User talk:Jalapenos do exist: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎ANI reporting notice: ARBPIA notification
Line 646: Line 646:
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. --[[User:386-DX|386-DX]] ([[User talk:386-DX|talk]]) 11:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. --[[User:386-DX|386-DX]] ([[User talk:386-DX|talk]]) 11:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
:Say, Jalapenos, do you think someone making 3 reports to AN/I within 36 hours (two of which have been closed with no action so far) could be said to be displaying [[WP:BATTLE]] mentality since he seems to be ignoring similar editing patterns by people who he agrees with politically? Nah, I must be imagining things. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 11:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
:Say, Jalapenos, do you think someone making 3 reports to AN/I within 36 hours (two of which have been closed with no action so far) could be said to be displaying [[WP:BATTLE]] mentality since he seems to be ignoring similar editing patterns by people who he agrees with politically? Nah, I must be imagining things. [[User:No More Mr Nice Guy|No More Mr Nice Guy]] ([[User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy|talk]]) 11:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

== Notification of special Palestine-Israel arbcom case edit restrictions ==
{{Palestine-Israel enforcement}} [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 18:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:36, 16 June 2010

Welcome

AnimWIKISTAR-laurier-WT.gif A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... 100... 200


Hello, Jalapenos do exist, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Scapler and I would like to thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction
 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia
  How to edit a page
  Help
  Tips
  How to write a great article
  Manual of Style
  Fun stuff...
  Be Bold
  Assume Good faith
23   Keep cool
  Ask an experienced editor to adopt you
  Policy on neutral point of view

And here are several pages on things to avoid:

How not to spam
How to avoid copyright infringement
What Wikipedia is not
How not to get blocked, which should be no problem after reading this!
The Three-Revert-Rule and how to avoid breaking it

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) - if you click on the button it will automatically insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Also, please consider joining the the adopt-a-user project, where advanced editors can guide you in your first experiences here. Again, welcome! 


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

Click here to reply to this message.
Scapler (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Jake WartenbergTalk 18:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss run-of-the-mill editing issues on the appropriate article's talk page, and not here. Also, please do not revert edits without checking the talk page first. Had you done so in this case, you would have seen that there was a consensus that the relevant content needed to be drastically changed or removed; My edit followed the first option. Further, please read edit summaries, such as the one where I wrote "see talk page". Finally, please do not use terms such as "it appears..." when stating your own personal opinions, as it's just plain annoying. Happy editing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work

Hi Jalapenos. Very nice article in here. Although I guess you and I are on too far sides of the spectrum, I absolutely respect your visible hard work. Peace, and congrats monsieur. --Darwish07 (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Darwish. I really appreciate that. We've disagreed in the past and will probably disagree in the future, but I've seen your work and I believe that you aim - and are succeeding - to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I don't know if we're on two far sides of the spectrum, but I do have plenty of biases pulling me in various directions. I try to keep them in check by imagining what a real encyclopedia article would look like and editing with that it mind. I hope it's working. Thanks again, and happy editing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Saepe Fidelis. An article I wrote pertaining to the Israel-Gaza conflict has been put up for deletion. I think the level of discourse on the deletion page is very low. You're an editor I hold in high regard, and I was wondering if you could give your input. I don't know what you'll think. I can't hide the fact that I hope you'll support keeping it, but if you oppose, at least I'll know that there were good reasons for deleting it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jalapenos, I am glad to hear that you hold me in high regard. I certainly hold you in high regard as well.
Myself, I don't see the need for this article. It is so specific that a reader would be quite unlikely to come across it. But I don't feel very strongly about it one way or the other.
Best of luck, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Elonka 17:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the heads up; I recently stated on the talk page that I would not make any more reverts in the near future. The reverts in question counteracted removals of large sections of sourced material without discussion. I made repeated calls to the removing editor, both in my edit summaries and on the talk page, to discuss his removals on the talk page and seek consensus, but was ignored. I guess other editors of that article will have to take up the job of dealing with such behavior. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding.  :) And yes, if there's something obvious that needs to be done, other editors will probably help take care of it, especially on such a busy article. If you're concerned that another editor is being too disruptive, you also may wish to follow some of the steps at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors. A particularly useful option is to leave a direct note on the talkpage of the other editor, where you can express polite concerns and suggestions. Providing diffs is also very important, both to make it clear what you are talking about, and also because it's helpful for administrators to review the "paper trail" of what's been going on. As you've seen, the talkpage of the Gaza conflict article gets a lot of traffic, so sometimes things get lost in the rush. But messages on user talkpages can help cut through the clutter. --Elonka 17:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks for the info and for your time. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info and oppertunity to respond

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admn_attention_needed

Brunte (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


We do not always agree, but if we had five of you on either side of the POVs this article would get to GA in no time. Brunte's wrong here, and your argument is compelling. Period. Well sourced, relevant material should not be removed without discussion, and should not be edit warred about. Do take care of your edits and let others join the fun, it is very hard to IAR 3RR specially due to WP:ARBPIA.--Cerejota (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, thank you! I thought I was going crazy or entering some kind of weird twilight zone-esque shadow reality. Just out of curiosity, which side of the POVs do you think I'm on? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

New edits seem to be going here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 4 and not showing in the deletion review atWikipedia:Deletion_review. Any ideas ? Also, booby. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just takes a while to "load" onto the real page. Your comment is already there. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ah right. heh, penos sounds a bit like...okay, settle down, stop that. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Mmmph, snigger, snigger, hee hee!)  :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Reply

Someone, I don't know if its you or someone else, has been adding huge chunks which give undue weight to Israel's side of the story.

For example, there was more written about anti-semitic attacks than about the gaza humanitarian crisis. We don't need all the detail about that. So I removed. I am trying to keep the weight in the article correct.

Similarly more should be written about the humanitarian crisis than about Israeli's building bombing shelters, but it was the other way round.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I was hoping against hope that you would actually read WP:CONSENSUS and see that the two things are not the same, or that you would understand that the way to fix perceived under-representation is by adding quality sourced information and not by removing it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Honeymane ahhh Wiikkiiwriter, the kind of editor i can only hope to become one day Sean.hoyland - talk 07:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see some real fun stuff, scroll two sections up on the noticeboard. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored deleted material

On 01:52, 8 February 2009 you restored deleted material to the article 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. That material included 1 defunct reference "name=AJC/". Could you please tell me the version you took it from, so that I may fix this last reference in a long list of reffixes. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here's the full reference. [1]. Thanks for all your hard work on the International reactions section. I just want to give you a heads up, though, in case you didn't know, that there was an entire article on the issue of antisemitic backlash. The article was deleted improperly after a stalemated deletion discussion, and is now in deletion review; it's looking like the deletion will get overturned, but it's close. In any case, if the article gets restored, I think the section on the subject in the International reactions article will be superfluous, since there's already a summary in the main 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict article. If the article doesn't get restored, much of the material that was in it could be useful for the section you're working on, and I can post it up for you if you want. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. Thanks a lot! Debresser (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to ask you where you added it from a week before it was deleted and you subsequently restored it. Now I know. That was a lot of searching though, before I understood what went on here. Debresser (talk)

Sorry I couldn't be of help earlier. :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say....

I don't know if I already said this, but I appreciate the hard work you are doing at the Gaza Conflict and wonder at your energy & perseverance. You seem to always remain civil as well, which is a trick in itself :) You pay close attention to detail and stay focused. Very bueno! Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I appreciate that very, very much. Since I got complimented by both Darwish and you, does this mean I enjoy bipartisan support?  :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Talkback

Hello, Jalapenos do exist. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

on bringing Antisemitic incidents occuring during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict back from the dead. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now we need to turn it into a really good article, because it will get AfD'd again. There will of course be people who just don't like it who will want to delete it no matter what, but I'm hoping that next time no reasonable person will consider deleting it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Talkback

Hello, Jalapenos do exist. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Antisemitic incidents during the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict

Hi. First of all, I'm glad you appreciate my edit :)

Basically, I agree with the criteria. I was trying to choose only incidents that are anti-Jewish rather than anti-Israeli. The sources I cited also consider them antisemitic. Anyway, feel free to edit the section, and if I'll have any objections to your edits, I'll take it to the talk page. Cheers, Nudve (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Haaretz article

Hi jalapenos. While reading Haaretz today, I found this article which might be relevant to your latest editing efforts about Judaism. good luck :-). --Darwish (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! 14:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

gaza aid article

hey, jalapenos, i was wondering if you could take care of the linking problem that happened with the rename of the gaza aid article. the main article still links to int'l reactions article/humanitarian aid, which doesn't exist anymore. also, the intl reactions article doesn't link to or summarize the gaza aid page. i'd do it myself, but i'm not good with that kind of thing yet. untwirl(talk) 20:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey, me again - it looks like this still needs to be taken care of. since you created the new page i was hoping you could fix the linking and lack of summary problems. thanks in advance. :) untwirl(talk) 02:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Modest Barnstar

The Modest Barnstar
For a great edit on the Netherlands section in Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Naked statements are bad, complete context and information are better. --Cerejota (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Purim!


Happy Purim!


from Chesdovi

Talkback

Hello, Jalapenos do exist. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jalapenos do exist. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of you on either side...

...and this whole series would be brought to quality. When you include material, it is always well-reasoned and relevant, when you exclude it, there is always a coherent reason, when there is needless drama, you STFU even your side. If more editors were like you, I wouldn't even bother with ARBPIA. Of course, if pigs had wings... ;) Just needed to say this. :)--Cerejota (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Blush* Your repeated feeding of my insatiable ego, plus my own high esteem for you as an editor, remove any annoyance I might have had from your pigeonholing me as belonging to a side. Let us go forth and prevail, or something to that effect. :) Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onwards then, as Habaneros also exist!--Cerejota (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Awkward silence* They don't, but I guess I can't blame you for falling prey to the Conspiracy. Seems everyone has. Sigh. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please respond

to my the two bottom sections of the talk page, as well as my requests for you to clean up the loose ends you left behind while creating the gaza aid page. thanks. untwirl(talk) 16:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, i do appreciate your responding, even if it didnt address any of the issues (other than personal ones you have toward me.) first and foremost, i am unaware of any "extremely rude and malicious" remarks i have made toward you in the past, or having written "lies about (you) on several occasions." in my estimation we have disagreed several times in the past - but if you really think i have done either of those things you should point me in their direction with a diff, and i will promptly strike and apologize unreservedly. my saying that you appear to have an inconsistent standard is not a personal attack, or even a lie - i quoted you directly and showed how i thought that standard wasnt being followed. i, for one, appreciate your reasoned and (usually) consistent approach to applying standards for inclusion to that article. however, it seems that your personal distaste for me has clouded your judgment in this instance. if i have misunderstood how you believe those standards should apply i am more than willing to reconsider my statement about your inconsistency. i will refrain from commenting on my opinion of your decidedly antagonistic stance with regards to me, and your favoring of one POV over another. i have tried to ignore your snide comments and focus on issues with editing. i'll take your comments on this matter in good faith, even though you do not grant me the same, and take time to review my own statements to see how i can avoid offending editors such as yourself in the future. hopefully you can accept my lack of malicious intent, even if we disagree on certain issues. as i said, i am willing to take your harsh criticism in stride and bear no grudge toward you for your attack on my character. untwirl(talk) 01:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Brando

Was a talentless anti-semite who raped his own daughter. So glad he died alone in poverty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.17.216 (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

Nice work on the CD article. I will watchlist it, and hopefully get a chance to maybe expand it. I was recently reading with interest about the successful testing of the Iron Dome project. Thanks for doing it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your comment on User_talk:Okedem

Please see the discussion about his username here. Thanks. GT5162 (我的对话页) 17:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny!

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For your tireless work on Durban Review Conference and various other articles. I award you this shiny barnstar. Your work does not go unappreciated. Thanks for making Wikipedia a better place for everyone! Cheers Kyle1278 22:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your very welcome!Cheers Kyle1278 22:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Global tag from Durban_Review_Conference

I am very puzzled by your removal of the

tag from this article. Three people supported it, two people, including yourself opposed it, and you removed it within hours of its insertion. Is there a reason for this?93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised at your puzzlement. There is a simple reason I removed it, and I expressed it clearly on the talk page. You are welcome to continue the discussion there and explain why you returned it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For working on an article that you felt shouldn't even exist and helping to bring it up, even if temporarily, to encyclopedic standards. Nableezy (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
honestly, the next time around I might vote delete, though I think an idea from Ashley Kennedy might be a good one, an article on negative images in the conflict covering this as well. But you and Gilabrand did a very good job, instead of just letting the article remain the newspaper worthy account that it was you made a good encyclopedic account of the event. Peace and happiness, Nableezy (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperionsteel - Thanks.

Thanks for the Barnstar. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hey

Since you were the only one involved aside from NMRNG, can you weigh in? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

You seem to be on good terms with editors on both sides of the I-P conflict while still being interested in issues related to it. As such, I figured that inviting you to give a look and form an opinion on the Hamastan RfC would not lead to accusations of canvassing *crosses fingers*
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 06:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to worry

Yeah, cynics suck. Unfortunately... No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you...

take a look at Nableezy's talk page the section titled "Disputed casualties figure" please. Cryptonio (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! --Shuki (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I may try to DYK it, so if you see anything glaring that needs to be improved, please do so. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I just nominated it for DYK. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. There's still a lot to do though. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

for making the quip about making them look bad, but I do think you should not have said the opposite to Gato. But apologies, Nableezy (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jalapenos do exist. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iran election protests

This independent survey is the most relevant information because it's the only reliable document about the election. Be so nice and discuss matters before you act rude. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where I acted rudely. Look, the Iranian presidential election, 2009 article has a whole section comparing surveys. Maybe you had a good reason for singling out this particular survey, putting it in an article that's not about the elections and devoting a whole section to it; but you didn't say what it was. So how about we take it to the talk page? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Why did you just overhaul the entire June 20 section without discussing it? I put a good amount of effort in writing the Neda portion. Also why did you add American responses to the dates? The article is about the Iranian election protests day-by-day. Any american responses, such as Congress passing resolution in support of the Iranian people, or Obama's reaction, should strictly be in the INternational responses section. Next time talk before you erase other people's work! RapidFire50 (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RapidFire, thanks for your contributions; I'm looking forward to working with you in the future. In case you don't know, your work hasn't been erased: you can easily retrieve it by clicking the "history" tab. I overhauled the section because it was written entirely in the future tense, and discussed things that were "expected" to happen, some of which didn't. It was really just an update, which is why I didn't discuss it. You have a point regarding Obama's reaction, but int'l reactions are a developing process, so I do think major developments should be stated - briefly - in the timeline section. I did remove an extensive quote from an Iranian protester, because I think that kind of stuff will overload the article, especially the timeline section. But I probably should have discussed that removal first. Sorry. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions on the Iranian election pages and elsewhere!

The Original Barnstar
Your indefatigable persuit of impoving Middle East related articles, many of the controversial, has made the website a better place. The Squicks (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current events globe On 22 June, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2009 Iranian election protests, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--SpencerT♦Nominate! 16:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a quick proposal for more strikeouts on the AFD-page (takes some grammar-editing, but it'll be OK): (and a 2nd addition -DePiep (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete. This is exactly what WP:NOTNEWS refers to. It is a comically unimportant affair which, for about a week in March 2009, was in some newspaper articles, all of which were based on a single article in Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Since then it has disappeared from serious sources, remaining only in some anti-Israel blogs. All in all, Lindsay Lohan's latest outfit received more media attention than this. The first AfD occurred while the newspaper articles were appearing, so some editors innocently fell victim to recentism, but at this point it's fairly clear what the motivation for keeping the article is. User:Jalapenos do exist12:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
[Great reply (DePiep)]:
  • Oh dear This is why I stay away from I/P articles usually. Though there are probably good arguments to delete, Jalap's saying things like "remaining only in some anti-Israel blogs" and "at this point it's fairly clear what the motivation for keeping the article is" makes me just.. sigh. Oh dear.... Count this "Not really a vote" any way you want. Dendlai
[Now here "Jalapenos do exist" changes: from emotional to rational -- Whatever the motivation, his outcome will be the same (DePiep)]:
  • Even if people like me create a sense of despair in you, you may find that they are reasonable people and that dialogue with them is possible and even fruitful. My statement about where this issue does and does not remain is a verifiable fact. You can check for yourself. As for my opinion on the motivation to keep this article, perhaps my greater involvement in I/P articles (and in this particular article) has made me more cynical than you. User:Jalapenos do exist|Jalapenos do exist

(End of quote) -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine

Hi Jalapenos,

Could you take a look at the discussion in Talk:Palestine, etc? Harlan keeps confusing the claims, and misusing sources, but I'm a little short on time to handle this at the moment.

okedem (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jebusite

Using the term "conquest" makes a judgment that King David actually "conquered" Jerusalem, rather than co-opting its management, as the Jebusite Hypothesis (in this Article) suggests. For that reason, "occupation" is a more neutral word and seems preferable, although perhaps still other words might be better (and if so, please suggest).

The lack of any information (even Biblical) asserting massacre of the inhabitants suggests peaceful occupation (or even making an offer that the management couldn't refuse--such as steak dinners forever for Zadoq/Araunah and his descendants in exchange for nominal substitution of "Yahweh" for "El Elyon" as alternative to massacre). Therefore, I propose to change "conquest" to "occupation" in a week or so if no contrary consensus emerges.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally out of line

This edit is totally unacceptable. You have not participated in any discussion for weeks. The article has been significantly developed over this time and is completely different than what it was when it is nominated for AfD. Palestine is discussed as a state by a sufficient number of reliable sources. More than half of the world recognizes it as a state. We are not going to censor out their opinions on the matter simply because you do not like it. Reverting your action is not disruptive, but deleting/redirecting the article as you have without regard to the facts certainly is. Tiamuttalk 17:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut, I explained the edit at length in the talk page, showing why it was procedurally the right thing to do in this situation. Right now you're just repeating what you've already said in the stalemated discussion (and was said in the original AfD). I could now repeat what I already said in the stalemated discussion (and was said in the original AfD) to refute just those claims, but that didn't convince you then and it's not going to convince you now, no matter how blindingly obvious I think it is. Whether the article has been developed is irrelevant, since the original consensus did not depend on the state of the article but on the (in/)appropriateness of having an article on this (non/)topic in the first place. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe your position is self-evident and easily defensible, then you should open another AfD. The article has changed significantly since the last AfD nomination. The result of that was not delete but "redirect". After some discussions at WP:IPCOLL and on the talk page at Proposals for a Palestinian state, there was a rough consensus to reinstate the article. After its reinstatement, it was heavily developed. You have not participated in any discussions regarding the article for weeks. You cannot leave an announcement on the talk page that you are going to redirect, citing an old, outdated, and faulty AfD discussion and expect epople who spent hours of their time developing the article are just going to be fine with that. They are not. You cannot also dismiss the opinions of others who participated in discussions elsewhere following the AfD debate. In other words, you cannot turn back time.
Please stop reverting away the article. It is disruptive. Tiamuttalk 21:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you think the AfD discussion was "faulty". If by "faulty" you mean that you disagree with the consensus outcome, then I can't help you, but if you mean that there was a procedural problem, then you can take it to Deletion Review and state your case. I'm genuinely sorry that you spent hours of your time on the article, but it was your choice to spend that time on an article which you knew the community had already decided should not exist, which you knew was reinstated inappropriately and tolerated in the spirit of compromise pending the outcome of a second discussion, and which you knew never received a new consensus to keep. There was never a "rough consensus" in various discussions on other pages to reinstate this article, as I assume you're aware, and as was acknowledged by John when he opened a discussion in the hope of achieving such a consensus. A second AfD is of course not the proper procedure in this situation - any editor would have the ability to unilaterally and unjustifiably overturn it just as John overturned the first - but if you want to open a Request for Comment, I would welcome that. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Jalapenos, while you are lobbying for the deletion of State of Palestine, you spend your time writing about Jaljalat (who?). I don't think you are applying WP:N in a disinterested fashion in this case. Tiamuttalk 22:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll assume that this is a good faith question, which requires me to assume that you didn't read/didn't understand the opinions of anyone supporting redirect. Nobody is disputing that there is a notable political entity called the Palestinian National Authority in the notable Palestinian Territories of the notable geographic Region of Palestine, that this entity is populated by a notable group called Palestinians, and that there have been notable proposals for a Palestinian state. WP:N has nothing to do with this, and if you're worried that there's a conspiracy to erase the Palestinians, I suggest you look and see whether there was ever a serious attempt to erase those articles, take a deep breath and relax. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a notable political entity known as Palestine, or the State of Palestine. It is represented as an observer in the UN. It send teams to compete in the Olympics. It has diplomatic relations with over 100 countries. Tiamuttalk 23:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two of you have gotten along pretty well in the past, how about we all just chill for a bit. Jalapenos I understand why you are redirecting it, I disagree obviously, but you do raise issues that need to be properly addressed. But there are also valid reasons why it should not be a redirect and why the previous AfD would not apply to this article. Sooooo, lets all just relax and talk about it for a bit. If we remain deadlocked either way an RfC would be the next logical step (though from experience these RfC's only bring in the partisans, nobody in the wider community wants to get involved in these shitstorms, and for good reason). nableezy - 23:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually pretty relaxed (suprising even for me), and of course I support talking about it, "it" being the procedural issue, since we've already heard everything the others have to say on the substantive question. But let's not forget that you guys are basically edit warring with me. I could have acted like you guys and immediately reverted when John Z reinstated the article to begin with, and I would have had good reason to - it was improper to reinstate first and then have a discussion - but I didn't, and it's frustrating that being the patient one makes me get the short end of the stick (that's what she said, I know). I agree with everything you say about the RfC: it's a crappy system, but it will probably be our best option. As for the possibility of Tiamut and I ever respecting each other again, it's been a lost cause since Lydda Death March. That saddens me, but such is life. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I will not revert another redirect. I feel that it is improper to redirect it for the reasons I stated on the talk page, but I still like you so I wont go any further with this. And I wouldnt lose hope of Tiamut and you becoming friendly again, the Lydda Death March page was something that a lot of people had issues with, myself included, as it seemed like the last hurrah of a group of editors about to be topic-banned (no I am not including you in the group, you know who I mean: it starts with a NoCal and ends with a Monkey) trying their hardest to push out an excellent contributor. But I am sure we can resolve this amicably, even if that one did not go so well. nableezy - 23:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You tried to revert away an article that others spent hours working on twice today. You are not a victim. You instigated the edit war here, by ignoring the comments made in response to your proposal on the talk page. None of them were supportive of what you did Jalapenos.
Thanks for acknowledging that you don't respect me. It explains a lot about why it is you respond to my posts in the way that you do. Tiamuttalk 23:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think Jalapenos meant it like that Tiamut. nableezy - 23:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your help in smoothing things over Nableezy, but Jalapenos' behaviour at the talk page and the sectioning off of people's views who don't agree with his, plus Brewcrewer's coming in to accuse you and me tag-teaming, well, I have trouble believing they're not part of that same crew that begins with Nocal and ends with Monkey. Plus, the condescneding tone sounds all too familiar. Tiamuttalk 00:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk

dont really want to get into an edit war with you so if you would mind engaging here I am sure we can find language that is acceptable to both of us. nableezy - 18:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comment deleted

Hi. Was this deletion of my comment[1] unintentional? I assume it was.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm not sure how it happened, but I remember there was an edit conflict when I made that comment, and I guess I screwed something up with the copy-paste thing. Thanks for letting me know, and for the WP:AGF. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed it might have something to do with an edit conflict. I think the whole edit conflict interface is confusing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention aggravating. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your new infobox template

Good day. Do think that discussion of your proposal for this infobox might not be a bad idea before putting it into twelve articles? I understand being bold but these are consensus-first, content-later articles, as evidenced by the many notices to that effect on their Talk pages. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Please be careful to always assume good faith when reviewing edits from other users. Suggesting an edit is vandalism should always be done very reluctantly, particularly where more controversial articles and established users are involved. Vandalism is defined as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". I find little evidence to suggest that the recent edits had malicious intent. Your opinion that "photo of injured child is emotive" is not a good enough reason to justify the removal of the infobox is simply that, your opinion, not a justification for describing an edit as vandalism or even borderline vandalism. My understanding of the timeline is that RomaC removed the content and then immediately started a discussion about it on the talk page. That hardly seems like the actions of someone intent on damaging Wikipedia. Regards. Adambro (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion, Adambro. For the record, I did not say that RomaC's edit was vandalism; I said it bordered on vandalism, and I stand by that statement. His action was similar to saying that there's a problem with a paragraph and then erasing the entire section. If he had a legitimate issue with the image, he could have replaced it or removed it. In fact, someone else recently did exactly that, and I did not oppose him, let alone charge him with bordering on vandalism. Despite RomaC's behavior and subsequent sundry accusations toward me, I assumed good faith in deed by making every attempt to discuss the issue with him, a fact that you should be aware of. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly satisfied that I had a good enough picture of the situation to comment. Adambro (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I thank you again for it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

I just wanted to let you know that I found your new article Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip) interesting and have nominated it for inclusion in WP: DYK. Thanks B.s.n. R.N.contribs 08:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I happened to see that. Thank you, and I'm glad you find it interesting. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goldstone report

Hi. I see you started that one. Great. I hope u wouldn't mind that I start merging (if anything left to be merged) from Int_law article, in order to delete the redundancy from Int-Law asap. Regards. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're late. Some updates: merge is complete; link to Int_law entry and back established (when Gaza War will be reopen, link will be there too); other editors started editing it actively. I don't know what are your obligations in real life (me myself is extremely busy), but I'd like you participate there actively. C u there (hopefully). --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not sure you can just delete an article written by the newspaper journalist...--Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about the blog by the anonymous Economist journalist, of course I can. The blog is not at all notable. Additionally, it was included in such a way as to mislead the reader into thinking it had equal weight to the actual editorial stance of the publication. It looks like whoever did this was being intellectually dishonest. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is not 'the blog' like EOZ or something. it is the newspaper. journalist that works at the newspaper publishes his opinion in the newspaper. this is not the same as with blog. i somewhat agree that giving this piece equal weight is dishonest - it is like giving an article from Gideon Levy the same weight as editorial from Haaretz (both are lunatic) but not to the same extent), but still. Btw, speaking of Levy, turns out that the latest drop in the rank of the freedom of press is based heavily on him - what an irony. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Israel's drop? What's the source? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
כך דירגנו את ישראל. tell me if you need English translation, i have it in my email. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gaza war

You said in the RfC that you felt that the sourcing was not adequate to include "gaza massacre" in the lead and bolded. Do you think that this source which says Known in the Arab world as the Gaza Massacre, Operation Cast Lead left more than 1 000 Palestinians dead earlier this year. in The Sunday Times (South Africa) is sufficient? (Dont let the sidebar fool you, they put that opinion/blog sidebar on every article) nableezy - 22:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that what the article itself calls the conflict is "Operation Cast Lead"? Sorry, dude, this one unremarkable article out of zillions isn't going to convince me to rename the Wiki article "Operation Cast Lead" and it's not going to convince me to put anything in bold in the lede. But if "Gaza Massacre" is really the primary proper name for the conflict in the Arab world by now, it shouldn't be hard to convince me of that. It's a common sense matter of looking through Arab media and googling. And if that's the case, the ST article will be a good thing to have on your side if someone tries to knock down your real evidence with some bullshit argument of OR. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

serious request

Seconded. But consistency applies to so much more than standards, it applies to arguments. The biggest problem I see is that users (and I am not intending this to be directed at you, we have not had any real problems that I am aware of) use completely inconsistent arguments. The way I see it, if arguments were consistent among individual users you can get something approaching a NPOV article, which as it stands is nearly non-existent in this area. People wont make bullshit arguments against one side if they are made to apply that same argument to the other side. I showed how a certain user did exactly that in the same section of a talk page, not even a different article much less a different section, but the very same section making the exact opposite argument. The response: otherstuffexists. Regarding your request that I not summarily delete sections, I cant promise that. If I see something that I think is, no offense, bullshit I am going to delete it. But I'll only do it once, no longer the edit-warrior am I, but I still will make the initial edit if I think it should be made. Anyway, saw that addition to your user page and just wanted to add my bit. Peace and happiness, nableezy - 00:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. BTW, it was the interlocution with you that inspired me to formalize that rule, so thanks for that. I may change the rule to reflect your comment. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I have not made disparate arguments about what to include. I put NGO Monitor and CAMERA on a lower level than AI and HRW and other groups. I personally think that they (AI and HRW) are reliable sources that can be used on their own, but NGO Monitor and CAMERA specifically are not and should only be used when cited by a secondary source, and if you want me to say why I say that I will. nableezy - 01:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think there was any problem in your position. I meant that talking to you made me think more seriously about my position. I agree that NGO Monitor and CAMERA shouldn't be used on their own (except maybe NGO Monitor in an exceptional situation where there's no room for interpretation and for some reason there is no better source available). I don't think that AI and HRW are reliable sources (I could explain why if anyone is interested), but I still use them when there's no room for interpretation and there's no other available source. I may be in the minority on that, but I think that even people who consider them reliable sources should accept that they're a primary reliable source, and partisan regarding the issues they deal with (not that they necessarily favor one country over another, but they are biased in favor of finding human rights abuses). It doesn't really matter so much, since they are obviously notable POVs, so just saying "HRW says X" avoids the problems. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me for example try to adhere to exactly the same policy regarding NGOs whenever possible. --Sceptic from Ashdod (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are real organisations researching the things they publish about. Some of these others (eg UN Watch) look like pressure groups having no function other than to create noise.
In the meantime, this revert is a serious distortion. The fact that Mary Robinson spoke out against the original UN motion to set up the Goldstone Report has been used to seriously distort her position - something she'd already protested about when her name was further taken in vain. I don't know how you came to make that edit, but it smacks of vandalism and I suggest you reverse it. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The version that I restored makes it clear that she objected to her condemnation of the mandate being taken too far, and that she expressed trust in Goldstone personally. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takbeer statement

{{{text}}}

Would u be so kind as to provide your reasoning behind [2]. It's being discussed on the talk page here? I actually, think it's alright for now, since it's much too early to decide what is or is not encyclpedic and what belongs or doesn't belong in the lede. But in order to keep your contribution in the lede at this stage, I think it would be best if u participated in the talk page discussion.--Firefly322 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

could

you please move your comment from the Articles for deletion page? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. That you appear to be operating a sock puppet on the AfD page is relevant to the discussion there. If you wish to defend yourself, the place to do so is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supreme Deliciousness, though it looks like a pretty clear-cut case. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can not go around on every single page and post that. I have no connection to Ani Medjool and for you to go around on all the pages posting it people might vote differently thanks to this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

previous user?

Just for the record; do you have a previous user-name on WP? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about that guy you think is a sock, the place to raise such concerns is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If at any point you allege that he is my sock, please notify me. Thanks, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nomination

Per Brewcrewer's suggestion, and to avoid the continuation of a slow motion long-term edit war over the notablity tag (of all things), I have nominated your article for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Gaza Strip). Tiamuttalk 13:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing/Goldstone report page

Hi,

Thanks for you efforts to develop the page United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. Unfortunately I can't agree that all your recent edits have been done in good faith. For example, repeatedly removing the term "respected" from the lead appears to be disruptive. The term is well sourced (I've provided ~18 sources on the talk page), whereas WP:peacock applies to unsourced language: "unsourced or unexplained". Please consider this a friendly warning pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions. --Dailycare (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yom Kippur War

Was wondering if you would change your mind about this. There is not an overwhelming consensus in the sources or in the article plus talk page about "Israeli military victory." A) There are plenty of sources cited on the talk page that do not say simply "Israeli victory" and say "stalemate" or "draw" or something more complicated. No one denies the amazing Israeli military achievements. B) Many of the given ones do not actually say "Israeli victory" - they have variants of the standard, nuanced view, emphasize how the war was viewed much more negatively and soberly in Israel than among cheerleaders in the West, etc. It is easy to pile up citations if one cherrypicks quotes out of context c) My preferred option is to return to the status quo ante of many years: say nothing. It isn't normal practice to put a string of ten cites after blank space :), so the sources and arguments are in talk. Regards,John Z (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Encycopedic style

Hello! I've just stumbled across your user page, and I very much like your principle: "To the extent possible, write things the way they would be written in a real encyclopedia (Britannica, etc.)." I think I very much followed this appraoch intuitively. But OTOH, people have observed that Britannica sometimes takes NPOV coupled with political correctness too far. One friend remarked that you can read a Britannica article about Hitler and not find that he was a bad man. I think recently I observed you changing the 'militant group' to 'terrorist group' on a Wikipedia page. I think Britannica would say 'militant group'. What do you think? Cheers. BorisG (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Boris, that's an interesting comment. Actually, Britannica is pretty straightforward about calling groups or activities "terrorist" when that is what they are. See for example its article on terrorism, where it mentions quite a few groups by name. It doesn't have an article on the Popular Resistance Committees, but in its articles on similar groups such as Hamas, Fatah and the Palestine Liberation Organization, it notes that they have engaged in terrorism. Incidentally, in my edit I merely turned "militant group" back to "terrorist group"; the latter is the term used in the cited source (The Jerusalem Post), but a redlink user changed it, perhaps out of a misguided understanding of WP:TERRORIST. I basically agree with your reservation regarding Britannica and political correctness, but the difference between us is probably that I have lower expectations. I don't believe that Wikipedia can solve or avoid the problems that exist in mainstream academia, so I would be content if it had only those problems. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I agree the point I was making was relatively minor. There are far bigger problems given the average quality of articles on Wikipedia.BorisG (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a chance would you be able to put a note on the talk page explaining your edits ? It's not that I disgree with them. I haven't even really looked in detail. It's just that the article has been a slow burn edit war with a generous dose of SPA sockpuppets thrown in for good measure for months. It never seems to get past the R stage of the BRD cycle and your presence on the talk page might help given that you tend to use coherent arguments. It's the only article where I've given up on someone and concluded that the only option left to stop the tendentious editing was to get an editor blocked by filing sockpuppet investigation requests... I'm not convinced that they really went away but nevertheless something needs to be done to encourage people to use the D in BRD. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I left a comment for the anonymous editor on the talk page, and I'll see what I can do. But if this is the same kind of situation as it was before, that could lead to a dead end again. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from UN Watch. When removing text, please discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

Also, Wikipedia has a policy on reliable sources which you may find in detail here. Sources such as Digg and EuropeNews do not meet the reliable source threshhold, and may not be suitable for inclusion in the article. Information which is include in Wikipedia must be verifiable in reliable third-party sources. There has been more discussion about UN Watch and reliable sources here and |here.

Please be sure to refer to UN Watch's talk page for informational purposes and to discuss edits to the article.

Thanks, --71.156.85.18 (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? See the article's talk page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the article in question has been subject to a number of socks recently. There's a note on talk I was hoping you could answer though here. Thanks, --71.156.85.18 (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey Jalapenos do exist, thanks for creating some order over at Mahmoud al-Mabhouh! Much appreciated. Joshdboz (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't exactly create order, just added some material, but I'm glad you liked it. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copying content

Please review Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure and ensure content is attributed correctly when you create new pages with content copied directly from exisiting articles. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it. Those guidelines refer to the process of splitting an article, which is not what I did. The Haiti conspiracy theories article indeed needs splitting, but my article is almost entirely new, and the few paragraphs based on the conspiracies article are not at all "directly copied", though the citations are. In any case, if others think it beneficial, I believe there's a talk page template for this kind of situation, saying something like "part of this article was taken from x". I wouldn't object to using it. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IDF in Haiti

Hello. I see you've asked for the deletion of the article you created and I can definitely understand your dismay about some of the motives for keeping the article. But while you were writing that request, I was giving my two cents on the whole thing which I invite you to read. I would actually encourage you to write a thorough article on the history of these rumours but in a context wider than simply Haiti. It would be a thankless task and a guaranteed source of headaches and wrestling with people all too happy to take these accusations seriously. Best, Pichpich (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. I'm also convinced by your argument that the true context of this theory is other Israeli and Jewish organ theft conspiracy theories, not other Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ahram

is a reliable source. In fact, this very source in this very article was discussed at the RSN with nearly every uninvolved editor agreeing that it can be used as a source. Could you please restore what you removed from them? nableezy - 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ahram isn't a reliable source, and most of the uninvolved editors in that discussion who expressed a view on its overall reliability said that it isn't a reliable source. There was an opinion that it can be used for things that involve no judgment, such as quotes from interviewees. I might accept that view - I would have to check - but it doesn't apply to this case anyway. If what Jonathan Cook wrote there is true, it shouldn't be hard to find it in a real source. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:RS#News organizations is not met by al-Ahram? And I dont see where you get that people said it is not a reliable source. But we can go back there if you want. nableezy - 21:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS#News organizations doesn't provide criteria for deciding whether a news organization is reliable, so there's nothing about it that's "not met" by any news organization. I don't see where you get that people said it is a reliable source. I count one uninvolved editor (the last one) who said that it is, and several uninvolved editors who said that it isn't. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since each of us sees different things, would you like to open another discussion? But which several? I count Blueboar saying it can be used if attributed, Dlabtot saying it is fine, Squidfryerchef saying it is fine, Jonund that it is fine in this context, and LK saying it is fine (not counting the names we know are "involved"), and on the other side L0bot saying there should be better sources. Who else that could be called "uninvolved" said something either way? And also, if you could say why you think it is unreliable. It is a mainstream news organization, they are all reliable as far as WP goes. nableezy - 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there aren't other existing discussions on Al-Ahram, I think opening a new one would be good. Especially since this in this one, it's clear that nobody from either side bothered to check whether it actually has a reputation for fact-checking and reliability.
Here's how I see the existing discussion.

I originally misunderstood Blueboar's position, and I'm still not sure I understand it, since there seems to be tension between his different posts. I don't see Dlabtot saying that it's reliable, though he agreed with your comments regarding western media. It seems pretty clear to me that L0b0t is saying it shouldn't be used.
The reason Al-Ahram isn't a reliable source is because it often publishes things that aren't true. Here it says that "what the Jews want" can be determined by reading The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and the goal of the Freemasons is "to destroy the world and build it anew according to the Zionist policy". Here it says that a find of ancient coins disproves the mainstream scientific theory about the origin of coinage, when in fact what was found were scarabs and not coins. And here it endorses the view that the American "occupation force" in Iraq carried out various suicide bombings there. The fact that Al-Ahram is controlled by the government of a country without press freedom is also relevant, but mainly in terms of where the burden of proof lies.
I don't have a big problem with having Cook's claims in the article, as long as it's clear who's making the claims and where. (I think it's seriously WP:UNDUE, but that should be the biggest problem in all articles. I certainly don't doubt that if Al-Ahram publishes an article by Jonathan Cook, it is actually an article by Jonathan Cook.) This also seems to be what most of the uninvolved participants in the discussion had in mind. In any case, there's absolutely no reason to put it in the lead. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between publishing an opinion column and reporting that thing as true. On the first one Al-Ahram itself did not report that quote is true, it published a column that said that. I have no idea about the second one, and the third one is again an editorial. And, by the way, there is no dispute that America and the "coalition" forces are occupying Iraq. And I dont have much of an opinion about including it in the lead, but your edit summary was just about the reliability of the source, thats why I came to annoy you. nableezy - 23:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first and third examples are opinion columns in which the writers make statements of fact that are false. A reliable publication would not print such things. Incidentally, the Cook article is also an opinion column, and if you acted consistently with my examples the way you're acting with Cook, you'd be asking me to return a sentence in the lead of the Freemasons article stating: The ultimate goal of the 'Free Masons' is to destroy the world and to build it anew according to the Zionist policy so that the Jews can control the world.[1] The second example is an embarrassment in which they take someone who obviously has no idea what he's talking about and print everything he says as fact. Imagine if this were used as a source for the articles Coin or Joseph. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think Cook's column is an opinion column. nableezy - 00:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say you annoyed me. Do you realize how much time it takes me to write smug responses to your questions? I was going to return the Cook claims to a non-lead part of the article, but I see that they're already there. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is what I do best, nableezy - 03:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Cook's article not an opinion column? It's written in the first person for chrissake. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You right, I missed that it is in the opinion section. In that case this particular source is only reliable for what Cook reports, not the actual information. But I still say you are wrong on news reports from al-Ahram. nableezy - 03:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organ harvesting, pt. 2

Just thinking about the article... while I still don't think it should have its own article, I think that it might have some value still. However, the only article I think it should exist in is the Aftonbladet–Israel controversy article as a section, as the rumour would not exist without the former (and I think the conspiracy theory article shouldn't exist either). What d'you say? Sceptre (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me jumping in, I strongly support any attempt to do this right and I'm willing to help within my limited means and I'm happy to see that content being handled and maintained by competent and responsible editors. I'm not entirely sure that the best option is a section in the Aftonbladet article. Though I advocated for this solution earlier, it might not be ideal. First of all, the article is already fairly long. Moreover, one has to acknowledge the fact that these rumours are starting to get a life of their own, in part because of Yehuda Hiss's admission of malpractice. So the discussion might end up being slightly tangential in the Aftonbladet article. Just my 2 cents. Pichpich (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could reduce the size of the article vastly by cutting down the Jenny Tonge part. It really isn't as notable as you think; as a registered Lib Dem, even I hadn't heard of it until reading about it. All we need to say is that Tonge picked up on the rumour, talked about it in the Lords, and Clegg fired her from her post when he heard what he said. Sceptre (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sceptre, if you're a registered Lib Dem, you can't possibly be making sense. But seriously, I think the solution is to have an article on Jewish and Israeli organ theft conspiracy theories, with a section on Haiti, a summarized section on Aftonbladet, and sections on Iraq, Algeria, Croatia and so on. There are a million of 'em, and the only thing special about the Aftonbladet one is that it appeared in a western publication. I will try to do this at user:jalapenos do exist/sandbox/organ, and you're both very welcome to help. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See, right off the bat I'd be opposed to such an article because, as we've seen, it opens up the woodwork for anti-Semitic editors. We need to deal with the rumours in a tempered fashion. So, the question is: did the organ theft rumours start before, or after Aftonbladet? Also, I think registered Labour voters are deluded; they're either self-serving fascists or deluded into thinking Labour is still a socialist party. Sceptre (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Way before, and there isn't even a clear line between classic blood libels against Jews and this phenomenon. Of course they got a boost from Aftonbladet. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... reading the Aftonbladet article, I can see that there was one case of organ harvesting, which could give credence to a Israel and organ harvesting article... I just don't want it to turn out like United States and state terrorism, or Israel and the apartheid analogy (the latter which has been dogged with POV problems since inception and only recently has been improved). Basically, the article would begin with:

The state of Israel has been accused of illegal organ harvesting several times in its history, in particular in the occupied territories[cite] and during humanitarian missions to areas such as Iraq,[cite] Haiti,[cite] Algeria,[cite] Turkey,[cite] etc. Apart from one known instance during the late-1980s, the accusations have not been supported by evidence and are considered analogous to the historical theory of blood libel.

And then we have sections about Aftonbladet and possibly Haiti (as, truth be told, from the perspective of this article, Tonge's dismissal is notable). What do you think? Sceptre (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was actually more than one instance where Israeli pathologists took organs from dead people without the family's permission -- see the Hiss interview and Israeli response in the article -- but the phenomenon of false claims of Israeli organ harvesting is older than any of these cases, and is a separate issue. As for your suggested lead, I have issues with a few of the details, but I agree with the overall approach. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the lead is malleable. We can add in older examples of the accusations, and we can make corrections as it goes along. The main thing is to emphasise that, apart from the times this actually happened (e.g. Hiss), it's analogous to blood libel; we should have plenty of sources for that. Sceptre (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...

don't come in with your edit warring(ultimately inviting Brew and the Crew in to report people)...there is something called Google, the world can sourced the hell out of the underworld, we can source the holy freaking grail for all we give care, open your mouth and type, AGAIN, ever heard of GOOGLE? Cryptonio (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Tapuah junction stabbing, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapuah junction stabbing. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jmundo (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using deceiving edit summaries to circumvent discussion on the talk page. Your edit warring and lack of discussion is disappointing. --Jmundo (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jalapenos do exist. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of rocket, mortar and other attacks by Israel in 2008, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains some content; recommend WP:PROD instead. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know

User_talk:Marokwitz#IslamicJihadRockets.jpg. That's why the photo is so good. It's AP. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2010

Jalapenos, you're doing a great job on that article. Just wanted to alert you (I'm sorry if you know this and it's condescending) that google hosted news, which you just cited in the article, only temporarily hosts article -- meaning that in a week or two that url will become a broken link.

Also, if you're trying to keep the most up to date statistics on rockets and mortars, I would subscribe to the weekly e-mails of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which provides comprehensive stats on the number of mortars and rockets launched each week. You can subscribe here: [3]. Hope this helps and I wasn't being too presumptuous. Cheers. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, and even if I did, you wouldn't be being condescending or presumptuous at all. Do you know what I can do to cite the articles without the links becoming broken? Thanks for the helpful info and for the compliment. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yea, no problem, my pleasure. For Google hosted news article, the article will be posted somewhere else on the web so I would just do a web search for the title of the article and you should find it somewhere else. I'm not sure if Google hosted news is still keeping the links temporary, but I have seen it as a comment complaint on certain Wikipedia forum. Glad to help. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Gaza

I started compiling a list of sources to figure out a timeline with the intent of getting to work after stepping out side for a smoke. I came back and you had already started the work. Nice job. A few sources that I found interesting are on my user page (Sources to follow up on->FGM). Assume you have seen some poking around yourself but thought I would throw it out there for you.Cptnono (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll keep an eye on your user page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too late. It is already spiraling into garbage. The reactions list looks nice though.Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. With this removal and no reason [4] (Lihaas (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas, WP:DTTR. I support the edit and made the same edit. The lead should be kept free of contentious material until things calm down. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary

Just as jalapenos do, in fact exist, so do edit summaries, at least they can exist. I don't know if an Anti-Edit Summary Conspiracy exists, though I have susicicions (No article on Wikipedia? Hmm?) Help overthrow the conspiracy by providing edit summaries for your edits.
Viva la Revolution!, Edit Summaries Forever! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza flotilla clash

Regarding this, to avoid edit warring as you have completely ignored me until now, this is a polite request to actually read my edit summaries and this section before restoring inappropriate information to the article. Ale_Jrbtalk 15:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently missed the relevant section of the LA Times article. I responded to you on the talk page. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down and read what you are reverting. The info on repercussionary violence was not removed but was moved to the end of the para. The details are also wrong. The Turkish protesters tried to storm (not "strom") the Israeli consulate in Istanbul, not the embassy (there isn't one there). A little more care in your editing would be helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The info on the violent Palestinian demonstration was in fact removed several times. I'm not sure if it was by you, but you are the most active editor on this article by far, so you should at least be aware of it. Incidentally, I'm not sure this level of activity is wise, considering you were admonished for Israel/Arab-related activity and then desysopped, and considering that this article is presumably under ARBPIA sanctions, but it's your choice. In any case, your comment on spelling is well taken. Thanks, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Hi, I can smell the making of an Antisemitic incidents occuring during Gaza flotilla incident in your classic series ;-). And of course, there would be a "democratic vote" whether to keep such an article whereby a surprisingly high number of people would vote Strong speedy keep Zencv Whisper 22:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jalapenos do exist,

I wanted to give you a formal warning and notice about the 1 Revert Rule (1RR) (see arbcom case) in place on Gaza flotilla raid. There have been a couple occasions where you have arguably broken the normal 3RR by reverting others edits multiple times in the 24 hour period. I know that you obviously have feelings about the issue and that there are others on the other side who do as well and both sides have not been perfect on this or other articles but we need to try and work together to make a good and neutral article. Generally this is best done by removing obviously bias and unsourced information but must be done carefully, especially when you have your own personal feelings. We need to try to make sure we do so without inserting our own bias into the article or making it worse by actively fighting with other editors about the content. I encourage you take part in conversations on the talk page more (for example the discussion on whether to include the intent of a couple activists to be martyrs) If you feel that something is being removed that shouldn't (ESPECIALLY if you have already restored the material one) I highly recommend that you bring it to the talk page and come to a consensus there before restoring it again. In that way you will either have someone else restore it because they agree or you will come to a consensus on whether it should be included or not and you won't have nearly as many issues with the 1RR. Obviously please let me know if you have other questions and I hope to see you continuing to edit the article. James (T C) 01:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, thanks for the notice. I've worked on quite a few Middle East related articles together with a wide range of people. I'm aware of Wikipedia practices and policies, and I always attempt to abide by them. I am participating in this article's discussions. As far as I know, I have not violated either the normal 3RR rule or the special 1RR rule. If, in the future, you feel that any specific thing that I do is inconsistent with any of Wikipedia's rules or customs, or either of my own self-imposed objectivity standards (described on my user page), please let me know. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the Discussion page for the Gaza flotilla raid

Jalapenos, you just made a massive edit to the Gaza_flotilla_raid article without discussing anything in the talk pages. Please refrain from doing this. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert the re-insertion of your changes to the lead as per Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Undoing_changes_in_the_lead_unless_discussed_first Zuchinni one (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the talk page section you link to, I explain the reasons that the changes are necessary, including fact that new information is coming out quickly. You seem to ignore me and appeal to an imaginary consensus. Instead of arguing, why don't you just read the latest news? Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the advice

Be careful while I'm not here. Take care of yourself, and don't bring trouble to good ol' Zucchini. Salute. --IANVS (talk | cont) 02:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists

Hi Jalepenos,

It is well established that there were many journalists onboard, although I also don't understand the use of 'primarily'. But you should reinsert the journalists as passengers. Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message about "false premises", I say again: this is how the article looked at the time I nominated it. I would appreciate it if you amend your message and not accuse me of lying in AfD. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I didn't accuse you of lying, nor do I think that you are lying. But I see your point that "false premises" could be interpreted the wrong way, so I'll change the comment. Best, Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead on Gaza flotilla raid

Can you let me know when you've finished editing the lead on Gaza flotilla raid, so that I can restore some sort of NPOV on it afterwards? Cheers, Physchim62 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Specifically:[reply]

  • In this edit, you need to rewrite the entire sentence to make it clear what the IHH denies; probably better to scrub the sentence, as it is WP:UNDUE for the lead;
  • for this edit, you need to state that the activists/passengers and also journalists aboard claim that there were two people dead before any IDF soldier was on deck.

Cheers, Physchim62 (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were mainly updates following new developments, so I don't see why NPOV would be a concern here, but if you have any specific issues you can raise them on the talk page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Your statements regarding the two examples are incomprehensible. I suggest you read the edited texts again. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JDE you made 15 controversial edits to the article in a couple of hours, without once appearing on the Talk page. So your advice that other editors discuss issues there does not seem consistent with your own behavior. RomaC (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose every Wikipedia edit is controversial in someone's view, but these edits were straightforwardly based on the idea of having accurate and timely information, so I don't see an inconsistency or an impropriety. Declaring ones intention of mass-reverting edits, before they have been made, based on the identity of the editor, is, I believe, a different matter. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI reporting notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --386-DX (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say, Jalapenos, do you think someone making 3 reports to AN/I within 36 hours (two of which have been closed with no action so far) could be said to be displaying WP:BATTLE mentality since he seems to be ignoring similar editing patterns by people who he agrees with politically? Nah, I must be imagining things. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of special Palestine-Israel arbcom case edit restrictions

Error: The code letters for the affected topic area in this contentious topics alert are not declared. topic= is missing; please check the documentation and try again.

Use Area of conflict Decision linked to Topic specific subpage
edit
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) 18:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]