User talk:GHcool/Archive 9

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked the link, but couldn't find a discussed issue that I'm involved with. Could you be more specific? --GHcool (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you wrong link, sorry. Correct one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GHcool. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

GHcool (talk · contribs) is banned from the topic of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for one year on all pages of Wikipedia including talk.

You have been sanctioned for the reason(s) set down in 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 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. Guerillero | My Talk 07:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GHcool. You have new messages at Guerillero's talk page.
Message added 19:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Guerillero | My Talk 19:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit[1] left the article saying "most scholars the book's final form in the 6th century BCE" which does not make sense, as pointed out on the talk page. It also changed 'god Yahweh' to 'God Yahweh' which is incorrect according to MOSCAPS]]. I don't think the result was intended, so if you know what the source says could you please fix it? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about "god" vs. "God." Also, the source cited doesn't say it. I was thinking about another source. I'll change it right away. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. --GHcool (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a reversion to your edit on Judges because I believe you've misread Alter - I think he's saying that the individual stories that make up Judges were redacted around the 8th century (only according to some scholars), but not that these stories were joined into a book at that time - the conventional DtrH would see Judges formed along with the rest of the History. Alter is an excellent source, of course. Anyway, you might like to look into this - I won't re-revert if you're still convinced that your reading is correct. PiCo (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. Thanks for bringing it up. I'm going to edit the article to reflect your point. --GHcool (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GHcool. I saw that a few weeks ago, there was a consensus in this discussion to merge the article Gender roles in Judaism into Women in Judaism, which you then did by blanking the "Gender roles in Judaism" page and redirected it to the "Women in Judaism". But I think there could be a problem because you did not actually move any information from here into the "Women in Judaism" article. Was that done on purpose? Should I create a new section in "Women in Judaism" titled "Gender roles in Judaism", and then move that information to there? Thanks, Yambaram (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was done on purpose. I thought the whole article was a collection of trivia, much of which was cited to a single source that isn't even an RS. Gender roles are covered pretty well in "Women in Judaism" already, but if you see a few nuggets you like in the "gender roles" article, feel free to add it and I'll review it. --GHcool (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. Yes, I do want to recover some information from the merged article. I'll do it when I have time for this soon. Yambaram (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :-)

I saw you took part in a past discussion regarding the people appearing in the infobox. I have some issues with it (mostly regarding the style and the people represented in it, with some notable figures being passed out).

I started a discussion about it and proposed a new collage. I would really like it if you took part in the new discussion and suggested ideas/opinions that will help make the collage better. After all, it's all about consensus.

I do have an account and if you want to leave me a personal message leave it here: User:Mr. Sort It Out. Thank you! 90.198.246.7 (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No source for the information on Judah P. Benjamin? Perhaps you should read the Wikipedia article about him, to which I linked.John Paul Parks (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See: [[2]] Sepsis II (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See: [3] --GHcool (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've violated 1RR at Tourism in the Palestinian territories. Not only not that but your edit adds a new claim; that Israel specifically targets U.S. citizens who happen to be of a certain faith, ethnicity, or ideology, when we all know they target based on those characteristics regardless of relation to the U.S.. Your edit also fails to merge with the following sentence. Do you revert me just to harass? Please try to read sources and improve articles regardless of your views of the content. Sepsis II (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert. I cited what the source says. The source says U.S. citizens. "We all know" is not a source. --GHcool (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, your criticism about the transition to following sentence is noted and I corrected my error. --GHcool (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sepsis II (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Your edits about the rules imposed by Israel for entry to the Palestinian territories in Tourism in the Palestinian territories are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.

Need to give you a new alert due to the expiry rules at WP:AC/DS. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for your second violation of Arbitration Committee sanctions, through your obviously contentious edits made without any consensus on the page Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. No reason was given for my block and I do not believe that my edits were contentious. They were all cited to reliable sources and presented in as NPOV a way as I could. The block notice says that this is an enforcement of an arbitration decision, but this decision isn't referenced at all. I suspect the block was done in error. GHcool (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It doesn't appear that the block was done in error - and the arbitration notice is linked below. SQL^{Query me!} 04:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

• Blocking admin note - Link to violated sanctions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee that seems like a terribly worded sanction. Must obtain firm consensus before making any potentially contentious edits? Thats what a revert is for, somebody opposes an edit and its reverted. From there any further reverts could bring sanctions, but this seems wildly beyond what is either necessary or frankly reasonable. "Potentially contentious" edits cant be made? Kind of defeats the "be bold" mantra of this place. nableezy - 23:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with them if you want, ArbCom has authorized discretionary sanctions (to include page restrictions) for this topic area, and the wording was well within my purview (as I'm sure you're aware given your extensive history with receiving AE blocks). Please feel free to continue to "be bold" on the over 5 million other articles that exist on our site, thank you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee: being able to do something doesnt make it right, much less make it logical, and the ad hominem aside (how exactly do any AE blocks Ive gotten matter here), you didnt really answer my point. That being that the sanction is worded terribly and that it prohibits what would be normal editing here. It doesnt say anything about BLP, where you might have some cause for a proactive if you do this edit one time youre blocked sanction, it doesnt say anything other than if something is potentially contentious (not unsourced, not POV, not anything that actually matters here) then the edit cannot be made. Never mind that any sentence could be potentially contentious, undisputable facts can be potentially contentious. You are effectively allowing partisan editors to hold a page hostage. Congratulations. Given the snideness of the last response I doubt youll actually consider what youre doing seriously, but I tried. Oh, and all my AE blocks have come on the opposite "side" that GHcool generally takes. nableezy - 16:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Thank you. This whole ban was very strange. It seems to have been a coordinated effort by two petty admins for the sole purpose of exercising power. The edit for which I am blocked for broke the letter of the law, but clearly not the spirit of the law. --GHcool (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know when you set up email. Thanks. KamelTebaast 18:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer we speak publicly if you don't mind. --GHcool (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not restore copyright violations again or I will report you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. KamelTebaast 16:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree with me on the BDS talk page. I do think that it's best to wait for a few more folks to pipe in before making changes to the article. [[PPX]] (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok :) it looks like the consensus is with us. Go forth and edit! [[PPX]] (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert your addition of Category:Antisemitism. Under a change to WP:ARBPIA enacted by ArbCom in December, you cannot restore the category until there is consensus for its restoration. Please see Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement, which appears on Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and says "Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please both see my latest comment on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I commented there too. --GHcool (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you canvassed WP:WikiProject Israel, you must have forgotten to notify WP:WikiProject Palestine. Don't worry; I've taken care of it for you. Pull a stunt like that again, and you can expect an invitation to WP:AE. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with notifying WP Palestine, however, I reject the accusation of canvasing. --GHcool (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing others of denialism is unproductive at best. VQuakr (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and perhaps indicates a biased reading on your part. I invite you to read the comment I just added there to oppose the category. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument was irrelevant to the discussion, but I've moved on. --GHcool (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't moved on. Why do you keep adding superfluous categories to the page? The article is a member of Category:Boycotts of Israel, which is a member of Category:Anti-Zionism, which is a member of Category:Anti-national sentiment. Your addition of these categories is unnecessary and contrary to our categorization guideline. Keep this up and, together with your idiotic edit warring at the BDS disambiguation page, you will soon be visiting WP:AE. And before you start whining, that's not a threat, it's a promise. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Verbcatcher what he/she thinks. We shall see ... --GHcool (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello why did you alter my edit?its under 700 words,the plot was slim there are bits missing,thanks,seen the film? Lincoln McAlister (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did it because the grammar and clarity was messy. Feel free to redo it with better diction and syntax. --GHcool (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What do you think of this removal? Perhaps you could recover the content without a direct quote? There is an entire paragraph of John Strawson that is hidden, while I think that Ishmael Khaldi deserves at least a sentence in the article. Perhaps you could suggest a trimming down of the material? Thanks--181.90.194.20 (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a huge fan of the out of context, big, giant quote. I'm not going to contest the move, but would not be opposed to it either. I agree with you that the article needs a serious trimming. --GHcool (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you revert this guy? (only extended-confirmed users can edit) Obviously Algemeiner is not a "blog", but a known Jewish newspaper. Thanks.--181.1.244.137 (talk) 02:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the edit. Elder of Ziyon is a blog cross-published on the Algemeiner website. It is not a reliable source. --GHcool (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you restore the opinion of Kenneth Meshoe in this section (it was removed by Seraphim System). I think that a South African politican who experienced apartheid himself is significant enough to have the following sentence:

Kenneth Meshoe, President of the African Christian Democratic Party, has argued against claims that Israel is an apartheid state, calling such accusations slanderous and deceptive. According to Meshoe, these claims trivialize the word apartheid, and belittles the magnitude of the racism and suffering endured by South Africans of color during apartheid era.^[1]

Thanks--181.92.141.195 (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is not notable, but I appreciate your bringing this to my attention. --GHcool (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. User SpidErxD made a series of changes (without previous discussion) which are not supported by given sources. For example, he replaced "oppose Zionism and Israel's existence" for "Zionist Regime's existence" (later changed by Nableezy for simply "oppose Zionism and Israel") despite the BBC clearly says:

"The idea behind Jerusalem Day rallies was to gather all fasting Muslims every year on the last Friday of Ramadan to show their opposition to the existence of Israel."

Another example. He changed the original "voicing anti-Semitic attacks" for "anti-zionist attacks" despite Katajun Amirpur says:

"One could easily come to the conclusion that anti-Semitism and a hostile attitude towards Jews are deeply rooted in Iranian society."

Later he made a series of changes to assert the fact that only "Zionist organizations" protest against Quds Day, which is not the case. Many Jewish and non-Jewish organizations and politicians expressed their rejection as well. Would you mind taking a look at those recent changes? Also you may want to take a look at this strange POV redaction. Thanks.--181.110.134.245 (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to investigate this at the moment, but I wish you luck. --GHcool (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this is an IP sock of AndresHerutJaim. nableezy - 18:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GHcool, very nice work on D.I.", one of my favorite movies. The range and the quality of Billy Wilder's films never cease to amaze me. —Strudjum Strudjum (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions&diff=792716010&oldid=792061251--181.1.145.49 (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]