimenting.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi Kingsindian. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

John Mcintyre1959

Ki, please check my recent editing record. I stick to RS, and I stick to the what is in the sources. I remove OR, and therefore request that you support me coming in from the cold, and being allowed to remain on wikipedia. I argue that I deserve a second chance, and that my record is not that of a sock puppet who is only here to disrupt. I am here to stick to wikipedia principles, and I do take on board constructive criticism. I am only robust with those who will not stick to the three tenets of wikipedia.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)