User talk:MarciulionisHOF

Welcome!

Hello, MarciulionisHOF, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Shrike (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

MarciulionisHOF, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi MarciulionisHOF! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Kingsindian (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian:, Why are you posting this exactly? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

People who edit in this area are supposed to be notified about discretionary sanctions. If there are some future problems, this is a required step for their behaviour to be investigated. As the notice says though, this is purely informational, and does not imply any misconduct to date. Kingsindian (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you planning something I should be aware of? "...no idea where that comes from. Unless KI is planning on an AE request" MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC) add quote to existing link. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No, not planning any WP:AE right now, as I said already. But if I do, in the future, then this is a required step. Anyway, I got one when I started editing intensively as well. I also gave GGranddad one, though he seems to be a sock, indef blocked. Kingsindian (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Do the project a favor and don't post these as a means of silencing people you argue with. Fascist behavior is uncool. Be cool. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to strike the "fascist" remark also there is nothing wrong living such notices. Don't take it personal I have left such notices to many people too.Also I suggest to read the recent AE filling how people banned for their own comments [1]--Shrike (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, but to put people of opposing views in jail or to use scare tactics is common fascist behavior. Pointing it out when it happens (someone trying scare tactics when you are in argument over mainstream source-based opinions) is the right thing to do. Fascism, if left unchecked, is one of the worst gov. systems and hopefully, no one here will stand for it. That's the only way to maintain a progressive establishment. I do appreciate the link. It makes clear that some editors will defend anything as long as the person involved is from their political affiliation. Does that fall under fascist behavior as well? Yes it does. Now, I've wasted enough words on this and hopefully, no political fascist, obviously waiting to pounce, will pick me for pray after Kingsindian marked the target. Peace. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the question you wrote at the Teahouse, it seems that you are taking this too personally Marc. You are also using a personal attack toward @Kingsindian: and @Shrike:. There's a policy about making attacks like this. I suggest that before you go off saying that someone's a fascist, you should think about what your writing. You made a big problem for nothing. Also don't accuse editors of writing threats when there was clearly, never one made.Mirror Freak 16:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

To Marciu - I have already stated twice that the message was only meant to be informational. There was no implication of any threat or any plan to file an AE report in the future. I got one, when I started editing intensively, as Shrike already mentioned. I don't plan to do much about your WP:FORUM except ignoring you, as I have done till now. Others might not be that accomodative though. For what it's worth, I also cautioned GGranddad about being civil. There was no implied threat there either. But he seems to be a sock, so my kind deed was wasted. Kingsindian (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@MirrorFreak:, are you a native to the English language? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Um...Yeah. I also know Spanish. Why?Mirror Freak 19:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@MirrorFreak:, I haven't called anyone anything here (Have I? Where?), yet, you say I have. I'm sure you know that in fascism, the leading "party" does the best it can to silence its opposition. Can we agree that this is standard under fascism? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are fascist on Wikipedia. But look, the dude was just letting you know before hand. For example: A mother tells here son not to touch a stove-top that is on. She's telling the child beforehand not to touch the stove. Is this Fascism? No its not. Dude, are you native to English?Mirror Freak 19:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not personal and I have 'not called anyone to be a fascist (the sooner you correct that part, the cooler the beer I will hold for you). I did raise a legitimate concern and pointed out the origins of scare tactics against political adversaries. A few other editors have suggested there's nothing to worry about game play but that I should still tread lightly (an oxymoron?). All these words reminded me of a classic quote: 'Well, you laughed when I wrote it down'. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean about calling people a fascist. I see that you did not, it was my error. Can we drop this discussion? No one meant to be rude to you. Again I apologize for my error.Mirror Freak 12:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Posting an copy of Courtyard with Lunatics and linking it to another editor's comment ([2]), referring to the posting of a standard notification on your talk page as 'fascistic' ([3]) and over-reacting when someone warns you that they'll go to AE unless you revert yourself ([4]) probably aren't the wisest ways of conducting yourself if you want to carry on editing in the ARBPIA area.     ←   ZScarpia   14:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There does seem to be a pattern of lunacy in "ARBPIA". For example, how an editor thinks "Self-revert, wait 24 hours, and revert." is a good idea and someone else goes a long way to support this. Do you honestly find "Self-revert, wait 24 hours, and revert." to be a good concept? As for the other issue, you've misrepresented a long discussion about what makes for improper decorum.[5][6] Regards, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinions about lunacy in the ARBPIA area, but doing things like you did with the Courtyard with Lunatics picture on your user page won't do anything positive for the impression that the editors there have of you (they will probably assume that you're calling an editor a lunatic). Neither will the difficulty you appear to be having understanding the 1RR restriction applied in the area and the purpose of notifications.     ←   ZScarpia   17:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you find offense by my rejection of "Self-revert, wait 24 hours, and revert." Leave me with a positive impression. Tell me you are not an administrator. *crosses fingers* MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You're misinterpretting me. Refer to this list to find out who the admins are. I am not one. I have, though, been editing in the ARBPIA area for nigh on 9 years and have a reasonable idea of how things work there. By advising you to self-revert, Kingsindian was giving you the opportunity to avoid being reported to AE for breaching the 1RR restriction on an article. That is, he was giving you a get-out which he wasn't obliged to give you.     ←   ZScarpia   19:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

R.H. (There was no 1RR). Unashamed support of battleground conduct is, in my humble opinion, a bad influence on the project. Hopefully, no one who supports "Self-revert, wait 24 hours, and revert." ever earns an admin stick. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC) clarify MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

My error: Kingsindian's advice was aimed at Nishidani. But it was advice that friends of Nishidani will hope that he follows if he accidentally breaches the 1RR restriction over something he feels strongly about. What would you do in the same circumstances? Insist on being reported? Kingsindian gave that advice shortly after another editor was given a three month ban after deliberately breaching the 1RR restriction on a point of principle. Take a look at the recent AE case concerning SeattliteTungsten.     ←   ZScarpia   02:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@ZScarpia: One down. Good show. Now what about the telling a 1RR offender to "wait 24 hours, and revert" elephant? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

How to file at WP:3O

Hi MarciulionisHOF. For your future reference, if you make a request at WP:3O, the place to do it is in the Active disagreements section, not by overwriting the instructions as you did in this edit. I've fixed that one for you and no further action is needed. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I had to decline your filing because per the main instructions page at WP:3O, this process is only for two editors who have thoroughly discussed the issue and that has come to a standstill. The discussion page that you linked was a user's talk page which contained not much about the dispute and the main dispute seems to be at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, which clearly has more than two editors involved...thus not eligible for a 3O. If I made any mistake here, tell me it so that we could file your 3O report again and properly. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast:, it was "requesting guidance on citation removal by another editor." (note: the reference was definitely reliable and relevant). Talk page discussion is of low importance to the main act. Text, which is under contention, must have citation. Editors who remove said citation need good reason. Not flimsy excuses that without the citation the text would somehow become more stable. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What's the deal with cheese ?

I see that you like using cheese metaphors, especially blue cheese and cheddar. I found several meaning for them being used as expressions, none clearly applicable to the situations where you are using them. Can you explain please? WarKosign (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

To explain, would make it less interesting than to let others figure it out themselves. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You know, people tend to ignore comments that they cannot understand. Is it really what you want to happen ?WarKosign (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Diffs and quotes make a good point. What happens next depends on the lunatics in the courtyard. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User page

Your user page was mentioned at ANI. It appears there are several images on your user page with links, and some of those links may be seen as commentary on other users. Please review WP:POLEMIC and remove everything that refers to other users in a manner that suggests criticism. Wikipedia has enough problems as it is—things would be even worse if editors were able to keep clever denunciations of their opponents. There have been many cases where material like this has led to the deletion of a user page. Re the underlying issue: You might try engaging with other editors by thoughtfully responding to their comments, preferably by asking questions. Wikipedia has many highly intelligent and knowledgeable users and it is useful to learn as one contributes. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I went over POLEMIC and it appears I should make some major changes to my userpage. It is 5am and I might be busy tomorrow but I'll make some changes asap. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. There is no problem with a short delay in a matter like this. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

First five done. I'm taking exception with the case where I was caricaturized as a crying Jew. Will continue with the rest later on. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, Marciulionis. I still say the complaint you raised on ANI was nonsense, or rather the way you pursued it in the teeth of explanations was, but what's this about anti-semitic slurs? "Characterized as" sounds a little vague — do you mean somebody used the actual words "a crying jew", and referred to you? If I'd seen anything like that, I would certainly have slammed the person with a block, and I'd hope any admin would. I still will, if it was recent. Could you please give a diff and save me having to trawl through the links on your userpage? Bishonen | talk 09:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC).

To clarify, I have no issues with anything the user writes on his page. Though I am not the only user being talked about, so, whatever. It is a harmless enough activity. I simply ignore this user 90% of the time, and have told him so. My only problem was the article space reverts of my edits. But that has been solved now. Ending the drama would be beneficial to everyone. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Would you please be willing to strike through the part of your comment which violates WP:POLEMIC? Thanks. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what part of my statement violates WP:POLEMIC. This is your talk page, you can remove or strike out anything you wish. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'll leave you to it. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@Bishonen: I've added a few notes from the past month.

• "you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic"31 August 2014
• "The evidence for what I wrote is in the section heading you created."31 August 2014
  • Crying Jew typecast, often used in pro-Palestinian cartoons.
• Placed under an editing restriction indefinitely (May 2009) (rescinded 2 years later on good faith) -- he acts with impunity, getting the worst out of others:
• "Newspeak counts for nothing"..."Your proposal is to be automatically rejected"26 September 2014 (Tritomex)
• "You just about exhausted the hasbara printout sheet"11 September 2014 (WarKosign)
• "patently deceptive"27 September 2014 (Wlglunight93)
• "1,000,000 instances of shock in Gaza"28 September 2014 (To no one in particular)
• "Initial reports are often raw, i.e., they aren't 'spun'" ... "It's called rewriting history, just as editors here are often attempted to do."25 September 2014 (Myself)
• "unilateral Israelocentric POV"..."drafted inside some Israeli ministry.:)"30 August 2014 (Polemic commentary)

Clicking another complaint about him, I noticed one highly polemic statement outside September 2014 which is hard to ignore:

• "the massacre of Palestinians coincided with Israel's festival of light."..."some joyous ironist with a yen for allusions and crossword puzzles, who nudged the chiefs planning a methodical slaughter."November 2012 (after good faith alleviated the indefinite ban).

Truthfully, "planning a methodical slaughter" is as egregious as it gets (Nazi allusions don't help either). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I asked. Like a conscientious fool, I read through all of that, looking in vain for a relevant diff. Why do you waste people's time like this? Never mind, don't bother to reply, I'm taking this page off my watchlist. Bishonen | talk 13:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC).

To sum up the above, MarciulionisHOF's comment above at 02:57, 29 September 2014 states "I was caricaturized as a crying Jew". When asked to provide a diff supporting that statement, MarciulionisHOF posted thirteen links, none of which support the claim. Please try reading the linked text and actually thinking about was is written. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:

"Certainly Nishidani is now fully aware of the requirements for editing and civil collaboration, and there is no reason to maintain a topic ban." - Johnuniq, 08:45, 20 June 2011

Incivility, lack of collaboration samples are above. First couple links in particular. Please try reading the linked text and actually thinking about was is written. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a debating forum where people get points for deflecting arguments and entertaining the audience. By contrast, most established editors can quickly see when someone has again dodged the issue—you wrote "I was caricaturized as a crying Jew", but you have provided nothing to support that assertion. At Wikipedia, the most extreme form of incivility is to make a serious and unfounded claim regarding another editor (above and at ANI), then duck and weave when asked for evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep in mind your lack of impression by the above diffs. That and the Hebrew Wikipedia allusion.[7] It would only be fair to not get yourself involved in these types of things -- i.e. advocacy in favor/against people based on their political affiliation -- if you have battleground issues with Israel related editors. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow editors around, even those who have a bee in the bonnet about me, and only noticed this now. The major point you keep harping on, using it to imagine I fingered you as a 'crying Jew', is a diff from what I wrote when you opened up a section entitled 'Unanimous support for attacking Israeli civilians'. You wrotee:

'I've seen about 50 interviews with Palestinians in Gaza and all of them basically said the same thing: 'we support fighting Israel.'

From apparently reading interviews with 50 Palestinians you deduced that 7al million Palestinians 'support fighting Israel'.

You then changed this from 'support fighting Israel' (translate into 'in a war with Israel, Palestinians support their own side', nothing odd in that) to 'support ..attacking Israeli civilians.'

That is an extraordinary cognitive leap to make, to spin support for one's nation in a war as animated by a desire to, not defend onself against the other nation's military, but primarily to kill its civilians. Apart from the fact that we have WP:NPOV here: you do not open a section for comment with a provocative statement that consists in an innuendo the 'other side', an entire people, is terroristic and should be described as such.

To deduce from my comment that 'you' imply Palestinians unanimously support killing Israeli citizens the idea that I am mocking you as a 'crying Jew' is sheer fantasy. In this 'logic' any editor who challenges a stereotypical smearing of, say, Palestinians, must ipso facto be engaged in an undercover attempt to smear Jews. It may work as a comic device in the ironic dialogue of Howard Jacobson 's The Finkler Question, it doesn't work on wikipedia.

It was this absolutly elemental ignorance of simple logic which led me to reply with the words you now insinuate are a personal attack on your Jewish identity.I.e.,

The section title is blatant POV pushing. 'English people in WW2 were unanimous in supporting attacks on German people' is how it translates: you're clearly endeavouring to personalize as antisemitic what is a natural national consensus to defend oneself against what is perceived as a hostile occupying power. So? Most people are patriotic. 94% of Israelis support the IDF, most Gazans support Hamas. Secondly all that information is in English sources. One doesn't document the obvious, and the page already has too many editors trying egregiously to make wikipedia a forum for one POV

If that needs construal, your adoption of the title:Unanimous support for attacking Israeli civilians (egregious WP:OR aside) makes a sentiment of defensive national solidarity out to be a 'personal enmity against Israeli citizens', which to my eyes looks like you are suggesting Palestinians are motivated by anti-semitic feelings in their struggle for statehood, or the defence of what little they have. That is shown by the switch of language from 'supporting their own side' in a war, to 'supporting attacks on civilians'. The IDF is a civilian army, but its soldiers on duty in fighting Palestinians are not 'civilians'.

I won't deal with the rest, except to note that your extraordinary familiarity with my whole record (the Hanukkah diff goes back to 2009 (used by the way by User:No More Mr Nice Guy in the past, just as you use Orwell's image on your mainpage, and he cites Orwell on his mainpage in an attack on me), and the comment is based on several articles in the press about the strange symbolic ingenuity used to get together religiously resonant names for major war operations) suggests editors are spending far too much time raking through the records several years ago to get 'stuff' on me, rather than doing what we are supposed to do: read relevant sources for articles being edited now, and propose that material for the relevant articles. You can prove anything if, as here, you ignore context.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Good. Instead of assuming my intentions are to smear as antisemitic, you focus on explaining why you feel the text smears them as antisemitic. Your assumption both material-wise, and of intentions are incorrect. News-appearing Palestinians express support for 'the resistance', which considers all Israelis as soldiers (but most attacks are aimed at civilians). This does not come from a collective antisemitic view, but from a 'resistance' point of view. Exemplified in the sources I linked to and I made note that more sources are required to make a substantive case for inclusion. On the same note, the Israeli public's wishes to wipe Hamas from the map (my opening statement for the section in question) are not hateful on a racist level, just a tactical perspective. Even the ones in the mind that the whole of Gaza should be wiped out are not all coming from a racially motivated perspective. To summarize, the personal allegation, as though my post was intended to portray the Palestinians as antisemitic (a) comes from an incorrect understanding of what the 'resistance' is, and (b) discusses user's intentions rather than content. This is not justified. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Marciulionis, baseless imputations of antisemitism are a particularly serious kind of personal attack. You have made several of those against Nishidani, here and on WP:ANI, and have been unable to give evidence for them when challenged. The diffs you have offered above and elsewhere are quite un-substantive. For your own sake, I suggest you refrain altogether from commenting on Nishidani in the future, since you can't seem to do it without assuming bad faith. In any case, the next time you call him an antisemite, whether outright or by sly imputation, without providing evidence (real evidence, not a lot of irrelevance), I will block you from editing. Btw, I notice that you hint in the post above that Johnuniq, too, might have "battleground issues with Israel related editors". That is also unacceptable. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC).

I will do my best to avoid both those users. I request your attention in another matter at your userpage. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bishonen, Nishidani, and Fram: I can understand how easily misunderstandings can occur and it is important to clarify this matter. I've added a note on my userpage to explain the recent issues (pinging you all for consideration). MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the link to the diff, it is my first attempt. Hopefully, this will contribute to better collaboration and good faith in the future. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, that only makes it worse. They are all evil, but it isn't always caused by Antisemitism? That seems to be the gist of your position. You are free to hold that position, but I don't think it is wise to edit any PIA-related pages in this case. (Note: anyone with a similar opinion about the Israeli's should also stay away from the topic IMO). Fram (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: In what part did you gather the explanation means 'They are all evil'. Is is only human to have national aspirations. The issue with Israel/Palestine is that both sides feel entitled to the same territory. This doesn't make any side 'evil', only human. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

p.s. I'm open to suggestions on how, in your opinion, problematic content may be presented without eliciting allegations of racism. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: To get wider perspective from established admins on how to create better collaboration with this complex issue, I have CC'd Sandstein,Mr. Stradivarius, and EdJohnston.

Using words like Antisemitism" only when they are truly and directly relevant, and not to cast doubt on every Palestinian, would be a good start. Not lumping all Palestinians (or people from any group for that matter) together as if they are all like-minded is usually a good idea as well. The text on your user page still gives a very strong impression off all Palestinians wanting to wipe Israel of the Earth and not minding that Israeli civilians are killed. You only claim tha not all of them want this out of antisemitism... Not really an objective and nuanced image of how people are like, anywhere. Fram (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: On the RSN, I used the word 'antisemitic' in regard to Hamas, not the Palestinians under its control. I won't even use that term to describe Hamas voters. I know better. On my user page, I explicitly referred to "various aspects of the Palestinian muqawama", not every Palestinian. I know better. Certainly, not all Palestinians promote or participate in the Muqawama. Even under Hamas' militaristic rule there are varying views and attempts at dissent. On the other side, it makes perfect sense to mention who is in control when we're not dealing with a western democracy (not even close -- they get their news through Hamas controlled TV). Do I really need to write a book on nuances every time I need to explain a point? (e.g. 'Palestinian muqawama' vs 'Palestinians') I should hope that if I do, it won't be following a nearsighted bad faith assertion towards my alleged intentions. This is why I wrote that note up and am asking for further notes. I hope a future version of it will go a long way in reducing offense by editors not aware of all these not so subtle points and increasing collaboration and learning. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

For someone so worried about only talking about content, not about the editor, you are very fond of using "nearsighted bad faith", which are pure attacks on editors, not comments on content. But it is quite clear what your point is in general, you don't need to spell it out any further. Fram (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: We're obviously not talking about the actual content right now, but about non-hypothetical situations where others jump to bad faith conclusions because they don't know the breadth of the material. That's not to say they have bad intentions. Most likely, not. But people who don't speak Arabic or Hebrew and don't have a grasp on the less reported aspects of the conflict can (apparently quite easily) just say something like 'you're trying to smear them as hateful/evil/antisemitic/etc.' This problem is not content specific and I'm looking for a way to clarify such instances without it becoming drama inducing. I appreciate your notes and concerns on the matter. Thank you. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Would it be better if I replace 'nearsightedness' with 'shallow understanding of the material'? It could still be badly interpreted as though I am condescending others. At least nearsightedness can be interpreted as momentary. ... perhaps 'momentary nearsightedness' could work. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be better if you dropped that angle completely. In fact, it would be probably best for your long-term editing career here if you just stayed away from all Israel and/or Palestine related pages on Wikipedia, as I don't believe you can edit there with the necessary neutrality and detachment. Fram (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that a harsh statement when you didn't know the difference between 'Palestinian muqawama' and 'Palestinians'? I have been quite careful when dealing with articles so your allegations about my ability are pure speculation. Still, thank you for the rest of the input, hopefully, later versions of my userpage clarification will promote collaboration rather than speculations. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that I didn't know that difference? I said that your statement gave that impression to me. It still does. I know the difference (also between the muqawama as a whole and the more extreme part that wants Israel completely gone, which your comment ignores as well), but your talk page statement clearly doesn't make that distinction. I have not looked at your article edits, but your RSN comments and comments here are sufficient for me. Fram (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There are various levels of support among Palestinians in the Muqawama. The mainstream of Muqawama voices are pretty clear, though. You'd be hard pressed (putting it mildly) to find mainstream sources in Arabic using 'muqawama' and talking about making concessions in order to free Gaza and the West Bank. So, you have no reason to take offense. This is just the way they see their struggle for national identity. I'm sorry you believe otherwise -- you should look at sources, really. If you do find such mainstream sources... I promise to reconsider my notes about the Muqawama. I try to stay factual. Assume good faith. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

So your reply about me not knowing the difference is stating that they are one and the same? That's... bizarre. And you do realise that there is quite a large difference between "free Gaza and the West Bank" (which you write now) and "Wipe Israel off the map" (which you have on your user page)? It's a bit hard to have a meaningful discussion with you if all you do is shifting the goalposts and contradicting yourself. Fram (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: talking about making concessions. It is in there. You keep misreading my text and getting upset about "shifting the goalposts". Can you find a mainstream Arabic source with the word muqawama which makes clear I am in the wrong about this aspect of the Muqawama? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC) +diff MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm done discussing things with you, as it impossible to get a meaningful answer. I have no idea why you felt the need to link to your post again or what your point is supposed to be. Fram (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram:, let's make this simple.

• Do you believe the Palestinian Muqawama is about liberation of Palestine?
• Does any Mainstream Muqawama source discuss territorial compromise?

Cheers, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Marciulionis, let's make this simple. I'm not interested in discussing things with you. I haev no idea what you are trying to prove with these two questions, and see no benefit in going on a wild goose chase for answers that may satisfy you but which have little relevance to the above discussion. You are the one that brought up the difference between Palestinians and Palestinian muqawama, which I don't know (apparently) but you fail to describe in any meaningful way (clearly). You equate Muqawama with "Wipe Israel of the Map" on your user page, but here suddenly start about freeing Gaza and the Westbank, the liberation of Palestine, and territorial compromise. You also seem to equate all Palestinian resistance with "muqawama", a term largely claimed by Hamas, thereby framing the discussion in one particular direction before it has even started. There are plenty of mainstream sources discussing a territorial compromise (in the sense of having Israel and Palestine next to each other) e.g. this, but since that source doesn't mention "muqawama", you can disregard it in your frame. I am not interested in such a discussion.

What I am interested in is seeing yuo stop making bad-faith accusations, stop making references to anti-semitism, and stay oout of disputes for quite a while, showing that you are here to help Wikipedia, not to further your agenda. Fram (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: "a term largely claimed by Hamas" is an absurd claim. The term Muqawama was used to attack Jews long before Hamas ever existed and is used by many outside of Hamas. As for the above questions: the answers are (a) Yes, (b) No. Thus, if mainstream Muqawama sources (again, I expressed a difference between 'Palestinian muqawama' and 'Palestinians' -- if you keep trying to use arguments based on the latter item as in the source you chose, you're showing shallow perception of the subject matter) -- Muqawama sources in Arabic never discusses territorial compromise and statements of 'Free Palestine'/'Liberation of Palestine'/etc. would entail removing "the Zionist occupier" off the map. This is basic fact about the Muqawama. Not an allegation of antisemitism. If I note "Abbas also accused Israel of genocide"[8], I am not trying to smear Palestinians. He just did that the other day. That not everyone is in on these details is clear. Thus, you (and anyone without deep understanding) should express your concerns without assuming bad faith. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming yet again that it is useless discussing this with you and that I was wise not to go looking for sources, as they clearly have to fit in your pre-described pattern to be acceptable. Fram (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: The pattern is there on my userpage clarification as well. Correct? You're mixing wider aspects of the conflict with a single (but very prominent) Arab speaking narrative. You know... Arabic is their native language. Acting like it isn't is poor methodology. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

First update here. Probably far from perfect, but I think it makes progress. Let me know how you feel. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Misusing pages that aren't yours

Please don't create redirects from unregistered userpages to your own userpage, like you did here. That page isn't yours, and anyone wanting to register that username can do so and shouldn't have some completely unrelated history on his user page. If you need to link to your "note", simply use the full link. Fram (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. If there'll be a need. Hopefully there won't be. I'll try to link to the full name. Any thoughts on v1.02? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Get rid of it. Fram (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: Further elaboration might benefit. What do you think about moving it to an inside page, e.g. the user 'sandbox'? (not that I think I'll have that many visitors). What about other changes to clarify matters further? This matter doesn't (in my eyes) suffer from content-based clarification and a note that this might be habitual around Wikipedia. I am also considering the idea of just removing it. Some people are such deep thinking intellectuals that you can't distract them with factual evidence. Thus, this note of clarification will just be perceived in bad faith (as any other content might be) and serves as nothing but a note to myself not to get pissed off with violations of WP:ARBPIA#Decorum since a couple admins (not pointing any fingers) can easily take offense for one side, but not for the other. It is a shame so few who love/hate actually take the tie to learn about and talk with the people involved. Subjective validation and normative moral relativism are a bitch when hypocrisy steps in. We're all human and everyone, including those you agree/disagree with have an array of emotions inside. A history, whether it is based in reality or cultural narratives. You can judge or not this narrative, make disclaimers as well -- but facing it is the real truth. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you really expect an answer after pontificating about decorum while at the same time insulting everyone that dares to criticize you (without you pointing fingers, of course)? I don't really care what you do with your user page, but as it stands, I believe it will only give fuel to those that perceive some of your remarks as heavily biased, I don't believe that it will convince any neutral observer that you are able to edit ARBPIA content in a NPOV manner. Don't bother asking me for further feedback on it, I have seen more than enough of your edits and tactics to care any longer what further fruitless tinkering you will do with your user page note. Fram (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: The instance of selective offense was referring to another admin (I'd rather not point fingers). I cannot control the feelings of "neutral observers" who jump to offense when citation-based facts are presented. I can, however, tell them (or you) that their "edits and tactics" feelings (what are you talking about? at least show me a diff) are misplaced. Thoughts on how to do this in a better way are most welcome. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have seen in the RSN discussion what your definition of "citation based facts" is worth. Nothing. Fram (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

This commentary is personal. Please discuss content, not misguided assumptions. You say "edits and tactics". At least show me a diff. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it's about your edits, which I have analysed enough at the RSN discussion. Your tactic of cherrypicking quotes (completely changing their meaning in the process) and cherrypicking facts (like somehow "forgetting" the most relevant award for a book you want to dismiss), coupled with your continuous disparaging remarks about anyone and anything you don't like (apparently Joe Sacco isn't worthy of following the BLP policy in your comments), are there for anyone to see. Edits and tactics, obvious from the content of your posts. Fram (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: That award was indeed relevant (good find) and I added it asap. Your RSN/"edits and tactics" analysis has bad faith written all over it. Bring it up for community review or let it go. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Why should I bring it up for community review? It is out there for all to see, and your edits (if not drastically changed) will bring you up for community review soon enough. You asked for my comments, my opinion, and I gave it. My "good find" came from the same section as where you had found the comicon award. If you didn't make such a poor, one-sided presentation with very dubious quoting and so on deliberate, then you are simply incompetent to have a discussion on reliable sources or to edit articles in any meaningful way, as it demonstrates that you can't accurately digest and comprehend sources. But that's not the impression I got, it seems more likely that you deliberately created a biased, slanted presentation, as evidenced by all your later comments in that discussion, or elsewhere for that matter. So yes, based on the evidence from your own edits, I don't assume that you try to edit Wikipedia in a NPOV, neutral, impartial manner. Feel free to reply with indignation and to link to "bad faith", "decorum", and whatever else you want, or feel free to bring it up at any noticeboard of your liking. We are only supposed to AGF until enough evidence of the contrary has appeared, and for me that threshold has long been passed in this case. Fram (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Decorum

You are very fast to link to the ARBPIA decorum section. Could you at least try to have some basic human dignity yourself, and not refer to recently killed persons as "a few nobodys playing dressup in a tunnel" and "a few nobodys in a tunnel." Such language does nothing but further inflame the situation. Fram (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are they high ranking notables such as Yahiya Ayash or Muhamad Dahlan? (No) The point of discussion is whether this belongs in the WP:LEAD. Nobody knows these militants. Hence, I present the discussion with the view that they do not belong in the lead but that they do belong in a step-by-step section. Now, in the spirit of checking how everyone involved phrase themselves (and taking offense in the name of tunneling Hamas/ISIS/etc. militants that were killed in the line of the Muqawama duty), would you be interested in finally amending your BLP issue with the Israeli historian Me'ir Pa'il? Call me one sided, but I put historians ahead of Hamas shuhadati (read: non-professionals playing with explosives in a tunnel). As for the RSN you bring up. I have noted I am in the interest of getting wider community review so we can put that matter to rest. Repeatedly bringing it up despite my suggestion is quite incivil. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected all BLP violations I made wrt Meir Pa'il. The real ones, not the ones you imagined (I e.g. never implied, never mind said, that he is a hack). I have not brought up the RSN here, but you do... I can't quite remember where you made the suggestion not to bring up the RSN discussion any more though. But it is telling that bringing up an ongoing RSN discussion you started is somehow "quite incivil", but dismissing recently killed people as "a few nobodys playing dressup in a tunnel" is not a problem. Continuing to inflame ARBPIA-related discussions with your rhetoric, bias, and total lack of any sensitivity, will probably lead to a rather short-lived wikicareer. It's up to you. Fram (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hi, MarciulionisHOF. I don't follow your edits, but I try to keep an eye on your pages (both user and talk); I feel a certain responsibility, since I originally warned you about personal attacks. (Your user page indeed remains a problem btw.) This is just to explain how I came to notice Fram's comment about decorum above and was led to take a look at your recent contributions. I'm blocking you for lack of judgement and sensitivity in these comments on Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, compare Fram in the section above. From your replies to Fram, it appears you can't understand what's wrong with referring to recently dead people as "a few nobodys in a tunnel" and "a few nobodys playing dressup in a tunnel". You respond: "What are you talking about? Are they high ranking notables such as Yahiya Ayash or Muhamad Dahlan? (No) The point of discussion is whether this belongs in the WP:LEAD." It really alarms me that you don't apparently see, or at least don't address, the point, which was to do with dignity and language, but simply refer back to what your point was. You reply as if you think it's all right to talk in a contemptuous, dehumanizing way about individuals who just died, as long as they were not high-ranking notables.

Please note that I wouldn't have blocked if this was an isolated incident; it's in IMO the last straw as regards poor judgment and lack of proper responsiveness from you in the past few weeks. An illustration is for example this discussion on my own page. (An interesting detail there is the way you persist in accusing people of bad faith, even though you are called on it several times, and promise to study the policy explaining what "bad faith" means, and to not use the term again before you understand it. But still it goes on.) I don't know if it is that you fail to understand what people say to you, or if you pretend to not understand, which would bring this meta page into play. It makes no difference which it is, as both competence and good faith are required to edit Wikipedia. I thought of an indefinite block (which would not have been intended to be infinite), but that's not a good place to start. You have been blocked for one week. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 12:13, 8 October 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits -- I have, (1) on talkpage, (2) in discussion about including/excluding information, used brevity to describe: 6 unnamed militants who died while mishandling explosives in a tunnel; as 'nobodys'. This is to say, news outlets don't consider them important enough to name them, and information about their deaths should be relegated to the body of the article rather than the lead.

• "I'd rather both numbers (6 militants and 120 rockets) be relegated down than have both mentioned."[9]

I have also made a collaborative compromise suggestion:

• "Hamas viewed Israel as responsible"[10]

In my one month of contributing on English Wikipedia, a couple editors show a habit of making personal attacks and clear insensitivity to Israeli views. I am more than willing to adjust to Wikipedia norms, but at least Bishonen (the one finding 'indefinite' disruption in my brevity) has pursued them unevenly. If "<Jews> planning a methodical slaughter" or a "drafted inside some Israeli ministry.:)" got a waste people's time.[11] What is a newbie left to think? To summarize: I have adhered to better standards than the ones enforced by Bishonen and will continue to pursue improving on this further. A block here and not at the other instance serves as punishment rather than prevention of future disruption. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't think you entirely understand why you were blocked, and in this context, I concur there seem to problems of competence, as well as other problems, such as extending good faith. In this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2014 (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.

@PhilKnight: I understand the block is for being insensitive to people in my talkpage comment. I'm not sure what 'problems of competence' refers to. Please elaborate, otherwise this block serves as punishment rather than preventing from making disruptive edits. I'd also appreciate a note on "drafted inside some Israeli ministry.:)" which I mentioned as what I encountered as a newbie here (I still am). I am more than willing to adjust to Wikipedia norms but what are these norms? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Side note: despite my concerns and in contrast with Fram's statement, I've not seen a diff in which he corrects BLP issues regarding Me'ir Pa'il. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, to be honest, saying "I understand the block is for being insensitive to people in my talk page comment" is a step in the right direction. However, I think you were (perhaps to some extent unintentionally) disruptive, and in this context, I consider this block to be preventative. Otherwise, I'm not going to start discussing comments made by other editors. In regard to the standard of conduct which is expected this remedy from WP:ARBPIA is a good summary. PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: As a newbie, I've been bombarded with insensitive "hasbara", "newspeak", "personalize as antisemitic", "Israeli ministry", "asked to come here by the Hebrew Wikipedia" commentary with admins telling me not to take offense and to just roll with it. Bishonen defended two of those behaviors. What makes this preventative exactly when others who are not new pursue such language freely? To any outsider looking at threads of ARBPIA discussions, there's nothing exceptionally disruptive about what is used to sanction me with here. I don't attack anyone. I don't go off on a "massive killings"/"martyrdom seeking" rant. I present a factual "Hamas considered Israel responsible" view as compromise suggestion between two editors who are in disagreement. On point: If "<Jews> planning a methodical slaughter" or a "drafted inside some Israeli ministry.:)" got a waste people's time.[12] What is a newbie left to think? A block here and not at the other instance serves as punishment rather than prevention of future disruption. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

CC: @Sandstein, EdJohnston, and Mr. Stradivarius: I'd like a wide case review. The gap is just too glaring to ignore. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

CC from AE: @John Carter, Jethro B, WGFinley, and T. Canens: Apologies for troubling you, but "<Jews> planning a methodical slaughter" was ignored and I am very new here. I believe the differences in reactions must be widely reviewed. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: I'd like a wider community review, not on this block which I'm sure no one truly cares about but on the difference between instances. "nobodys playing dressup" vs. "<Jews> planning a methodical slaughter" and "drafted inside some Israeli ministry.:)". The gap between the reaction here and the lack of reaction there is just too glaring to ignore. Would you be so kind as to open an instance to compare the two? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm certainly not going to do anything of the sort. If you were intending to work with all the editors involved in editing Arab-Israel conflict articles, and try to encourage greater cooperation, I'd support your initiative, however what you are proposing seems to be divisive, and thus unhelpful. PhilKnight (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That 2012 diff says exactly what Israeli rabbis and scholars said at the time and later here and here p.42-43. Please don't rewrite 'Jews' over 'IDF'. There is no intrinsic link between those two categories. Why are you persistently raking up my past (2012)? On second thoughts, forget it. That's all I have to say against your repetitious campaigning here and the use of old diffs out of context to insinuate things. Nishidani (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: No. Letting a new editor believe it is ok to smear Israeli and Hebrew speaking editors is divisive. Having this issue examined by a wider range of people is the right way to move forward. Where would one raise such an issue of glaring misdirection, disregard, and mistreatment of new editors is an interesting question. I do hope one of the pinged admins would chime in. Nishidani is the ultimate example for sensitivity here. Not disruptive at all. Funny, I don't see "planning a methodical slaughter" in either page 42 or page 43 of the linked book. I'll be sure to mention this absurd linkage when I'll bring this matter for wider review. PhilKnight, could you please guide me of a good location with impartial admins that can review the matter? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

p.s. "drafted inside some Israeli ministry.:)" -- 30 August 2014. What is a newbie left to think? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked

Talk page access is given to blocked editors to make unblock requests, and not for other purposes. In this context, I have reset your block, and revoked talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

7 day block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  PhilKnight (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I see the error of my way. I will do my best to raise future communications to a higher level. Thanks for the warning block. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse question

I see why you raised the Opposites question on the Teahouse. If you want help crafting a response for the article talk page, I am happy to help craft one that addresses your concerns.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Yes. That would be appreciated. You can review objections raised and editor input on the RSN here. There were multiple arguments. Focus was on source controversial quality, not source format. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken a look. There seems to be a lot of going back and forth on side issues in general. What specifically is the point you'd like to get across or your desired result? --CaroleHenson (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The source is of low quality for writing an article about history. Format only accentuates the other issues. My view, in following to the views of others on discussion, is that it would be a good idea to use it less heavily, including attribution and a couple sentences to its disputed status. I suggested a section for its unique content but am open to other suggestions. Optimally, such sources do not belong in the body of encyclopedia articles about a notable historic event. If the comic-book used a source from the UN, use that source instead. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I've got to run for right now... but will be back in a couple of hours.

The source you're talking about of low quality - is that Sacco?

You're right to lean towards consensus.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Yes. Sacco's book is the issue on RSN and in current discussion. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see this as a closed issue, but it seems that the general consensus is that the Sacco book is not a reliable source. Since decisions being made by consensus is part of the fourth of the key pillars at WP, I personally would not press for this. Since it's an evolving situation, it would be good to see over a period of time what news agencies, and other reliable secondary sources pick-up about this situation (i.e., follow the info from reliable, secondary sources, rather than picking sources to make a point).

Someone helped me understand the reliable sources issue this way: If there's only one source that has the information that I want to include in the article - and that source is questioned for reliability or is a primary source - then that information is not yet notable content for WP. As a result, I now absolutely leave information out of articles until such time as it does hit what is considered a reliable, secondary source. Does that make sense?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This situation should also be particularly sensitive to providing a neutral point of view, by giving information about differing perspectives / viewpoints. Meaning that you may need several sources to express the information from a neutral point of view.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I just read Talk:Rafah massacre and realize that I misunderstood your points... and the situation. I still stick with my points about reliable, secondary sources and NPOV - and it sounds like there's a very active discussion that should remain on that talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson:

@CaroleHenson: your assessment of RSN ("it seems that the general consensus is that the Sacco book is not a reliable source") is just what's missing from the discussion page. I'm sure you will get a response from the people on the minority of the RSN, but your uninvolved perspective would, hopefully, help promote collaboration and some compromise. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the folks on the talk page offered a good next step to id the info you'd propose removing. It sounds good to get directly to what changes you're recommending... and the more that your tone is neutral and for the greater good of expressing different perspectives, I better I think it will be.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I've opened a sort of protest regarding to comparison between these Arab-Israeli comic-book testimonies and records of WWII.[13] I was blocked for less. As for exact material, there's quite a lot of it and it should be the other way around considering how disputed the content in this source is. My suggestion to make a 'testimonies published in 2009' is a pretty big compromise. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my. I feel like this just went back a couple of steps. When someone offers a way to resolve an issue and it's rejected out of hand... and then the discussion goes sideways again (my way of saying, getting off the point about WWII - I know you see the connection, but going there doesn't support your case)... I'm not sure that I can - or how I could help you. Sorry, I thought this was a wording issue, and perhaps an English-as-a-second-language issue, so that's why I offered to help. Even if you're 100% right, and at this point I admit I'm confused, the way you go about it isn't helpful.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I've been reading that book and it is, as you put it following the RSN, not much for a reliable source. Would you be willing to add your assessment of the RSN to the talk page. Uninvolved analysis of the RSN will benefit so that future discourse won't include claims that the RSN was unclear. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Careful ...

In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rafah_massacre&diff=next&oldid=630102782 you seem to have stuck a link in the middle of my comment. I'm sure it was unintentional. --GRuban (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah... I saw you removed it and realised it was probably me. Typing with your hands hovering over a touch pad can make for silly mistakes. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:AE misrepresentation/exaggeration on Hebrew/Israeli quotes and comparison between Arab-Israeli matters and the holocaust

Igorp lj, I promised to notify you. Though there was no direct reply on my querry,[14] two AE executives is enough input for me. See block-log update. According to this, it is appears preferable that future allusions should be ignored. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Will you please email me via Wikipedia? Ykantor (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

-I have received your email, but Gmail warns me that :"This message may not have been sent by: MarciulionisHOF@gmail.com". I am not familiar with this kind of message. I will appreciate it if you confirm here that you sent this email, and I'll immediately reply to. Ykantor (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably Gmail noticing I used Wikipedia's form to send the email. It was I. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

As a result of this AE thread and in accordance with discretionary sanctions authorised by this arbitration case, I am topic-banning you from the Arab-Israeli conflict. This means you may not edit any article in the area of conflict, nor may you discuss or allude to the conflict anywhere on Wikipedia, including your own userpage. Violations of this restriction will result in blocks. This topic ban is indefinite, but you my ask for a review after six months. You may also appeal this sanction to WP:AE and/or to the Arbitration Committee. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand the issue and expected this to come. Allusions between Israel and Nazi Germany or between Palestinians and Jews in WWII are allowed. I won't raise this matter in the future... if I ever come back. Good show. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration

People don't have to like each other here, and they do not have to agree. But a certain degree of collaboration is required, even with opponents. Please do not use highly pointy edit summaries when removing text from any page, including your talk. In this edit your edit summary consists of http://rogueoperator.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/fascism.jpg which shows an image that is completely out of step with standard procedures at Wikipedia.

Also, what is the purpose of WT:WikiProject Israel#Holocaust comparisons? In this recent edit, you added a subsection titled "Fascism update". That shows a serious misunderstanding of what has happened, and what should happen. Johnuniq (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You can review attempts at collegiate discussion, RSN, et al as well as response invoking mockery of the holocaust.[15] To ban an editor for saying this is wrong (the nerve of some pesky little people -- ban them all!), and to troll user talk-page with further commentary about sticking to the "rules" is an absurd misuse of power to deny entry of new editors with actual knowledge of the subject matter and willingness to stick to rules. Good show. Have you read this one? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for violations of the topic ban imposed on you regarding Arab-Israeli relations.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Yunshui ^雲_水 10:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• At first, I was sorry to see you had been blocked for ban violation — I thought "Oh, no, didn't Yunshui notice I'd warned the user about it, and had specifically decided not to block?" But then I realised you had defied the ban again,[16] as well as removed my warning with an edit summary calling me a fascist, and posting assorted sneers above. It's clear that Wikipedia isn't a good fit for what you want to do. I won't do the honours myself, but I can see a not here to create an encyclopedia siteban without talkpage access in your near future. Bishonen | talk 15:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Your experience with Wikipedia so far

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am conducting a quick survey about newcomer support and I would like to hear about your experience so far. Your response will go a long way to help us build a better experience for newcomers like yourself. The survey will take you around 10 minutes to complete.

To learn more about the study, visit this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Co-op

To take the survey, visit this link: https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_2bnPZz0HelBaY85

Thanks!

Gabrielm199 (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)