User talk:AgadaUrbanit/Archives/2010/July


January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Creez34 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Conflict

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've noticed your recent activity on Operation Cast Lead, specifically as pertaining to Gary Grant. Please consult the three revert rule before proceeding on editing that section, or you may place yourself in violation of Wikipedia policy. Please let me know if you have any questions, and I mean that honestly. I remember what it was like my first few weeks editing, and I'd like to help you in any way I can (though I'm hardly a WP guru). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for warm welcome :) I'm not an expert in Wikipedia abbreviations. I would like in good faith to ask you to let Gary Grant opinion be. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not removed sourced material without bringing it up for discussion in the talk page. Nableezy (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Which change are you referring to? I'd be glad to discuss. Sorry I'm weak at wikipedia etiquette. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifically the removal of the paragraph that the UN says Israel has acknowledged that the militants were not firing from within the school. If you want to add something like that this does not preclude militants from firing in the vicinity of the school, fine but get a source (I know there are sources for this, just dont have them at the tip of my fingers) But it would be better before making these kinds of edits to discuss is in the talk page, no big deal but just so people dont start accusing you of vandalism. Nableezy (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yes AgadaUrbanit please come to the Talk:2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict page to discuss edits thank you. RomaC (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Could use your help here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cast_lead It's getting quite nasty--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not removed sourced material without bringing it up for discussion in the talk page. Calling events between 1967 and 2006 "irrelevant" to the context of the conflict is arbitrary, particularly since rockets from Gaza are oft mentioned in this entry as explaining the Israeli closures of Gaza. Feel free to add to this context, but simply censoring it is not appreciated. 69.110.17.229 (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 23:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Youtube

In you edit,[1] you used Youtube as a source. Youtube isn't a reliable source.VR talk 02:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF Spokesperson's Unit has opened a channel on the website YouTube.[1] This is official IDF source. This is how information is distributed these days. It is hardly unreliable. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please use the talk page

Concerning this edit [2], I would appreciate that you write a reason for your edit, and to use the talk page to discuss your action. The photo met the conditions set forth by all sides, if you object, you should voice your opinion on the talk page before removing components like the image. Thanks --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've already expressed my opinion on talk page Photos section. I oppose this picture, without hurting anyone feeling. I think it does not represent Gaza conflict casualties fairly. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In an attempt to find some consensus, are there any pictures in particular you feel fairly represent Gaza conflict casualties? --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I hope as fog of war slowly settle down in Gaza and foreign press and independent observers enter we will see more credible facts. There were a lot of false claims around what WP call Zeitoun incident which some will say are part of traditional Hamas war practices. It is very sad that UN so easily, without any investigation, took part and repeated those claims. Sources of this picture are not verifiable this is why I oppose this picture. Hope you see my point. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, Agada

Does your name mean something in another language, like Hebrew? It is quite musical on the tongue. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the work you are trying to do on the Gaza article. I see that the others have joined in in reverting your edits and warning you on your talk page. They seem to have swarmed the talk pages of all who disagree with them. I agree with your view of the UN and Hamas war practices. Best wishes. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

hello

I am actually in America, my parents came here from Egypt. And I do not necessarily believe everything I read on BBC, specifically the uncorroborated accounts you are referring to. But I do think that we, as editors of an encyclopedia, should try to take a wider view of the events. I think you are overall doing a good job, but some of your edits seem to try blame Hamas for these events, which even if it were true shouldn't be done in an encyclopedia. Thanks for the message though, and take care. Nableezy (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you should look at WP:3RR and these edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=266091813

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=266061460 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=266060389 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=266044580 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=266009507 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=266153293&oldid=266152871) I am not going to report you, as I said before you seem to be acting in good faith, but you should seek consensus before adding that line as a number of editors have already reverted it. I also think you should probably self-revert the latest addition until the conversation finishes up. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hamas chose this area..."

Hi Agada, I appreciate what you are saying but "...heart of Gaza city was chosen by Hamas Gaza government for military installations" is not supported by the source. That's mainly why I reverted, because the content does not reflect the source. RomaC (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, please don't blanket revert my edits. You re-introduced nmistakes I fixed. The source says nothing about "international law". It says only that they were counted as civilians by the PCHR. Said Siam and Nizar Rayan were not "military commanders". The first was the Minister of the Interior and the second a spiritual leader. Tiamuttalk 16:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please provide sources that state that both individuals were "military commanders". Please also explain the relevance to the section on casualties. I already replied to your other comments in the relevant section on the talk. Tiamuttalk 16:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
AgadaUrbanit, with all due respect, your failure to understand the key policies ofWP:CONSENSUS and WP:OR and your continuing restoration of material that defies both policies is more offensive that my supposed lack of etiquette. I am trying to friendly but firm my friend. Do not add original research to the articles. Do not add material not supported by the sources cited. Do not repeatedly re-add material once others point out these kinds of problems to you in it. Discuss, find better sources and gain consensus. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 18:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
AgadaUrbanit. I reinstated my edit once after making it. While I am glad you read my talk page, you did not read it very closely, since you would not have called me a "naughty boy" (I am, as noted on my page, a married woman). Anyway, I'm not warring with you. I suggest you read the comments of others and reply substantively before you go about reinstating the edits you have repeatedly (as noted above by Nableezy). Thanks. Tiamuttalk 22:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

hey

thanks for the apology... I had assumed some weird tech thing anyways :P--Cerejota (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

yeah, sorry if i seemed snappish. there has been alot of name-calling and i just jumped to that conclusion. didn't mean to assume bad faith. Untwirl (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I also take the opportunity to say that while we don't always agree, I feel we listen to each other closely, and try, mostly successfully, to understand each other. That represents the best side of the BRD process, and hence wikipedia. Rational discussion promotes rational results, even if it is slow as molasses.--Cerejota (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yusef the Farmer

I do support your point on the "Israeli army admission" - even reliable sources have unreliable information form time to time so that's why we have WP:V. However, that a farmer was shot after the cease fire seems to me to be a verifiable fact - however, I see it generating too much debate. This was obviously a "fog of war" shooting - not an ill-willed ceasefire violation. A sentence with sourcing should be enough, in my opinion. --Cerejota (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The director of ambulance services

Absolutely, I have a little time since I have been banned from the Gaza conflict article. How do you want to go about it? Shall I start it in a sandbox or do you want to start it? If you like, I could start it in my "sandbox" and give you a link for you to add information and get it a bit up to "snuff" before putting it up. Let me know. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I haven't really got to much, but here but did start it. Please fill it in and I will too, a bit later in the day. We might want to look for some personal details about this fellow, like where and when he was born etc. See:User:Tundrabuggy/sandbox1 Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I lied. I haven't got a little time, I'm afraid. And looks like you don't have much either. Anyway, it will keep. I wanted to ask you though, what your personal opinion is of what the title of that article ought to be? Myself I am conflicted. I do know that the article as it stands does not reflect the current title. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The farmer

Agada, could you please join the discussion here? I'm not interested in edit warring and I'd like to hear your explanation of why not ordering the incidents by the order of their occurrence and thus, reverting my edit. Thanks. --Darwish07 (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility barnstar

You've been really civil in the discussions regarding the latest gaza war, thus I give you this little barnstar ;):

Civility Award
Sincerely, I award you a barnstar for your civility in the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict debates. --Darwish (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You can move it to your user page if you like. Regards. --Darwish (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I second this barnstar ;) I was about to give it!--Cerejota (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Illegal use of weapon enforced by law

It's funny because when someone, Egypt I think, qualified for the world cup years ago there were AK47 bullets whizzing past the balcony of my apartment in Abu Dhabi. No one seemed to mind. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 10:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I have never agreed with Israel occupation policies, we have to admit that their internal economical and political conditions is a way more better than the Arab ones. --Darwish07 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, AgadaUrbanit. You have new messages at Darwish's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

removal of talk page section

Agada, please do not remove sections from the talk page, the archiver will not work like that. It will take them out after a lil bit, and we need them to point back to past discussions. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I did any damage. I believe that closed discussion could be removed. Could you point me to WP rule describing correct procedure? 10x AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:TALK, what you did is a total violation, if in good faith. Usually to close a discussion we use {{discussion top}}, a two part template, so be sure to read its documentation. Then you wait for the bot to archive. --Cerejota (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Or just wait for it to be archived after a set time elapses after the last comment. Nableezy (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of casualties chart

Agada, you removed a chart that had been in the 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict article for a month or more. Please seek consensus on Talk for this sort of editing. RomaC (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

On a related note please stop making the same disputed changes every day. Nableezy (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You have the proverbial patience of Job

It does get frustrating sometimes, and becomes difficult to assume good faith when some editors behave like a wall, imposing themselves between what we know is accurate and fair and the article. I think you really deserve that Barnstar and think it was great of Darwish to offer it. Hope all is going well with you. Just wanted to say "hello" and "best wishes", Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have been "officially warned." That appears to generally mean that the other side has it in for you. I am beginning to suspect that anyone whom I correspond with in a friendly way will instantly be slapped with a warning. So I apologize and urge you to be careful since someone clearly "reported" you. What for I really don't know.
Anyway I wanted to ask you, as it is too late to remove my friendly comments, regarding your comment on that page re: Egypt's opening of the Rafah crossing to encourage this unity government. Do you have a thought on this unity government? Do you have a feeling for what the Israeli people mainly think of it? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel enforcement

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

PhilKnight (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Pic

Will do.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the Girl in front of the wall at 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Please don't replace the picture of the girl in front of the wall with the one of the rockets without further discussion on the talk page. There are clearly people opposed to you doing so, and the change should be discussed before we start a revert war.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nableezy (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nableezy (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been reported to the edit warring noticeboard, you can see this here Nableezy (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Agada, I am asking you to stop removing information that is relevant and properly sourced over and over again. You have made this same or very similar edit multiple times. Please refrain from continuing to do so without getting consensus for the edit. To be clear, I am not trying to get you into trouble, and I withdrew the 3RR complaint when you said you would stop. But please keep in mind the notice PhilKnight gave above and refrain from such practices. Thanks you, Nableezy (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agada, we have been through this before, every action described in the prop/psych warfare section has been explicitly called psychological warfare/propaganda. Please stop changing that. Nableezy (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT remove the names without consensus, if you do so again a thread will be opened on Arbitration enforcement. This has been stable in the lead for more than 3 months now, you need to get consensus to remove it. Nableezy (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lawyers

Hello, AgadaUrbanit. You have new messages at Sean.hoyland's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sean.hoyland - talk 06:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Israel–Gaza conflict

You added some references to support the use of "Gaza Victory". Even though this is more tragic than funny. Please consider fixing the references. When using the Cite web template, one MUST provide a title. Debresser (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

After three weeks of relentless bombing of Gaza, Hamas, which has lost an undisclosed number of fighters as well as numerous high-ranking officials, finds it can still declare victory. In some parts of the Middle East, victory, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. See http://www.metimes.com/International/2009/01/20/what_was_the_gaza_war_about/5055/print/ AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Rak BeYsrael"

Hello, AgadaUrbanit. You have new messages at Sean.hoyland's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sean.hoyland - talk 02:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Gandusaleh (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

edit warring includes making the same revert over a period of time, not just 3 in 24 hours, keep it up and you will be blocked. Gandusaleh (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Casualties' demographics

Hi. I guess you added this sentence: 'However, following publication of PCHR casualty name list, ICT researcher noted that demographic gender and age distribution analysis refutes allegations of Israeli forces targeting Palestinians randomly and indiscriminately. [210]' I am afraid this sentence has some 'imperfections' and will be soon ruled out. First, it starts with 'however', the problem here is that ICT report does not refute particularly those statements. Second, it cites [210], which provides basic distribution of PCHR list, but has nothing to do with ICT. I think, citing the report (or the powerpoint) would be more appropriate. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Gaza War lede

ahlan wa sahlan, I don't see the consensus that would warrant the deletion. I know, however, that there is long standing consensus for it to be there. Since there is consensus for it, you should find a suitable replacement rather than deleting it. I understand that you rather have it in the propaganda section, but I have yet to see nonpartisan reliable sources refer to the term as propaganda. We will continue this in that thread. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the kind message. The picture looks like it came with the pieces of another kitten or two that may have had an unhappy encounted with a either a katyusha rocket or a hellfire missile. Wikipedia is tough place to raise a kitten. But thanks anyway. =) --JGGardiner (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agada...

All in all, you are one fair dude. Fair as in, you know the value of things, so you don't get easily ripped off. I wanted to wish you happy 'cloud' time, the less time you spend in reality the better. Well, anyways, you know, yeah...yup. But you know, if is this, then what it is? i don know, sometimes i feel like i just don know. and that thing, that you know won't show, like if it has been showed, then why not? i dont know, i just dont know. But then again, if someone knows, then someones HAVE to know. Yeah, i know, well, I hope you are oka buddy. Have a good one! Cryptonio (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

welcome back

Hi Agada, welcome back. I like the red in the signature, though I was thinking of making it so it would be a random color every time. But anyways, welcome back. nableezy - 17:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

have it take a random number mod some number and assign a color to each answer and use that color. The syntax is kind of tricky but it isnt that bad. You can look at User:Nableezy/sandbox to see it. Purge the page and it will change colors each time. nableezy - 19:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Naw, what you do is save the code somewhere and in your preferences you define your signature by substituting the template you created. Not sure what the NUMBEROFEDITS is, either my current edits or the total WP, dont really know. nableezy - 23:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

could you please stop adding pictures to the talk page? every once of a while it can provide a bit of levity but it does slow down the loading of the page when there are many. Thanks, nableezy - 22:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

confused. nableezy - 23:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Zoo

The Hanover_Zoo article needs a fair bit of work, seems to have been put together by their publicity department -- I tagged it but don't know much about zoos. I can do some research, it might be fun if you helped me? The other articles will still be there when we're done...RomaC (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

edit warring

you are past 3 reverts, I will be filing a report if you continue. nableezy - 18:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nab, sorry that you continue to revert discussed changes. Hope you could find inner strength to deal with it on talk page and address physical protection statics. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
discussed does not mean agreed. You need to stop warring in material over the objections of others. nableezy - 22:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been reported to the edit warring noticeboard, you can see this here. nableezy - 22:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for edit-warring on Gaza War. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 01:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I would have hoped coming off a block you wouldn't go right back to the same problematic behavior. You should not be trying to force in material that has been challenged without consensus. I am considering filing an arbitration enforcement request dealing with your behavior at that article as you have already been given notice of the relevant case here. I wont do anything right now, but if you do continue editing in the way you have been I may very well initiate such a request. nableezy - 21:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, but I disagree who is edit warring. You've implied on talk page that you object any of my additions. This is not worthy behavior in my eyes. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I object any edits that introduce OR to advance a POV, regardless of the user who is putting them in. And you are continually pushing in material that does not have consensus. nableezy - 21:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's not what I understood. You're specifically referenced my name and did not say a thing about OR. Let's not argue who is bigger POV pusher. My feeling that you're blocking all my additions, especially lately. I'm hearing your remarks carefully and fix my ways. Strangely sometimes I even agree with you ;). AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Really? I have not said that the addition to that section is OR a number of times? And that it does not belong in that section at all? That is simply a lie. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and more. You clearly are not "hearing [my] remarks carefully and fix [your] ways". nableezy - 21:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I changed phrasing number of times being convinced by your arguments, though I disagree about relevancy and OR. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Your recent edit removed content from Gaza War. When removing text, please first discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. Per general sanctions which apply to the involved article, the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Agada there have been what I consider remarkable efforts among other editors to remain patient and discuss your edits, but your continue to persist against policy and consensus both, as evidenced with this latest edit removing long-standing content that you clearly do not like. You have keen interest in this project, if you could kindly try to work alongside other wiki editors it would be appreciated. RomaC (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RomaC, the concern was raised by non-involved editor. Nab mentioned that consensous is not very wide, based on lengthy archives. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
That does not mean you can remove it without consensus to do so. Long standing text represents consensus and removing it because you feel like it is not acceptable. nableezy - 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I raised a concern, but that wasn't a reason to change the lead. You need to discuss it first in Talk, gain a consensus, and if you can't and you feel policy is being violated, go to dispute resolution. There may be an undue weight or a WP:LEAD issue. I'm not saying there is, but that's what dawned on me. What you've seemed to do instead is to go to the wrong noticeboard. I don't think you totally understand how counterproductive it is to edit war and not make proper use of dispute resolution procedures. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
It looks the first sentence of article is changing with consensus shifting. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks more like an edit war to me. I'm struck by the failure to reach a compromise, such as by moving the "massacre" term out of the first sentence. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Agada. I came to your page and the Gaza War page by virtue of your post on the OR board. I see where you are being swarmed by those who are seeking to maintain the status quo. I also note that this kind of attempt at intimidation goes directly against the spirit of Wikipedia. At any rate, I went to Nableezy's talk page and noticed that he is trying to find other WP editors to back up his Arabic translations. This to me also goes against the spirit of WP:NONENG which says that RS translators are preferred over WP editors. This because stuff (especially anything that could be considered POV or arguable) should be "easily verifiable" by WP readers. I don't doubt for one minute that Nableezy believes his own translation and thus it is done in good faith, but it just doesn't seem appropriate to be canvassing other foreign language speakers for their interpretation of Arabic when we are in the English Wikipedia. Anyway. All of this was by way of wondering if you spoke Arabic, or if you know of any other WP editor who does who does not identify himself with the Palestinian side of this struggle. All this could be avoided if Nableezy and RomaC and others simply could prove their point from English sources. It is precisely because they can't that we are having all this business. I am quite frustrated by it. Stellarkid (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Looking at the rest of your page, I can see where you are as well!!! Stellarkid (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A Little help please

Dude, I can use a little help with this Gaza war thing. They're swarming on me like wild bees to honey, reverting left and right. Right now I'm fending off three of them. They don't even bother hiding their anti-Israel bias, By the time their through with this article, it's gonna look like a Hamas recruiting poster.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Agada

(Dude), I think just make edits that reflect the sources, and don't cherry-pick the sources, but rather present "both sides" in your edits, and the article will not look like a Hamas or an IDF recruitment poster. The last edit you made selectively sampled the source, that's why it was reverted. Cordially, RomaC (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert me? You expletive

No problem. There is a section on the talk page for it now so we can hopefully figure it out.Cptnono (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks..

..for the (->{ fix. I thought about edit warring over it to see if we could win some kind of award for lameness but I'm easily distracted. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

BRD on Gaza War

Why are you against getting consensus for your recent edits to Gaza War? Do you believe you don't have to get consensus? If so, please explain why. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You have made your 5th revert in the last 24 hours on that page. nableezy - 17:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
All my edits are explained on the article talk page. I'd appreciate if you both guys would communicate with me there instead of here, on my talk page. I kind of share IronDuke's sentiment. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Thats nice. Explaining your edits does not entitle you to revert 5 times in 24 hours though. And to say "stop edit-warring" while making your fifth revert, well thats just funny. nableezy - 18:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
If you keep doing this I will ask that you be blocked. nableezy - 21:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Agada, do you believe that if you explain your edits, then you don't require consensus to put them in an article? I'm communicating with you here because you should know that you will be reported for edit-warring, I suggest it might be better if you changed your way of editing before that happens. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I kinda lost, don't know what's going with this Encyclopedia. I have to admit I kinda love Pomplamoose music. It's amazing what kind of quality is achievable in privacy of your own basement. I'm confused why Jack Conte page exists, but Nataly Dawn was removed? I generally don't mind, probably there is a reason. Still the fact that it existed previously and now it is deleted, gone - sux big time. From other hand being neutral, I can appreciate the beauty of their buzz generation oiled machine, it's kind of dark and shady. Try to google/youtube Lady Gaga Telephone, you will see Nataly Dawn's face, side by side with Lady Gaga. No surprise, Pomplamoose latest video was released couple of days ago, on March 15 and if you click the video link really fast, you might be the 1 million's downloader, it's up for 100.000 during past couple of hours! And btw the original video, if you're hiding under the rock, is almost a controversial as Gaza War, kind of holocaust. You would not want to share this video with your old and respected mother of underage naive daughter. Bottom line, I have to say I think those sanctions on Nataly Dawn were silly and extremely unfair, I've already started an inquiry with an involved admin. But I don't want to post the link here, it might look like I'm actually into recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. Nope, that's not may way. Stay cool guys. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgot one

..and if you like music by talented people who lock themselves away from the world in remote locations for months you might like For Emma, Forever Ago if you haven't heard it already. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Wikilove. I'm not that familiar with Singluarity Sky but maybe I should check it out. Although now that you mention it, I was slightly traumatized as a child by a very violent murder in Disney's The Black Hole.[9] I think the problem is that the actor was made to gurgle out his death rather than just fall to the ground like in most children's movies. The film nonchalantly moved on while I was left thinking about the agony the character had experienced. Much worse than being nailed to a stick in my opinion and those movies are rated for adults only. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Lede

There's a discussion in connection w/ the Gaza lede. I made an edit that I believe addressed some your concerns (which were warranted). Please feel free to add your opinion--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Strange

Agree it is strange, but verifiable. That's why I personally prefer facts (X hit Y) to suppositions (X says it intended to hit Z). Don't know what you refer to in the CNN story, is it al-Zaha saying Hamas can strike like Israel, or Livni saying Israel can strike like Hamas? RomaC (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Gaza War

You appear to be edit-warring on this article. Please self revert your removal of content from the lead per: WP:BRD and the sanctions on this article. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Further on this, why would you remove "Operation Cast Lead" from the lead? It is reliably-sourced as a term used by one of the belligerents.RomaC (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla (again)!

Hi, I'm replying here so as not to clog up the thread on the talk page. The divergent quotes come from the same article in The Wall Street Journal here (NB, not The Washington Post, my mistake). The second headline states "Group Says Nine Killed Were Its Members". Fine, fair enough, now read the article! The fourth paragraph, and only source for the quote states "The nine activists known to have been killed in the clash on board the IHH-owned Mavi Marmara were members of or volunteers for the group, Mr. Yildirim said". Now should we take the headline, or the longer explanation in the source article? Does it really matter? Well it seems to matter to NMMNG, and it might well matter to anyone who thinks the IHH is some sort of terrorist organization. In any case, to me, we should go with the most accurate information we have available from our sources, not that which happens to coincide with our personal political views: that is the principle of NPOV which all editors should be respecting. Physchim62 (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Totally agree personal opinions are irrelevant when editing WP. Maybe you want to improve the phrasing to reflect the source better. However WSJ is an RS and agree with number of other editors - basic idea is clear. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

IHH

Ok I saw the source now. I still dont think its right to refer to their ideology at that point. Why not add that information later? 9 people died, their ideology shouldnt matter at that point. Mention it later maybe? What do others think? ValenShephard 00:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

I guess this is response to mistake. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent reverts in Gaza flotilla raid

I noticed that you have been reverting and removing content in Gaza flotilla raid at your own discretion. If you see an uncited claim, you should add the cn or fv tags instead of removing it altogether and/or discuss it in the talk page. Also note that there is a WP:1RR restriction on the article, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours. --386-DX (talk) 05:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for visiting me personally on my talk page! I guess this is response to no fuss. However if you want to share diff or two, I'd be glad to chat about content of the article. Stay Cool! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"Activist" Photo

I noticed that the the photo showing "activists" bearing knives and hovering over a wounded commando, was inexplicably removed and replaced with one showing a commando allegedly being treated by an "activist doctor." Being that all but one of the "activist's" photos show acts of violence and brutality against the commandos, don't you think that the removal of a photo, demonstrative of activist violence, is inappropriate?" What's more, its substitution with a photo showing "peace, love and kindness" presents WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE issues. Please drop a line on my page if you concur with the analysis. Perhaps I missed something on the Discussion Page.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, digital media is really here. HTML5 is a reality, WP should have embedded video clips into articles by now ;) They just announced Nintendo 3DS and look - it has two cameras on the outside of the device, capable of taking 3D photos. Woo hah, it could make wonders. I usually don't make a fuss about pesky material. I sympathize with your concern, however I try to be cautious in questions relating to due weight. The rule of thumb that guiding me in WP editing is that if some editor believes some material is relevant and there is no verifiability issues we should let it be. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla raid / Carolyn Maloney

In my view, the content of one of your recent edits to Gaza flotilla raid is not relevant enough to be included in the article. Specific actions by US authorities may be relevant; this is just a demand for such action.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-English sources

I saw that you suggested the removal of a source in one of your recent edits, arguing that the source is Swedish. Please note that although English sources are preferred, there is no such restriction. See WP:NONENG and WP:V for more info. Cheers. --386-DX (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Swedish language is not my strongest topic, how about you ;) This could be a WP:V issue. English language source is definitely preferred if available. Stay cool. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Meir

Hi Agada. I don't see a problem with:

  • 717 beds for hospitalization
  • 60 seats in the daily clinic
  • 57 seats for admission to hospital births
  • 28 sites to undergo dialysis
  • 122 clinics[3]

being from the hospital website because it is facts and figures type information, but a problem I see with this article is that "Meir Medical Center named in honor of Dr. Josef Meir - the first head of the Clalit health fund and the Ministry of Health of the State of Israel. Meir Medical Center is accredited-JCI and is the base hospital in the Israeli Olympic team." is taken verbatim from the hospital's website. I will go ahead and alter the wording per the guideline on palgarism.

As for your flotilla raid reversion, where do the sources say "several"? We should eliminate that qualification or else use what the source says ("hundreds"). Please participate on Talk regarding this I would like a pro-Israel editor to make the change. Respectfully, RomaC TALK 02:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Allergic to Talk?

My friend, Gaza flotilla raid is an article where just about any edit risks being contentious. You're at it today and you've made two dozen edits in the last couple of weeks -- yet have not dropped in once on the Talk page since June 23. That's just wrong, either go to Talk and discuss, or hold off with the editing. RomaC TALK 01:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep on doing what you are doing. WP:BRD. If someone doesn't like it they can revert you (and have). It is a shame that after reverting they fail to follow-up properly at talk but that is just the way it is while others don;t use it at all.
BTW, would "Israel has defended itself saying it had to stop vessels from travelling to Gaza since they could be carrying weapons for Hamas"[10] be acceptable to you?Cptnono (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It's awesome that the above editor is encouraging you to continue making multiple contentious edits to a 1RR-restricted article in the heated I-P topic area, and meanwhile to not participate on Talk to attempt to establish consensus for any of them. But you seem a decent guy and I hope you will participate on Talk:Gaza flotilla raid. Nice job on Meir Hospital. RomaC TALK 01:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It is awesome. Good thing my perceived transgressions don't reflect on the editor. He has done decent work and if you don't like it I don't get it.Cptnono (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Hodge, Nathan (2008-12-30). "YouTube, Twitter: Weapons in Israel's Info War". Wired. Retrieved 2008-12-31.