Hello, Plot Spoiler! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

It's for everyone! :)--Pharos (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShamWow! In order to move an article, you need to click the Move link at the top of the page and make sure that the box "also move talk page" is checked. However, there's no need to do that now, because 2000 Ramallah lynching is a proper title for this article.

About the assessment: You have done very good work! I am assessing it as C-class for now on the basis of comprehensiveness—there is a whole lot of information about aftermath and reactions, but very little about the actual incident, how it happenned, possible accounts, etc. There is also no information on Israeli investigations into the incident. More text in the reactions section would also be great.

After these issues are addressed, the article will easily be B-class, and you could nominate it for GA as well. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! There is no simple way to merge the talk pages; technically I could merge their histories, but AFAIK this is not done for talk pages without a very good reason. Because there are no recent discussions on the Talk:Lynching in Ramallah page, it can just be redirected to the other one, with an explanatory note at the top of the current talk page (see this section, clause 8). Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShamWow! The article you mentioned does not fall under the scope of WikiProject Israel. I have also been a strong support from removing the article Yasser Arafat from the project, but there are not enough regular editors to debate this with. I hope it can be done someday. We should be focusing more on articles that don't deal with I–P. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a known problem that WP Palestine tags are everywhere. We've had discussions about it, but ultimately it's their choice which articles they tag. I always thought that WP Palestine was very political with difficult to understand goals, but so far they have produced at least as many 'native' GAs and FAs as we have, so despite their disruptive tagging they clearly take their project seriously, so I'm not sure we should get into this dispute again and instead focus on actual Israel-related articles. There is absolutely no reason for us to increase the scope of our WikiProject, as we currently have over 3,000 stubs (some of which are top- and high-importance), and hundreds of very bad articles that need work. I only wish the 64 WP Israel participants focused on these tasks more and on I–P disputes and the "Pro-Israel Lobby in the United States" less. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! The Qassam article is start-class. I personally would not like to make it part of our WikiProject, but I am sure there are many users who feel differently. If you strongly believe that it should be, please feel free to add the template and a start-class rating. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you take a look at this terrorism-related AFD. [1] Thank you.Historicist (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already created Raleigh jihad group, although I am certainly willing to reconsider the name. I have not done as much editing lately as I might, but I certainly agree with you that that articles on this topic need work.Historicist (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, it is a good idea to check this page : [2] from time to time. Editors who work to expunge articles on terrorism from Wikipedia certainly do.Historicist (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In other terrorism plots, a page exists for the plot, in addition to separate pages for the more notable individuals involved. Certainly the page on the jihad group needs to be expanded.Historicist (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re [3] and [4].

wp:v: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. [...] Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. [...] The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

wp:blp: "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability [...] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. [...] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-08-19t18:05z

I usually don't edit these kinds of articles specifically, but I still think it's a start. There should probably be some inclusion of the Hamas reaction (what the politicians said), the reaction from Jund Ansar Allah at the result of the Hamas operation, and if possible the position of the PA in the West Bank. If this is added, I wouldn't oppose upgrading the article to C-class since it's a relatively new group only known for two things: failed attack on Israel and failed declaration of an Islamic emirate. Nice job writing the article Sham, Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Sheikh Taissir Tamimi with concerns related to the lead. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Criticism of Human Rights Watch. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. nableezy - 04:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something ought to be done about nableezy's aggressive intimidation tactics and false accusations. Ought he to be reported regularly to administrators?Historicist (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telling somebody they are edit warring after 3 quick reverts is not a false accusation. nableezy - 19:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also ShamWow, this message appears to be entirely inconsistent with what we are meant to be doing here. Do you understand that this is not a battleground or does someone need to explain that to you so that you desist from encouraging users to fight ? Sean.hoyland - talk 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note about the Aciman prod. Please see my reply at Talk:André Aciman#Proposed deletion. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-15t11:09z

Your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Aciman please. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-16t22:29z

on International al-Quds Day. Please stop. nableezy - 02:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DTTR, further silliness will be reverted sight unseen. nableezy - 03:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 2009 U.S. Al Qaeda group and Najibullah Zazi - but I haven't much time to work on them just now.Historicist (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[5]--WIMYV? (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a proposal at Talk:International al-Quds Day#Suggestion for an editing restriction on the article; if you have a moment, your input would be appreciated. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm requesting input the most active editors in this article, yourself included, regarding an edit dispute. I added the infobox template:Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel (which I recently created) to relevant articles, including this one. User:RomaC has removed the infobox, arguing that the image on it is emotive. Your input would be welcome and could prevent the situation from deteriorating into an edit war. Thanks, and good day, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Plot Spoiler. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You should not remove properly referenced valid material on a stylistic pretext. I hope you are not pushing a POV.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your goal is to convince the reader that Israel Bartal is an idiot or what? He makes a real critic to Sand, why do you want quote only the most annoying bons mots!?. All in all, since this is about Sand on not about Koestler or his book, I suppress the whole. I'd wish to move it to Schlomo Sand, but it is already done : the Bartal's critics has been clearly exposed by some other user, which do not red onl annoying excerpts... Levochik (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because your username is that of a product or company, and therefore violates the username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. . ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this username issue a serious concern? I like my username and there is no attempt to speak on behalf of the ShamWow product. I hope this can be dealt with in another manner.ShamWow (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a problem. The username policy specifically prohibits usernames such as this regardless of whether or not you are attempting to speak on behalf of the company or product line. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Username blocked

This account, Plot Spoiler, has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because your username does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change. To request a username change:

1. Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to edit this talk page even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a list of names that have already been taken. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z12

I have nominated Zumba, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zumba. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you may want to tone it down a bit. The use of phrases like "idiot editors" could be interpreted by some as a personal attack and you should take care to assume good faith, even among editors you disagree with. Just take care to use a collegial tone at all times, even when people do things you do not agree with. --Jayron32 06:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming your note is aimed at ShamWow, not me. :-) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Allowing username change to [[::User:Plot Spoiler|Plot Spoiler]] (talk · contribs). Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. Request handled by: ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

No way does a consensus hammered through by cheats stand. The CIA report on the actual effect of partitioning Palestine is highly notable. 92.27.122.197 (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue reverting on United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine you will be reported to the edit warring noticeboard. Please do not continue edit warring. nableezy - 16:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should report that IP for his edit warring as well as uncivil edit summaries. Unfortunately, it's unsurprising that some people are so concerned with what you do and not the blatant incivility (and possible racism) by the person who's edits you're reverting, that they try to get you to stop editing the article while not even bothering with the other guy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rudolf Kastner. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing <Berkshires (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)>[reply]

Someone who has reverted an article 7 times in 24 hours really shouldn't be giving out 3RR warnings. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Intra-Palestinian violence, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. nableezy - 17:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC) 17:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stalking Nableezy!Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

uggh, Battle of Gaza is in my watchlist, you can't just recreate things that have gone through a deletion discussion. If you want it recreated you need to go to WP:DRV. nableezy - 17:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Plot Spoiler,

Thank you for your message regarding the above matter. When used in a general sense, the term "government" is written with a lower case "g" (e.g. "the first responsibility of any government is the security of its citizens"). However, when used to refer to a specific government, an upper case "g" is used (e.g. "the Government of Iran"). This is because it is referencing an official body/entity/title, and is analogous to the use of an upper case "p" when referring to "the President of the United States". If used in a general sense (e.g. "the U.N. General Assembly meeting was attended by presidents, and heads of government from across the world"), a lower case "p" would be used.

Thanks. CrimeCentral (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no need to apologize. I share your passion for pointless technicalities that few others would notice - it's one of the dubious wonders of the English language!. CrimeCentral (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I am not going to lose sleep over this, but what groups an ambassador does and does not meet does not belong here. He meets different groups on the daily basis, and often comments on this to the media. Regarding J Street, these remarks are already obsolete, as I've read more recently that Oren approved a meeting by one of his officials with J Street, saying they have moved towards mainstream... Singling out one particular group and one particular (non-)meeting does not make any sense.

Heccling of Israeli speakers on campuses occurs every week if not every day. Not even worth a back page of a paper (maybe local paper ok), let alone encyclopedia. Have you read WP:recentism?

It's not like I care either way but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a news archive. If we want to achieve some order, we should strive against chaos. It is depressing that while I make one constructive edit, 1000 edits are made that increase chaos and entropy. Cheeers from DownUnder. BorisG (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop revert-warring over the lede and join the discussion at Talk:Joseph Massad instead. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 3RR and Insertion of inappropriate POV material in lede of BLP Joseph Massad. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I really would appreciate your thoughts at Talk:Joseph Massad. Currently, there are two editors who are strongly against any mention of the Columbia controversy in the lede, and I'm the only editor arguing for its inclusion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Plot Spoiler, I have outlined some concerns to Talk:Washington Institute for Near East Policy (last section), including in regards to the lead. Note that George has added the same sentence to two parts of the article. This looks like WP:tendentious editing. --Shamir1 (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in commenting on this. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how what I did is vandalism. I added to Ariel Sharon's description that he is a war criminal and cited a source. If you feel my source isn't legitimate then I can pick from thousands of others that say the same thing. Just because you don't agree with the fact that this degenerate murderer of thousands isn't a war criminal does not make my edit vandalism. In fact majority of people in this world would most likely support my view point, which is not opinion, it is fact. If you want the validity of my edit and source called into question because you don't want the truth exposed fine, but don't attack me by calling what I did vandalism. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about suppressing the truth, but rather providing it to users. I feel you may be the one who needs to read the welcome page and not me. DaBiGg3TiTaLiaNo (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you encountered some problems with the editing pattern of vexorg on Martin Gilbert. I am not sure, if you are aware about this discussion. Please feel free to comment. Best wishes,--Mbz1 (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier I noticed you had removed some properly sourced information about Martin Gilbert. I restored it and then took the discussion to the [Talk Page]. I have just noticed you have since reverted again and have ignored my request to discuss this at the talk page. Frankly your rationale for reverting, "This doesn't define who he is -- say something about his works." , does not make any sense as the information you removed was a good part of defining this person. Please discuss this at the articles talk page. I will be restoring this information after a reasonable period of time in order to allow for further discussion. Vexorg (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Washington Institute for Near East Policy has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Washington Institute for Near East Policy and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Shamir1 (talk)

I believe you have broken the 3RR rule on this page, where you are edit-warring against 3 other users. Please rv your last edits, or you will risk being reported for 3RR violation. Thank you. Huldra (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The article seem to heavily use secondary sources, and my problem is not with that-but with that it make WP:SYN out of those. It seem like rewriting using more sources that overview it is the best solution, rather then deletions. However, if no one intending to rewrite this article -then I keep my vote on delete.--Gilisa (talk) 07:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking that to AE. You said it just RIGHT. Please make sure you add the diffs that shows that you notified the editors. I will be weighing in a bit later. Stellarkid (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict if the editor 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 including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision.

This warning relates to this exchange. If you continue to allege that others engage in "hate speech" or make similar serious accusations without at the same time providing very convincing diffs to substantiate these allegations, you may be made subject to significant sanctions.  Sandstein  20:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]