User talk:Sepsis II

You're such a fucking snitch. You don't need to go tattling on admins because of my userpage. Dick. - vandals and socks love me.

Hello, Sepsis II, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

If you want your edits to stick it would be a good idea to read through some of the links above. Importantly always provide a reference for anything you add that may be subject to challenge. Also if editing in controversial subjects such as the Israel/Palestine conflict it might be worthwhile to make one edit at a time, then non-controversial edits will not be undone, while more controversial ones can be discussed further on the talk page. Another important thing to remember is not to edit war: In topics related to the Israel/Palestine conflict, you are only allowed to make one revert per article in 24 hours after that you should go to the article's talk page. Unfortunately even if you have good intentions, if you do not stick to the rules you will find that you won't be editing in the topic area for very long. Dlv999 (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

You are receiving this message because you have submitted at least one edit to the Frank_L._VanderSloot article during the past thirty days. Your attention is called to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk)

I am writing concerned with your editorializing of the Paul Broun article. you recently undid my changes saying information was removed, yet no information was removed only language was change to remove bias from the article. Please respect wikipedia rules. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.168.130.213 (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is User:Sepsis II reported by User:Ryan Vesey (but everybody is at fault)(Result: ). Thank you.  Ryan Vesey 01:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Hello, I'm Zymurgy. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Talk:Settler colonialism, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Zymurgy (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed racist soapboxing from the talk page, please do not re-add racist soapboxing to the page for obvious reasons. Sepsis II (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit

Your edit has reverted several edits, including mine with meaningless edit summary 'anti-resistance propaganda'.

I'm reverting this change. Maybe splitting your change into more manageable and organized smaller edits could help. Generally a removal of a neutrally attributed reliably sourced content should be discussed. Please take it to the article talk page, if you wish to reinstate your edit or part of it and also read WP:ES. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Do hypocrites realize their hypocrisy? Do not make wide scale reverts due to your laziness, making your changes "into more manageable and organized smaller edits could help". I am happy to see the part you objected and you re-added was removed by another editor for the same reason I removed it. I will be undoing the collateral damage which you wreaked upon the article. Unless you can explain why the other editor and I have removed your addition I do not see further discussions with you on any matter to ever be fruitful. Sepsis II (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

ARBPIA notice

File:Yes

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

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

Operation Pillar of Defense is on a 1RR restriction which you just broke, please self revert Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have heard of no arguments in favour of the previous version, one which I find to be blatantly bias, falsely sourced, and distortive of reality - in other words, unacceptable and far inferior to the current version. Any rule which burdens me to make an edit to the detriment of the article's quality is a rule I will always ignore per WP:IAR, which my edit clearly does fall under. Sepsis II (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of forty-eight hours for violating the 1RR at Operation Pillar of Defense. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  -- tariqabjotu 21:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You might be interested in this discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ma.27an_News Ankh.Morpork 17:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Asia topic

As a participant of the discussion Talk:Palestine#Requested_move regarding naming change of the page Palestine, you might be interested in discussion Template talk:Asia topic#State of Palestine on changing the title "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" at Template:Asia topic. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC

Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step four

Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: final countdown

Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#The final countdown. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Warning of arbitration remedies

Hello Sepsis. I see that you have already been warned about the editing restrictions that have been imposed on the general Israel-Palestine topic area by the Arbitration Committee. I'd also like to remind you of the clause in the Arbcom motion authorising the RfC that says, "The original motion in December included a clause authorising administrators, including the Moderator, to sanction editors for disrupting the process, and that clause remains in effect." I also see that you have been edit warring over the content of the source summary in the RfC,[1][2][3] against my close of step three questions 1-2 of the moderated discussion, and after I left this comment about your addition on the talk page of the RfC. I've tried to point this out to you nicely, but that hasn't worked, so I'm giving you an official warning. I consider the behaviour I have outlined above to be disruptive to the RfC process, and if you revert again I will likely ban you from the RfC. This would be a shame, as it has finally got to the part where you can comment on the actual content of the article. If you're not willing to stop edit warring, though, I'm afraid that you will leave me with no choice. You are welcome to include your findings in the discussion section of the RfC, but they cannot go in the source summary. Sorry. As always, let me know if you have any questions about my actions here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC has started

Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Wikipedia, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Rob Ford

I did this to the section heading you added. No offence is intended. "Censor" is a strong word and in my experience these sorts of discussions are likely to go better without those kinds of words. Again, nothing personal towards you was meant. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, someone else has removed it altogether. Probably best to let it go. Most editors know how to find it easily in the article history (unless someone starts making use of the revdelete tool). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If I had one wish it would be that those people who can not understand policy were smart enough to know that they can not understand policy. Sepsis II (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC: breakdown of results

Hello again everyone. Now that the Jerusalem RfC has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start step six of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

your recent edits

Sepsis,

I have the following concerns with your recent spree of reversions.

1. Personal attacks against other editors and failure to assume good faith: on numerous occasions you have accused editors of being "socks". You have also described editors as "malicious or incompetent"[4] and "pov-pushing".
2. You have not discussed controversial edits on the relevant article talk pages, instead relying on accusatory and contentious edit summaries.
3. You have reverted contributions by User:Plot spoiler on (by my count) 11 separate articles in the last two days. This raises significant concerns of WP:WIKIHOUNDING.

Setting aside all questions of content, I am concerned that your recent edits create an environment that is a battleground and not conducive to collaborative editing. I agree with some of your edits, but I hope that you will consider making changes in how you interact with other editors. GabrielF (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

[5] - how would you describe this account? And sorry, maybe you're not so bad, but you still did enable a sock. As for plot spolier, I do not follow him to annoy him, but to correct the massive number of disruptive edits he makes. My lack of interaction is only with certain editors, ones who are either clearly socks or seem to have such a strong ideological reason for editing that makes any discussion futile. I hope more people join the RSN discussion which I am happy to see is so far in favour of allowing a work by the article's subject to be allowed mention in the article. Sepsis II (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that an editor is a sock, then you should go to WP:SPI and request an investigation by editors who have the appropriate tools. You should not make accusations without trying to substantiate them. In addition, you need to engage in a discussion with User:Plot Spoiler rather than revert him at nearly a dozen different articles. I would point out to you that, based on your edit history, you also appear to have "strong ideological reason[s]" for editing. There are several places where such a discussion can take place, including Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. You should not make this volume of reverts without some attempt to engage the editor. GabrielF (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could show me how it's done, these three accounts are all obvious socks -[6], [7], [8], would you mind creating the SPI, I mean we are both against socks who are adding quotes attributed to a man who has never said such quotes, right? Sepsis II (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverting at AE

If you're going to keep reverting at WP:AE, which is an admin board, on grounds of User:Sisoo vesimhu being a sock you really should open an WP:SPI containing your arguments. Otherwise your edits could be viewed negatively. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I'm just getting the SPI in order right now, been busy today. Sepsis II (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: WP:ARBPIA

Hello, please read the conclusions I've entered at the AE thread you opened, [9]. Please make sure to avoid the appearance of tendentious editing by choosing to use one side's advocacy groups' reports in articles and not the other's. While I recognize that there may be valid editorial grounds for such choices, if made repeatedly they can create the impression of non-neutral editing. In general, it seems to me that editors would do well not to use advocacy groups from either side as sources at all (even if they only republish material from other, more neutral sources) or extremely sparingly. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Aloha

I don't believe a Daily Show video is considered a reliable source. If you disagree, you're free to discuss on the talk page and revert me. I suggest you WP:AGF and stop trolling my contributions and focus on contributing positively to Wikipedia yourself. Also curious, have you ever edited under another username? Given your quick proficiency at editing Wikipedia, it appears you had prior experience. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Haha, you're a real piece of work [10]. Check user! Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like AndresHerutJaim to me. Who do you think is running that account? Sepsis II (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And what about yours? I repeat: have you ever edited under another username? Given your quick proficiency at editing Wikipedia, it appears you had prior experience. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it an RS ? A newspaper quotes a veteran who speaks about issues other than his experience?

article: 1948 Arab–Israeli War

You reverted my Citation needed|reason=According to a wp:rsn opinions, Mr Neumann is a primary Source as for he was directly involved in, otherwise not a source.

your claim:nonsensical, primary sources are fine as long as their is no attempt to interpret, read wp:primary.

Why will not you read the wp:rsn opinion ? Ykantor (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

1 RR violation

Your recent edit at Students for Justice in Palestine broke the 1RR restriction on that page, Undo it or you will be blocked from editing. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ya that's nocal/AndresHerutJaim. Sepsis II (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you for your input into MAM. This is what I have been trying to say, but you presented it much better. VVikingTalkEdits 09:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions

The following sanction now applies to you (in accordance with the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions):

You are restricted to making one revert per week on all Israel/Palestine articles. Additionally, youYou are on a shorter leash for personal attacks; any attacks will may result in a block.

You have been sanctioned for continuing to edit war and consistent personal attacks on other editors.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. This sanction has been recorded on the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a topic ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard.  Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

your report

here: I will add to it. But note that the editor in question is female, AFAIK, you refer to her as "he", perhaps you could change that? See also this and this. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and one should only post under ones own heading: perhaps you should move what you have written under Nyttend to your "own" part. Preferably with a "To Nyttend:" first. It can soon get very messy otherwise. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose deletion → Keep

I humbly suggest editing your !vote at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ to change “oppose” to “keep”, per Ego White Tray’s comment there. —Frungi (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Fatah and pacifism

Hello Sepsis II, it is nice to meet you, I don't believe I have had the privilege before.

I just wanted to respond to your recent edit on Fatah to make sure you understand my position.

First, your edit summary accused me of "FORUM"-ing but I don't see how I did. My comments were strictly about the article and what it says. I offered, and still offer, no opinion of any kind about Fatah itself. The rest of your response, that " all governments believe armed resistance to be a right" suggests to me that you misunderstood what I was saying.

The definition of "pacifism" according to the Oxford American Dictionary is "the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means." Merriam-Webster defines it as "1: opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds 2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance".

As I said in my edit summary, neither of those appears to be an accurate description of Fatah's position. You do correctly say that all governments believe armed resistance to be a right, but that's really quite beside the point. None of those governments are pacifist in their ideology, although quite a few of them are significantly closer than Fatah, an organization which quite vigorously proclaims its willingness to use violence to achieve its goals, if necessary.

Finally, you remarked that "even the added Israeli source speaks of Fatah's pacifism" which suggests you believe it to be obvious that Fatah is pacifists if even Israeli sources admit it. There are a number of problems with this, including the fact that the source I linked does not use the word 'pacifism'. There's a good reason they don't use the word: Fatah is not a pacifist organization.

I get the impression that you think (or thought, since I've now given you the full definition) that 'pacifism' simply means "wanting or hoping for peace". But that isn't what it means.

I hope you find this discussion helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You added "Armed resistance as a right" to their ideology, like I stated all governments believe in this, I reverted per BRD and I thank you for starting the discussion as I am quite busy. Now that I have a little time, I think Soman's edit after mine which removed pacifism may be better, at least until Fatah's movement away from armed resistance is updated within the article.

I took "pacifism" does not appear to be part of their ideology" as foruming, considering as of late they have been very peaceful towards their occupiers. Sepsis II (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Please refrain from removing the comments of others except for removing obvious vandalism or WP:BLP violations.  Sandstein  19:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It's clearly banned editor AndresHerutJaim. Sepsis II (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein seems content to enable sockpuppetry. On AE, no less. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, he's just a stickler for rules, he is right, I will start the 20th or so SPI against Andres now. Besides it's not like his contribution matters, what he thinks we'll get banned for edits like placing Atarot, deep in Palestine, in Palestine rather than Israel? Sepsis II (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

...andddd he's blocked. Sepsis II (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Re your AE comment

That was not constructive. If you fail to understand why, please re-read the Results section. Again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Right right, criticism of admin behaviour is not allowed on wikipedia, sorry your majesty. Sepsis II (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of admin actions or behavior is encouraged. That went further and showed no evidence of considering the policy and behavioral complexity here. Given the widespread discussion and (not universal) consensus that mere POV absent abusive editing was not actionable, what do you propose I should have done differently on closing? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Half the admins were in favour of an indef topic ban while half the admins were completely ignoring the case and speaking on theory. Sure there was lots of discussion and agreement that "that mere POV absent abusive editing was not actionable," but that had nothing to do with this case as there clearly was, as shown by numerous editors, abusive editing occuring. How you do not see edits with the sole purpose of removing the international viewpoint and replacing it with one held by a fringe group is not abusive or her edits which try to whitewash massacres and try to erase the word Palestine from this encylopedia is not abusive...[11], [12], you try watching as hundreds of accounts keep going day after day removing Palestine, rewriting history to make Israel and her ancestors look better. I can't do anything about the thousands of little accounts that continual propagandize wikipedia on behalf of Israel and now it appears I can't do anything about the major editors who are here to propagandize wikipedia on behalf of Israel either. Sepsis II (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sepsis II. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
Message added 15:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

pbp 15:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

WP:VA/E/G dispute about Palestine

Please see my comment at ANI. In my opinion, the ANI thread could be closed if you will agree not to revert again regarding inclusion of the State of Palestine until consensus is found. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Israeli-occupied territories". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 07:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Precision123 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

sodastream

SodaStream The article Sodastream is pretty close to going into a full blown edit war and edit wars are wastes of time. Personally I Feel that most everyone is trying to improve the page. Perhaps we can work together. Come to the talk page and let's see if we can work together productively. Come to the topic titled Edit war.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request

Please note, I have mentioned you in regard to possible sanctions at WP:AE#Yossiea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

AE

tenacious --> tendentious?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Big words are hard, cheers, Sepsis II (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Commons maps

Hi Sepsis II,

There is a reason that those maps are built they way they do. The maps' purpose is to illustrate Israeli localities' locations, especially vis-a-vis the Israeli districts, and it would just be pointless to color-scheme it any differently. All the usual lines are there, like the 1949 Armistice Lines, which are painted olive.

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert

Since you reverted my edit, I thought I'd invite you into the discussion we're having on my talk page. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 19:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever, even when he's reverted me, disagreed with Sean Hoyland, removing that a pro-occupation organization is located in occupied territory doesn't make any sense to me. Sepsis II (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't remove that it's located there. I only removed the word "occupied" because it's superfluous, and overstressing the fact here is what is irrelevant and a bit POV, not the fact itself. The reason it's superfluous, is because Israeli settlements wouldn't be called "settlements" if the land weren't occupied; they'd simply be called "cities". And anyone wishing to know more details about the status of the West Bank, can go to the article about the West Bank. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 00:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

map

Hi,

Does this solve the issue [13] ? Pluto2012 (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The left map represents Israel's internationally rejected annexation of Jerusalem as a mainstream viewpoint. The Golan Heights is a unique colour and I don't know why. The West Bank is a different colour from Gaza and the only reason I can think of is that this is the Israeli view. The West Bank's colour is too similar to that of Israel.

I'm trying to think of relevant examples to compare this situation to. Colonization has ended everywhere else and border disputes such as Hala'ib Triangle aren't similar as colouring the disputed territory doesn't confuse the way colouring an entire exclave does so the only examples would be breakaway nations. For Serbia someone's gone and cut out the Serbian districts that make up Kosovo despite the districts continued existance - not the best idea. PRC/ROC is done better, , colouring clearly separates actual territory and the territory it claims of neighbouring nations. The three territories should all look like Taiwan on that map with labels stating, respectively. "Golan Heights, Syria, occupied and settled by Israel." "West Bank, Palestine, occupied and settled by Israel." "Gaza Strip, Palestine, occupied by Israel."

Thank you though for trying to help. Sepsis II (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

What about the following :

• Removing the "red" border between Gaza and Israel
• Using for Gaza the same color (a kind of pink) as for West Bank

Would it be enough ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally I feel like the red border separating the occupied Golan Hieghts from the rest of Syria is the most problematic (International borders such as between Syria/Lebanon/Jordan are also in red giving the impression that this is an international boundary). Also East Jerusalem is in white - the same colour as Israel and a different colour to the rest of the West Bank. This is in contradiction to the overwhelming majority view that does not accept Israel's annexation of EJ and considers EJ to be part of the Palestinian territories. Dlv999 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that I corrected this border. I put it West of Golan (?).

I colored East-Jerusalem in pink

Pluto2012 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to paint Palestine and the Golan Heights as a different colour than other neighbouring nations due to Israel's occupation and colonization than you will need to add a legend or label (like the three I wrote above) so that readers know why this non-Israeli territory is painted different than say Jordan. There also need to be high contrast between the colours used for Israeli territory and non-Israeli territory, currently they are hard to distinguish and I personally have perfect eye-sight. Sepsis II (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that Golan is Syrian and I don't see why we should use another color. Even less that this map is expected to illustrate something far away from Golan (south of Jerusalem).

From your comments, I wonder if you see the same map as I do. Could you both confirm you see the one that I edited from Ynhockey ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

In the zoomed in map East Jerusalem is a slightly different colour than West Jerusalem however in the full view map, all of Jerusalem has been placed in Israel. If you want to paint the Golan Heights simply as Syrian than all of Palestine would have to be painted as simply another nation as a map of Israel which shows only some of the territories it occupies but not all of them would just be confusing. Sepsis II (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I see.

To remove East Jerusalem from Israel in the main map will be more difficult. I wonder why Ynhockey used this. This is blatant pov-pushing. I try to correct this.

For the internal colors inside the borders of "former Mandate Palestine", I disagree. There is no define borders of Palestine and I think we should keep Gaza and West Bank in another color than Golan, Syria, etc.

What is your mind ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The boundaries between Israel and the Palestinian territories should be marked along the green line with a dashed border to mark them as a boundary and not a final border. Of course Golan and the Palestinian territories are different from each other but relative to Israel they are both settled and occupied. I think a map about Israel should either show all occupied land as either gray(another nation) or a unique colour (occupied) to colour Golan gray and the West Bank pink, a reader would likely conclude that Golan was not occupied as occupied areas are coloured pink. Sepsis II (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

List of countries where Arabic is an official language

Hi Sepsis. I realize you disagree with my close for the above article, and that's fine. However, the productive way to deal with this is to contact me on my talk page with your concerns or to bring it up at WP:AN, not to revert my close. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You were notified of course, I see you deleted my talk page comments...your obviously incorrect closer and restoration after being called out are inappropriate. In the future when you want to affect an unsettled discussion please !vote like others rather than closing how you prefer it to be closed. Sepsis II (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

paywall

There's a technical way of seeing all those articles, not withstanding the paywall. I've forgotten what it is, unfortunately. In any case, Ynet will usually still have that information, and so will a dozen American papers outside of the New York Times (which is quite manipulative). Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Search for the title of the article on google. Then open the google cached version of the page from the search results. Dlv999 (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh, so that's how I read'em! Thanks. I use to worry about this, but on reflection a newspaper should be proud that its reportage figures so often in what will be the default global encyclopedia. It's a form of advertisement, and thus our poaching acts, inadvertently, as a form of publicity. And the more neutral, accurate or comprehensive a paper becomes, the more authoritative its presence here. The more neutral, accurate and comprehensive our coverage the stronger will be the tendency (already widespread) for major newspaper journalists, in turn, to check wikipedia to assist their own reportage. A virtuous circuit.(Sepsis. Gilo isn't in 'Palestine', even technically (since it covers an area within the Corpus Separatum, which was considered outside the future Arab State).Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

My source had only stated East Jerusalem as the location of that particular day's settlement expansion. If I really wanted to I know I could get around paywalls for free, in this case it actually didn't matter as the source I added was more than a week newer, I only didn't know whether to remove the old source as unused or not.

Nishidani...we run a 10:1 ratio of bias:neutral sources in the IP area. Sepsis II (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I know it takes more of one's time, but I usually google the argument, look at at least two or three sources, and then edit. Anyone editing this area should read the relevant parts of Haaretz, at least, each day, though often one does not use the stuff, one familiarizes oneself with the journalists, the slants, the broader reaches of the topic area. 'East Jerusalem' is no warrant for writing 'Palestine'. One should know that here. This may disappoint one's own wishes and expectations of justice (it does mine - I have to witness the way an archaic landscape is milled into a boringly modern dormitory suburb. It's atrocious). But long term editors respect to the letter the strict technicalities of history and wikipedia's rules and consensus decisions in the face of partisan assertions.Your text had 'After several days' for the period late March- April 1. I found a source for the last part about 'threatened sanctions' dated 1st of April, so I had to change that to 'some days later'. You then introduced a new source from Russia for a period 10 days later, to back the actual imposition of sanctions, while leaving my 'some days later' in. See? It's a matter of getting every word fitting the context. I know this is immensely tedious, but learning to do this instinctively anchors one's edits in iron-fast grips, because they are grounded in impeccable respect for details of actual sources.Nishidani (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The city planning is atrocious. The dead are just statistics. Sepsis II (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Xinhua can have interesting reports coming from Palestine as well, [14], but this is wikipedia, those soldiers are admins and editors here, if they think you know of the everyday horrors you'll be topic banned, speaking about them blocked. Sepsis II (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not topic banned, nor are many others fully informed of the intolerable side of day to day events. The point is, facts speak for themselves,-even partisan editors can do fine work if they see that - and we should never allow ourselves to speak for the facts here. If you think you are fighting enemies, well, don't lead with your chin, whatever the case. You may pack a huge punch, but you'll be kinghit before you wallop. People who manage to stay in this area have improved it because, whatever the strategies of combative editors may be, they just put their nose to the grindstone, duck when jabs come their way, and add neutral content.Nishidani (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion regarding your previous edits

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 17:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Anne Bayefsky

You changed an exact quote and you violated 1rr. I'll give you a few minutes to self-revert.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an idiot, go away. Sepsis II (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Deir yassin as terrorism

Hello,

I fully understand your feeling in the talk page but I think nevertheless that we should provide WP:RS if we want to classify Deir Yassin massacre as a terrorist action from IZL or LHI. Would you have such a source ? (I don't.) Pluto2012 (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summaries

What the hell is wrong with you[15]? Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sepsis is currently harassed by several anonymous editors.

That's a human reaction to attack them in reaction.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A normal reaction is "go away nazi"? I don't think there's anything normal with that. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Pluto, isn't Plot Spoiler silly? He doesn't think a talk page harasser is akin to a systematic murderer!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Anybody who will edit this section just after me is for sure as immature as Nazis may have been... Pluto2012 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If wikipedia existed in the early 40s, who would be calling Poland "disputed territory", who would add propagandic quotes from the leader of the occupying nation, who would call the white rose terrorists, who would overflow every article about a conflict with the voices of the occupier, their citizens, and the fringe who support them worldwide, while never adding the voice from the occupied, or any Polish speakers, who would be angered if you called a Holocaust supporter a barbarian? Sepsis II (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

....there we go... exactly what we were waiting for ....the Nazi-Israel comparison. Pluto come rushing to his defense again....--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sepsis should certain not, on talk pages, or in edit summaries, adopt the slang used by Karnei Shomron settlers, or by hilltop youth in the West Bank. They set a bad example which editors familiar with them are advised not to follow, in the real world and on wiki. The edit summary makes him sound like a youth yelling at the IDF at a checkpoint, an identity I presume he would disown. Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, and now comes Nishidani with an unrelated gratuitous personal attack against all men women and children of Karnei Shomron. I don't think this thread can get any more highbrow.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Umm, click on the sources, parse them slowly, and then look at the context, and finally, refresh your understanding of the meanings of both 'unrelated' and 'gratuitous' in any sophomore dictionary. As I just said on my page, some people when anything occurs in the I/P area, look at the ethnicity, and immediately fall into a lockstep defense of the one they identify with.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Netanyahu and many other Israelis often compare other nations to Nazis and Apartheid SA. I suppose they think it's fine to make such labels but only when clearly ironic as in Palestine or the hyperbole is clear such as with Iran or Saudi Arabia. I suppose it's akin to girth, it's fine to call a skinny guy a fat ass in jest while a chubby fellow would get real angry. Sepsis II (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Just keep edit summaries to the point, succinct and neutral. Otherwise you are doing people who dislike you a favour for future A/I or AE calls for a sanction or permaban. Nishidani (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Civility at Talk:Israel‎

Please don't refer to other editors' messages as gibberish just because you don't agree with them. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't insult me by claiming I called editors messages gibbeish because I don't agree with them. I pointed out the nonsense because that's what it was. What is this, some nanny middle school shit? Don't point out that the kid doesn't have a clue what he is talking about because it might hurt his self-esteem?

I'd point out to you that the sock Brad Dyer has been hounding me for months and that Infantom is Csi.southpark, but I had better not, your feelings might be hurt for not seeing the obvious. Sepsis II (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Is this better? How do you actually expect me to converse with editors who make up facts? Sepsis II (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no relation to the user you mentioned whatsoever, that's a false accusation! --Infantom (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Check page history for admission of old account by Infantom. Sepsis II (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing to hide, the only reason i removed it is because Plot Spoiler comment(the one you removed) was aimed to you. I have never been banned, reported or part of any debate here including with you.--Infantom (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What is your source for the 87% of mountain water taken by Israel?

In this edit, you changed a certain figure from 80% to 87%, i.e. the percent of the mountain aquifer which is 'abstracted' by Israel. You didn't add any new sourcing for this so we must assume you saw this in the current sources. Can you give me the document name and the page number where you saw the 87% figure? I have been searching the documents for '87%' without any notable success. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I used the source already present, see page 11. Total Israeli abstracted is 871.6, Total abstracted is 1009.8. I calculated the over extraction from the same table. What brought it to my attention was an article I had read stating 90%, so I read the source for 80%, found the source actual gives 87%. Sepsis II (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If the 87% requres a calculation by the reader shouldn't you be explaining it on the talk page? You should also be stating in the article text what the two numbers are that, when divided, give 87%. It would also help if you would cite the article where you saw 90%. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the 90% was from a human rights organization which means it would be changed to "according to..." to help undermine the statement. I'll try making a note, idk, I'm no wikipedia expert. Sepsis II (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think private calculations though allowed, are dangerous here. Historically, arrangements drift, and distinctions between unrecharged and recharged acquifer sources must be observed (I collect that data in a sandbox page). according to this 93% of the recharge water in the Mountain Aquifer was used by Israel in 1994. Things have changed and most recent reports I have read lower that figure, but complications arise because of how to calculate Palestinian buybacks from Mekorot (costs are higher for Palestinians buying back West Bank water than they are for Israeli settlers). It's a tough subject, and only technical uptodate sources, which provide detailed data and calculations, should be used. Sorry for the intrusion.Nishidani (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone should add to the note that 871.6 divided by 1009.8 is about 87%, apparently I was blocked because an admin couldn't handle the leap I made in the math. Sepsis II (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

To enforce an arbitration decision for violatng WP:1RR at Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories, you have been blocked from editing for a period of one week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is strickly punitive, is not based in wiki policy, does nothing to protect wikipedia, and in reality harms wikipedia. Sounds like an admin has been around.

Decline reason:

No valid unblock reason given. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

I'm mildly curious. I don't understand the last sentence of your unblock request. It seems incomplete.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey bb, can you do me a favour and add User:Wikieditorpro to the SPI per his recent edits with Infantom. Thanks,

Maths and languages were never your forte eh bb? Sepsis II (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, but no matter. The SPI you filed has been closed with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow your friends are really at it vandalizing wikipedia now that you've blocked me, well done old chap, you've deserved your pay today. Sepsis II (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Are you going to take responsibility for blocking me or not? Your friends are going ape shit on numerous articles. Since you blocked me Amir has broken 1RR at both Basic Laws of Israel and Ariel University. For blocking me it is now your responsibility to fix the pages and file the reports as I would have. Causing problems and doing nothing to solve them is irresponsible. Sepsis II (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: One of Amir and Kipa's sister socks has broken 1RR, better give him a lollipop. [16][17] Sepsis II (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein:If you want evidence of the ongoing socking then at least let us use SPI to see if they made a technical slip up. The SPI report was closed instantly for no reason, please re-open it. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AmirSurfLera. Sepsis II (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is your only warning. This page may be used by you to constructively discuss your block. It may not be used by you to report other users or to make personal attacks against other users. If you persist in abusing the process on your talk page, I will revoke access to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)