Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:00, 9 February 2010

Didn't

Didn't you say you was gonna leave[REDACTED] and never come back? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on State of Palestine. 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 17:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

DrorK, this was your fifth revert in 24 hours. However, if you undo it (self-revert), I will not file a WP:3RR report, despite your having violated 3RR anyway. Tiamut 14:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

State of Palestine

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. harlan (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. harlan (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, please don't use template warnings like weapons against users who aren't WP:SPA as you seem to be. It could be considered harassment and you may be blocked. Thank you. Kordas (sínome!) 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He has been asked by several editors to cite published sources for any analysis and to stop using the talk page as a general forum to discuss his speculative theories and opinions. Here are just a few examples He has put a number of NPOV tags on the article, but has not cited any published sources that represent the viewpoints he wants to add to the article, despite rather lengthy discussions. There is nothing wrong with the use of these templates under those circumstances. harlan (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Harlan, the history of the article indicates that you changed it to a controversial phrasing ignoring the consensus reached, and you are currently preventing any change by edit wars. I demonstrated how you misuse sources and brought very good evidence for that. The people who are damaged are Misplaced Pages users who don't get a genuine picture of the situation in the ME. DrorK (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:TEDIOUS State of Palestine

You have made a number of tendentious edits to the State of Palestine article. Removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced editorial opinions is not acceptable behavior.

Other states and international organizations have recognized the Palestinian Authority as the government of the State of Palestine. The Forward article said that the Palestinian Authority has been working to expand the number of countries that recognize Palestine as a country and that "Costa Rica, a small Central American country, decided to open official ties with a “state of Palestine” through a document signed February 5 by Costa Rica’s ambassador to the United Nations and Riyad Mansour, the P.A.’s U.N. mission chief." That fact has been discussed on the article talk page. harlan (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the sources you provide that suggest the the PA and the SoP are equivalent. This is merely a personal interpretation of your. DrorK (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• The article cites An Al-Haq Position Paper on "Issues Arising from the Palestinian Authority’s Submission of a Declaration to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute" that addresses "The Jurisdictional Capacity of the PA" and the capacity of the PA to enter into international agreements. The paper says the reality is that the PA has entered into various agreements with international organizations and states. It has been noted by Israeli officials that: (1) the PLO representative in Egypt is designated as a PA official; (2) that a PLO representative signed a protocol on security cooperation with Russia in the name of the PA, and (3) the PA joined the International Airport Council as the PA. These instances of foreign relations undertaken by the PA also signify that the Interim Agreement is part of a larger on-going peace process, and that the restrictions on the foreign policy operations of the PA conflict with the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, now a norm with a nature of jus cogens, which includes a right to engage in international relations with other peoples.

• The article and the talk page both cite The Today's Zaman article which said the Palestinian Justice Minister and Palestinian Foreign Minister announced that "the Palestinian Authority submitted documents recognizing the ICC's authority."; "that they had submitted documents to Moreno-Ocampo that proved Palestine was a legal state"; that "Malki said they had provided proof that Palestine was recognized as a state by 67 countries and had bilateral agreements with states in Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe."; that the two ministers said "We represent the Palestinian occupied territories. We are not going to ask permission from one faction or another";

I'll move this discussion to WP:AE if you persist in making tendentious edits and inserting unsourced editorials in the State of Palestine article. harlan (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

3rr

No consensus was established and you are certainly not an impartial person to make that judgment. You have already reverted 3 times, if you continue you may be blocked. nableezy - 21:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not a threat, and I "admitted" no such thing. How in the world can you claim that there is a consensus for merging the two articles? You have a discussion with 4 users, one of whom only said "support per Drork", and 2 users disagreeing with you. And yet you claim there is a consensus. If you continue blindly reverting based only on your personal viewpoints you may be blocked from editing. That is not a threat, just the way of the world. nableezy - 07:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been reported to the edit-warring noticeboard, you can see this here. nableezy - 08:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

While I declined to block you, you were involved in edit-warring. Don't engage in that type of behavior in the future, or you will be blocked. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 17:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I responded at WP:ANEW. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 17:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:TEDIOUS and Unsourced Editorials, State of Palestine (Again)

You deleted sourced content again without any explanation or discussion. The material included content on the foreign relations of the PA, Ban Ki Moon's statements regarding the non-existence of the State of Palestine, Gershom Gorenberg's comments about the legal arguments used by the Israeli government to remove settlements from the OPT, and Paul De Waart's comment that it is no longer a matter of creating the State of Palestine, but of recognizing it.

In addition you restored some WP:Synth editorials that had been removed to the talk page for discussion.. The fact that the United Nations does not recognize states had already been discussed on the talk page. It has never invoked the Member States duty of non-recognition in connection with Palestine as you suggested on the talk page. It has done that in connection with the illegal territorial situations and demographic changes created by Israel in the OPT. The question as to whether or not the Palestine Mandate was a state as defined by international law is a settled matter Res judicata. The decisions of the PCIJ, the LoN Arbital Court, and the Courts of Appeals in Great Britain and Palestine were all in agreement, were final, and legally binding. Even if opposing views exist, they have to be cited, and they do not warrant removal of the other legally-binding viewpoint. Constantly harassing other editors simply because they cite published sources that describe Palestine as a country or a state and removing sourced material is disruptive. harlan (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You are edit-warring at State of Palestine again Drork. You have already made 3 reverts in 24 hours. The next one will get you reported for breaking 3RR. Last time you made 5 reverts, I didn't report you in the hope you would come to learn that this is not the way to get changes effected at Misplaced Pages. However, it seems nothing short of a block will make that clear to you. Tiamut 22:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

SoP

You have been reported to the edit-warring noticeboard, you can see this here. nableezy - 14:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, there are some basic rules here, one of them is the WP:3RR, I advise you, however "right" you think you are in forcing a particular edit, to observe these rules for the good of the project. Thanks, RomaC (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:TEDIOUS (Still)

Drork, you have once again added an unsourced editorial to the State of Palestine article which says the UN did not extend so-called "diplomatic recognition" to the State of Palestine. and That material was removed for discussion because the Secretary General and UN Legal Advisor have stated that the UN does not confer statehood or extend diplomatic recognition to states, and that the Charter would have to be amended in order for the UN to do that. Your response was that you don't have to provide a published source which actually makes that statement, and that you don't need to discuss the matter. After your edit was reverted, you subsequently suggested that a statement in the lede of another Misplaced Pages article regarding the Stimson Doctrine and article 2(4) of the UN Charter might be applicable, but provided no published source which made any such statement about Palestine. All of this behavior violates the basic policy regarding Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and WP:SYNTHESIS. Despite the fact that you have drawn a conclusion, and DO NOT cite a reliable source that has made the same argument, you suggested to Nableezy "This can go on forever, all your questions had been answered on the talk page. Read it before reverting."

At the same time you have once again removed the sourced material about the foreign relations of the PA, Ban Ki Moon's statements regarding the non-existence of the State of Palestine, Gershom Gorenberg's comments about the legal arguments used by the Israeli government to remove settlements from the OPT, and Paul De Waart's comment that it is no longer a matter of creating the State of Palestine, but of recognizing it. Putting a POV tag on the article, while preventing other editors from adding a range of views including non-existence is troll-like behavior. The only related discussion that I can find is a comment which says "The PA cannot be said to be equivalent to SoP. This claim of yours doesn't hold water. The foreign relations of the PA are not relevant to this article." The article cited a published Al-Haq policy paper on the Palestinian Authority's declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC. Al Haq, not me, argues that Palestine can be considered a State for the purposes of the Rome statute article 12(3) because, among other things, the PA has demonstrated the capacity to engage in foreign relations. The policy is "There is no rule on Misplaced Pages that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Misplaced Pages:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information."

You have posted complaints at the Original Research Noticeboard , but you were told my edits are well sourced. You posted a complaint at the Editor Assistance Noticeboard , but I have not created a synthesis of published material that advances a position. I am citing and quoting the published analysis of John Quigley, Marjorie Whiteman, and the General Editors of the FRUS. That analysis is supported by other sources that are cited in the article including Kuttner, Weiler, Massad, the Permanent International Court of Justice, the Palestine Post, the Encyclopedia of the United Nations, and etc. Notwithstanding all of that, you say "My problem is not adding information to this article. My problem is the fact that this article includes false information based on misuse of sources. For some reason (political motivations?) you refuse to edit this article or let others edit it in order to remove the false information.

You have been asked to drop the "no edit orders", personal attacks, WP:OR rationalizations, misguided demands that other editors take your content disputes to ARBCOM, and have always been told to feel free to add sourced content that represents any significant published views:

Once again, I see you have decided to use the article talk page to discuss some of the other editors and myself, instead of the article content. I was going to leave a note for Tiamat, and noticed on her talk page that you named me in a complaint at the Administrators Noticeboard without bothering to inform me of the fact on my user page. harlan (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR policy

On RomaC's Talk page you wrote:

The 3R rule does not apply when there is a clear attempt to "hijack" an article. Any Wikipedian is entitled to defend an article from an orchestrated attempt to make an article "a private mention", especially when there are significant suspicions that the motivations are purely political, and do not result from a genuine controversy about the content. I pointed out to many errors and biases on the articles, and proved them in details. The discussion went on for a long time, and these group of three did everything possible to avoid reaching consensus or acknowledge their errors. This group has also violated a consensus decision to have only one article entitled Proposals for a Palestinian state, and re-initiated the article making it a political pamphlet. Nableezy was only recently blocked for messing up issues related to Middle Eastern issues. I really don't see why these three receive so much sympathy with regard to this case. We are not talking formalities here, this is a serious thing that goes to the very credibility of WP. DrorK (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you point out where the 3RR policy has that exception? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you implying that I need to hire a lawyer? Do I need to go over court rulings and find precedence? Are you going to appoint jurors? Am I supposed to find two or three friends that will help me bypass the 3R rule like those G-3 do? Have you ever read this page WP:NOTSTATUTE? DrorK (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand that 3RR is a bright-line rule? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 18:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)