User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2011/December
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Supreme Deliciousness. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Snowolf How can I help? 05:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you positive that there is absolutely no free equivalent to that image? Assuming that there is no free equivalent I still see another problem. You have a non free use rationale for the article Golan Heights. I don't believe that the image would satisfy policy 8 of WP:NFC which states that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". I don't believe that is true for the article Golan Heights; however, it may be true for the article Six-day War. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have replied at User talk:Ryan Vesey. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just so you know, an administrator and another editor have commented on the issue regarding the image. Do you have my talk page watched? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Problematic edit
You made this revert[1] at the Yom Kippur War and removed content attributed to a reliable source. Your edit summary states Not clear what happened,has been labeled psyops, been debunked by Syria,see:"Propaganda and Information Warfare in the Twenty-First Century: Altered Images and Deception Operations (Contemporary Security Studies) " p68, if re ad it needs re-write(sic). Can you please tell me where it says anywhere in the source that the claim was "debunked" by Syria. The source states that the Syrians went to great lengths to debunk the claim but I don't see anywhere where the author supports the contention that the Syrians succeeded in their efforts. So please tell me why you reverted reliably sourced content and then placed a falsehood in the edit summary to back your reversion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- For some reason, I cant access the page in Google books now. Not sure what it said as it was 9 months ago I read it, I think it was something that Syria denied the allegation, thats what I meant with "debunked by Syria", as English is not my first language I sometimes make mistakes with my English, the word I was looking for was "denied". Also notice that I said at the beginning "Not clear what happened", which is an indication of that I didn't mean that Syria had "proven" it to be false. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- You've been editing for three years under this account (not to mention other accounts and IPs you've edited under) with some 16,000 edits, some of them evidencing high caliber English. To say that your answer stretches credulity is a gross understatement. Have others been editing for you? Secondly, why didn't you just add, "though this was 'debunked' or 'denied' or 'disputed' by Syria," and add the appropriate reference rather than revert reliably sourced content that had been corroborated by numerous other sources. Could it be SD that while I was topic banned you went searching for my edits in every article that I edited, and knowing that I could do nothing, systematically reverted everything I did?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, man. You mean I have to go through a year of my watchlist? --Shuki (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- You've been editing for three years under this account (not to mention other accounts and IPs you've edited under) with some 16,000 edits, some of them evidencing high caliber English. To say that your answer stretches credulity is a gross understatement. Have others been editing for you? Secondly, why didn't you just add, "though this was 'debunked' or 'denied' or 'disputed' by Syria," and add the appropriate reference rather than revert reliably sourced content that had been corroborated by numerous other sources. Could it be SD that while I was topic banned you went searching for my edits in every article that I edited, and knowing that I could do nothing, systematically reverted everything I did?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
SD, you arent under any obligation to answer harassing and hypocritical charges. My advice is to simply remove those charges or ignore them. nableezy - 20:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Nableezy for the heads up and so we are not hypocritical about anything, allow me (like you have the liberty often) to ask: Supreme Deliciousness, besides your previous account which I will not refer to because unassumingly 'outs' you, have you since been using another account to edit WP? And / or are multiple users using this SD account to edit WP? --Shuki (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why would it be hypocritical for a user who has been confirmed to abusively use sockpuppets in the topic area to ask if a user has any sockpuppets? Gee, golly, I just cant figure that out. nableezy - 18:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
AN/I report
FYI - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Anti-Arab attacks - some eyes please -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
List of bees of Israel
FYI: Several anons are attempting to remove your comments on talk:List of bees of Israel I reverted a few of them. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Perturbing edits
I'm informing you here that I find your latest series of edits to articles relating to Israel perturbing, particularly in light of the fact that you recently returned from a topic ban for tendentious editing/POV pushing over the very same issues you've involved yourself in again. Should you wish to make controversial changes such as the ones you recently made here, here, here, here, and elsewhere, I strongly urge you to pursue a more collaborative approach. Here is a link to the Israel Palestine Collaboration WikiProject Discussion page, where you should take issues of multi-article scope rather than make unilateral changes that are likely to generate friction and be reverted by other editors.—Biosketch (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- My latest topic ban wasn't for tendentious editing/POV pushing. I was topic banned because of an admin who couldn't do his job properly, who handled the invalid enforcement case. He also did not say one single word about POV pushing. I don't see anything wrong with any of those edits I made. Though you yourself have added falsehoods into Wikipedia articles: that Rujm el Hiri is located in Israel:[2] That bees in the Palestinian territories and Golan Heights are in Israel:[3]. I ask that you please do not ad more of these falsehoods and inaccuracys into Wikipedia articles. As Wikipedia:NPOV is a policy, you should read it and start following it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in your conspiracies about Admin:AGK, though I'll have to demand that you not repeat accusations of that nature again as they're sanctionable. Also, do not misrepresent my edits as you did above. As I explained on the article's Discussion page, the content you removed did not say that Rujm el-Hiri is Israel; it explicitly and neutrally said that its location is in the Golan Heights. The reason for its being listed under "Israel" is because the article is scientific in nature and archeoastronomers searching for sites related to their field in Israel should be able to find Rujm el-Hiri there. Israel is currently the only country through which access to the site is possible. Your insistence on preferring narrow political considerations over the pursuit of this encyclopedia's commitment to promoting knowledge generally is, as I said, perturbing. Do not continue to make all your edits about politics and do not push politics into articles that are purely about science. You should have as your foremost motivation for editing this encyclopedia making access to information available to the public, not furthering a political agenda.—Biosketch (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it did say that Rujm el-Hiri is in Israel, which is not scientific in any way, the list has country's where they are located, not who occupies them. Please keep all future posts about articles on their talkpages and not my talkpage. My edits are not narrow political considerations. Its the removal of falsehoods and narratives following the views of one country and replacing it with accuracy following reality. Do not continue to make all your edits about the views of one country and do not push the views of one country into articles that are purely about science. You should have as your foremost motivation for editing this encyclopedia making access to information available to the public, not furthering a political agenda.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in your conspiracies about Admin:AGK, though I'll have to demand that you not repeat accusations of that nature again as they're sanctionable. Also, do not misrepresent my edits as you did above. As I explained on the article's Discussion page, the content you removed did not say that Rujm el-Hiri is Israel; it explicitly and neutrally said that its location is in the Golan Heights. The reason for its being listed under "Israel" is because the article is scientific in nature and archeoastronomers searching for sites related to their field in Israel should be able to find Rujm el-Hiri there. Israel is currently the only country through which access to the site is possible. Your insistence on preferring narrow political considerations over the pursuit of this encyclopedia's commitment to promoting knowledge generally is, as I said, perturbing. Do not continue to make all your edits about politics and do not push politics into articles that are purely about science. You should have as your foremost motivation for editing this encyclopedia making access to information available to the public, not furthering a political agenda.—Biosketch (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Anti-Arab
That character needs to pay heed to this song. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I think I may have just came across another sock here. Whoever they were, I reverted them. Calabe1992 04:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)