User talk:GHcool/Archive 7

Fair use rationale for File:KIBBUTZ SUFA ROCKET 04-16-08.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:KIBBUTZ SUFA ROCKET 04-16-08.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent 1RR violation at Hezbollah

Hello GHcool. A complaint about you has been filed at WP:AN3#User:GHcool reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness. The Hezbollah article is under a 1RR/day restriction due to WP:ARBPIA, which you can easily see at the top of Talk:Hezbollah. If you respond at the noticeboard and promise to stop warring on this article you may still be able to avoid sanctions. You should also promise not to edit the article for seven days. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promising not to revert the article is not sufficient (per your comment at Talk:Hezbollah); you should promise not to edit the article at all for seven days. Please respond at WP:AN3, otherwise you may be sanctioned under the Arbcom case. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block.

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Per WP:AN3#User:GHcool reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 24 hours). EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict if the editor 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 including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of inappropriate language

Dear friend. You edit here is in contrast with WP:Civility. Wikipedia users are not speakman of their countries foreign minister. In matters like Hezbollah's one, there are controversial view points and Wikipedia reserves equal weight for all of them. Such comments don't have any place in Wikipedia. Try to respect, else you'll encounter further problems. Thanks.--Aliwiki (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

Hi GHcool, thanks for your kind words. Even if we may not always see eye to eye, I'm glad that we can work together constructively, and hopeful we can continue to do so in the future. Working under an umbrella of civility makes dealing with our differences of opinion much more manageable I think. Cheers. ← George^talk 07:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello. You are mentioned here -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 18:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours for violating the 1RR restriction on Hezbolah.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Courcelles 18:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Discretionary sanctions

In accordance with WP:ARBPIA#Dscretionary sanctions and the consensus of uninvolved administrators, I am hereby informing you that you are banned from editing any page or taking part in any discussion (regardless of namespace) related to the area of conflict covered by the case, broadly construed. This restriction is in place for 62 days from the expiry of your current block (0137, 26 March 2011, UTC) and, if necessary, will be enforced by escalating blocks.

You may appeal this sanction at any time to the relevant noticeboard, currently WP:AE, or directly to ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I choose not to appeal the decision at this time, though I reserve the right to change my mind. The dispute about whether or not Hezbollah is an Islamic terror organization was idiotic to begin with and I now realize that it was not worth the amount of trouble I got myself in. --GHcool (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You might wish to comment here[1] in a matter that concerns you--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban lifted

I've lifted your topic ban and amended WP:ARBPIA to reflect this. In lieu of the remaining month on your topic ban consider this a caution to edit within the letter and the spirit of ARBPIA and all applicable policies and guidelines. Consider it a chance to prove that the topic ban was unnecessary. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV at jerusalem attack

for yuour own sake refrain from [pov as youve already one had sanctions.Lihaas (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be falsification of sources. I suggest you make yourself unambiguously useful in the I/P topic area or you'll find yourself topic banned for a very long time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice I immediately changed the wording on the edit in question. --GHcool (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation at History of the Arab–Israeli conflict

Please self-revert. Thank you. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to self-revert. Please do so now. Thanks. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're referring to. --GHcool (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This and this revert. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a week ago. We were discussing it on the talk page. You're welcome to join the discussion if you have some grievance or whatever. --GHcool (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a 1RR-violation. You do need to self-revert. You should have self-reverted when you saw the first warning nearly a wee ago. Please do so now. --Frederico1234 (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to self-revert, but it didn't allow me to. I guess we're gonna have to discuss it and edit the article together like gentlemen. --GHcool (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rules are rules. Reverting will be more difficult now, true. This would not be the case if you had not ignored the first warning. You still need to self-revert. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how at this point. How about this: I give you permission to revert my thing (if you can figure it out), and then I'll restore the stuff of value and then we can discuss the article like grown ups. Or, alternatively, we can act like grown ups now, let go of childish things, and let bygones be bygones. Your choice. --GHcool (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that reverting now would be too difficult. I also acknowledge that you were kind in checking that book from the library, so I won't take this to AE. But please self-revert when asked to do so in the future. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal attacks

"Apparently, the problem with Gold is that he is an Israeli." -- This is your only warning, next time I'm filing a report. Zero^talk 13:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Are you accusing me of personally attacking Dore Gold? --GHcool (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really not understand? Your words accuse me of racism. Zero^talk 10:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I can see how one might interpret it that way, but that's not how I intended it. I was accusing you of applying a a double standard, not of being a racist. Let me be clear: I don't know you personally and have no interest in your views on race, therefore I will not and have not speculated on your personal feelings towards racial/ethnic groups. I only judge your arguments against the use of Dore Gold in the article, which have been flimsy at best. --GHcool (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If rejecting a source because he's Israeli is racism, it follows that all the Israel boycotters are bigots.—Biosketch (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Talk:Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus#My_deletions_and_insertions

Hello GHcool. It seems that you've missed reading some of Zero's posts. That's an easy mistake to make, especially when discussions become lengthy. May I kindly ask you to check if you haven't missed some? --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just reread it and my opinion remains the same. It is irrelevant to the topic of the causes of the palestinian exodus and an example of well poisoning. It is equal to writing in an article on abortion, "John Smith, who voted for John McCain, says that abortion is wrong." --GHcool (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find your logic impenetrable. It isn't anything like that at all. It is equivalent to "John Smith, a spokesperson of the Catholic church, says that abortion is wrong." You want to hide John Smith's official status from the readers, why? Zero^talk 00:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's all it was, I would be for it. Your request was to go into great detail about Schechtman's status (like a whole sentence or two). Why not write something like, "In a book the Israeli government helped finance, ..." instead of a whole spiel? --GHcool (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the text I inserted. It wasn't even in the same sections of the article where Schechtman is used as a source. I wasn't planning to qualify any of the material cited to Schechtman at all. The sentences I added were not about Schechtman's reliability, but about the origins of the Israeli official policy. That is a reasonable topic to cover in the article. If we had good sources for the origins of the Palestinian narrative that would be fine too. Zero^talk 03:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	If urging editors to be tolerant of other editors' points of view is "POV pushing", then I want to one of those POV pushers. Shirt58 (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Israel an apartheid state?

Israel in the borders 1949-1967 may or may not have been an apartheid state. However the West Bank has been occupied by Israel for so long that it is for all intents and purposes part of Israel. Even the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies in its website has a section on the Geography of Israel suggesting just that.http://www.nswjbd.org/Geography/default.aspx NSW Jewish Board of Deputies: Geography of Israel: Retrieved 27 April 2012 I can go no further than to agree with Peter Beinart from the New York Times.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/opinion/to-save-israel-boycott-the-settlements.html?_r=1&hp Op-Ed Contributor: The New York Times: Opinion Pages: To Save Israel, Boycott the Settlements By PETER BEINART: Published: March 18, 2012: Retrieved 27 April 2012] The West Bank fulfils all the criteria in User:GHcool:

Segregation

Forced relocation

Unequal rights

Trahelliven (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Trahelliven (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Views of the Peace Process

Hi, Could you let me have your opinion of the issues I raise on the talk page please? In addition to thosementioned there, do you think it would be worth getting rid of the quotes in the Hamas paragraph. I can understand using a quote when it sums up the issues succinctly but at the moment it looks as if Hamas' position is hard to characterise given that different members of the organisation have different views and may be competing with each other. Instead of using the quotes at the side, wouldn't it be better to highlight the complexities and emphasise that neither of the two individuals actually cited is the leader of Hamas, possibly with a short explanation about Hamas' council based structure? 92.225.176.163 (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind removing the quotations. I'll respond to your stuff on the talk page soon. --GHcool (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are official Israeli sources reliable?

The first official document of the new state was the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel of 14 May 1948.[2] In its key section, it commits two fundamental errors:-

1)1t describes Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947 as calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel. The Resolution did not call for the establishment of anything. It merely recommnded a plan of partition.[3]

2) Nowhere in the Resolution is the phrase Eretz Israel or Land of Israel used. Only if the Declaration had limited the proposed Jewish state to that part of Mandatory Palestine set aside for the Jewish state, could the following phrase be properly usesd - ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Possibly the second document of Israel is the Letter from the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States of May 15, 1948.[4] Its opening words are as follows:- I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,... Nowhere in the Declaration of 14 May 1948 is there even a reference to any frontiers of the new state, let alone any refering to any in the Resolution of 29 November 1947. The Preident was deliberately misled as to the content of the Declaration of 14 May 1948.Trahelliven (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Trahelliven (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[5]] Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs: History: foreign Domination: The Road to Independence contains a number of inaccuracies:-

On 29 November 1947, the Assembly voted to adopt the committee's recommendation to partition the land into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.

The Committee did not recommend anything. The Report of 3 September 1947 contained alternative proposals for considereration and possible recommendation by the UNGA. The Plan attached to Resolution 181(II) was the plan proposed by the majority, slightly amended. As a matter of strict interpretation, the UNGA did not even adopt the Plan of Partition attached to the Resolution. It adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan. Further both the Report and the Plan referred to the proposed Arab state before the proposed Jewish state. There is also no reference to the City of Jerusalem.

My objections may seem petty, but the slight distortions to the Resolution seem to suggest that the proposed Arab state was an afterthought and that the Resolution was legally binding. Trahelliven (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]