User talk:WarKosign/Archive 1

I'm not following this

I had a pretty good talk, with a number of editors and -- while they have raised a bit of title-relating concern, they did not protest and, best I can tell, you did not protest it as well. So, why not let a version of the first paragraph that is sitting nicely on another longer standing article sit nicely on this article as well?[1] Did you make any talk page comment about it? There is something about reverting that is not nice, and I haven't seen you object on the talk page. Only others, raising concerns, not full blown objection -- that's why non of them reverted. In short, I hope you reconsider and agree that this version does have a good chance to stand the test of time (as it did on the other article). Let me know. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MarciulionisHOF: As I commented, it was a BOLD edit, to be reverted by someone strongly objecting and then discussed on the talk page. I wrote about my intentions to make the change yesterday, and since nobody responded I took it as silent agreement.

I had a look on ODS's lead, and it looks quite similar in structure: first paragraph is operation's name and stated goal, second paragraph is summary of the action and then there is a conclusion that we currently lack.

"Operation Protective Edge" is not the article's title, and there is no point pretending it is. Insisting to have appear first only resulted in awkward first sentence. It still appears in bold at the beginning of the article. If this name will be the one used by many sources, it would make sense to raise the issue of changing the name of the article again. WarKosign (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the case with the Defensive Shield article? Is it really different than Protective Edge? My suggestion is to go with versions that lasted the test of time. Not to revert back to weird versions that nobody's happy with on an encyclopedic level. I mean -- are there a lot of articles where the title is written in that funny way you reverted to? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MarciulionisHOF: See this. Even if the article title does change back toe OPE, I think the way it's written now is clearer. I do not feel very strongly about it, raise the issue on the article's talk page - I will not object to the change. WarKosign (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already raised in on talk before making the change. I will link to your note of acceptance in returning the text. Hopefully, no one will try to prosecute me over it -- it seems I've been marked as a target lately. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MarciulionisHOF: I think it would be best for you to tune down your style on the talk page. I agree with most of what you have to say, but there are more civil ways to say that, and perhaps then people would react more to what you have to say rather than getting annoyed with how you say it. WarKosign (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far, I've seen some pretty horrible stuff on the talk page. Will anyone say something about foruming (whatever that means) to a few of the "Israel-illegal"..."IDF unreliable"..."USA unrelated"..."Hamas politicians/PR-department are not Hamas" publicists (Hebrew word, sadly, no direct translation). Geez. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MarciulionisHOF: IMO, an article on such a subject divides editors into 3 types:

Those who don't care one way or the other, but want to use the most correct sources for Wikipedia to best represent all the existing viewpoints.
Those who have an opinion which viewpoint is true, but understand that other viewpoints exist. They will argue their position but will be convinced when the other side presents a reasonable argument.
Those who try to force their viewpoints at any cost, even when it may be factually incorrect.

1 is the best, 2 is tolerable. 3 is not accepted behaviour for an editor. You do not want people to think you are #3. If you have opinions, you should state them politely, show respect to (reasonable) opinions of other editors even when you do not agree with them. You need to convince people that you are correct, or at least that you MAY be correct, so your viewpoint should be represented in the article together with the opposing one. #3 gets people into edit warring and blocking. #2 and #1 results in good and balanced articles. Foruming is discussing the operation itself instead of the article. The talk page exists for discussing how to make the article on the "2014 conflict" better and more representing the true. To do it it is acceptable to discuss how you see the facts on the talk page, but always in relation to a change that someone did or you think that should be done on the page. WarKosign (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Gaza conflict

Apart from the serious POV problem you are making by constantly removing and making the number of civilians killed less notable, you have breached the 1RR on 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. If you don't self-revert, expect to be reported. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC) @IRISZOOM: Feel free to report, along with your own edit warring. WarKosign (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE report

I have filed a report at WP:AE regarding your actions. See this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The AE report has been closed with a warning to you. At least three admins believe you are close to the edge of acceptable behavior in the ARBPIA domain, or beyond the edge. If future violations are brought to AE, borderline or not, action is likely. Rapid-fire editing of complex topics can put you over 1RR, even unintentionally. These violations are noted and will be enforced. A sincere desire to improve the article doesn't absolve you from the 1RR restriction. Slowing down your pace of edits is one option. Self-reverting when challenged for 1RR is another. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hamas claim

i don't know how old you are or what level of education you reached and i don't want to know , but you really have a problem of understanding arguments for reasons i really cannot understand,tell me is it language barriers or is it an emotional one.

listen , i know you hate Hamas as much as i hate IDF , cut the crap we both know that, but listen dude : you have to use your mind brother or should i say cousin .

i am not saying Hamas claim is reliable or not or even the IDF's claim is reliable or not, but a claim is a claim . if i mentioned the figure 1000 as a given fact then you have the right to be mad , but i did not do that . i just said it is Hamas claim.

you can not possibly omit Hamas figures because they are one of the two sides of the war, seriously i told you a hundred times if you don't want Hamas references then change the title to ISRAEL NARRATIVE OF THE 2014 GAZA CONFLICT.

I DO BELIEVE THAT NEXT STEP SHOULD BE ADMINISTARTORS INTERVENTION.SORRY MANZaid almasri (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Zaid almasri (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaid almasri: You are entitled to your opinions. There is an ongoing RfC, the result is not final but so far 7 editors believe that the claim does not deserve to be represented in the infobox due to the lack of minimal reliability while 3 editors (including you) disagree. Wikipedia is built on consensus. If you cannot convince a significant number of other editors and try to force your opinion it will probably result in you being banned. Note that it is forbidden to use fake accounts to create a false impression that many editors agree with you.

If you believe that Wikipedia rules have been violated you should contact administrators. Otherwise, you should not make such threats.

As for the claim itself - looks like Hamas did make this claim. It does not deserve to be in the infobox. What if they claimed that they are firing pieces of blue cheese and not rockets, would you demand putting that in the infobox too ? They made many false claims, I listed them all on the media coverage page, you are welcome to add more ridiculous claims there if you can find sources. You can argue that this section belongs in the main article body - maybe enough people will agree with that. WarKosign (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Single Purpose Account

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

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

Template:Z33 Monopoly31121993 (talk)

@Monopoly31121993: Thanks. I believe this page might be of interest for you.WarKosign (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for doing it twice a day, i will make sure i will do it only once a day in the future. dont threaten me you know what the outcome will be, if the outcome is what you think then you would have done it long time ago i said before that i have a very long breath, you can say that i am a as stubborn as Hamas. by the way soon i will add hamas figures regarding its own fatalities (less than 100) so get ready and if you keep removing hamas claims i will make sure all idf claims are removed also just give me time brother.Zaid almasri (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]