User talk:ValuableAppendage

July 2013

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Mohammed Deif. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sean.hoyland uses terms designed to falsely demonize Israel (i.e. "occupation", "settlement", etc). Thank you. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of an arbitration case, broad editing restrictions apply to all pages broadly related the Arab-Israeli conflict. These sanctions are described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and a brief summary is included below:

Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, impose sanctions on editors working in the area of conflict who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process.
Possible sanctions include blocks, bans and other editing restrictions.
A one revert per twenty-four hours restriction applies to articles broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, editors may be blocked without warning if they breach this restriction. See here for more information.

Sanctions may only be imposed after the user is notified sanctions are in effect. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; but is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Drmies (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I may be considered a Zionist, but I'm afraid the Golan Heights is considered occupied territory under "international law", whatever that may be. In other words, although you may be morally correct, Wikipedia only deals with what areas are called in reliable sources, and most of those call it "occupied". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, please provide the "international law" you are referring to. The reason most people say this is because if you look at the number of tyrannical, backwards, awful countries, you'll see that they outnumber the civilized world by a large factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.165.208 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]