User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2011/January


Talkback

Hello, Supreme Deliciousness. You have new messages at Brewcrewer's talk page.
Message added 23:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: And it continues

Re your message: And so it goes... -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your request

Passed it off to EdJohnston (talk · contribs) due to my earlier interaction with the editor, I'd have done it otherwise. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Precedent for this edit?

[see] -asad (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out if it is indeed in south East Jerusalem, which it is not. -asad (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. -asad (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at my talk page?

Last entry (at the moment) is a dispute over the use of Israel vs Palestine, is there any guidance on this? Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I should really learn how to edit images

But until then, can you do it for me? Chile per 1 and 2 -asad (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone already added Chile. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, too late. Is there a tutorial somewhere that could show me how to do that? -asad (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Inkscape is a free software you can use. I'm an amateur but its very easy to change color in those kinds of maps.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

There may be vandalism going on here - do you think I should revert it? As best I know, not the US, not even Israel denies it's occupied. Templar98 (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Under big brother's nose

Read your arguments with a certain party, over a certain issue recently and I think you have made their bias very clear. However that is as much as I dare say (that is a reflection of freedom of speech on Wikipedia) Prunesqualer (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI

You might have something to say about this. NickCT (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Quotation

For pita, I gave a citation to the current online edition of the OED. I believe it would be a copyright violation to include the text of the OED's etymology in extenso, but here is part of it for your reference. I don't believe this belongs in the article space.

Etymology: Partly < modern Hebrew pittāh ( < Balkan Judaeo-Spanish pita slightly leavened flat bread), partly < the etymon of the latter, modern Greek πήττα, πίτα, πίττα bread, cake, pie, pitta (a1108 in medieval Greek as πίτα), partly < Serbian and Croatian pita (1685), and partly perhaps also < other languages of the Balkans (compare Albanian pite, Bulgarian pita); further etymology uncertain and disputed.
The relationship of the forms in the different European languages is unclear. Various ancient Greek etymons have been suggested, but the word appears to be of fairly recent appearance in Greek (as is suggested by the variable spelling); also, a plausible transmission from ancient Greek into the various other modern languages is difficult to establish. Modern Hebrew pittāh is written as if descended from an Aramaic form (compare Old Western Aramaic pittəṯā, Eastern Aramaic pittā, related to Palestinian colloquial Arabic fatte crumb, piece of bread) but there is no continuity between them. The Arabic word for this type of bread is kimāj ( < Persian kumāj). Turkish pide (1890) is a loanword, probably < Greek.
An ultimate origin in Germanic has been suggested ...

Does that help? What in particular did you find problematic? --Macrakis (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The text above is the Etymology section of the 'pita' article in the current online OED up to the ellipsis (...). It seems pretty clear to me. English got the word from Hebrew and also from various Balkan languages. Beyond that, things are less well understood. --Macrakis (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

reply to email

In reply to your email: no, it was a speculation that a certain editor is a sock of a certain other editor, neither of them being you. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hey SD, been following the discussion between you and GHcool on the Hezbollah talk page. You've been arguing that Hezbollah is only considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and the four other countries listed in the article, and therefore the "Islamic terrorism" category shouldn't be used. I'm not convinced enough to support or oppose it at the moment, but I had a question for you: If the STL ends up indicting Hezbollah (as is currently rumored), will that change your stance? You've argued quite often that Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories is considered an "occupation" in the worldview, based on United Nations statements to that effect. And I agree with you. However, in the interest of neutral equality, if the United Nations makes a statement labeling Hezbollah a terrorist organization, will you consider that to be the worldview as well? It won't happen for some weeks or months, but if it happens I think the "terrorist" label for Hezbollah would then become the worldview. What are your thoughts? Cheers. ← George talk 13:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the OT, then the vast majority of all countries have voted and said they are occupied, this is not the case of the STL which I'm not sure represents a worldview but only the tribunal. So its not really the same thing. I'm not even sure that even if the STL would claim that Hezbollah was behind it, that they would label it as a "terrorist organization". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting point. I know the bombing of Hariri has been described as a "terrorist attack" by multiple sources, but I agree it would probably be a WP:SYNTH leap to say that it makes whoever perpetrated it a "terrorist organization". It'll be interesting to see if the UN passes some resolution addressing Hezbollah directly when the tribunal finishes its mandate. Anyways, thanks for sharing your thoughts. ← George talk 02:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Israel's borders

Since you write about Israel's borders prior to 1967, would you mind directing me to the peace agreements that establish Israel's borders? Leifern (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind directing me to the factual occurrence where Sinai, WB, Gaza and GH are within Israels borders? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Synagogue in Saragosa

Hello! I am turning to you as an author of an article Ancient synagogue (Barcelona). I need a free or Wiki-usable image of synagogue in Saragossa, like here: http://aragonguide.com/622/aragon-guide-place-zaragoza-jewish-quarter--aragon-pyrenees.html, http://aragonguide.com/images/74b02136ddc02fe6aa36146267cf9b48old-synagoge-zaragoza.jpg. I need it it badly for a big article in a Russian Wikipedia on Hasdai Crescas (the single picture in this article provided by me.) (Russian: Крескас, Хасдай), who lived his most important years in Saragossa. Pictures of Jewsih quarter there will do good too. I would be very grateful! Great thanks, --lkitross (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an author of that article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Coord template

Saw your question at WP:HD. Although some coord templates work with decimal coords, there's a simpler option — take out your calculator, put in the part of the coords after the decimal, multiply by 60, subtract the number before the decimal, and multiply by 60 again. The number that you subtract after multiplying by 60 the first time is the number of minutes, and the number that you get after multiplying the second time is the number of seconds. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Finkelstein

I reinstated your excision of the anti-Zionist description. It's sourced, and it's not a controversial description. As labeling with an emotional component, perhaps a different location in the article would be better. But the fact that Finkelstein doesn't concur is definitely not grounds for removal. It's not his PR page, it's an encyclopedia article. Tapered (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. You are mentioned here --

January 2011

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Gaming the 1RR restriction on Hezbollah, with three reverts, [1] [2], and [3], three reverts within 48 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Courcelles 18:39, 23 January 2011 (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 did not revert 3 times within 36 hours, I did not at any point make more then 1 rv within 24 hours. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
36 hours was actually a typo; it should have said 48- fixed. You reverted at 10:12, 21 January 2011, 10:23, 22 January 2011, and 10:23, 23 January 2011. If that's not gaming the system then nothing is. Courcelles 19:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I did not revert within 48 hours either. Thats some reverting against a user who is forcing his pov into the article, there were at least 4 (or 5) editors who objected to that cat with only GHcool wanting it in. The talkpage shows clearly that there is no consensus to have them, and me following what happened at the talkpage and not breaking the 1rr is not "gaming the system". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone copy this to Enforcement as a reply to Courcelles and Ghcool?

{{adminhelp}}

Reply to Courcelles: I did not revert 3 times within 48 hours. I did not at any point make more then 1 rv within 24 hours. Thats some reverting against a user who is forcing his pov into the article, there were at least 4 (or 5) editors who objected to that cat with only GHcool wanting it in. The talkpage shows clearly that there is no consensus to have them, and me following what happened at the talkpage and not breaking the 1rr is not "gaming the system".

Reply to GHcool: In June 2009 Ghcool repeatedly added the cats. [4] [5]

Although I was not there at that time, I was told that "We have discussed them before, and only GHschool kept adding them."

Ghcool also notified WP Israel, [6], and not any Arab notice board.

At the recent talkpage discussions, only GHcool wants the cats, no one else, (These two comments are by two socks:[7][8] )

Me, Funk Monk, Lihaas and علی ویکی all object to its inclusion.

I have not "moved the goalpost" as GHcool claims, I have always said the same thing, I objected to its inclusion based on that its a minority pov only held by a handful of countries and individual people, and GHcool has still not shown any source saying anything else.

I never removed the views by those academics he had added, but they are povs by individuals that Hezbollah is "terrorist" not facts, they are minority views. So I added the British Mp and U.S. Representative views in the same position, not as "facts" but as views from those people. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

In accordance with WP:ARBPIA#Dscretionary sanctions and the consensus of uninvolved administrators, I am hereby informing you that you are banned from editing any page or taking part in any discussion (regardless of namespace) related to the area of conflict covered by the case, broadly construed. This restriction is in place for 62 days from the expiry of your current block (1837, 24 March 2011, UTC) and, if necessary, will be enforced by escalating blocks.

You may appeal this sanction at any time to the relevant noticeboard, currently WP:AE, or directly to ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

To HJ Mitchel

{{adminhelp}}

Someone notify HJ Mitchel:

I want to appeal the topic ban, and I want to know every single point on why you gave me a two month restriction. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

HJM notified. JohnCD (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
You're quite welcome to do that. It takes effect when your block expires, so you can appeal it to AE at 1837 UTC tonight or you can email ArbCom at your leisure. The ban is in place because a consensus of uninvolved administrators believes it to be necessary to prevent further disruption in the area of conflict. Whether or not deliberately, you have engaged in battleground mentality and edit warring in that area and it's exactly that kind of thing that lead to the original ArbCom case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Your mind ?

Could you please give your mind about this issue and, if possible and if you consider this appropriate, comment/validate/revert this edit. (See the article history to have a full picture). Thanks. (nb: same demand was made to Sean.hoiland). Noisetier (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)