User talk:Accipio Mitis Frux

Welcome!

Hello, Accipio Mitis Frux, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! Mushroom (Talk) 06:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

test "test" '"test"' "'test'" test

About talk page archiving, the correct procedure is explained here: Help:Archiving a talk page. Mushroom (Talk) 12:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israelites

Thank you for your recent contribution to the article Israelites. As I've made a major set of edits there, I would value your comments on the Talk page about these. Thanks...PiCo (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. First, I should point out that discussion about an article should be on that articles talk page - it gives other editors a chance to join in. Second, let me say I'll value your input to the article. On the etymology of "Israel" we have to rely on quality sources, as always. But I don't regard this as a matter of great importance. What I'd like to do is to have more on the meaning of "Israel" and "Israelite" in modern Judaism - discussions of ancient history are dry and uninteresting, and it's certainly not my intention to try to prove that the bible is either true or untrue. In a very real sense it's truth lies in the theological, spiritual sphere. Israel, as I understand, is a community of those called to God, and not dependent on biological descent. Yet there are other views. If you can help on this aspect, I think you'll be making a great contribution. A suggestion: let's start by gathering some decent sources. I have to go to sleep now, but I look forward to hearing from you tomorrow (my tomorrow, that is). PiCo (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be too concerned about that rather aggressive editor - if you feel bullied, tell an admin (doug weller is good - he edits that article a little). Now here's how my thinking is moving: I'd like to get away from history and into the theological meaning. Have a look atg this book: Blackwell Companion to Judaism]. That's the sort of thing I'd like to cover. PiCo (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'ale Adumim

I am going to give you an opportunity to self-revert your edit. Please see WP:AE#Shuki where it looks as though Shuki will be topic-banned for 6 months for removing the material from the lead that you just did. There was a clear closure of a long discussion about this issue that has resulted in an uninvolved admin saying the exact line that you removed has consensus to be included in the lead of the article. If you do not self-revert I will ask that you be banned from editing articles in the Palestine-Israel conflict topic area. Based on the request against Shuki linked above I would anticipate that request being granted. nableezy - 20:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As your response has made clear that you decline to self-revert, I have brought this issue to AE. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Accipio_Mitis_Frux. nableezy - 20:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accipio, you fell into Nableezy's trap. He provoked you as well with his attack attitude and then took you to AE to silence you. The admins are giving him and his filthy mouth much leeway since they see him as a balance to the pro-Israeli editors. I miss the days of tiamut and al ameer son, they knew how to be worthy. --Shuki (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you fight your own battle here due to the recent drama at AE but I noticed a couple things and I hope it is of assistance to your editing here.

You made a mistake. I understand it is rough and trying to lok through the discussions is a pain. Dailycare provided you with the needed information in his edit summary. In the future slow down a bit.
~~You self reverted[1] yet Nableezy opened up this AE 44 minutes later.~~

Cptnono (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That diff does not appear to be a self-revert, but an ordinary revert. And you have now reverted for a third time today; this would be a problem even if the article was not subject to a one-revert rule. RolandR (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that was the initial revert, the one that I asked that the user self-revert. The user refused and instead reverted 2 more times. nableezy - 21:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ma'ale Adumim, like many articles which touch on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction (1 revert per 24 hours per editor). It appears you've reverted 3 times today, thus violating the 1RR restriction. While an admin would be technically empowered to block you without further warning, I think it's at least possible that you hadn't noticed the 1RR template at the top of the talk page. In light of that, I'd like to ask you to self-revert your latest edit, proceed through discussion rather than edit-warring, and commit to respect the 1RR restriction going forward. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. I am not looking to create a dramatic situation, edit war, or personal battle with anyone here. I just have a problem with "self-revert or else." In any case, I will respect the 1RR rule going forward, and I'm going to take a break from this particular page. To clarify, I'd prefer not to self-revert, but since I am taking an indefinite break from this page I will not be reverting any edits made by others.

Hopefully this is a satisfactory compromise, if not, please let me know. All the best. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 08:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a "satisfactory compromise". The article is subject to a one-revert restriction, which means that editors may face sanctions if they make more than one reversion per day. You have three times removed the same text, inserted by three different editors, all of whom are observing this restriction and thewrefore not reinserting the text. Your obstinate refusal to replace the text in question (which, you should note, has been the subject of very lengthy discussion on Wikipedia, leading to consensus that it should be included in articles on Israeli settlements) has the effect of ensuring that your preferred version remains. You have been asked to undo your latest reversion, in order that consensus may be implemented. Continued refusal to do so could well result in sanctions, as you have been warned above. Despite this, you continued with the edit-warring after this warning. Please revert your edit. RolandR (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reverted. I'll continue to be involved in the page then. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you want to take part in the ongoing discussion about this text, please do so at the centralised discussion. Unless and until agreement is reached to amend or remove it, this should remain as it is in the article. RolandR (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wealthiest historical figures, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kings, Chronicles and Fortune (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I didn't realize that such links were unintentional -- I've always liked surfing to disambiguation pages and I thought that was part of Wikipedia. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Accipio Mitis Frux. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder, non EC editors are limited to the making of straightforward edit requests only. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]