- 1 Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
- 2 Your recent edit to Israel
- 3 WP:ARBPIA alert
- 4 Mentioned
- 5 Two sides
- 6 Conventional vs 'Key Israeli'
- 7 Re the recent post at Carlos Latuff
- 8 FYI
- 9 July 2015
- 10 Warning: Vandalism of Israel Article
- 11 FYI
- 12 PI3 evidence
- 13 Six-Day War
- 14 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 15 FYI
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
You have continued to engage in edit warring despite several invitations to discuss the matter and a warning that continued disregard will be reported. Consensus is not reached in the summary of an edit. Furthermore, editing without consensus when the opposing side doesn't respond in the discussion is a fully acceptable way of solving a dispute as defined in WP:BRD. Instead of continuously reverting please use the article's talk page to work toward consensus. Turnopoems (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- user:Turnopoems complain is a bit bizarre, as it seems that he is the one who violates the rules. Ykantor (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Please do not misrepresent what sources say. It is perhaps the most serious error a Wikipedia editor can make, and may result in an editor being banned from the site. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please see the next section. User:Malik Shabazz invents a "crime" against a rule that does not exist yet. Ykantor (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
|Please carefully read this information:
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.
This is my reply, copied from here.
I will appreciate it if user:Malik Shabazz will apologize and undo the erasing of my edit . The deleted content is is indeed not fully supported but it is correct. According to wp:Verifiability "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". My deleted edit : "The war resulted in significant reduction of Israeli civilians killed by infiltrating Egyptian Fedaeen units" is not likely to be challenged since it is a fact which is recognized by all sides, and in my opinion there is no need to support it at all. If user:Malik Shabazz challenge the accuracy of this sentence, then I'll have to verify it with an appropriate wp:rs. Is the accuracy being challenged?
user:Malik Shabazz refused to apologize. In my opinion he lost his credibility as an fair and unbiased editor. He claims that my undisputed factual contribution is against a rule that does not exist yet. Ykantor (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ykantor. You've been mentioned in a discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Protection of Yom Kippur War article. I'm considering whether to ban some editors from editing at Yom Kippur War. The edit war seems to be continuing, judging from this revert of the article on 14 March by Turnopoems after the full protection expired. You can respond on my talk page if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ykantor, I enjoy editing with you because you are intelligent and passionate about your work. I notice recently that you have become frustrated that everything in the IP arena has two sides to it. Please don't be disheartened. Perhaps you can join WP:IPCOLL, where we are working to try to bring these two sides of historical narrative together across the whole IP topic. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Conventional vs 'Key Israeli'
Your notes were a thrill to read, but I wanted to get at you real quick and see if I couldn't get you to suggest an alternative;
Based on what you say and the understanding WP gives us on what a convention can be, I think this is abundantly clear that it's a better choice than my original proposal. On the feeling that all I can contribute falls most narrowly into getting rid of the 'dubious' tag, as i've referenced in the talk under 'Nassar Steps' in the flag: there is a lack of clarity (severely, even) and observable ambiguity and other general language bog-likeness that makes it currently very dubious (also as I specify on the talk page).
- Thank you for the compliment. I guess you refer to my edit of 5 June 2015 in Nasser steps made the war inevitable. I have raised some question marks and notes there. Will it be possible for you to refer to those points. Ykantor (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, actually those are the notes I was trying to refer to.... I see Dailycare has since responded after you and I've just revised my new suggestion... Really the expression that was flagged for dubiousness was not adequate and doesn't give a clear understanding of things, anyways thanks for your patience, the only help I can contribute here I feel is language skills, as my history (and specifally in regard to this topic) is not especially strong, so thanks for helping me understand the reality and truth as we try and find a way to express it some way that isn't easily misinterpreted.Nolanpowers (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I believe you may in one singular part feel that my writing here is a distraction, however I would like to assure you my eyes are opened to some depth already, I urge you do not feel frustration; I only wish to proceed with caution, and I'm not using that rhetoric ironically or anything. Don't get assassinated, and have patience while I try to gain on your position, as from where you stand you can see much finer detail and greater breadth than I at present. If you choose to spend more time in currently, I'll gladly take liberty; specify and suggest: provide sources that corroborate an idea, and write a summary of those ideas in one fell swoop. Good luck my friend! Love from CNY. Yours.Nolanpowers (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Re the recent post at Carlos Latuff
That is not the place to conduct an extended debate. If you have any queries that would require clarification, probably it's best to post them on the relevant editors' talk pages. Briefly, the facile use of the Holocaust analogy to raise panic is all over recent Israeli discourse, esp. that of Binjamin Netanyahu.
If you say the analogy is inappropriate in Latuff, then logically, it is inappropriate in hundreds of major political figures, all over the world, who keep hammering away at the Nazi-Iran equation with no objections of the kind a Brazilian cartoonist earns.
Netanyahu is not alone in likening Iran to the Nazis consistently, yet they no more have any plan for the systematic genocide of Israelis/Jews than does Israel for the systematic elimination of all Palestinians. Had they that plan, then Khomeini would not have dismantled the whole of Iran's nuclear bomb programme, which he did after making a legal judgement in Shia theology that weapons of mass destruction are a violation of divine law (this doesn't mean that a 'mad mullah' might not have second thoughts, of course.) When idiots play the maximalist rhetorical card, and send it constantly into circulation for stupid political advantage and emotional leverage, they validate for cartoonists caricatures that draw on the ironies of such usage. The analogy in any case does not imply 'genocide', but is a metaphor for raging terroristic jackbooted intolerance and hatred of another: the sense you get in Sylvia Plath's Daddy. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if you saw the fourth paragraph of this before it was removed a few hours later (probably due to some behind the scenes messaging), but I thought it was important you know what kind of people you're dealing with. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- it is of course pointless to state that there was no behind-the-scenes messaging. I struck out Pluto's remark as inappropriate. If there is any way a third party can access my alerts, they will see that my censure of his remark received a thank you on my alert panel. I alerted Ykantor to do the same with his follow up. What is good for Pluto (he subsequently removed his remark) should be appropriate also for Ykantor. He left it up and kept talking so I struck it out, as not relating to Latuff.
- I have not exchanged emails with Pluto regarding wiki issues for some years, and even then they were extremely infrequent. I'm saying this for the record, because I believe Ykantor has more trust in the independence of my judgement than you, with your customary well-poisoning, though he is welcome to disbelieve me.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to let you know that I want to help Wikipedia in any way I can. If I am causing problems, I would like you to let me know. Please contact me on my contact page when you get this message so we can discuss this. By the way my IP address changed because my house has multiple ip addresses. 2602:306:3357:BA0:78CB:B4F6:233C:AFED (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll tell you what, please don't report me because I want to be here to help out, but only my part, I promise to always use the edit summary no matter how small the contribution is. I also want you to tell me what else you would like me to know about editiong on Wikipedia. Those welcome messages were my way of treating the newcomers, but another user told me to stop, so I stopped. Again, please tell me what you want me to improve on. I am open to anything. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Warning: Vandalism of Israel Article
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.Sakimonk talk 18:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- -@Sakimonk: Sorry, but you are not aware of Wikipedia rules. Will you please have a look at wp:bb :"Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted. The early advocate of trial and error followed by observation to gain knowledge, Francis Bacon, said, "For if absurdity be the subject of laughter, doubt you not but great boldness is seldom without some absurdity." Instead of getting upset, read WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility, and be bold again, but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war....If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes" So, please WP:Assume good faith on my part, undoing your edit, and discuss it in the talk page. thanks Ykantor (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Did you miss the notice at the top of the page and the edit notice? This case isn't about any particular editors and there are no parties to it. It's about reviewing and if necessary revising the sanctions. I hope you can add something about that, but what you have added isn't evidence for THIS particular case. Doug Weller (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry. my mistake. I have just striked through the section. Ykantor (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Somebody re-opened an old discussion in which you took part, and you are therefore cordially invited to partake in the discussion at Category_talk:People_of_Jewish_descent#Middle_East_category_Rfc. Debresser (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)