User talk:386-DX

Hello 386-DX! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Khoikhoi 19:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Recent change of 30 ft

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=history

Hi 386-DX, I understand that you are trying to be accurate regarding the 30ft height, but so far all the RS use this number. Your comment "clearly it's not 30ft" is Original Research. What we think doesn't matter ... even if we're right. We need to find credible RS to back up our edits.

I recommend you revert your change or find an RS to back you up that it was less than 30ft. Zuchinni one (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, RS stands for reliable sources. As for the Original research, I'm afraid that it is as you can see here WP:OR. I understand where you are coming from in wanting to state your beliefs, but we can only state what Reliable Sources say. In this case the only thing that RS say is 30ft. If you can find a reliable source WP:RS to back up your opinion, then we could change things, but right now the reasoning behind your change doesn't meet wikipedia standards.

Don't feel bad though, it takes a while to get used to the kind of rigor that the site operates with. Keep up the good edits and good luck :) Zuchinni one (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is an RS stating 30 ft. Keep in mind, I'm also not sure that it should be in there. What I'm worried about is the reasoning you gave for removing it. And I bet, that if you ask any wiki admin, your reasoning would be considered Original Research. If no RS supported use that number then you could simply state that you are removing information that is unsourced. That is a good reason to change the article. Your personal estimation of distance on a video is not. I hope that helps. And please understand that I'm not attacking you. Just trying to help you to understand the way wikipedia operates.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/7790984/Israel-reconstruction-how-the-Gaza-aid-flotilla-attack-unfolded.html

Zuchinni one (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, User:Zuchinni one. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

ship/warship

Hi 386-DX your recent edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366470678&oldid=366470166 seems to be WP:Synth.

There were many Israeli ships that intercepted the convoy and while the source definitely says the journalist was with the Israeli forces, it does not mention that he was on a warship. I suggest you say "a journalist traveling with Israeli forces". This clearly shows that he was not on the convoy and correctly uses language from the source.

Cheers,

Zuchinni one (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I'll do that. Thank you. --386-DX (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

1RR question

If you show me diffs of any editor's two (or more) reverts within 24 hours, I'll run it past an admin.

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 16:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

They removed two images here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366590058&oldid=366586582 Thanks. --386-DX (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Did they remove it again? One revert is OK, it's anything beyond that which would be cause for concern. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 16:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

They removed more than one image, which I believe constitutes as multiple reverts. --386-DX (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

But they've only done it once. If they removed either of the images again, they'd be in breach of the 1RR sanctions. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 16:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe "1 revert in 24 hours" means "1 edit in 24 hours". If I revert 20 things in the article in a single edit, I would be violating the restriction. If you are not going to report it, could you please tell me how I can do it? Thanks. --386-DX (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be your best bet. Mention the article (Gaza flotilla raid), and that's under these - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles - sanctions, and show this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366590058&oldid=366586582. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 16:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, multiple reverts with no other editor making an edit between are also counted as 1 revert as they could reasonably have been doe in one go. Mo ainm~Talk 20:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinion

Please provide your opinion about the lead in Gaza Flotilla raid whether the fact that the activists were killed in close range should be reported. Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#close_range_shootings Here Thanks.

How to file a complaint re 1RR

It can be done here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Mo ainm~Talk 20:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --386-DX (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar :)

Hi 386-DX,

I've noticed how well you've been handling yourself in the discussion and editing of the Gaza flotilla raid article. You've managed to stay quite neutral and polite, while still firmly supporting your beliefs and you've done a really good job of working with others to improve the article :)

For that I award you The Barnstar of Integrity.

As a side note I personally LOVE Turkey as a country! The people, the natural beauty, and the food are amazing! I really look forward to returning soon :)

Cheers,

Zuchinni one (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My edits to Gaza flotilla raid

Which of my edits did you have a problem with? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you've been blocked, which is probably why you didn't answer my question, but I believe you can edit your own talk page, so if you did have a chance to reply I will read it with interest. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you are editing again. Would you do me the courtesy of letting me know which of my edits you objected to? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. Looks like I was mistaken on that. Sorry for the confusion. --386-DX (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Accepted and I expect that you will be more careful next time. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for violation of the one-revert rule at Gaza flotilla raid. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 21:20, 10 June 2010 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello there. I do not believe that I made more than 1 revert within 24 hours. I only undid the reverts of other users, who made those reverts in contradiction with the earlier discussions and consensus on the talk page and in violation of the WP:1RR restriction on the article. Also, I did not receive any warnings from other users or administrators regarding my edits, neither on the talk page nor on my user page. Could you please show me the specific diffs for which I have been blocked? Thank you.

Decline reason:

I do not believe that I made more than 1 revert within 24 hours. I only undid the reverts of other users... Right. That's called "reverting". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:55, 10 June 2010 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please note that I was acting in good faith here. When someone ignores the 1RR restriction on the page, vandalises the page, or makes edits in contradiction with numerous discussions and consensus on the talk page, I assumed that undoing those violations would not constitute as a revert itself. If it does, could you please tell me how we are supposed to fix the article when some random user comes and makes a bunch of discretionary reverts on the page ignoring earlier consensus? Thank you.

Decline reason:

This article is subject to distinct sanctions, and you were aware of the 1RR issue. !RR is 1RR, no if's and's or but's. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:19, 10 June 2010 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

That was the very reason I made my edits. Other users were reverting multiple parts of the article in contradiction with the discussions and consensus on the talk page, vandalising the page, and who were themselves violating the 1RR rule. In order to protect the page from this heavy vandalism, I had to WP:IGNORE the 1RR and undo those reverts. Finally, I notice that at least pro-activist editors have been blocked by User:tariqabjotu and no pro-Israeli editors, who are also doing multiple reverts on the page and still continuing to revert the changes which were previously discussed on the talk page and agreed upon with consensus. I do not think that is justified at all.

Decline reason:

You did not 'have to' revert them. If you feel someone else hase violated the restrictions placed upon that page, please feel free to report them. Since you're still confused about what 1RR is, and what a revert is, I don't see that unblocking you would be a good idea. Kuru (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2010 (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.

Agree I warned an editor yesterday who appeared to make more than 1 revert per 24 hours on the same article here Mo ainm~Talk 08:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Also a little advice 386-DX when this is turned down which I am fairly certain it will be (from past experience) I would advise you not to request another unblock because an Admin will block the page so you cant edit it. Mo ainm~Talk 08:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

...I'm pretty much ready to remove talkpage access now. Editor does not understand what a revert is, and how bright line 1RR limitations are. This is a clear cut case (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, could you advise exactly what we are supposed to do when a user is vandalising the page, violating 1RR, or making reverts ignoring the extensive discussions and consensus on the talk page? And what is WP:IAR for? --386-DX (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Clear vandalism can be reverted without penalty, but you need to ensure that it is vandalism. It is up to admins to ensure on contentious articles that the rules are being followed and edits against consensus should be reverted by the admin. I have sympathy with your case as your edts were not done to be disruptive, this is why I am not a fan of 1RR as the wrong people tend to get blocked. I don't think there is any need to block this editors talk page as his unblock requests are not being dune to disrupt wikipedia. Mo ainm~Talk 10:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Those were not vandalism reverts in any way, shape, or form. It is also not acceptable to break the 1RR if someone else has done it; that is the very definition of edit warring that the 1RR seeks to prevent. This has nothing to do with IAR. Kuru (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case; could you please tell me what exactly a user is supposed to do when somebody does reverts in contradiction with the extensive discussions and agreements on the talk page? Second question: Where do we report the 1RR violations? --386-DX (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave you the link above, in all honesty there isn't really anything you can do if an editor keeps reverting accept to report them. 1RR doesn't work all it does is slow down the edit wars and gives more power to the "side" that have the most numbers. 15:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, the primary link is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement since the 1RR is a discretionary sanction related to a previous arb ruling. If there's not a fast response there, you can probably post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring I think. If that's not working you can contact one of the administrators that are willing to step in to high drama articles like that; they are few, though. User:Tariqabjotu is obviously one of them. Kuru (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

International inquiry

Hi again 386,

We're both editing the same bit about Israel now accepting an international role in the investigation. I think we're both trying to say the same thing, but we should probably remove the word 'initially' from where it currently is. What do you think of:

"The Israeli government has said it would accept limited international role in the investigation of the raid, although it still rejects an independent international inquiry"

Zuchinni one (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. --386-DX (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool ... I just noticed your recent block. Sorry to hear about that. It's funny, I almost wrote something on your wall to let you know to be careful, but it seemed to me that you were stopping vandalism, not really edit warring. Either way, glad to have you back!

Zuchinni one (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Guess I didn't fully understand what a "revert" means. Will be more careful next time. --386-DX (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Random question

I've been really confused about the whole Islamafication of Turkey recently. The country seems to have such a strong and unique culture that I don't really understand why its starting to become so right-wing religious. I mean the people there seemed really proud of how different Turkish culture was from other Muslim countries and about how they were a strong moderate voice in the world. What's happened? Zuchinni one (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit complicated; I'm not sure if I'll be able to summarise it here. In a not shell: "The country is not actually becoming more religious, it just appears to be." The people elected the Justice and Development Party (Turkey) in the aftermath of the 2001 global economic crisis which also severely had affected Turkey. It was a new party then, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the chairman of the party (now the PM) had a successful track record as the Mayor of Istanbul. They won a majority in the parliament. Because of their conservative identity, the economic and democratic reforms they introduced (ironic, I know), and the reduction of military influence in politics; the minorities and the religious people who were being oppressed started to make their voices heard more. Some of the media, corporations, artists, and the general public also began to (or appeared to) behave more conservatively to reflect their appreciation or get along better with the state institutions. The government also made new openings in foreign policy (see Ahmet Davutoğlu, Neo-Ottomanism) to reduce issues with the neighbouring countries in the region and increase political influence as a regional power, instead of being subordinate to the west. People are not actually devoting themselves to religion, changing their habits, or becoming more radical. It's mostly the government and their motivation is mostly political. Nobody wants an Islamic state, including the government. --386-DX (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting, That sounds a lot like what happened in the US with the Republican party getting the support of religious groups and then pushing their agendas for political points.

As for Israel, I can give you my best guess as to why things seem to have gone more right-wing, but I think the problem may be a bit harder to diagnose.

I'd say that the major factor that started things was the failed peace talks of 2000 between Arafat & Barak. From the Israeli perspective most people were shocked about how much Barak was offering to the Palestinians (of course that's only their perspective). But people really thought there was going to finally be peace and everyone was excited. But when Arafat rejected the offer, and from an Israeli perspective started the 2nd intifada they became disillusioned with the peace process. The right wingers especially gained from that because they could say things like "Well its really good they didn't accept our offer otherwise they could be shooting at us from much closer and causing more problems."

So the right wing parties began to get stronger and then they also started to get support from new nationalistic parties (many of which included new Russian immigrants). So the political landscape began to change.

Then when Israel withdrew all of its forces from Gaza, removed the settlements, and were allowing Gaza to be open to the world ... Hamas was elected and the rocket attacks of southern Israel got worse and worse. After that, it seems to me that it became a cycle of rocket attacks strengthening the Israeli right and the Israeli response of attacking Gaza, blockades, etc ... strengthening Hamas over the PA.

For a while it looked like a new moderate party Kadima might be able to make peace, but Olmert was surrounded by corruption and that hurt the party as well as himself.

The truth is though there are basically 3 groups of Israelis:

1) Those that are fed up with all the bullshit & violence and want to try to make peace. This group includes the very left wing Israelis and those that are politically to the center or right, but who think peace is the best solution to the region's problems. This is easily the majority, but because of the way the parliament is set up, its difficult to turn this philosophical majority into reality.

2) Those that are focused mainly on Israeli security and aren't opposed to peace as long as it comes with security ... but they are easily swayed by rocket attacks and bombings to the point where the smallest excuse will pull them away from the peace process. These are also the people who support the blockade of Gaza as a way to weaken Hamas while doing what they can to improve life for the Palestinians in the West Bank. The idea is that the Palestinians will 'realize' that supporting Hamas has only hurt them, and they will turn away from violence.

3) The religious nutjobs who believe god gave them the land and they support settlements or live in the West Bank. Most Israelis actually can't stand these people and wish they would stop causing problems for everyone ... but its hard to talk to people who only take orders from a sky fairy. They will fight anyone, including other Israelis who are interested in peace. These were the people who assassinated Rabin because they thought he was going against god. Not all of them are violent, but they are all stubborn and unwilling to listen to reason.

Finally with recent political changes worldwide, many Israelis feel the world is unjustly criticizing them without understanding the reality of the situation. This has caused some people to support Israel even when they don't fully agree with her actions, while many of the more level-headed people are kinda starting to give up and are just sick of all the violence, killing, and the difficulties it is causing everyone, but they aren't sure how to turn things around.

Whew! That was a bit of a long answer but I hope its clear.

Zuchinni one (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Help:Diff

Hi! Can you try and use diffs when discussing edits - it makes it a lot easier for other editors to know which edits you're talking about. A quick hint is - click on an editor's contributions and you'll get an easy way to get a diff for every one of their edits. TFOWR 11:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your recent revert from Gaza flotilla raid

My edit was neither intended as a revert, nor arbitrary. If you can point me to the talk page discussion on the paragraph I removed from the lead, I'll gladly take a look at it though. ← George ^talk 16:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Please stop dragging people to ANI for editing Gaza flotilla raid. You're starting to breach WP:BATTLEGROUND and you may well find yourself on the receiving end of sanctions if you continue with such apparently unjustified reports. Three in a day and a half is excessive. Please discuss issues with editors, on their talk page and on the article talk page, before trying to get them blocked. Fences&Windows 00:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom Palestine-Israel special enforcement

Use	Area of conflict	Decision linked to	Topic specific subpage
a-a	Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan
a-i	the Arab–Israeli conflict	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict
aa2	Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan
ab	abortion	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Abortion
acu	complementary and alternative medicine	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Complementary and Alternative Medicine
ap	post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics
at	the English Wikipedia article titles policy and Manual of Style	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Manual of Style and article titles
mos	the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Manual of Style and article titles
b	the Balkans or Eastern Europe	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe
blp	articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons
cam	complementary and alternative medicine	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Complementary and Alternative Medicine
cc	climate change	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Climate change
cid	discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes
covid	COVID-19, broadly construed	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/COVID-19
e-e	Eastern Europe or the Balkans	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Balkans or Eastern Europe
fg	Falun Gong	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Falun Gong
gc	governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Gun control
gg	gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Gender and sexuality
ggtf	gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Gender and sexuality
gap	gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Gender and sexuality
gas	gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Gender and sexuality
gmo	genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Genetically modified organisms
horn	the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes)	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Horn of Africa
ipa	India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
irp	post-1978 Iranian politics	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Iranian politics
iranpol	post-1978 Iranian politics	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Iranian politics
kurd	the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Kurds and Kurdistan
pa	gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Gender and sexuality
ps	pseudoscience and fringe science	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Pseudoscience and fringe science
r-i	the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Race and intelligence
tpm	post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people	Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics
tt	the Troubles	Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles	Wikipedia:Contentious topics/The Troubles

Note that the ap and tpm topic codes are interchangeable. tpm is preferred.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)