User talk:Red Stone Arsenal

2 things

First, to make any future issues dealt with more easily, you should be aware that there is a 1 revert rule on all articles in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area. You can read more about this here. Second, have you ever used a prior account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 18:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Stone Arsenal (talk • contribs)

Sockpuppetry is a very serious problem and policy violation in the topic area in which you have decided to edit. So, the question "Have you ever used a prior account on Wikipedia ?" is a very serious question that deserves a simple, straightforward and honest "yes" or "no" answer. Please help Wikipedia ensure that all editors are complying with policy at all times by answering the question. If you are unable to provide a simple and honest answer, please stop editing. Thank you. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this editor has not edited with another account this is simply instilling a battlefield mentality in a new editor. If he is a sock then he of course won't answer "yes". So this constant pestering question is a waste of time every time it is asked. Simply take him to SPI when you see evidence. Checkuser can eb used or DUCK can decide. That is the "simple" and "straightforward" way to go about it.Cptnono (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, nono. I will add that 3 SPI have already been opened. That gets tiring, too. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Red Stone Arsenal. You have new messages at Mike Rosoft's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Start-up Nation

You may not like the way the discussion at WP:RS/N went, but please refrain from misrepresenting it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what way am I misrepresenting it? There was near unanimous opinion tha tit is not a good source. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was near-unanimous opinion that the review could be used, so long as it was being cited only as an opinion, not as a source of fact. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)\[reply]

No, that's not right. Itsmejudith said "this is no good for facts but for an attributed comment on a book, it's a question of weight rather than reliability. "; Jayjg said " The remaining question would be, given that the source is not reliable and the author not a recognized expert on the topic, why would one want to quote the opinion of Jim Miles in a Wikipedia article? " - but nobody gave any reason why his opinion is notable enough to be included. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question of weight was dealt with by cutting the long quote from the review down to just a few words. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, that's still not right. The shortened verison was already in the artcile on May 2, before the RSN discussion concluded, and before the above 2 editors wrote what I quoted - so it is obvious that they thoguht that "shortened" version is still undue weight. Furthermore, I can't see any discussion on the Talk page that says that cutting the long quote from the review down to just a few words is being done to address the weight - can you point to it? Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of SPI case filing

I have raised the possibility that Red Stone Arsenal is a sock of banned editor Rym torch aka No Cal 100 here. betsythedevine (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator review

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not put IRR posts on my user page

for articles that do not have a 1RR restriction.Thanks.Owain the 1st (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I won't post any further 1RR warnings on your talk page. Since this was the 3rd, or possibly 4th, such warning you've received, you are well aware of the restriction, and the next time I'm taking this straight to WP:EW or to arbitration enforcement. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had no right to put it there in the first place.If you had not made a mistake putting up the wrong link then we would not have a problem.Now you have followed my advice and put the right link up we can leave it at that.Although you failed to add the page number so you now have put up a link where people have to wade thru 129 pages to find what the link is for and that is just bad editing on your part.Also my revert was not against any rules as the page was not 1RR page.Please try and refrain from mistakes in the future as you are just creating your own problems. Owain the 1st (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have every right (though no obligation) to notify you of 1RR violations. You are not allowed to revert more than once per 24h on ANY article in the I/P space. End of story. Next time - you'll be at WP:AE, and likely blocked. Happy editing. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not even in the I/P section so you were wrong.I suggest you actually know what articles are in that section before running around handing out 1RR warnings that are not legit.An article about the Jews hanging British servicemen obviously does not have Arabs or Palestinians in it therefore is not part of the 1RR rule.Your mistake not mine.Owain the 1st (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can test this theory of yours (that articles about the conflict in Palestine in 1947 are not subject to the 1RR restriction on all I/P articles) by reverting more than once on such articles - I think you'll be in for a nasty surprise. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is my view, as an uninvolved administrator, that this article falls within the scope of the arbitration case in question, and therefore that the revert restriction would apply. In any case, it concerns me that an editor would revert so frequently as to have to consider whether a revert restriction applies. Ideally, discussion would be used so often, and conversely, reversion so infrequently, that 1RR would never be breached. (Talk about naivety, eh?) AGK [•] 15:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that confirms my view. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polling Data

I've just noticed that you have returned disputed material to the article 'Israeli-Palestinian conflict'. Since you accept that the material is cherry-picked, and the cherry-picking of evidence directly implies that it is in breach of NPOV, I think it might be best if you self-revert as it looks rather like you have knowingly returned POV material to the article without taking any steps to mitigate the problems with it. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept that it was cherry picked. I wrote that if YOU think it was cherry picked, you can add additional material, as a way to fix it. I see you've done that, which is good. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a place-holder. We surely can't provide that amount of detail for all the polls. What do you think is the best way forward with respect to bringing together this material with that from the other polls on which we can draw? BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we can't add this level of info to other polls that are similarly contentious. Wikipedia is not paper. If need be, we'll fork it into an article about polls. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. How would a fork work? Would it just be a link or would we also need a summary paragraph? BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a summary para is needed. Something like "many polls have been conducted... results vary..."Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That sounds like an excellent approach. I'm currently collating as much data as I can but once I've finished the basic research I'll need to work out the best way to present things (trends, summary, notability of particular polls etc.). Would you be interested in casting your eyes over a work in progress at some point so I can get some external input on these things? BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how much time I have in the next few days, but sure, send it my way. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a week or more as my wiki time is pretty limited at the moment but I'll let you have it once I have something worth looking at. BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon in the '48 war

Hi,

Could you come and discuss this issue here as well as the one of the flags for volunteers ? Thank you. 81.247.97.117 (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA3

All editors with less than 500 edits and 30 days editing are prohibited from editing any page, including talk pages, in the Arab-Israeli conflict area per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Kindly cease violating that restriction, thank you. nableezy - 18:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]