User talk:Kipa Aduma, Esq.

Welcome!

Hello, Kipa Aduma, Esq., and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Shrike (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on multiple accounts

Hi, Kipa, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we're all greatly pleased when genuinely new users show up to contribute, your initial behaviour gives the impression that you might already be familiar with contributing to the encyclopaedia. For that reason, and because you've elected to participate in an extremely contentious topic area that sees a great many violations every day of our policy that prohibits multiple accounts, would you please let the community here know whether you've edited Wikipedia previously, and what accounts you may have used to do so? And if you haven't edited here previously, perhaps you'd be willing to explain how you seem to be more familiar than new users typically are with editing procedures? I'd recommend that you not provide any personally identifying information in your reply, by the way, although that's up to you.

I'd like to stress that the last thing any of us want is to discourage any genuinely new user, so please don't take these questions as off-putting or in any way personally. I'm sure you can understand that the interest I have in asking you to address these questions is only that I want to ensure that the policies designed to protect the neutrality and integrity of the encyclopaedia are upheld. I hope you'll also understand that if you are, in fact, a genuinely new user whose interest is to help improve the encyclopaedia, we'll all be delighted to have you here. Many thanks, --OhioStandard (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've already determined that I'm an "obvious" sock, so what's the point of this smarmy welcome note? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk • contribs) 04:16, 15 June 2012 UTC

Well, one does like to practice one's smarminess from time to time, you know, just to stay in form.

Look, I don't want to prevent you from editing, I just want to prevent you from using multiple accounts. That's like counterfeiting, or stuffing a ballot box, as I see it, one of the most emphatic and fundamental breaches of faith with a community that one can undertake, in that it subverts the basis of all cooperative endeavour. What about coming in from the cold, disclosing your alternate accounts, and promising to stick with just this one?

It's a pretty cool name, after all, one of the better ones I've seen from you. I can't speak for everyone else here, as you no doubt know, but I'm pretty sure the "regulars" in the topic area would be all right with what I'm proposing. We'd have to run a checkuser to see if you'd been candid in disclosing other accounts, but I'd be fine with leaving this one intact if it turns out you've truthfully disclosed the others, and if you'd agree to periodic informal runs of the checkuser tools, from time to time subsequently. I'll even give you an appropriate anthem to listen to, while you consider. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afterword: The preceding "You've already determined that I'm an 'obvious' sock" comment by "Kipa" refers to my post of 23:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC) in this ANI thread, where I mentioned this account in passing, saying, "there were a lot of IPs and obvious socks (e.g. Kipa Aduma, Esq.) at an article that's normally pretty quiet", as the fourth post there. This account was not informed of that ANI thread. --OhioStandard (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by recent edits on the King David Hotel bombing article, I'd take a guess that Curls100 is one of the alternative accounts. ← ZScarpia 15:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

See [1]. Sepsis II (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

You have broken WP:1RR on Basic Laws of Israel, if you do not self-revert, I will report you, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how do you figure>? Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

03:43, 1 July 2014 1st edit

08:57, 1 July 2014 2nd edit. Pr this, two reverts, even on separate material, counts. As you should know. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is a revert by AmirSurfLera, not me. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, sorry, I mixed you two up. My bad. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of European Network of Implementing Development Agencies

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on European Network of Implementing Development Agencies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.eunida.eu/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. John from Idegon (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

European Network of Implementing Development Agencies - notability

I have declined the speedy, as I accept that your rewording is enough to avoid a copyright violation. However, the article has no references, and it is far from clear to me that this (no doubt worthy) organization meets Wikipedia's inclusion criterion of WP:Notability, which requires references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people not connected with the subject, i.e. outside the EU bureaucracy, thought EUNIDA significant enough to write substantial comment about? See also WP:Notability (summary). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces. You may appeal this after six months.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]