User talk:Dalai lama ding dong

Welcome

Hello, Dalai lama ding dong, and Welcome to Wikipedia! As you have just started editing, I hope you find the following selection of links helpful and that they provide you with some ideas for how to get the best out of Wikipedia. Happy editing! Fæ (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Guide for younger editors Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles Request departments How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

=?

We really do not need to have a policy against people creating odd sections with random "equal" signs at the top. No one needs to be told that it is disruptive to create odd sections with random "equal" signs at the top. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edits

Dalai lama ding dong, I am concerned with your edits. Your entire editing history on Wikipedia has consisted of trying to prove that 1) ancient Israelites did child sacrifices, 2) Jews did forced conversions, 3) Benjamin Netanyahu's son is anti-Arab, 4) Israel has desecrated an ancient Arab cemetery, 5) the Anti-Defamation League is anti-Muslim, and 6) the EUMC working definition of antisemitism is discredited. The sum total of your edits indicates a rather obvious agenda. Rather than continuing on this path, please review WP:SPA and WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I see, so you response to my comment here was to again add the WP:UNDUE material to the Child Sacrifice article,[1] and again promote your agenda regarding the EUMC definition of antisemitism at two different article. Please review WP:DISRUPT, and the remedies for this kind of disruptive behavior. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth would you think that any of my work here is a response to you? The work I have done on the EUMC definition has nothing to do with any agenda, and that is clear. With reference to your above list. 1) ancient Israelites did child sacrifices, 2) Jews did forced conversions. I have added academic references to both these articles, they do not 'prove anything' but they do offer a summary of academic opinion. I can not help it if you do not like these majority opinions.

3) Benjamin Netanyahu's son is anti-Arab, If that is true, then it is 'proved' by his words, not by my addition of them to an article on anti Arabism. 4) Israel has desecrated an ancient Arab cemetery, This again, if true is shown by the facts, not by my 'proving' of them.5) the Anti-Defamation League is anti-Muslim, and 6) the EUMC working definition of antisemitism is discredited. These last two are just silly. I have said neither of these things. I still await proof of your opinion on signing.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Username

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Dalai lama ding dong) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it may be promotional or disparaging of the institution of the Dalai Lama, and it may be offensive because Ding Dong is "a euphemism for the penis". The combination of religious and sexual references in your username is multiplicatively disruptive. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you. Quigley (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware that the phrase ding dong is generally regarded as being solely a euphemism for the penis. It certainly has many more meanings than that. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ding-dong) (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cCVnlIUTpg4C&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=ding+dong+pensi&source=bl&ots=cRLrUZMSkr&sig=G1RPbeoUY_jRmgabrckxprOzHNo&hl=en&ei=ab4yToGHMoKEhQeOiq38Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Since Buddhism is one of the few 'great' religions of the world whose 'sacred texts' have no concept of religious slaughter, i.e. no equivalent of the ban, or jihad, I doubt if you can find any Buddhist who would be offended by a play on a song title. Indeed here is someone who is sympathetic to Buddhism who uses equivalent forms of dalai lama rama ding dong and lama-rama-la-ding-dong (http://www.myspace.com/spitdoesntmakebabies/blog/137417396) How much checking did you do?

 Please check the following to see evidence that the DL is regarded as having a great sense of humour, 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGF9ciXeMs4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DLb7NwsCTc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83_zj_w0gMw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rAKmWPlZ5A&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu2ANgwDFuM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yWQp7Gxvzw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NKtV4GJ4zc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTIrgZkW34I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uls4YdV2ns&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p_xIUcltmw&feature=related

Would you like to contact some Buddhist organisations to see if they are offended by my user name? Alternatively, I will change it to dali llama ding dong, is that acceptable to you? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I would support you keeping your current name if you wish to. The basic listing on the OED for ding-dong does not include the penis interpretation (neither does the full OED entry which is not available free online) and there are many, many words that are slang terms for penis. Personally I would read your account name as "heated discussion about the Dalai Lama" which does not appear immediately offensive or intended to offend. Fæ (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the username clearly has non-disruptive interpretations, so I have removed the concern category. Quigley (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed a couple links since the appeared to be contributory copyright infringement. An essay can be seen at WP:VIDEOLINK that says everything I have to say on the matter. Let me know if you need any clarification.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitism in Norway

Hi Dalai. Your edit here appeared to contain info identical or very similar to the source, so there may be copyright problems. See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE and WP:PLAGIARISM. Also, one of the sources was unreliable. Thanks. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:TERRORIST

In reference to your recent edits at Jewish religious terrorism, I advise you to review the guidelines at WP:TERRORIST. In particular, note that "Value-laden labels...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I tried explaining this to you on the Discussion page, but I'm willing to consider that you simply haven't understood. When using labels of an exceptionally charged nature, such as "terrorist organization," you must demonstrate that the label is widely used by reliable sources and use in-text attribution. Please address these concerns soon, or else expect to have your edits reverted.—Biosketch (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Previous account

Hi. What was your previous username?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

tags

Hi, To ask for a citation use this: {{subst:cn}}. It adds the correct tag and fills in the date.. Zero^talk 16:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't use the nowiki tags, just the part with the double curly braces. Zero^talk 11:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not revert

The page was locked due to edit warring. If you revert again you will be edit warring and someone like me will be seeking your block. Instead, follow the dispute resolution process. I recommend that an admin gives you a heads up on the additional scrutiny editors are under in this topic area based on a history of disruptive editing. I feel that I cannot give you the proper advice since you choose to not listen and I do not have the patience do deal with you.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA was opened because there has been a history of contentious editing. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision is what you should focus on. What you doing is against Wikipedia policy and makes you more likely to be blocked. Editors have explained WP:IRS and WP:OR. You have no excuse for not reading them.Cptnono (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You continue to fail to understand policies linked to you. You chose not to understand ARBPIA. What would make it easier for you to understand?Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

1RR violation at Textbooks in Israel

FYI.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about. Pay more attention.Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA

You restored similar material twice in one day at Textbooks in Israel. Since this might be construed as a WP:1RR violation appears to be edit warring I am leaving you the discretionary sanctions notice. I have also added the {{ARBPIA}} template to the article talk page to make sure no one is in doubt about the status of this article, or the existence of a 1RR restriction.

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, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#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.

Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

See my reply to your comment at User talk:EdJohnston#Dalai lama ding dong. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

See another reply on my talk page. Your reverts at Itamar attack getting close to requiring admin action. "I have not quite waited twenty four hours, so I will wait and do this later" looks like gaming the restriction. You are not even discussing the removal of that sentence on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have revised my comment above so it no longer claims you made a 1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is it?

I understand you opened a dispute resolution regarding use of "Land of Israel" in Jewish History. I did not see a notice of it in either the Judaism or Jewish History Wikiprojects, or on my user page. Was this done? Please note that I cannot respnd until next wekk, nor can many others, due to the holiday.Mzk1 (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please self-revert

Your have now twice in 2 days removed a section from the article saying it repeats the lead. Well, the rules of composition are that the lead summarizes the body of the article. By removing the reduplication in the main body of the article, you destabilize the lead, which now has no follow-up in the text. The lead section is problematic, not the redupliction you erase. You should have pared down the Gesher-Poll data in the lead, while retaining all of the information in the appropriate sub-section. In short, you turned the correct procedure upside down by retaining too much information on that poll in the lead, and then erasing the copy of it, there for expansion, below. Do you understand now why I had to revert you? Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Intro sentence of Textbooks in the Palestinian territories

Hi there. My point with this edit was simply that the sentence I deleted was inherently information-free. The title of the article is Textbooks in the Palestinian territories, and the sentence I deleted was:

Textbooks in the Palestinian territories are school textbooks published in the Palestinian territories.

You reinstated the sentence with the rationale that this sentence "distinguishes these textbooks from those produced in East Jerusalem". I think this sentence cannot possibly achieve this goal, since it contains no information that isn't already present in the article title. Do you agree? --Doradus (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps you're referring to the word "published"? --Doradus (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, is this acceptable? --Doradus (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I like what you did here. I think we've arrived at a pretty good intro sentence. --Doradus (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jewish history. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You've made your point, and it has been challenged. For further discussion please use the talk page, per WP:BRD. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Child sacrifice shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Jewish history

Please stop. Discuss your proposed changes on the article's Talk page or you may find yourself being blocked for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read the definition of revert, and note that the adding of links does not constitute a revert. Please then remove the above suggestion. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Jewish history. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Beit Shemesh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canaanite (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) 10:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sikrikim in Beit Shemesh

Beit_Shemesh#Gender segregation and violence against Orot Banot girls’ school

Please stop undoing my edits. It is clear from reference 21 [2] that the violence was perpetrated by the Sikrikim, not a group of unknown Ultra Orthodox men. This is a huge POV issue, as your edit makes it sound like it's the fault of the entire Ultra Orthodox community while my edit puts the blame on a small group of troublemakers. Yserbius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC).

Ok, Wikipedia's back on, let's talk. Specifically about a few quotes from the aforementioned [[Jewish Press article], [this Forward article] and [this Jerusalem Post article]. Specifically these:

attacks on local women and children by a group of radical haredim affiliated with the Sikrikim

8-year-old Na’ama Margolis, the daughter of Orthodox American immigrants, was spat on by a member
of the Sikrikim

Upon their arrival, the radicals attempted to intimidate both religious and non-religious residents
by attempting to impose a strict “dress code” in and around their enclave. In recent months, members 
of the radical faction have become increasingly violent, hurling rocks at young girls who attend Orot 
Banot, calling them “sluts” and “shiksas.”

The new Orot Banot girls’ school is situated on a major road that is the seam between the city’s 
Modern Orthodox neighborhood and one that is home to members of violent ultra-Orthodox faction 
known as the “Sikrikim.”

Earlier this year, the Post reported that “the same group of Sikrikim has also targeted an ice 
cream store in the Geula neighborhood because they thought licking ice cream cones in public was 
immodest. Haredi media reported last year that Sikrikim in Beit Shemesh have targeted shoe stores 
in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods that refuse to remove high-heeled shoes from their selection.”
...
These radicals are also said to be related to the extremist group causing trouble at the Orot Banot 
nationalreligious school in Beit Shemesh.

Now, can you please explain to me why this isn't enough to warrant a specific "blame" in the article as opposed to the vague "some Ultra-Orthodox Jews" language that you prefer? Yserbius (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

you should be on the talk page for the article. You need to provide a RS for every claim that is there. Until you provide anRS that actually says what is presently in the article then the claim will be removed.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Jewish history redux

Regarding this edit summary: There is no deadline, and there is no "urgent need" to do anything with the article. Jewish history is a subject about which you obviously feel strongly, but keep in mind that there is no race to improve the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Exodus

Hello,

There are 3 main versions about these events and all shoul be placed on the same level, particularly in a synthesis of the main article that talks about that :

• many think the feld due to Arab leaders call
• many think Yishuv organised an ethnic cleansing
• many think the causes result of the cumulated consequences of a war

It is true that the first version is not much followed but it is certainly not Karsh alone who defends that thesis as well as it is not Pappe alone who defends the ethnci cleansing thesis. All in all, the 3rd version is currently the one that is mainly followed by historians except that 'mainly' is not a word to use.

91.180.121.51 (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Itamar attack

In this edit, you reverted a passage from the lead that is supported by a WP:RS later in the article, with an edit summary claiming that the passage is an "Unsourced claim." This is problematic for two reasons. In the first place, the information is sourced, later in the article at Itamar_attack#Palestinians. I'm guessing you were aware of the source when you made your edit, otherwise you wouldn't have described the poll as "small." Secondly, whereas you had no problem adding unsourced commentary to contextualize information in the lead in a very particular way, you apparently do have a problem when information in the lead indicates that one third of the Palestinians supported the massacre. At this point I have two helpful suggestions to offer you: 1. Revert your edit that removed reliably sourced information from the lead; and 2. read WP:Tendentious editing, which is a sanctionable offense at WP:AE.—Biosketch (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

if you were aware that the poll was sourced later in the article, then you should not have removed my comment, and should not have referred to it as personal

Commentary. If you wanted to change my comment, e.g. To remove the word small then that would be understandable, but you should not have removed it, when you knew it to be correctly referring to a later sourced claim The stand alone remark that one third of Palestinians supported the attack is not correct, as is clearly meaningless. If you want it to stay then it should include the fact that this statement is based on an opinion poll. You should either leave the article as is, or if you want to add in the reference to one third of Palestinians, then add in the fact that this is based on an opinion poll. The statement that I added in to explain that this claim is based on an opinion poll,is as much RS, as the claim that one third of Palestinians supported the attack.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalai lama ding dong (talk • contribs)

I removed your comment because it was unsourced commentary. You added a characterization of a poll as "small" without a source to support that assertion. What other purpose did the edit serve if not to diminish the poll's importance? I'm just wondering.

But now the problem's been made worse, as you've actually removed sourced information from the lead, and you're refusing to self-revert despite my pointing out to you where the source for the information is in the article. I'm telling you from experience, this is not how editors in the Israel-Palestine topic area are expected to conduct themselves.—Biosketch (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

so why did you not just remove the word small? Why do you not replace the original, with the additional information that the claim is based on an opinion poll? The claim that one third of Palestinians supported the attack is not sourced, the claim that one third supported it in an opinion poll is sourced. I am seeking concensus, and will accept my change without the word small. I am not able to revert again until 24 hours. Either' make my change and remove the word small, or wait for me to do it, but the reference to the opinion poll must be added, or the claim will be removed again as not sourced.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalai lama ding dong (talk • contribs)

Is the issue of the poll what this is really about? Obviously not, since there's no other way to determine that 32% of the Palestinians supported the attack other than via a poll. The issue is why you characterized the poll as "small" in the lead when you had no source for that assertion. What is your answer to that?—Biosketch (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

the issue is entirely about the fact that the original statement was unsourced. The reference to the opinion poll must be added. You could easily have removed the word small. There is no further point in discussing this, and I leave you to make the change.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalai lama ding dong (talk • contribs)

I take it then that you can offer no policy-based explanation for why you characterized the poll as "small" in the lead.—Biosketch (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I take it then that you can offer no policy based explanation as to why you did not remove the word you disagreed with, or state the bass of your disagreement, and instead removed information that is sourced? This discussion is now ended as I have accepted the removal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalai lama ding dong (talk • contribs)

The discussion here may have ended, but since you still aren't self-reverting your removal of sourced content from the lead despite being directed to the source in the article, I'm compelled to pursue the matter at WP:AE: [3]—Biosketch (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)