User talk:Someone35/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why there was "mass deletion" in the climate pages

Wikipedia pages (outside of list class pages) are not meant to be mere collection of lists, image galleries, nor harbor information which is not well-referenced. The deleted information failed on all counts. Check out the pages which discuss what should and should not be within wikipedia articles at the Manual of Style (MoS) page, and its companion pages, such as What wikipedia is not. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

New Delhi

Please do not make unexplained edits such as this one that destroy precision. The previous source was precise only to the nearest 1 °C, while I had added a source that gave temperatures to the nearest 0.1 °C. Therefore, your edit can be deemed an unexplained removal of information, which is forbidden on this site. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

you put an incorrect number saying that in new delhi the average temperature in winter is 0 degrees, which is wrong. so i replaced it with the real number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone35 (talk • contribs)

which I have since corrected. However, you did switch the table used, and I even provided a link to show you what exactly you did. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 18:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

nothing was changed, see that in yourself

POV tag use

Hi there, You need to explain in detail what needs to be changed to make the article NPOV when you place a tag like this one [1]. Also, when you delete sourced information as you did here, you should explain your removal on the talk page. Tiamut^talk 18:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, please don't mark major edits as "minor", as occurred in this instance. Thank you,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Green precip and rain

I will revert your edits first, and expect you not to WP:EDIT WAR in response. Instead, I want you to come to Template talk:Weather box to sort this out. Also, since you could somehow add sunshine hour data to NY, could you do the same for Los Angeles? Also, you need to add a specific link for the sunshine hour data for San Francisco, or else it will be considered unsourced. Thanks. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 03:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We have discussed this before. Please stop blanket reversions back to blue without reason. I will let it go for Shreveport, Louisiana as, without a graph, the blue performs a significantly better job at presenting subtle differences in precip amounts, but the same could not be said for Baton Rouge, and especially not Seattle. As a rule, never revert to blue when there are seasonal peaks in rainfall (i.e. Mediterranean or monsoonal climate). Also, consistent 90%+ for London? I find that exceptionally difficult to believe...those numbers would be more typical for areas lying immediately on the coastline, which Heathrow certainly isn't... —HXL's Roundtable and Record 03:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

{{London weatherbox}}

Basically, {{Weather box}} can only accommodate 2 fields for sources, so to make that work I merged the 4 sources into 2 lines. Deryck C. 00:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

ok thank you very much--Someone35 (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you still have not answered my query regarding the amount of snowfall London receives. How can it have 47 cm of snow annually when Philadelphia, which has a daily average in January barely above 0 °C, has 49? If this figure does not include the recent snowy winters, I would be very surprised. Oh, and do respond here. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 04:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

you didn't ask me anything until now... and temperatures have nothing to do with snowfall, take for example Barrow, Alaska and Kutchan, Hokkaido. kutchan has over 10 times more snowfall than barrow even though barrow is significantly colder. i took the snowfall data from NOAA so it can't be wrong. i also cited it for case you'll want to check it in yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone35 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I did; you evidently didn't watch my talk page, and that is your fault, not mine. And please learn how to properly format your talk page responses.

"nothing to do with snowfall"? That is an exaggeration. I don't have to explain why.

The example you cited shows only the difference between a coastal Arctic climate and a mid-latitude continental climate that receives tremendous ocean-effect snow during the winter. The winter temperature difference between Philadelphia and London is only a matter of 3.75 °C. Unless I am missing something, it seems that it is much more difficult for it to snow in London as: 1) if winds are generally from the west, there needs to be a cold air mass well in place, but the westerly winds are responsible for keeping London's winters as absurdly warm as they are... 2) The heavier snow events tend to result from an easterly flow from Russia, which is rare. —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 14:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

it is all cited, you can check it out in yourself as i said before--Someone35 (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the links you have posted are all dead, so how can I view them? —Xiaoyu: 聊天 (T) 和 贡献 (C) 16:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

the citation i posted for the snowfall and humidity data does work, here it is -_-...

BRD at Palestinian political violence

Please read WP:BRD. It describes the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You made a bold edit, I reverted with the edit summary "please use the talk page to explain the reasons for the tag and for restoration of the images that were removed", you should then open a discussion on the article talk page. You also added a tag. Yoiu cannot add a tag with providing reasons on the talk page. See Template:Split2. Also, you added Template:Pp-protected. You are not an admin so you cannot do that and it won't work. Furthermore, you cited vandalism as the reason. There hasn't been any vandalism. Read WP:VANDAL. I have made a number on individual edits which remove the material you have added. Each one has an edit summary that explains why. Please do not restore any of this material to the article without addressing the issues raised in the edit summaries and using the talk page of the article. The article is covered by discretionary sanctions. Please read about them. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

why was that picture removed? why can't i add the terrorism tag to something that's obviously terrorism? how is this going to help anyone if i post this in the talk page? if only admins are allowed to semi lock pages, why can i add this in myself? do you really expect anyone to read that much just to add a picture and a tag to an article? i'll post this on the talk page and then re-post that edit--Someone35 (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

hmmm...many questions

• You need to see the edit summary for the reasons I removed each image. One was a duplicate used later in the article. The others are non-free and need detailed rationales explaining exactly why they are being used in that article. It's mandatory. You cannot restore the images without addressing that. See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.
• I didn't do anything to the terrorim template. I removed the split2|Palestinian cause tag. You must explain your policy based reasons for proposing to do something. Just tagging an article without explaining why on the talk page is called drive-by tagging and it isn't accepted.
• You adding the semi-lock tag doesn't do anything and you may have noticed that the lock wasn't visible on the page. The article isn't protected. It can only be protected by an admin.
• Yes, I hope you read about the discretionary sanctions if you want to continue editing in the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area. It's in your own interest to do so. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

so if i will find another picture of a terrorist attack i will be able to add it to the page? i didn't add the split tag then why can i see the template page explaining how to semi lock pages? i'm sure that most people who edit these articles haven't read it...--Someone35 (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If the image is pertinent to the topic and a good illustration of some aspect of the subject of the article then yes assuming licencing/copyright etc are okay e.g. it's public domain for etc. I would recommend that you get into the habit of discussing things on article talk pages though especially in this contentious topic area. If you have a image you want to add, add it, if someone removes it, open a discussion explaining why you think it adds value to the article. You added the split tag here. Perhaps you didn't mean to. Anyone can see template pages. Anyone can add anything to articles. You could add "<insert name of celeb you don't like> is a stupid fat idiot" to their article. The only thing stopping you is that it is not allowed by policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed that at the Palestinian political violence article you added the terrorism template but at the Zionist political violence article you added the nationalism template. That is one of the most transparently and hilariously biased edits I have seen for a very long time...so thank you for that. Please try to be more balanced and neutral in your editing if you can. I know it's not always easy. That is why I suggested that you read the discretionary sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

i don't remember i put a split page tag but whatever.

and zionist political violence happened before anybody used the word terror attacks and it was used in order to press the british government to end the british mandate therefore it's nationalism, unlike sending suicide bombers to places like tel aviv that have nothing to do with the israeli occupation in the west bank. there is also a page for zionist terrorism, Kahanism--Someone35 (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A pie for you!

lol i like pie Someone35 (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FPC

Hey, it's nice to see a new nominator at featured picture candidates, but I would not advise floding the page with your nominations- three is probably a good number for now! J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks, i have another picture that i took while i was in south africa (this one) but i'll save it for later, could you please check out my user page and see which of my pictures could possibly get a featured picture award? --Someone35 (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Your pictures are good, there's no doubt about that, but FP is a high bar. You'll probably get some very useful feedback on your current nominations- don't be disheartened if your images aren't promoted. None of my photos are featured, either- as I say, it's a high bar. J Milburn (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

k thanks, by the way do you know why i can't edit any of my pictures? i fixed the horizon tilt in the picture of the coast in maine but it doesn't let me to update the photo now (the button disappeared)

Click "upload file" on the left- you can then upload it under a different file name, or the same one (in which case it will be saved over the top of your old one). J Milburn (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

NH leaves picture

Nice photo that you added to New Hampshire. Could you be more specific in the caption about its location? That would make it more valuable, I think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It was somewhere in northern NH near mount Washington--Someone35 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Perth, Western Australia, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC) that information can be found in the page jerusalem and is already cited there, there's no point in citing something twice--Someone35 (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

urm you still have to cite it even if it is in a different article however that is original research by using the data, you will need a sourced stating it. Bidgee (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

k i cited it now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone35 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You can't use Wikipedia article's to cite content. You need a reliable and verifiable source(s) which state it has the same/similar climate. Bidgee (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

i cited a section which is cited therefore what i cited is cited so i cited a cited content which is supposed to be ok--Someone35 (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

my picture is featured!!!!

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Har_Ari_panorama.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Someone35 (talk) 11:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please see the nomination page. Makeemlighter (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

your comment wasn't there when the voting ended. also you supported the picture then how exactly is the picture not promoted? weak opposes count as -0.5 and not -1 therefore my image IS promoted... --Someone35 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not featured, to be featured you need AT LEAST 5 supports. I've removed the tag from the image and requested the blank local file for it to be deleted as a purely maintenance issue, the file is located on Commons. Please review promotion rules for FPC before you take unilateral steps here. Secondly involved parties can't closed FPC's, so as the nominator you can't promote anyway. — raekyt 16:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

where is this written? it doesn't say anything about having 5 votes in wp:fpc...--Someone35 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In the top header it has the criteria for promotion, 4 votes excluding the nominator, or 5 including. And a 2/3rds majority. — raekyt 16:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

k saw it-- Someone35 (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello! Could you write an article about my city - Żagań on Hebrew Wikipedia? I would be thankful. Only 2-4 sentences enough. Saganum (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

why do you need an article about this town on the hebrew wikipedia?--Someone35 (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like, that article about my city will be written in as many languages. Now, article about Żagań was written in 39 language versions. Saganum (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

but 39 languages is enough and it's a minor town with only 40,000 people. i would suggest you to expand the article in the polish and english wikipedias if you want your town to become famous, maybe i'll translate it to hebrew if i have time, and by the way do you pronounce it as zagan or sagan or something else?--Someone35 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, you don't have to write this article in hebrew language. I'll look for another person. If you are interested, pronounciation sounds something like "ja-ganj" Saganum (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

you can try user:ori, he wrote tons of pages in hebrew

Template:Cleanup-link rot on Babylon (program)

Hi.

{{Cleanup-link rot}} is placed on an article when the article has either bare URL, simple URLs or URLs that are susceptible to link rot. Babylon article has multiple.

I won't touch them; people insult me. Fleet Command (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ok, i thought it is only about bare urls in the external links section, you can undo my edit if you want to--Someone35 (talk) 11:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Tip about deletion debates

Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CTERA Networks (2nd_nomination). Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. I hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Marokwitz (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

isn't it like in featured pictures candidates where it's a democracy? if 10 people are against deleting the page and one person supports it then the page can still be deleted? why? can't it be a 2/3 majority like in featured pictures/articles candidates?--Someone35 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that consensus as defined by Wikipedia is not a purely democratic process. See WP:!VOTE. Votes without reasonable accompanying rationales receive little consideration unless you also explain why you are voting the way you are, based on Wikipedia policies (in this case, notability guidelines). Votes without rationales sometimes are ignored. Feel free to go into the deletion discussion and amend your !vote with stronger arguments, you may do so as long as it is still open. Marokwitz (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC):

ok--Someone35 (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Reykjavik's-church

hi, nice photo. i migrated it to wikipedia english with a fair use tag here: [[2], and incorporated it into the Hallgrímskirkja article, hope you don't mind. Slowking4: 7@1|x 15:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

no problem, but a bot seems to be doing problems because of this license, btw how do you migrate an image between different wikis? you just upload it again to en.wiki.x.io?-- Someone35 (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to upload any images as CC, do it at Commons and it can then be used on all wikis. Chesdovi (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

why do u insisting on changing photos

hi there, still not understand why are u changing files, the older pic is better, show more ppl (from a higer position and probably taken later on, when more ppl was there) and yes it does show the Azriely towers much better but thats not the subject,.

• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Israel_Housing_Protests_Tel_Aviv_August_6_2011a.jpg
• http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:August_rally_tel_aviv.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadRobot (talk • contribs) 01:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

no, you said that when i put my image third it looked like the first one so i replaced it with the first one-- Someone35 (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

once again, the older pic looks better - it looked like the first and look worse - why are u insist? the older pic show twice the ppl - ur pic show a nice skyline please put the old one back (not to mention it's not under common share license) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadRobot (talk • contribs) 13:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to File:August rally tel aviv.jpg with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. 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. Tgeairn (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

stalker...-- Someone35 (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Revert at Qula

All Israel/Palestine articles are subject to special rules that includes WP:1RR. See the notice I just added to the top of Talk:Qula. You just broke this rule. You should revert your own edit right away so that you won't be blocked. Zero^talk 13:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I will report you if you do not self-revert. Ill give it an hour or so. Instructing others not to edit-war while edit-warring is amusing but not acceptable. That you feel entitled to remove a reliable source because you think you know better is also amusing but likewise not acceptable. nableezy - 14:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"Often there is also a requirement to discuss each of the reversions on the talk page". Also you reverted MY edits not vice versa. Finish the discussion in the talk page before you revert my edits. Don't threat me because I should report YOU.-- Someone35 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been reported to Arbitration Enforcement. You can see this here. nableezy - 19:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond there tomorrow, it's 23:05 now and I need to go to sleep-- Someone35 (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Qula

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

tell that to nableezy and his friends...-- Someone35 (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian rabbis

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Violation of the WP:1RR restriction at Qula

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days. 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.

---

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."

The case was discussed in this thread at Arbitration Enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't you wait for me to respond? 2 different people reverted the same edit, I was trying to talk to them in the talk page but they didn't cooperate and just sent their friends to revert my edits so they won't get banned. I asked you to wait because I had to go to sleep because it was late. Did you even look at the page's history here or see what I wrote there? I ASKED them not to turn it into an edit war (I wrote to Tiamut "see talk page, don't turn it into an edit war") and ASKED them to talk about it in the talk page, but they just kept sending their friends to revert my edits. Why didn't you wait for me to write my side of the story?-- Someone35 (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Here, they did it again without finishing the discussion in the talk page. They simply send their friends to revert my edits so they won't get banned...-- Someone35 (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

— EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

...

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Someone35 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Why didn't you wait for me to respond? 2 different people reverted the same edit, I was trying to talk to them in the talk page but they didn't cooperate and just sent their friends to revert my edits so they won't get banned. I asked you to wait because I had to go to sleep because it was late. Did you even look at the page's history here or see what I wrote there? I ASKED them not to turn it into an edit war (I wrote to Tiamut "see talk page, don't turn it into an edit war") and ASKED them to talk about it in the talk page, but they just kept sending their friends to revert my edits. What do you expect me to do if 2 different users revert my edits without talking with me in the page's talk page? Should I act like Nableezy and his friends and make a gang of users that will revert every edit I don't like so other users will get banned? Why didn't you wait for me to write my side of the story? Also see my other claim 2 sections above this one Someone35 (talk) 2:09 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Blaming other editors will not get your block lifted early. I suggest you read EdJohnston's advice, below. TNXMan 13:21, 24 August 2011 (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.

Your block can't be reviewed by individual administrators, since this is an Arbitration Enforcement block. You can either ask me to reconsider, or prepare an {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template. If you do so, someone will copy your unblock request to WP:AE. You can also appeal to Arbcom directly. I am still waiting for you to give an acceptable unblock reason. (Hint: some acceptable reasons are listed in WP:GAB). EdJohnston (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

see the new section below-- Someone35 (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

tnxman307 i reverted the revertions of 2 different editors who reverted my edit without talking about it in the talk page...-- Someone35 (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Help Someone35. I have copied your statement below over to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Someone35. Your appeal can be reviewed there by other admins. EdJohnston (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I guess I'll have to reply to what other people will write there, will you be able to write there what I'll ask you to write? I need to say my side too (since I wasn't able to do it in the arbitration request by nableezy), or could you do something like partially unblocking me so I'll be able to edit only that page and my talk page?

You appear to have called Nableezy an anti-Semite in a Hebrew remark you added at the bottom of this talk page. (See Nableezy's objection here). Your statement is considered to be a personal attack. I suggest that you remove your comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

that's what i did, although there's a reason i written this in hebrew, it was not intended for him but for hebrew speakers. if he chooses to stalk me then it's his problem. can you please add this explanation for me in the block appeal request? for some reason i don't have the right to comment there-- Someone35 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

also what is an interactive topic ban? does it mean if i get an interactive topic ban on nableezy for example it is like a block on facebook (that both of us can't see our pages)? or is it one sided?-- Someone35 (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Too many words

Since none of the admins involved in the discussion have actually tried a dialog that is not based on templates and demands to comply I will do it for them.

Some words of advice:

• You have been given all of the links to edit warring so I assume you know what it is. Don't even bother. It will be a waste of time since someone else will always revert you unless there is consensus otherwise. That is the way it is in the topic area. More importantly, reverting is usually not constructive. I enjoy WP:BRD even though it is usually not followed. You might make a revert and have it be reverted then wait weeks to implement the edit since conversations take that long.

• Try not to comment on other editors. I have done it too much. The real important reason to not comment on other editors in a way that they could take offence to is that it bogs down discussions. One little word can change the tone of a whole discussion. Unfortunately, the topic area already has a battlefield mentality so you have to assume that some editors you disagree with are more prone to think you are a jerk already so be extra careful. Not making personal attacks is not just on article discussion pages. It is on your buddys' talk page or here.

You have started off on the wrong foot in the topic area. It is not all your fault. You are partially to blame so try to learn from it. Make a commitment to not overuse the revert and you will do much better. You should have had a more successful appeal (three days has no precedent and was absurd while the blocking admin did everything but try to discuss with you) but the personal attacks sunk that option. Do you need any clarification? You don't need to make a case to me (I agree with you to a certain extent). Is there anything up above that is not clear? Do you understand why you were blocked and are now looking at a possible topic ban?Go let them know that you get it (I assume you do by now) and be super cautious after the three days is up since you will be scrutinized. I am sorry that you had such a dramatic and weird introduction to the topic area. My overall advise is to not even worry about it since nothing on Wikipedia is going to change the facts on the ground even though some realities are hard to swallow for editors and readers alike. But assuming you will continue to edit, let the disruptive guys with punch themselves out. Let them start angry discussions and not follow Wikipedia's standards. They will be banned sooner than later and you don't want to be among them.

I get why you might be pissed. I have been livid with some of the editors in the topic area and actually started off much like you. This has led to what is essentially a red flag on my account across the project since everyone assumes all I care about is bickering with Arabs. Although I find that interesting enough, it is overall pretty lame. It basically sucks so try not to get sucked into that.Cptnono (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Cliffnotes: Don't tease, mark fun of, or otherwise insult other editors. Comment on their edits, but avoid making discussions personal. Even if you are being baited, don't respond. Turn off your computer and go play Xbox. Seriously, you'll be permanently banned if you don't adjust your behavior soon. Trust me I know. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy constantly checks my talk page/page/contributions. Yesterday for example he made this edit, which is basically reverting my edit from about a month ago. He's obsessed with reverting my edits and I know I'm not the only person he's trying to ban. What am I supposed to do when he reverts my sourced edits (those edits were sourced from the encyclopedia of the largest newspaper in Israel which I find reliable enough)? When I revert his edits he just brings his friends such as User:Tiamut to revert my edits and then reports me. I can't fight gangs alone. Since I'm (trying) not a hypocrite I have to blame certain people. It is not a personal attack. See how many ban requests he sent in the past 6 months. All ban requests are for Israeli editors.-- Someone35 (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The last thing you should do is vent too much. I get your concern with other editors (I am not allowed to comment on one particular editor due to an arbitration enforcement so won;t do it here). But you need to read about "decorum" at WP:ARBPIA#Final decision. No matter how ticked off you might be, you can't refer to others as anti-semitic even if they weren't supposed to see it. And you shouldn't (you can if you want, of course) try to pin all the blame on other editors regarding the AE discussion. You did edit war. You tried discussion (which is fantastic) but you did break the rules. If you do not clearly say that you understand why the admins are taking action then they are only going to take more action. I'm asking you to not make it worse even if you were right initially. Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Then what should I do if my edits are getting reverted by multiple users who seem to cooperate together against others? There's a reason I wrote that sentence in Hebrew. I was talking to Chesdovi and not to Nableezy. If I wanted to tell that to Nableezy I could write it on the top of my talk page (which he obviously reads) in English. If he chooses to google translate everything I say then it's his problem, not mine. Can you please write it for me in the block appeal page as a response to Nableezy's recent comment? Also can you please add to the bottom of the page Har HaAri this: "he:הר האר"י"? thanks.-- Someone35 (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you see how you were in violation of the rules or not? The request for arbitration enforcement is not about anyone else. It is about you. Unless you start looking at it that way you will get even more frustrated. You cannot possibly counter what you might see as wikilawyering and POV pushing without first understanding the guidelines and policies here. Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you expect me to do if people just revert my edits without talking about it in the talk page?-- Someone35 (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I expect you to suck it up and appreciate the fact that I did everything but call the blocking admin a jerkoff then berated the other admins at AE for treating you like dirt while going out on a limb in an attempt to point you in the right direction. I expect you to bottle your disdain for other editors, learn to edit in the topic area, and then file your own AE against them when they deserve it. But all you are doing is repeating things I already know and not getting anywhere near an unblock since you can't show one little token of humility for not following the standards we are expected to abide by.Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Then what should I do if my edits are getting reverted by multiple users who seem to cooperate together against others?" Tough titties. Explain your edits in discussion. In the past whenever I saw a group of editors reverting my edit and those editors seemed to collab a lot in other areas I immediately thought WP:MEATSIGNS, but really it doesn't matter because it can't go on indefinitely. I just ignore the history when my edit is removed and go straight to talk.Don't be so possessive about articles. And I have to disagree with Cptnono on "file your own AE against them." It's a huge waste of time and doesn't help wikipedia at all. And if you feel so threatened by certain editors - here's a tip...avoid them. You're courting controversy right now and Nableezy has a very solid record at AE...you will simply lose if you decide to not apologize and own up to your mistakes. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

but i reverted the reversions of 2 different editors who reverted my edit without finishing the debate. and that's a hypocrisy to apologize for something i think i have done right. if i wanted to surrender to people who are trying to rewrite history through wikipedia then i wouldn't be that active here. but at least now i know what are those users' way of editing in wikipedia so i also know how not to get banned again.-- Someone35 (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You really don't seem to understand. 1RR is a Wikipedia rule for everyone editting in the Israel/Palestine portion of Wikipedia. You broke it, you got sanctioned. You break it again, you'll get sanctioned worse. It isn't anything to do with who is right and who is wrong. Zero^talk 11:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

this rule is stupid, you can bypass it using sock puppets and your friends. Also, is this rule only for 24 hours? (i mean if you can only revert once in every article in 24 hours)-- Someone35 (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In any article even slightly related to the Israeli-Arab conflict, you can't revert any article more than once in any 24 hour period. For most of the rest of Wikipedia, the limit is 3 reverts. Click here to read the definition of "revert" and other stuff. This rule slows down disputes and makes it nicer for everyone. If we have to wait, we get time to think about it and time to sleep. Using a sockpuppet (including yourself without logging in) to revert will get you banned altogether, detection rate is high. Zero^talk 12:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

First of all you should read WP:DR.Also you could put a NPOV tag on the page while discussion is going to show there is some problem.There are general advises that will make you life easier in Wikipedia.--Shrike (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Reykjavik's-church.jpg and your userpage

I note from your edit summary that you believe you have the right to display this image on your userpage. This is false. The image was not taken by you, and is marked as a non-free image. Under terms of WP:NFCC #9, the use of non-free images outside of articles is not permitted. There's no wiggle room on this. It's an absolute prohibition. Further, there's no way to make an image of this subject free, as under Iceland's copyright law, there is no freedom of panorama that is free enough for our purposes here. See this reference. I've removed the image from your userpage again. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Continuing to restore the image to your userpage in violation of WP:NFCC policy is not an option. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that image was not taken by me? It was imported to en.wikipedia by someone who marked it as a non free image. It even says that I taken it in its page. I have taken it during my trip to Iceland last year. Also I have seen postcards with that church on them in Reykjavik so I don't really think somebody puts a shit on that law especially outside of Iceland (wikipedia). And why am I not allowed to put it on my userpage but I am allowed to put it on other wikipedia pages?-- Someone35 (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• If you took the image, fine, it doesn't matter. I looked at the most recent upload. So, my apologies for indicating you didn't take it. But, it doesn't matter. In the reference I noted above, freedom of panorama does not exist in Iceland for architectural works, in that an image of such is not eligible to be used for non-commercial purposes. Given that, the image must be treated as non-free here. As a result, it must comply with WP:NFCC in all respects, which includes a prohibition on the display of the image outside of the article namespace. It doesn't matter if it's been printed on postcards. The people who created the postcards had to pay a royalty to the architects or their designees for the use of the image. That's not free, at least so far as Wikipedia is concerned. If you want to note that you took the image on your userpage, you can link it like File:Reykjavik's-church.jpg that. But, displaying it is not an option. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

ok i noted it there, i won't revert your edit as i'm not interested in getting an additional ban (tonight i got unbanned and now t. canens banned me again for 3 months). edit: will it be legal if i'll just link to the image's page from my userpage (linking, not displaying)?-- Someone35 (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, just do it like this: File:Reykjavik's-church.jpg --Hammersoft (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

k done-- Someone35 (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

For the reasons explained at length in this AE thread, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Middle East, broadly construed across all namespaces, for a period of no less than 3 months. After 3 months, and every 3 months thereafter, you may apply to have the ban reviewed at WP:AE. In addition, you may make one appeal to AE at any time within the next 3 months challenging this decision. You may also appeal to the Arbitration Committee at any time at WP:A/R/A. The ban will stay in place, even after 3 months, unless and until it is lifted on appeal at AE or by the Arbitration Committee. T. Canens (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

WHAT??? i haven't done ANYTHING since i was unbanned. why ban me again only a few hours after i was unbanned? i removed that sentence less than an hour after nableezy complained about it and since then i haven't done anything (because i was banned and as you can see here i didn't edit any page that's not a talk page or my page in the last 4 days including today) and even tried to be friendlier to those members i was edit warring. also why didn't i receive instead of this ban an interaction ban with nableezy/another user if you think my interactions with him are problematic? or a warning before this ban?-- Someone35 (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's three months. After three months, file a petition, apologize, show you understand the basic principles of civility and *hopefully* your ban would be appealed. If not then enjoy editing pokemon. :D Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

But why ban me on Middle East topics if I called somebody an anti semite (on my talk page and in hebrew, not in a talk page of something)? Will the ban be removed if I'll apologize? And why can I still edit articles such as Israel or the article Middle East itself? Also, if you think that my interactions with nableezy are problematic then why don't you put a 3 months interaction ban instead?-- Someone35 (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Not helping yourself at all. Wikifan^{Be nice} 05:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

According to this (which I was banned for) I was supposed to get a warning after "repeatedly failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia". I couldn't do that because I didn't edit any page that's not a talk page or my userpage in the past 4 days.-- Someone35 (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Some advice on your current AE appeal

Hi, I saw your reply at WP:ARE. I'm not an expert on AE, as I don't usually pay much attention to what goes on there, but this is just some advice on what looks likely to me. I think your current appeal is unlikely to be successful based on what what you've said there so far. To overturn an arbitration enforcement action (which is what you want to do), there needs to be "a clear and substantial concensus" of uninvolved editors; or for the administrator who imposed the sanction to agree to overturn it.

The problem is, I don't think that by turning it around and implying that the administrator is in the wrong because they hadn't given a warning to you first, is going to encourage that administrator to change their mind about the sanction.

I realise that you think the reason for your appeal is valid, but having looked at it, I don't think it will persuade people. EdJohnston gave you a "Notice of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA" at 02:39 on 24th August, and you made the remark about Nableezy at 13:58 on 24th August. My understanding of "despite being warned" is that the notice from Ed would count as a warning.

Again, I realise that you genuinely believed that the reverts for which you were blocked were reasonable; and that you genuinely believed that people should not be expected to be reading (or translating) your comments elsewhere. Unfortunately both beliefs were wrong. The view people seem to be taking is that your behaviour was pretty extreme, and that just removing the userbox and the statement would not be enough to reassure them that you won't edit disruptively in this topic area. To stand any chance of getting the topic ban overturned, I think you would need to specifically state that you understand you were in the wrong on these things. (And wrapping it up as "whatever wrong I did" and implying that such things only happened through the fault of the administrator, really doesn't get that across.)

As I said, I'm not an expert on these processes, so maybe the appeal will succeed anyway (though I find that extremely unlikely), or maybe the appeal will fail even if you make such a statement. But I think it's worth doing your best to make a proper and persuasive appeal, since the rules don't allow you to appeal this again at WP:AE for at least three months. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It's just not fair that some admins themselves don't obey the rules they banned me for. If I was given a warning before this topic ban then I would have done what they asked me to do immediately. I have made only about 3 edits that count as "disruptive" (2 reverts at Qula and one edit in Palestinian rabbis, both were in the same day and I have no interest in making this kind of edits again). I changed now some parts of my statement (to sound less angry and not to attack other admins) and wrote some kind of a regret in the end, I hope it'll be enough. Also, do you know why can I still edit middle east related pages (such as Israel, Middle East and Tel Aviv) even though I'm topic banned?-- Someone35 (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone35, you seem to be confusing a block and a ban. A block is a technical mechanism that prevents an editor from editing. A ban is a community sanction that bars an editor from editing all or part of the encyclopedia. See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF.

Last week, you were blocked. The only page you could edit was this Talk page. Now you are "topic banned", which means there are no technical limitations on your ability to edit, but you are not permitted to edit articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Just because you are technically able to open an edit box on Palestinian people does not mean it would be a good idea to edit the article; on the contrary, it would probably be a violation of your topic ban. Violations of your topic ban may lead to your being blocked again. I hope this makes a little bit of sense. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So I should just wait until my topic ban ends and then I'll be able to edit these articles again?-- Someone35 (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Until your appeal is successful or your topic ban ends. In the meantime, find other subjects in Wikipedia that interest you and edit articles about them. Try to maintain friendly relations with as many editors as you can—much easier said than done, but it's important to try. It's important to show other administrators (beside me) that you're trying to be a constructive member of the community, and that you're helping to build an encyclopedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ok-- Someone35 (talk) 06:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Idiots

You cannot refer to living people as "idiots" anywhere on Wikipedia. This includes talk pages. Hurting a person, putting Wikimedia in legal jeopardy, and other issues apply. See WP:BLP and WP:BLPTALK. Furthermore, trying to chit chat with people you are in conflict with will result in trouble instead of something insightful.Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to be nice by talking to him about something that interests both of us, I'll remove it now-- Someone35 (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a small note on editing etiquette here. In this case it was ok for you to remove that discussion thread, and probably a good idea. However, what the guidelines say is that you shouldn't delete others' comments on talk pages (except for your own talk page). So, four different scenarios;

1. If you start a new discussion on someone's talk page and they (or someone else) reply, then if you later decide the whole discussion was a bad idea, you shouldn't delete it; instead just say something like "Sorry, this was a bad idea, never mind", or "Sorry, this isn't really what I intended, could we close it?"
2. If you post on someone's talk page (or a discussion page elsewhere) and you change your mind about it before anyone replies to you then you can revert yourself by removing your post (maybe with an edit summary of "I changed my mind").
3. On your own talk page you can remove any discussion thread you like, whenever you like. (Although it's encouraged to just use archiving instead.) But of course you shouldn't remove individual comments from the discussion (because that might change the meaning of other people's comments), and you shouldn't alter the comments themselves.
4. If you decide you want to remove one of your own comments, or part of one of your own comments, you can use strikethrough like this. This is also useful if you want to change your comment and put something different there - it makes it clearer that you changed your mind. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

k, I'll do it next time-- Someone35 (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Urginea maritima

I saw your post at the Village pump and wanted to let you know that the location of Urginea maritima is covered under Drimia maritima. That might be a good place to put that image. --Kumioko (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!!-- Someone35 (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured pictures on Wikipedia

Hi — I saw your question about featured pictures at the Village Pump, and your posts at Wikipedia:Picture peer review. I was a concerned about the some of the quality issues in the images you were asking about, and admit that I was more than a little surprised (in a good way!) by some of the images that adorn your user page.

I think the issue here is that the featured picture criteria (FPC) are intended to be extraordinarily strict. Images which aren't visually arresting, and of the highest technical quality, and have strong educational value won't make the cut, even if they are quite good for two of the three, and even if they may be our best illustrations for any particular article. Perhaps unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't (yet) have a category for Good pictures, to parallel the system which has evolved for evaluating articles: good articles verus featured articles. This means that the featured article process tends to be particularly brutal, and I hope that you don't get discouraged by it (if this is your first exposure to it).

Since picture peer review is focused on getting images up to 'featured' standard, I suspect that the reviews you get for images that don't meet the FPC are apt to be rather brief and blunt. As you acknowledged at the Village Pump, all three images have issues that pretty clearly disqualify them. Until Wikipedia evolves a venue designed for more general discussion and evaluation of pictures that are just good and/or interesting – rather than potentially-Featured – I'm actually not sure if there is a good place for broader discussion of such images. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

But I saw there are pictures that are featured (a full star) and another kind of images which is less better (star with 1 part missing), but I don't know its name... I though that my pictures can get the second one because they all have flaws-- Someone35 (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the second type of image you're thinking of may be former featured pictures; they generally carry a template with the image shown at left. The FPC have changed over the years as the project's mission has evolved, and because both the quality of images available to Wikipedia and the technology used to display those images has improved. As a result, an image that met the FPC in (say) 2004 may no longer stand up under the current criteria. (Near the bottom of the featured picture candidates page is a section for nominations to de-list featured pictures.) The little incomplete-star icon you've seen just denotes former featured pics; it isn't awarded on its own. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

ok-- Someone35 (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Result of appeal

The result of your appeal against sanctions imposed under ARBPIA are available [3] here. Text is as follows:-

In this particular case, involving a newer and younger editor, I believe the voices arguing for a second chance have the field, particularly as Someone35 has now acknowledged the problem. I am accordingly reducing the topic ban to a three month fixed period, and restricting it to the Israel-Palestine conflict, anywhere on the project. To clarify a point raised above, the young person may submit photographs of any location, provided they do not get into arguments about the history or politics of the subject.

Someone35 - you have been given a second chance. I recommend that you accept the mentorship offered to you by Malik Shabazz and Demiurge1000 (pick one or both), avoid the restricted area scrupulously, and remain WP:CIVIL. If you do not, the consequences are likely to be far more severe than the restriction appealed.

--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. But does the three months period include the time that have passed since the beginning of the topic ban of only from now? And can I only upload these pictures or also add them to related articles?-- Someone35 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair points. The three months runs from whenever it was originally imposed by T Canens. As to uploading photos - if you are releasing them under CC-BY-SA, you should be uploading them to Commons really, but whichever, if you think they would go in an article about the conflict, or the image might be contentious itself, then talk to your mentors, don't add them yourself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine, so I will ask my mentor before I will upload controversial pictures (I don't really visit the west bank or the Golan heights a lot so I guess I won't upload such photos in the next 3 months)-- Someone35 (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring

Since Malik offered to mentor as a last resort, I will take over mentoring you as agreed. I'll be emailing you as I get time over the next few days, with some thoughts on where things went wrong and how to handle things differently in the future. (I'll be using email rather than on-wiki discussion for some topics simply because some items that I think you're misunderstanding, touch upon areas that are covered by your topic ban, and therefore can't be discussed by you on-wiki. Also it gives you more opportunity to say how you actually feel about things without being perceived as overly abrupt, which I think is a risk sometimes.)

As I mentioned in a previous email, I will also be putting together some exercises we can work through to give you more broad understanding of key aspects of policy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

k-- Someone35 (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Distracting

Your sig, plastered all over a page, is really really distracting. It's like when you do a search for a word on the page and all the results are highlighted. Not to mention, it's pretty much unreadable. Just sayin... JBarta (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I can change the font's color to white and remove the outline if you want...-- Someone35 (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That kinda misses the point. The really distracting part is the green background. (As you can see, it's basically the same) Actually, any background color other than white would be distracting. Reminds me of the old <BLINK> html tag. If you make it, someone will use it. I understand that you can color your sig if you wish. I suppose if they made it so the page beeps every time your cursor passed over it, some people would use that as well. Anyhow, just spouting off my opinion. Don't change it for me, change it for you and change it because you have seen the light and discovered that kewl sigs went out of fashion for everyone over the age of 15 somewhere around 1997. JBarta (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

But I'll barely have any options for making my own signature if it'll be without a background-- Someone35 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've said what I have to say... the rest is up to you... JBarta (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this good enough for you? -- Someone35  12:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

edit: made it smaller-- Someone35  12:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I just read your userpage and see you were born in 1997. Funny coincidence. That makes you 14. (and makes me feel just a little old) So look at it this way.. you have 1 more year of the kewl sig being fashionable... then you have to change to a grown up sig. Just kidding... carry on... use whatever sig floats your boat and pay me no mind. By the way, you write very well. (and yes, I think your latest sig above looks great) JBarta (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.-- Someone35  12:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Violation of your topic ban

I added a strike on my comments regarding Jerusalem because I was told that I'm not allowed to refer to it, so please ignore this section for now-- Someone35  13:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC) You are in violation of your topic ban here. I suggest you self-revert. -asad (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My edit had nothing to do with the Israeli Palestinian conflict, I put Jerusalem's location marker in Israel's map (as it is currently fully controlled by Israel and is its capital, at least most of it is) because a location marker inside Jerusalem's map doesn't really help people realize where Jerusalem is located...-- Someone35  13:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Then you wouldn't mind if I put the West Bank as the map, would you? -asad (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Who in the WB controls it? I agree with Someone35. The map should show who controls it. No violation! Chesdovi (talk)

Well if you agree with Someone35 then you can reinstate his edit after he's changed it back :P I'm assuming you're not under a topic ban. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I might do that myself if it would help, but for now I think Someone35 should change it back. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem (at least the neighborhoods built before 1948 when Jerusalem was united under international law) is mostly located in Israeli land (Source: New University Atlas, M. Brawer, 2009) and since you can put either the west bank's map or Israel's map, Israel's map would be more accurate-- Someone35  13:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The question of what land is or isn't located in Israeli, sourced or otherwise, is covered by your topic ban, so you are not going to discuss it here, and you are not going to discuss it anywhere else on Wikipedia, and you are going to change the article back (struck since Someone35 had changed the article back long before I wrote this). OK? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

see the below section-- Someone35  13:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Please read your email... please change that edit back for now, and I will explain the details of it all later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to be creating problems considering half the people participating in the thread are topic-banned, but Chesdovi's POV that the map should reflect who controls the area would run counter to someone's POV that it should reflect the legality under international law. This is a perfect illustration of why there in conflict with this subject and why changing the map to "Israel" would fall under a "broadly construed" topic ban. -asad (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Broadly construed

"Broadly construed" means it's a really good idea not to start wondering whether something is within a topic ban or discussing whether it is with a topic ban, and just assuming that whatever conclusion you come to is correct. It's a good idea to just assume that if it might be covered by a topic ban, don't edit it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a good faith edit, I wasn't trying to break my topic ban or something, I was trying to make it more clear where Jerusalem is inside Israel-- Someone35  13:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the discussion is still going on, he already re-reverted. -asad (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's still going on partly because that page is loading very slowly for me, and partly because I'm supposedly trying to make clear what sort of discussions (and edits) to avoid. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

I've set up talkpage archiving for this page, although I never seem to get it right the first time. Give it a day or so and hopefully the bot will start archiving. I've set it to archive sections that haven't had replies for 20 days or more, but you can change this by editing the 20d to whatever value you need. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

k, thank you very much-- Someone35  14:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A mini-barnstar

		Mentoring Course Barnstar
		Congratulations on completing The Five Pillars, the first lesson in the mentoring course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There are eight more lessons, with a mini-barnstar for each, so once you have all nine mini-barnstars they go together to make one large barnstar. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC) k, thanks-- Someone35  06:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

barnstar for completion of second part of course

		Mentoring Course Barnstar
		For completing the Wikiquette part of the course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I should've awarded you this one weeks ago! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

third part of course completed

		Mentoring Course Barnstar
		Congratulations on completing the Copyright part of the course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

and the fourth :)

		Mentoring Course Barnstar
		Congratulations on completing the Dispute resolution part of the course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop being disruptive

Do you remember "stay in the top three sections of this pyramid"?

I removed your comment here. You need to stop being disruptive. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

... I'm obviously not paying enough attention to my watchlist.

What on earth are you doing? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There's more where that came from [4], [5], [6] and this exchange. Clearly he is going to get his topic ban reimposed if he can't stop. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is old. Here I was kindly asking him a question. This one is right, he only makes political editing and WP:POV pushing edits.-- Someone35  11:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There's at least two instances of you "kindly" asking Nableezy a question, which don't look constructive or relevant to me. And one of them was downright rude.

If you insist on getting involved in these type of discussions (and I really wonder why you think it's worth it, did you see the amount of text the Jerusalem map discussion generated without achieving anything at all?), then you must learn to focus entirely on the content under discussion - not on the person you happen to be disagreeing with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

 Warning. If you make a comment like you just did above (inferring some people are getting paid for the Jerusalem discussion), I will take you to WP:A/E, and I can say with a fair degree of certainty you will have some sort of block/ban imposed upon you for a very lengthy period of time. You have been warned way too much, so you no longer have any excuses. Also, in lew of the very real possibility you may be taken to A/E, I would consider removing this. -asad (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

k, removed it. Although I didn't mention anyone...-- Someone35  15:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

AE

You have been reported to AE. You can see this here. nableezy - 15:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

ARBPIA Topic Ban

This is to inform you that you are banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces for one year, expiry 10 Dec 2012 per this AE report.

I encourage you to continue working with your mentor in other topics, unfortunately this one is too volatile for you right now. I hope you will take this constructively and work to become a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. Take care. --WGFinley (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

revert yourself

You don't undestand that is now forbiden to comment in wp:ae about wp:ARBPIA issuees and nableezy complain is such issue.Revert yourself or you will be blocked.Please hear my advice and grow up!.--Shrike (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I already reverted myself and what do you mean I have no right to comment there?-- Someone35  17:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You are topic banned from P-I, that means you can't comment on WP:AE concerning P-I matters. --WGFinley (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Last time I got topic banned I did comment on these matters. Also, I'm banned from PI articles, not talk pages (as far as I know)-- Someone35  17:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The ban is clearly outlined in the section above. You are not to participate on WP:AE on reports concerning WP:ARBPIA. --WGFinley (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to re-emphasise "from all articles, discussions, and other content" (my emphasis). So the ban is from articles, and from discussions (which means talk pages, and all of them not just user talk pages), and from other content (project pages, templates, images, anything else you can think of).

Technically, I think Commons is not included in the topic ban, since English Wikipedia is a separate project from Commons. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops

What is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ch1902 ? You opened an SPI based on something that happened at AE in the topic area you are topic banned from. You linked to things that you are not allowed to be involved with. You should get someone else to do it. If you suspect someone of sockpuppetry in the topic area contact an admin, your mentor, someone else. You can't do it yourself. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

But why? I haven't edited any page related to the I-P conflict, I only linked to it, that user has never even edited anything that has to do with the I-P conflict... Also I'm only topic banned, why does that mean that I can't report sockpuppets?-- Someone35  16:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You are allowed to file SPI reports. But in this case you are reporting someone because of something that happened in the topic area. The ongong AE report is in the topic area. I happen to think that people who are topic banned should be able to file SPI reports related to the topic area because Wikipedia needs as many people as possible looking at potential sockpuppetry and a sockpuppet is a sockpuppet no matter what topic area they happen to be in. But based on similar situations that have come up before, that is not how it works. Someone else needs to file the report. I suggest you contact an admin and ask them to clarify the issue for you. You could ask for explicit permission to file SPI reports even if the suspected sockpuppet is active in the topic area. If that isn't allowed you should at least be provided with some means to trigger investigations if you have evidence of sockpuppetry. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please copy paste what I wrote into another complaint and say that I asked to check that user's IP and see what user made him?-- Someone35  16:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:CheckUser. It will only be run when there is good reason to suspect sockpuppetry or hard evidence that indicates sockpuppetry such as technical or behavioral evidence of a connection between accounts. Admins with checkuser permissions won't run it just because someone asks. I wish they would but they usually decline the requests as 'fishing'. A good admin to contact about this is User:AGK because they have been active in the topic area in their admin role, they are familiar with the sanctions/AE/topic bans etc and they are one of the few people with checkuser privileges. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

k, I'll ask him about that-- Someone35  17:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That's relevant for you too.[7]--Shrike (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)