User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2011/June

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

Striking another user's talk page comments

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please do not take it upon yourself to strike comments of other editors. If you believe another editor is a sockpuppet, there are appropriate channels you can follow. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not deleted or edited legitimate comments. The sock has already been blocked so please do not remove the lines from comments by socks. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
My apologies; I did check the user and it didn't show that he was blocked at the time. It does now, though I'm not clear on why it wasn't showing up earlier. In either case, perhaps some edit summaries might have helped explain the reasons for your edits. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

E-Mail

Hi SD. I sent you message if you could go ahead and give your inbox a look. -asad (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic banned for 6 months

I regret to inform you that, as a result of this request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, you are prohibited for the next 6 months from editing any page that relates, broadly construed, to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This action is as provided, and logged as required, by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. AGK [] 23:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, SD. You may be interested in comments I posted about this matter to EdJohnston's talk page and, at his recommendation, to Sandstein's. You might also like to refrain from comment on either of those pages until (?) it eventuates whether we're to have a centralized location to discuss the issue, or not, to help avoid starting one of those very-hard-to-follow, fragmented-across-six-talk-pages kind of discussions. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
You may also be interested in this directly-related thread on my talk, if you were not previously aware of it. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Though you haven't mentioned by name (I'm not seeking any action against you), I should inform you there is a discussion at ANI that indirectly concerns you here.—Biosketch (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of topic ban

As you requested, the following is a summary of my rationale for topic-banning you from editing any Israel/Palestine article for six months. When examining your actions, I was considering the wider approach you were taking to editing this topic area. I was mindful of the damage caused to our articles by editors with a battlefield mentality, and who refuse to discuss edits before making them or engage with the 'opposition'.

  1. On 17 May 2011, you asserted by addition of a category to Israel that "The entire country is disputed." The grossly pointy nature of this edit seems unacceptable to me, especially in a topic area as contested and controversial as I/P.
  2. In the same way as above, you unilaterally edited 2011 Nakba Day on on 18 May 2011 to say that "East Jerusalem is by a large majority of the international community regarded as part of the Palestinian territories." I'm not sure how accurate that is, as I do not follow the Israel-Palestine disputed in real life, but I cannot see any attempt on the talk page to build a consensus for that edit. Contestable edits on Wikipedia can only proceed if they are verifiable and supported by consensus. I consistently observe you not abiding, in this respect, by site policy.
  3. On 16 May 2011, you reverted an edit by User:Gilabrand at Golan Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to a caption about Syrian families evacuating or being expelled from the region. At that time, it was unclear which caption was correct, and you did not open discussion at Talk:Golan Heights#Photo until after reverting. No consensus emerged from that discussion as a result. I was concerned to see your revert, because significant captions such as that have a serious effect on the point of view of the article. (Not that it matters, but I am personally unsure what the correct caption would be.)
  4. Also on 16 May 2011, you removed a source without support from Talk:Golan Heights#The Golan Heights not in Syria. I understand that support would be almost impossible to garner, because of the contested nature of that article, but as an administrator I take an unsympathetic view of the removal of sources that do not match one's point of view.

I recognise that you are probably having to struggle with editors who manipulate sources to their own ends. Regretfully, I still cannot justify not sanctioning an editor who edits Wikipedia in such a flagrantly disruptive way. I therefore see no way of proceeding except by continuing to prohibit you from editing these articles. If you have another view, or a rebuttal of some point, then please do post it—as politely as possible, if you please, because I am trying to act fairly and in good faith, and in any case I am more likely to consider your points if you don't shout at me :). I have your talk page watchlisted and will notice your reply. Regards, AGK [] 13:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Just wanted to give you a heads up that I mentioned you (somewhat indirectly) at an ANI discussion at WP:ANI#Debresser nominates Palestinian rabbis for category for deletion, just in case you were interested. Singularity42 (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see

Please see Category_talk:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis#Chesdov.27s_conclusion, whether your opinion is stated there correctly. Debresser (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

SD's view is only of slight relevance here. It is obvious from the array of sources I have provided that it would be absolutely over the top to request and provide a citation for use for each and every rabbi. It is more than clear that the designation “Palestinian” is generally accepted as I had asserted at the start, ie. residency alone suffices. Goodbye, thanks for tuning in. Chesdovi (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)