|
User talk:Dalai lama ding dongWelcome
=?We really do not need to have a policy against people creating odd sections with random "equal" signs at the top. No one needs to be told that it is disruptive to create odd sections with random "equal" signs at the top. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Your editsDalai lama ding dong, I am concerned with your edits. Your entire editing history on Wikipedia has consisted of trying to prove that 1) ancient Israelites did child sacrifices, 2) Jews did forced conversions, 3) Benjamin Netanyahu's son is anti-Arab, 4) Israel has desecrated an ancient Arab cemetery, 5) the Anti-Defamation League is anti-Muslim, and 6) the EUMC working definition of antisemitism is discredited. The sum total of your edits indicates a rather obvious agenda. Rather than continuing on this path, please review WP:SPA and WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
3) Benjamin Netanyahu's son is anti-Arab, If that is true, then it is 'proved' by his words, not by my addition of them to an article on anti Arabism. 4) Israel has desecrated an ancient Arab cemetery, This again, if true is shown by the facts, not by my 'proving' of them.5) the Anti-Defamation League is anti-Muslim, and 6) the EUMC working definition of antisemitism is discredited. These last two are just silly. I have said neither of these things. I still await proof of your opinion on signing.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Username
I am not aware that the phrase ding dong is generally regarded as being solely a euphemism for the penis. It certainly has many more meanings than that. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ding-dong) (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cCVnlIUTpg4C&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=ding+dong+pensi&source=bl&ots=cRLrUZMSkr&sig=G1RPbeoUY_jRmgabrckxprOzHNo&hl=en&ei=ab4yToGHMoKEhQeOiq38Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q&f=false) Since Buddhism is one of the few 'great' religions of the world whose 'sacred texts' have no concept of religious slaughter, i.e. no equivalent of the ban, or jihad, I doubt if you can find any Buddhist who would be offended by a play on a song title. Indeed here is someone who is sympathetic to Buddhism who uses equivalent forms of dalai lama rama ding dong and lama-rama-la-ding-dong (http://www.myspace.com/spitdoesntmakebabies/blog/137417396) How much checking did you do?
Please check the following to see evidence that the DL is regarded as having a great sense of humour, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGF9ciXeMs4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rAKmWPlZ5A&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu2ANgwDFuM&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yWQp7Gxvzw&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NKtV4GJ4zc&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTIrgZkW34I&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uls4YdV2ns&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p_xIUcltmw&feature=related Would you like to contact some Buddhist organisations to see if they are offended by my user name? Alternatively, I will change it to dali llama ding dong, is that acceptable to you? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Antisemitism in NorwayHi Dalai. Your edit here appeared to contain info identical or very similar to the source, so there may be copyright problems. See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE and WP:PLAGIARISM. Also, one of the sources was unreliable. Thanks. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC) In reference to your recent edits at Jewish religious terrorism, I advise you to review the guidelines at WP:TERRORIST. In particular, note that "Value-laden labels...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I tried explaining this to you on the Discussion page, but I'm willing to consider that you simply haven't understood. When using labels of an exceptionally charged nature, such as "terrorist organization," you must demonstrate that the label is widely used by reliable sources and use in-text attribution. Please address these concerns soon, or else expect to have your edits reverted.—Biosketch (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Previous accountHi. What was your previous username?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC) tagsHi, To ask for a citation use this: {{subst:cn}}. It adds the correct tag and fills in the date.[citation needed]. Zerotalk 16:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Do not revertThe page was locked due to edit warring. If you revert again you will be edit warring and someone like me will be seeking your block. Instead, follow the dispute resolution process. I recommend that an admin gives you a heads up on the additional scrutiny editors are under in this topic area based on a history of disruptive editing. I feel that I cannot give you the proper advice since you choose to not listen and I do not have the patience do deal with you.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
1RR violation at Textbooks in IsraelFYI.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Notice of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIAYou restored similar material twice
Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Where is it?I understand you opened a dispute resolution regarding use of "Land of Israel" in Jewish History. I did not see a notice of it in either the Judaism or Jewish History Wikiprojects, or on my user page. Was this done? Please note that I cannot respnd until next wekk, nor can many others, due to the holiday.Mzk1 (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Please self-revertYour have now twice in 2 days removed a section from the article saying it repeats the lead. Well, the rules of composition are that the lead summarizes the body of the article. By removing the reduplication in the main body of the article, you destabilize the lead, which now has no follow-up in the text. The lead section is problematic, not the redupliction you erase. You should have pared down the Gesher-Poll data in the lead, while retaining all of the information in the appropriate sub-section. In short, you turned the correct procedure upside down by retaining too much information on that poll in the lead, and then erasing the copy of it, there for expansion, below. Do you understand now why I had to revert you? Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Intro sentence of Textbooks in the Palestinian territoriesHi there. My point with this edit was simply that the sentence I deleted was inherently information-free. The title of the article is Textbooks in the Palestinian territories, and the sentence I deleted was:
You reinstated the sentence with the rationale that this sentence "distinguishes these textbooks from those produced in East Jerusalem". I think this sentence cannot possibly achieve this goal, since it contains no information that isn't already present in the article title. Do you agree? --Doradus (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
December 2011 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jewish history. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You've made your point, and it has been challenged. For further discussion please use the talk page, per WP:BRD. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)  Your recent editing history at Child sacrifice shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Jayjg (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Please stop. Discuss your proposed changes on the article's Talk page or you may find yourself being blocked for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Please read the definition of revert, and note that the adding of links does not constitute a revert. Please then remove the above suggestion. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Disambiguation link notificationHi. When you recently edited Beit Shemesh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canaanite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Sikrikim in Beit ShemeshBeit_Shemesh#Gender segregation and violence against Orot Banot girls’ school Please stop undoing my edits. It is clear from reference 21 [2] that the violence was perpetrated by the Sikrikim, not a group of unknown Ultra Orthodox men. This is a huge POV issue, as your edit makes it sound like it's the fault of the entire Ultra Orthodox community while my edit puts the blame on a small group of troublemakers. Yserbius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC). Ok, Wikipedia's back on, let's talk. Specifically about a few quotes from the aforementioned [[Jewish Press article], [this Forward article] and [this Jerusalem Post article]. Specifically these: attacks on local women and children by a group of radical haredim affiliated with the Sikrikim 8-year-old Na’ama Margolis, the daughter of Orthodox American immigrants, was spat on by a member of the Sikrikim Upon their arrival, the radicals attempted to intimidate both religious and non-religious residents by attempting to impose a strict “dress code” in and around their enclave. In recent months, members of the radical faction have become increasingly violent, hurling rocks at young girls who attend Orot Banot, calling them “sluts” and “shiksas.” The new Orot Banot girls’ school is situated on a major road that is the seam between the city’s Modern Orthodox neighborhood and one that is home to members of violent ultra-Orthodox faction known as the “Sikrikim.” Earlier this year, the Post reported that “the same group of Sikrikim has also targeted an ice cream store in the Geula neighborhood because they thought licking ice cream cones in public was immodest. Haredi media reported last year that Sikrikim in Beit Shemesh have targeted shoe stores in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods that refuse to remove high-heeled shoes from their selection.” ... These radicals are also said to be related to the extremist group causing trouble at the Orot Banot nationalreligious school in Beit Shemesh. Now, can you please explain to me why this isn't enough to warrant a specific "blame" in the article as opposed to the vague "some Ultra-Orthodox Jews" language that you prefer? Yserbius (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Jewish history reduxRegarding this edit summary: There is no deadline, and there is no "urgent need" to do anything with the article. Jewish history is a subject about which you obviously feel strongly, but keep in mind that there is no race to improve the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC) ExodusHello, There are 3 main versions about these events and all shoul be placed on the same level, particularly in a synthesis of the main article that talks about that :
It is true that the first version is not much followed but it is certainly not Karsh alone who defends that thesis as well as it is not Pappe alone who defends the ethnci cleansing thesis. All in all, the 3rd version is currently the one that is mainly followed by historians except that 'mainly' is not a word to use. 91.180.121.51 (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC) In this edit, you reverted a passage from the lead that is supported by a WP:RS later in the article, with an edit summary claiming that the passage is an "Unsourced claim." This is problematic for two reasons. In the first place, the information is sourced, later in the article at Itamar_attack#Palestinians. I'm guessing you were aware of the source when you made your edit, otherwise you wouldn't have described the poll as "small." Secondly, whereas you had no problem adding unsourced commentary to contextualize information in the lead in a very particular way, you apparently do have a problem when information in the lead indicates that one third of the Palestinians supported the massacre. At this point I have two helpful suggestions to offer you: 1. Revert your edit that removed reliably sourced information from the lead; and 2. read WP:Tendentious editing, which is a sanctionable offense at WP:AE.—Biosketch (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Commentary. If you wanted to change my comment, e.g. To remove the word small then that would be understandable, but you should not have removed it, when you knew it to be correctly referring to a later sourced claim The stand alone remark that one third of Palestinians supported the attack is not correct, as is clearly meaningless. If you want it to stay then it should include the fact that this statement is based on an opinion poll. You should either leave the article as is, or if you want to add in the reference to one third of Palestinians, then add in the fact that this is based on an opinion poll. The statement that I added in to explain that this claim is based on an opinion poll,is as much RS, as the claim that one third of Palestinians supported the attack.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalai lama ding dong (talk • contribs)
AE resultWhile no formal action will result from the recent AE thread, you are hereby cautioned that if the manner of editing for which you reported become a pattern, you may be the subject of further reports, where you may end up topic-banned. Sincerely, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC) AE[4]--Shrike (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC) February 2012 Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
This is a notification; per this AE thread, you are topic banned from all areas falling under the Israeli-Palestinan conflict for 90 days, having started immediately after your block expired. If you have any questions regarding the scope of your ban, please ask me or request a clarification. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Talkback Message added 21:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I-P topic banAs has been explained to you already, the FRC definition of antisemitism is covered by your I-P topic ban. Retract this statement or you will be taken to enforcement. Jayjg (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This is really getting tiresome. Now you've reverted someone on an edit obviously related to the I-P conflict. Do you imagine something that discusses Netanyahu's visit to the White House and Iranian reactions could be about anything else? Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
March 2012Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee." Just a further comment; I really, really didn't want it to come to this. Many other admins would have gone for either a 72 hour or 1 week block, but to be completely fair I can understand where some of my directions were a little vague. However, the diff above is pretty clearly a violation. I truly hope this is a one-time occurrence, and that you'll be able to get through your topic ban without further incident. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
I can not see anywhere on the antisemitism page that states anything about ARBPIA. Incidentally I thought the ban was Israel Palestine, which is not the same as Arab Palestine. The killings in France have nothing to do with Israel Palestine. Absolutely nothing. I cannot anticipate bizarre rulings such as this, and therefore will come back when the three month ban has ended.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Things to do20:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC) + 90 days = 28th May BlockI won't go through the motions of slapping a giant AEblock template on your talkpage, but per User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#Dalai lama ding don't again (the second thread with that title, at the bottom of my talkpage) I'm forced to agree with Jayjg that you've violated your topic ban again. This block will e for 8 days, twice the duration of your previous block. If you wish to take me up on my offer above, let me know; if you want to appeal this block, request that someone start an AE thread on your behalf. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Unblock Dalai lama ding dong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I removed this text from the page Holocaust Denial, 'Taking aim at Israel as a political enemy, since the 1960s, the Soviet Union promoted the allegation of secret ties between the Nazis and the Zionist leaders'. My ban is on Israel and the Arab conflict. I am not banned from editing pages on Israel, or the Soviet Union. This removed text has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. The claim that Mahmoud Abba's opinions on the numbers killed by the Nazis is related to the conflict with Israel as to the case for a Palestinian state is purely POV, as is the case that this is related to Anti Zionism. The block should be removed. Decline reason: You've been warned that special provisions apply to pages broadly related (direct quote from this very talkpage) to Israel - Palestine conflict. The rule of thumb here is if someone might think the article is related PI, better not risk. Max Semenik (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. The article in question is not broadly related to Israel Palestine it is about the number of victims of the Nazis in Russia. There is no link between them.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC) April 2012Your recent editing history at Holocaust denial 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. 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. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC) HelloHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Holocaust denial". Thank you. --Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC) AEPlease see this thread. Ankh.Morpork 10:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Username2Please see the portion of Wikipedia's username policy which states: "Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
RFCNHi. It's my intention to open a WP:RFCN concerning your username. The directions there require prior discussion here. I note that there is some discussion above, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to respond to my specific objections here, in case we can resolve the problem without further dramah. My concern is that because your name references a living person (the Dalai Lama) and because one possible interpretation of "ding dong" is "a fool" or "an idiot", your name is in violation of Wikipedia's policy on living persons. In addition, as I pointed out above, the username policy forbids the use of the names of real people in usernames. For these reasons, I think it would be best if you were to change your username. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
BtSRe: this removal. That statement is in the source so I think its removal is an error. It probably shouldn't be in the lead, the opinion should probably be attributed wherever it goes as it is just one of many labels, and if something is in the lead it should also be in the article per WP:LEAD, so Shrike removing it from the body of the article here was also probably in error. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC) ConsensusThe consensus is probably rough if it requires three reverts ;)
I have not followed talk page discussion. I'm just amused to see three identical edits, all supported by consensus on my watchlist. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Revert yourself"not in the sources"? Check the second ref there: "Israel's repatriation of the bodies is part of a goodwill gesture to Abbas." And now that your verification issues at Nurit Peled-Elhanan have been resolved, why aren't you removing the citation tags you added there?—Biosketch (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Indefinite topic-ban from Arab-Israeli conflictPer Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Standard discretionary sanctions, and in response to this request at the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, you are indefinitely topic-banned from editing any page or material related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly defined. If you'd like to appeal this sanction, you can post your appeal at the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard; the {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template can be helpful in formulating an appeal. If you demonstrate productive editing in other areas of the project (unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict), then that may weigh favorably in requests to have the sanction lifted in the future. MastCell Talk 18:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Blocked indefinitely Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee." |
