User talk:WarKosign/Archive 1

Do you really concern neutrality of the pages?

Hi. I am not an Arab nor an Israelite, And actually I do not favor any of them over another. But when I saw a section in an Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that was apparently intended to show Palestinian casualties,I noticed one full paragraph was inserted to at the beginning of the section to tell that the numbers may be wrong! Hey man, All numbers may be wrong, but in normal circumstances you do not explain this with one introducing paragraph. It is obvious that this extra information is put there to make the section less readable and to bury the death numbers of Palestinians.

Is not wikipedia a place to show facts?

I might tell the Israelites that "You may have the right to kill other children in order to protect your own children, but do you have the right to hide your killings? Does not it show you believe that your actions have been unjustified?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qudas (talk • contribs) 15:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Qudas: The numbers by GHM are not facts, they are propaganda. Gaza health ministry is controlled by Hamas and publishes anything that Hamas decides will benefit it. It's a matter of time until the world admits it. Check this article. During each conflict Palestinians cry "massacre ! Evil jews are murdering our innocent children ! 90% of the causalities are civilians". Then after the fighting is over they have to publish reports, and the world noticesignores their lies. See this report by ITIC for example. here is another article on this. Also read about Pallywood before you believe every image Hamas publishes. Lying about their casualties is a part of their tactics. The purpose of the WP article is to represent the neutral point of view, so both points of view are represented, with a disclaimer saying that at the moment there is no single "correct" source that everybody can agree with. “WarKosign” 15:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I have no particular sympathy for the Palestinians not have I for the Israelites. They are all human being suffering from a conflict that is (I believe) imposed on them by a few outsiders who never suffer and on the contrary benefits from the conflict. Anyway, speaking of the neutrality of the pages, I do not want to take excess attention to the numbers because even one unjust killing is painful. Maybe (and probably) Hamas is rising the numbers, but 2000 is so high that even a fraction of it could be a very significant (when it is related to human losing). Hiding the amount of disaster never helps ending these killings. I do not know you but I am pretty sure that you are not among the few ones who benefit from this massacre. You may live far from the conflict zone, but no one is immune of the consequences of spreading of crime. It is crime against Humanity not just against Muslims or Jews. Please do something to stop it or at least lessen it.
In your conscience I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qudas (talk • contribs) 02:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)

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)

WP:AE report

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

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)

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)

@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)

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:Z33Monopoly31121993 (talk)

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

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)

Please comment on Talk:Artificial intelligence

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Artificial intelligence. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Israeli strikes damaged one third of [[Gaza's mosques during the 51 day campaign, with 73 demolished and another 205 others partially

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the operation timeline

Do you know how to fix this?--Wlglunight93 (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wlglunight93: No, I don't know. This problem was there before, when I tried to fix it I broke something else. I'll try learning the transcluding tags and see what I can do. “WarKosign” 17:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wlglunight93: Fixed it now. It was my fault, I added a <noinclude> tag on the background section of the timeline since there was no point in having duplicate background, but somehow lost the matching </noinclude> tag. “WarKosign” 15:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ICC. 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) 09:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ban Ki-moon

I see now that I forgot to add the source for the quote from Ban Ki-moon and I see you added a tag. I was just wondering, considering it would take the same amount of time for you to add the source as it would take to add the tag, why didn't you choose to add the source and improve the article? I do however understand it was quicker for you to tag with a not-in-source tag then to read the source, but the relevant part was only in the second paragraph. I hope your adversarial mentality will end soon and that you begin to collaborate to improve articles in the future. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: When you add a claim, it is your responsibility to find the sources. If you do not have a source, you should not add the statement. If you add the statement it should be easy for you to add the source. Don't expect other editors to do the work for you. Once you provide a source some editor will review it to see that the source is reliable and it actually says what you wrote. The statement you quoted does not sound to me like Ban Ki-moon, usually he doesn't openly take sides - maybe it's only half a quote ? Either way, if his statement belongs in the article, it belongs in the #Reactions section and not in the lead.

Regarding your previous edit, +972 Magazine is a blog site and is not usable as a source. Try to find a reliable source for the same claim. Even if you do find the source (and there no other reliable sources contradicting it), the statement has to be integrated cleanly into the lead - we worked hard to keep it short and to the point, no reason to bloat it just because you feel like it. “WarKosign” 21:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you claiming you could not find a source for Ban Ki-moon's neutral quote? Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles:I did not bother looking before. Now I looked for the piece of text that you quoted and found it here. Clearly the text that you quoted is not from Mr. Ban but from an unnamed UN employee who wrote the story. Mr. Ban is quoted saying a few things, not what you added to the article. Will you remove it yourself or do I need to revert your addition ?“WarKosign” 21:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That's okay I added the source, hopefully you'll help me fix my mistakes next time. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. R.R. Pickles: Now with a proper source it looks much better. here is the full speech, btw. You missed a few important quotes: "I call on all parties to come together to chart a clear course towards a just and final peace -- including achieving a full lifting of the blockade, ensuring Israel’s legitimate security concerns; and establishing two States living side by side in peace and security.". The lead is still not the right place for it, this speech was given in reaction to the conflict, so it belongs in the Reactions subpage. “WarKosign” 22:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

As I had mentioned on the talk page the lead was missing the extremely vital fact that Gaza was under occupation. The quote is also important for the lead as it states what the root causes were of the entire conflict. Can you think of a better source for the root causes than Ban Ki-moon who you state is known for not taking sides. The sections you quote don't fill any void in the lead. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I invite you to a discussion

Hi. A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gaza beach explosion (2006) should be moved to Israeli bombing of the Gaza beach (2006). I would like to know your opinion about this issue.--Mevarus (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mevarus: Note that to avoid being accused of canvassing you should invite all the users at talk pages of relevant articles (for example talk:Gaza–Israel conflict or projects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration). “WarKosign” 07:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:100-gigabit Ethernet

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:100-gigabit Ethernet. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR - Action required

Hello, WarKosign. You have new messages at Wikipedia:JSTOR.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Interior (Talk) 21:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metacompiler

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metacompiler. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:PATH (Toronto)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:PATH (Toronto). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Medicine navs

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Medicine navs. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, WarKosign. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Huldra (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Huqoq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian. 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) 09:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please support my proposal in Wikipedia talk:Community portal

Currently the portal's section "help out" lacks "Create these articles", "Represent a worldwide view" and "Add historical information", which is odd since there are still plenty of notable uncreated articles, e.g. smokers' rights and Joseph Charles Aub, plenty of articles with geographic imbalances and plenty of articles lacking sufficient historical information, and the issues are no less serious than the fact that there are still many articles requiring update. So please go to that page and support my proposal to add "Create these articles", "Represent a worldwide view" and "Add historical information" to the section "help out".--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Climate engineering

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Climate engineering. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nibiru cataclysm

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nibiru cataclysm. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bonobo

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bonobo. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

A good 2015 to you and yours!

I know we had new year three months ago but hey why not. Hope its a safe, happy and productive one. Cheers from Irondome (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Irondome: same back at you. “WarKosign” 15:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hello, WarKosign. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Ashurbanippal (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:73 (number)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:73 (number). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hydraulic fracturing

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hydraulic fracturing. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Photo of Netanyahu

Someone has changed Benjamin Netanyahu's infobox photo against the consensus about it on its Talk page at a discussion you've created. Please revert it - it's so blurry i can't stop cringing. Meg2015 (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Antandrus: Per WP:TPO, you are not supposed to touch other editor's comments.

@Meg2015: Already taken care of. “WarKosign” 07:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In general, that is true. However any edits made by an editor in violation of a block or ban can be removed, and it has long been standard practice to roll back everything done by sockpuppets, as was the case here. (Anyone can put such comments back if they want, on their own talk page, as you did.) Antandrus (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Antandrus: I haven't noticed then that you mass-reverted a sock. I thought you objected to Meg2015's disliking the photo of Netanyahu.

I understand banning the sock and reverting the edits on article pages, but reverting (and not revdeleting) edits on talk pages seems pointless to me - nearly anyone would still see the comments and respond/act on them despite the deletion. “WarKosign” 07:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I know. There have been times I've let comments stand on user talk pages (especially if someone else has already commented -- then you really have to). I was probably just lazy -- its easy to click "rollback" on everything, especially when there are a lot to clean up. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Israeli-Gaza conflict dead

In that case you could join in on the discussion here User talk:Annoynmous#New Israeli figure. I already updated the article per report 8. The figure actually does not come from the ITIC. They haven't updated their figure since report 7. The new 2,140 figure comes from an Israeli security source as cited by the ITIC. So I added that figure a few days ago under the IDF heading. However user Annoynmous reverted me and reinstated the old IDF figure by saying the source is the ITIC, and moved it to the ITIC column. But when he also saw the number was not from the ITIC he reinstated their old figure as well and removed both the 2,140 figure and the source (part 8) altogether. I just left him a message and a compromise proposal that we remove the IDF figure since its highly out-of-date and replace it with the new 2,140 figure but we also name the source as Israeli security and not the IDF. Since although the IDF is part of the Israeli security forces we cann't know for sure the source came from them. But it is still an official source. Your opinion at his talk page would be appreciated. EkoGraf (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: I will look into these figures later. I need to understand what's going on with the sources and the numbers to make an argument. “WarKosign” 08:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Annoynmous and I have resolved the issue. We have attributed the figures cited in the ITIC report 8 as coming from the Israeli security forces in the infobox and in the main casualties table. EkoGraf (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

IR

I think you're over the 1R there at the Israel-Palestinian conflict 2014. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I see two reverts, one of them of an IP user so it doesn't count. Am I missing something else ?“WarKosign” 21:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, you made a notable spelling mistake (stroke=struck) (aside from reverting the natural order of something I wrote. I'll fix them tomorrow, when the 24 hours expire. Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I fixed the spelling, I think you could fix it yourself. While technically removal of a single letter is a revert, fixing an obvious mistake that goes unchallenged shouldn't be considered a revert.

I did not remove any of your information, only changed the word order to make room for the missing numbers, I do not think it can be called a revert (unless you are calling it so now). I am not perfectly happy with my wording, but your version sounded as if out of 4500 rockets only 250 were dangerous. Many of the rockets falling in the "open areas" also caused damage. “WarKosign” 22:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The damage claims exceed the residential buildings hit by a factor of 15. Go figure. Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I wondered about that too. Damage in open areas could explain some of that. Debris of shot down rockets (and of the interceptors themselves) could cause damage, perhaps a single rocket could (slightly) damage several properties. Surely not 100% of the claims will be honored. Anyway, these are just my speculations, I couldn't find any sources for that. “WarKosign” 10:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

'Damage' to property can signify having to take time off work to remove shrapnel fragments from farmland. If you used the same quantification figures for what occurred on the other side of the border, the list would be infinite (and ongoing since 35% of the prime agricultural land there is off-limits and thoroughly potted with disused shells, bombs and cartridges). I just dislike vague wording in sources, from whatever quarter. We don't have real data, so there's nothing one can do for the moment. Nishidani (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: It could also mean people killed in "open land" or severe damage to cattle.“WarKosign” 12:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Piddling (30 cows) in proportional terms, though of course it does explain what the claims cover for recompense, though it was a very rare, isolated incident, as far as I can see as opposed to the vast systematic destruction of anything growing or any livestock living in Gaza's fields and farms. Compare the mirror image here in Gaza

vs 15,000 sheep and goats and 'large swaths of Gaza's 17,000 hectares of cropland', et.etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Is Gouncbeatduke hates Jews. (talk · contribs) one of your socks?

Whoever did it used nice IP address masking, very sophisticated. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc, Tokyogirl79, and FreeRangeFrog: Please note this personal attack by Gouncbeatduke which comes after I reported vandalism on their page and tried to talk the sock down on its now deleted talk page.

Apparently informal advice/guidance was not sufficient. “WarKosign” 15:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I have a right to ask if it is you. The User made death threats against me. I noticed you still have not claimed it is not you. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc, Tokyogirl79, and FreeRangeFrog: Do I not have the right to inquire if the user making death threats is a sock of another user? I am just looking for a simple yes or no answer? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not need to respond to baseless accusation. If you have a reason to suspect that I used sockpupets or made violent threats you should report me. Otherwise you should apologize. “WarKosign” 15:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I just think you should be willing to say "No, it's not me", given you are the only user I know of who has made repeated personal attacks against me. If a user made death threats against you, I would be glad to tell you "No, it's not me". It also seemed strange to me you reported the vandalism but made no attempt to revert the vandalism. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Kindly point to a single personal attack I made against you. “WarKosign” 17:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, for example, "The subject of this discussion should be Gouncbeatduke's and your tag-team edit warring. “WarKosign” 12:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)" I was guessing the reason you added the strike out was because you viewed it as a personal attack. Not true? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I stroke it because I should not have made or even implied accusation of wrongdoing unless I have proof. How about you ? “WarKosign” 18:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of anything. I am just asking if Gouncbeatduke hates Jews. (talk · contribs) was a sock you used. I don't understand why you can't give a yes or no answer. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The way in which you phrased this question implies that I regularly use socks, and this happens to be one of them. This is not a question, this is an accusation. “WarKosign” 18:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no knowledge that you have every used a sockpuppet. I assume you own some socks or your shoes would stink. ;-)

I still don't understand why you won't give me a straight answer. If someone made death threats on your user page and I saw them, I would revert them. If you ask me on my talk page if the user making death threats was me, I would respond by saying. “No WarKosign, while we may have had differences on editing issues, I would never make death threats or use a sockpuppet. I think ANYONE WHO MAKES DEATH THREATS IS A COMPLETE ASSHOLE, and should never be allowed to edit Wikipedia in any way.” Gouncbeatduke (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I will not answer because the question itself is insulting. This sock accused me of antisemitism because I told it that attacking you was wrong. I reported the user and did not revert because I (correctly) assumed the edits will be revdeleted, which would make my revert pointless. “WarKosign” 19:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)