User talk:GHcool/Archive 8

Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

Regarding the explanation for your recent edit, I would be interested to know what makes you believe you should get your own way until discussion is settled. This source is a new addition to the encyclopedia which has been challenged by a number of editors. Normal practice would dictate that it stays out pending consensus. Dlv999 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And further, that article is subject to a 1RR, a rule that you violated on 2 February. I didnt report it because I generally think highly of you as an editor and wasnt looking to create drama, but repeated reverts can be reported. nableezy - 18:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize

You added the Globalize template to Jewish views on marriage. Why? Debresser (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond on the talk page. --GHcool (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry George

If Henry George ran on that ticket, which he did, I think it is worth mentioning in the text about Jeffersonian democracy. He may well not have been a very typical Jeffersonian Democrat, but the ticket had that name. The Horn Blower (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Just because he named himself after Jefferson doesn't mean it has anything necessarily to do with the concept of Jeffersonian democracy. --GHcool (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback deployment

Hey GHcool; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Can you please explain this removal? Do you consider the article in its current version is plenty of sources?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of this writing, there are 238 sources. I don't think the article lacks sources. --GHcool (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right from the start, the ″History″ section is plagued of unsourced paragraphs. I'm reinstating the {{morerefs}} tag. You do not own the article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just tag the history section instead of the whole article? --GHcool (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I chose not to tagbomb the article, but to place a single tag at the top of the page to notice everyone the article is in need of more sourcing. You removed the {{morerefs}} tag again, even when there are unsourced sentences/paragraphs all over the article. This unilateral action shows that you think you own the article, as I said above. Do reinstate the tag or I will seek dispute resolution to solve this issue.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 21:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either write {{cn}} next to the sentences you feel ought to be cited or tag the section. Don't tag the whole article. --GHcool (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to self-revert

This edit is a clear breach of the 1RR restriction on articles relating to the Arab-Israel conflict. I request that you revert yourself; if you do not do so, I will request that approproiate action uis taken under WP:ARBPIA. RolandR (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

I believe with your latest edit you are in violation of 1rr and I will file a report if you do not self revert. Aside from the 1rr violation I believe that your activity on the page violates WP:NOTADVOCATE. It is difficult to explain how you can justify filling the article with advocacy sources used for claims against third parties on the one hand, while on the other deleting reliably sourced information cited to a third party academic source on the other giving only your own opinion on the topic as justification for deletion. this edit pattern is not consistent with the policies and the purposes of the encyclopaedia. Dlv999 (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record the academic source supporting the content you deleted (~citing your own unsupported opinion) states: "The BDS is a global movement which works in peaceful ways to create political and economic pressure on Israel..." Dlv999 (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just quoted the source directly. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You also deleted an academic source and associated information without explanation. Again it is difficult to think of a good faith explanation for your edit pattern on this page: repeatedly deleting academic scholarship on the topic while at the same time adding lots of activist sources you are using inappropriately for claims against third parties. Also deleting the academic source that I just added is a revert. Undoing one revert while at the same time reverting separate material still means you are in violation of 1rr. Again if you do not self revert the unexplained deletion of the academic source I will be filling a report. Dlv999 (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I sincerely apologize. I meant to only edit the 1st paragraph, not the second. I don't know how it happened. I will revert immediately. --GHcool (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit to the page is in violation of 1rr. If you read the cited sources you will see that the text is supported by the sources. e.g.[1]: "Acts of protest and persuasion (such as boycotts and strikes), and direct intervention (including civil disobedience) characterize some of the most visible non-violent tactics in Palestine and elsewhere. This book focuses primarily on mobilization related to these direct actions, but also explores indirect actions, including civil society initiatives and everyday acts of resistance, which characterised broader sphere of non-violence in Palestine..." (My emphasis)

Your pattern of editing seems to indicate that you are not reading the sources that have been cited, but instead editing from your own personal opinion on the topic. WP:NPOV says that we represent sources not opinions of editors. Dlv999 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to inform you that Palestine only exists on some sort of theoretical level. One can speak of the Palestinian territories (as I indicated in the edit you reference) or of the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories (the Hamas definition). --GHcool (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1RR breach

In case you hadn't noted, this edit is in breach of the article's strict one revert policy, since you have made a previous revert today here. In fact, several of your recent edits to this article are borderline edit-warring. I request that you revert your latest edit. If you do not do so, I will submit a report to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. The two edits you mention are completely different. Please explain. --GHcool (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should file an AE case against this editor. I have never filled one in but I will if no-one else does and the editor does not self revert. Consistently ignoring basic principles of editing and the 1rr restrictions is not acceptable for an experienced editor in the IP topic area. Dlv999 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1RR rule, like the 3RR rule from which it is derived, explicitly bars more than one reversion every 24 hours in an article "whether involving the same or different material". I find it hard to believe that you have edited in this field for so long, and taken part in so many discussions, without realising this. Accordingly, given your refusal to revert your edit, I will submit an AE request right now. RolandR (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, given your refusal to revert this clearly sanction-breaching edit, I have reported you here RolandR (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the rule. I'll revert immediately. Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I/P topic ban

Per the result of this AE discussion you are banned for six months from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on all pages of Wikipedia. This is under the authority of the discreionary sanctions which are provided by WP:ARBPIA. Let me know if you have any questions. The ban can be appealed to me, to WP:AE or to the Arbitration committee. If you use AE then you should employ the {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I choose not to appeal, but I'd like to ask you, EdJohnston, if you read this explanation for your rationale behind the 6 month ban. Would you do me a favor and give it a read and if the explanation satisfies you, lighten the sentence to 3 months or fewer? Also, can you give me a date when I have the privilege of editing articles relating to Israeli-Palestinian conflict again? Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be able to edit I/P articles again in six months, which is 17:57 on 18 December, 2013. I don't have anything to add to my comments in the complaint. Per tradition, you can still edit articles about Israel, so long as you stay carefully away from anything related to the conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So long as I do not edit the actual articles, am I permitted to participate in discussions on talk pages pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? --GHcool (talk) 00:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The ban includes the topic of the I/P conflict on all talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GHcool. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 01:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello

Please email me. I need to ask you about a particular source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 07:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to ask right here. :) --GHcool (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]