User talk:JDiala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, JDiala, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


Please read up on the topic its obvious you have no knowledge of the Khalsa. Guru Hargobind, the 6th Sikh Guru clearly stated that if a Sikh doesn't have weapons that Sikh should not visit him and that Sikh is not his Sikh. Even today if you go into almost any Gurdwara you will see swords, spears etc infront of the Guru Granth Sahib as signs of respect. In the Harminder Sahib there are guards with spears. Every baptized Sikh must have a kirpan, a small dagger at all times, and your saying that baptized Sikhs cant come into their own places of worship?


Jujhar.pannu (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between symbolically carrying a kirpan spears etc. and using a Gurdwara as an armed fortress. Khalsa is a strictly religious term, and is defined as "the collective body of all initiated Sikhs". All initiated Sikhs did not participate in this battle, and many of them did not agree with Bhindranwale. It's an extremely vague and potentially offensive generalization, and it erroneously implies that this battle was the Indian Army vs Sikhism. JDiala (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The armed fortress part makes no sense because their are Ramgarhia Bunga's in the Harmandir Sahib Complex are clearly put there for militaristic purposes. That's incorrect definition of Khalsa. The fact is the Indian Govt were trying to suppress Sikhs by doing this attack and other violent methods technically does make this a war with the Sikhs and the Indian Government but it is not a sikhs duty to fight back it is a Khalsa's duty to fight back so there for its not all that weird that it says Indian Government on one side and Khalsa on the other side. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
There's no evidence that the government was trying to suppress the Sikhs. When you have an armory with foreign weapons, including rocket launchers, in a place of worship that thousands of people visit daily, it's the government's duty to perform such an operation. They were not necessarily representative of the Khalsa in general, and calling it that is a vague generalization offensive to all baptized Sikhs who did not support Bhindranwale. JDiala (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Your wrong there is heaps and heaps of evidence that the entire Sikh culture was being repressed think why was Punjabi not allowed to be taught in any public school in Punjab between 1947 and 1966? That time the Harminder Sahib, or Golden temple was invaded by police in 1955 and the head jathedar of Akal Takht were arrested for a peaceful Punjabi Suba movement. The civilians were beaten and shot at and the army entered the place of worship with shoes and paraded around amirtsar for 3 days just to put the message that the Sikhs are second class citizens in India and that they are not allowed to peacefully protest. Sikhi allows weapons in its Gurdwaras and the Revolutionaries of 1984 were threatened for their safety and kept those weapons for Self-defense. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this operation. If you can conclusively prove with a WP:Reliable source that this operation was the Indian Army v. Sikhism, and the belligerents were representative of the whole khalsa and everyone in it, then I maybe I will take you seriously. The "revolutionaries" cannot keep foreign-made military grade weapons, including RPGS in an area that thousands of people visit daily. This group of "revolutionaries" who were actually terrorists that on numerous occasions slaughtered buses full of hindus and assassinated Nirankari leaders were not representative of the entire Khalsa.JDiala (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The Akal Takht represents the entire Khalsa Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Edit War[edit]

You're getting yourself embroiled in an edit war on Operation Blue Star. If I took further action you would be blocked as you have already breached WP:3RR, however, I'm giving you a chance to discuss on the talk page with editors. Thanks SH 13:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Operation Blue Star shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. SH 13:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk on my Page[edit]

Hi Fellow editor, Let me explain my reason for my actions. The other two editors engaged with you stopped short of 3rd reverts. You've done far more than 3 in a 24 hour period. Secondly, I agree with you on the Khalsa issue but not the Civilian Casualties. The civilian casualties issue at Operation Blue Star is a central reoccuring issue from Human Rights groups and journalists. At the time of the operatiion a big play was made as to this operation was being taken against Militants and terrorist (terrorists incidently Gandhi herself created). The analogy I would use would be the SAS storming the Iranian Embassy siege not a battle during war in Stalingrad. I've read through the article, and there is a section and many references to civilian casualties, and the reason for this was they stormed it during the celebration of the birthday of a Sikh Guru when 1000's of piligrims would be there. That is why the civilian casualties but should stay. On a side note it wasn't only Sikh Militants who fought, the Nihang Sikh's who are guardians of the temple fought as well. Not because they supported Bhindranwala, but because it's their instinct to fight any invaders. Thanks SH 17:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Iranian Embassy Siege section DOES have a section on losses and cites hostages i.e. civilians, and you keep refering this to a battle. It wasn't a battle. It was a military Operation to flush out Militants (same as the Iranian Embassy Siege) but on a larger scale. The Indian Army however, got it horribly wrong and were forced to use much heavier equipment. The reality is from all Independent accounts many Civilians lost their lives. Whether I am Sikh or not is irrelevant. I used to be a Hindu as well, is that relevant? I always respect WP:NPOV. General Brar is one source there are other sources that contradict him like General SK Sinha. I suggest WP:Mediation as I don't think you are willing to give way on this point, but I must warn you that this version of this article has come aout through WP:Mediation and WP:Consensus. Thanks SH 06:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

JDiala, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi JDiala! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the use of specific words on Operation Blue Star article[edit]

Hi, I started discussion on the talk page regarding the use of specific words in the info box. I think we should discuss this case on the one place (talk page of article) rather than talk page(s) of individual editors. Hopefully, we will find solution via WP:Consensus. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic area under Discretionary Sanctions[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg 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 transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia). Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

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

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

History of the world[edit]

  • Hello! I completely agree with your thinking that the title and content of "History of the world" do not match. Unfortunately, this has been a sort of deadlocked situation for years. Just look at this page: Talk:History of the world under the section "Requesting your help at History of Earth" and the section below it. People are opposing and supporting a name change left and right in those sections! The main arguments for those opposed to name changes are that (a) there is no name that they really like better and (b) the phrase "history of the world" is apparently traditionally used to refer exclusively to human history in the English language (like how maybe in secondary school you had a "World History" class that really should have been called "World History of Relatively Recent Human Civilizations"). How anthropocentric our language has been historically! Wolfdog (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

UNHCR claim[edit]

I see you referenced the UNHCR claim to this document. I've had a quick read through, and I can't find where it says that the majority are legitimate asylum seekers. Could you point me to the specific bit? Thanks, Number 57 12:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't even see where it says most are asylum seekers. Number 57 12:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
We can't assume anything. I'll remove the UNHCR bit and leave it at the NGOs. Number 57 13:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it doesn't say anything about "most". Number 57 15:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
But then all the report is saying is that there are asylum seekers coming, so isn't relevant to a sentence about whether most of the arrivals are asylum seekers or not. Can we keep this together on the article's talk page, rather than disjoined here? I am going to copy across all the comments. Thanks, Number 57 16:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Israel article[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to the Israel article's talk page. I have tried to add a

to this article. I would appreciate your thoughts on this on the Israel talk page. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Previous accounts[edit]

Hi Did you edited previously under any other username?--Shrike (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: No. Why? JDiala (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The area of WP:ARBPIA is contentious area many people were restricted anyhow as you editing the area you should aware of editing restrictions.--Shrike (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Israel lobby in the United States may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:
  • key [pro-Israel] groups do lobby, and because the term 'Israel lobby' is used in common parlance (along with labels such as the 'farm lobby', 'insurance lobby', 'gun lobby' and other ethnic lobbies,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

'2014 Israel–Gaza conflict' name change[edit]

Please participate the discussion. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general 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. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Amnesty reports[edit]

Are these news (1, 2 and 3) reflected in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict? Mhhossein (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Don't see why they would be necessary. We already have the actual report cited, what's the point of news reports? JDiala (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I had not noticed the actual report. Where is it mentioned in the article? Mhhossein (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: fourth paragraph. JDiala (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
There's no mention of "war crime" in this paragraph. While most of the news reports maintain that Israel is accused of war crime by this report. By the way, I reckon that the report its self is a Primary Source for this subject, isn't it?. Mhhossein (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@Mhhossein:The report [I've read it] never explicitly accused accused Israel of war crimes; it used deliberately vague language to try and minimize the conclusions that should have been made as a result of its damning evidence (most likely for PR reasons). What the report actually says should be given credence over what news media, dishonest as they are, say it says, for the simple reason that the text of the report is directly available. It is not a primary source, moreover; it is a published secondary source by a WP:RS organization. JDiala (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The source is counted primary per ALLPRIMARY, so we have to find reliable secondary sources regrading this subject. Mhhossein (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Well then you should start a discussion in the talk page as to how that should be done. It just seems odd to me that corroborating news reports, even though those news reports clearly misrepresent what was written in the report, should be given as much credence as the report itself. JDiala (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

perverse, POV Zionist narrative?[edit]

Those comments put you in violation of the A-I sanctions. Please strike them. Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Finkelstein's Antisemitism[edit]

I will appreciate it if you refer to my notes at [[1]]. thanks. Ykantor (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Block Notice[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating 1RR at 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   Mike VTalk 16:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 23 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing to Disagree[edit]

I would certainly argue that "Zionist Enterprise" is an offensive slur, based on its use in anti-Israel and anti-Jewish polemics.

Fatah official: Israel is a “colonialist Zionist enterprise” in alliance with the US that seeks to weaken the entire Arab region

Fatah Central Committee Member Says ISIS "extension of the Zionist Enterprise"

Conspiracy Site: "The Rothschild family was crucial to the Zionist Enterprise; without its support, Zionism would not have the support of World Jewry and thus of the Evil Jewish Leadership."

But then again, as a Labor Zionist, I have a "perverse POV Zionist narrative" according to you. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: I will reiterate my point - it can be viewed as offensive when referring to Israel after its formal declaration, but not when referring to the pre-state. It sounds rather unencyclopedic (hence why I changed it to "movement") but I do not regard it as offensive. It depends on the context of course; it obviously sounds more derogatory when coming from blatantly anti-Semetic websites, but in and of itself it's not a serious issue. It is ultimately a matter of opinion, so yes, we shall agree to disagree. JDiala (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Upon looking it up, I found it's actually used by some Jews and Zionists, albeit less frequently. The negative connotation is likely more recent in origin, though "Zionist Entity" has always been derogatory. Also, I didn't notice you changed it to movement, thanks! :) --Monochrome_Monitor 00:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


What you did here is probably a second revert, since you deleted a paragraph. And even if it wasn't, what you are doing is very silly and doesn't contribute in any way.--Averysoda (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It is. 1st revert 2nd revert. Kindly self-revert or I will have to report you.
Also Kasher is RS for ethics and strategy. Look him up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@No More Mr Nice Guy: Do you know what a revert is? Hint: it is not a synonym for edit or removal. Both of you, please see WP:REV. EDIT: Nevermind. Apparently the word 'reversion' can be construed to mean 'removal' in this context even if you're not "un-doing" a recent edit. I was not aware of this. Rather odd. Meh. Self-revert. Only ~23 hours. And no, he is not RS for strategy. He is a philosopher; an ethicist. I never denied that(which is why I didn't remove the other sentence discussing him which is more related to his field). But that's not even a rule! In fact, he's allowed. Generally speaking, notable people's opinions are allowed even if they're not experts (Chomsky, for example). I am merely playing your game. Of course, there will be not point in doing this in 24 hours. I will be able to revert your edit then again. I have tried to take both of you seriously, but it is clear that you are ideologically committed partisans. It is you, therefore, who are not contributing. JDiala (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


You Just restored a contested edit to the Hamas article. This is the third time you've tried to put this in the article in 3 days, despite knowing you do not have consensus for the edit. Kindly self-revert or I will report you for edit warring. Please read WP:EW and WP:BRD before replying. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: My principal objections have not been responded to for that same time period. Additionally, it is clear that the first editor who contested the edit has conceded. I quote: "However, since many reliable sources use indistinctly "kidnap/abduct/capture", I accept your edit.--Averysoda (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)" Thus, the number of people who accept my edit is, in fact, 4-1 in my favour (myself, Nishidani, Averysoda and IRISZOOM). I shall also quote something directly from WP:BRD: "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." You have failed to do those three things, and have generally failed to engage in meaningful discussion. WP:BRD is not taking place, is it. Regarding the claim that I am engaging in edit warring, I refer you to the following statement from WP:EW: "Communication is the key to avoiding conflict". You have refused to communicate with me. Rather, you revert. In light of these facts, and your failure to provide a satisfactory argument (please read WP:CONSENSUS; belaboring the same point without addressing issues raised by other parties does not constitute "quality" argument, as defined by the aforementioned page, required to attain consensus), I refuse to revert anything, as the discussion stands in my favour, as you, the sole dissenter, have not offered any rebuttal. JDiala (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Judy Shalom Nir-Mozes[edit]

JDiala: Without mentioning that her comment about bombing Gaza was made while Hamas's was firing 1,500 rockets on civilian targets in Israel you are depriving readers of the timing, which is critical. She didn't make her comments in a vacuum, which is the false impression you give by removing the context. Zozoulia (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zozoulia: If a Hamas leader made an anti-Semetic comment towards Jews, would we be "depriving readers of" context by not discussing the initial dispossession of the Palestinian people and the subsequent 48-year long occupation of Palestinian territory by the state purporting to represent international Jewry? No, we would not, as that information is not pertinent and the addition of it serves only to advance a particular viewpoint. That statement you wish to include, at least in the manner in which you have phrased it, is a violation of WP:NPOV, for it gives credence to the Israeli narrative that the bombing of Gaza (in 2012) was a justifiable act of self defence and that Judy Shalom Nir-Mozes' reprehensible comments can be somehow rationalized as understandable given this supposed context. In other words, it's taking an active political position (albeit in a subtle manner) on a controversial topic--something which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The sentence does not sound appropriate or encyclopedic. Moreover, for future reference, please note that discussions such as this are meant to take place on the talk page of the article, not on user pages. JDiala (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, and your assertions above ("the state purp[orting to represent international Jewry," "reprehensible", etc.etc) are a NPOV? Sorry for drawing your attention. Zozoulia (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zozoulia: Yes...this is an informal discussion. It's not going on any article. Furthermore, hoping that Gaza ought to be "destroyed" and that the people of Gaza deserve to "suffer" is despicable. Why is the word "reprehensible" not an appropriate word to describe these statements; they are beyond reasonable political disagreement--they are wicked, and the fact that you are making excuses for such a vicious woman says quite a lot about you. JDiala (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Israel does not purport to "represent international Jewry." Where on earth did you come up with that? Please name one Israeli law that makes that assertion. Perhaps your unfamiliarity with Israel leads to mistaken judgments on your part regarding this article. For example, while Israel claims that the last war in Gaza was an act of self-defense, citing Hamas's rocketing of Israeli civilians does not in and of itself establish that as a juridical fact. As we speak Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen, but citing that fact does not establish who is acting in self-defense and who is an aggressor. In the case of Judy Shalom Nir-Moses, mentioning the Hamas rocketing of Israel supplies the context that drove her to make her remarks. Without any context it sounds like she woke up one lovely morning with the desire to bomb Gaza out of existence. That in and of itself is not a NPOV. Zozoulia (talk)

Oh, and one more item: I notice that in the past you have been suspended from editing due to your prejudices. I am not "making excuses" for this woman, just trying to supply all the information a reader needs. How do you know she is "a vicious woman?" She's obviously a stupid woman, but vicious? Your readiness to employ such absolute adjectives, borrowing from your own formulation, says quite a lot about you. Perhaps you need to mature a bit more before editing Wikipedia. Zozoulia (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zozoulia: It defines itself as the "Jewish" state, so it claims to represent the Jewish people (independent of where they happen to reside). Netanyahu himself has claimed to represent American Jewry, and he actively urges European Jews (ie Khazars) to move to Israel. How am I wrong? Your point that "citing Hamas's rocketing of Israeli civilians does not in and of itself establish that as a juridical fact" I will accept, but that this implies that the statement is somehow neutral is absurd. It clearly supports the Israeli narrative. It says that "during the conflict...Hamas fired almost 1,500 rockets on Israeli civilian sites". This is an evidently one-sided statement meant to portray the conflict in a certain light. Thus, several "facts" have been established that the (uninformed) reader can interpret as true - Israel is the lachrymose victim, the Palestinians are the villains, and Hamas is deliberately targeting civilians, whereas the "counter-argument" to these facts--the broader occupation and the disproportionate Israeli massacre--is not discussed. Hence it is not NPOV. We are not expected to "[supply] the context that drove her to make her remarks" in the same sense that, as I have noted, we are not expected to supply the context that drives Hamas to make anti-Semetic statements. If the reader wishes to understand what happened in the 2012 war(ie the context), the article should be linked. If this issue is really bothering you, try re-wording the sentence to make it less clearly biased.
Lastly, I have been suspended for (inadvertently) violating 1RR. I am hardly unique in this regard. I do not claim to be a perfect editor, and I always hope to improve. Nevertheless, I must stress that this is a user page, and therefore my usage of adjectives reflects my personal opinion, in the same sense that your user page reflects your personal opinion as a neoconservative. JDiala (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Israel defines itself as a Jewish state in its Declaration of Independence but you can't jump from that to your conclusion that it therefore represents the entire Jewish people. It can only represent its own citizens, who are a *majority* of the Jewish people. It cannot usurp for itself any ability to represent the minority who do not have Israeli citizenship. Your claim about Netanyahu is ridiculous. instead of making outrageous claims, provide the citation instead. You also reveal your ignorance in classifying "European Jews" as Khazars. All DNA testing conducted on Ashkenazi Jews (which is not the same as European Jews) have "concluded that the Y chromosome of most Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews contained mutations that are also common among Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general European population. This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced mostly to the Middle East." See And despite your ignorance, you arrogate to yourself the capacity to edit articles about Jews? The "broder occupation?" Are you unaware that Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005, removing every soldier, every settler and even every Jewish grave? Employing the term "occupation" under these circumstances not only ignores history, but reveals an urge to misrepresent reality. Yes, more Gazans die in conflict than Israelis, but only because Israel invested in early warning systems, underground bunkers and reenforced safe rooms for its entire population and missile interceptors. Had it not done so, there would ahve been many more Israelis to have died, which I'm sure would make you very happy. A "disproportionate" result in casualties does not automatically mean Israel committed a "massacre." As a mere 18-year-old sitting in far-away land with no actual knowledge of the Arab-Israel conflict, you are too immature and uneducated to edit these articles. I do hope that a more senior editor comes along to properly adjudicate this. Zozoulia (talk)

@Zozoulia: I am, of course, too "immature" and "uneducated" to know anything about the conflict. Why don't we use Netanyahu's own words then? "“I went to Paris not just as the prime minister of Israel but as a representative of the entire Jewish people". I simply cannot understand the Zionist psyche. Israel is the Jewish state, yet it doesn't represent Jews; criticizing Israel is anti-Semitism, yet Israel does not speak for the Jewish people. I am not interested in debating you with regard to the other issues. If you have a substantive response to the issue of the edit(rather than belaboring minor points), then I will care to respond. JDiala (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)