User talk:ImTheIP

There is a grammatical issue with the first sentence in the introduction of Paul Ryan's wiki page. The words "since 2015" should be moved to follow immediately after the word "serving" to avoid the suggestion that there have been 54 different Speakers since 2015. Since it's a locked page, I thought I'd make the suggestion here. 99.129.223.143 (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! ImTheIP (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ImTheIP, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to

Greetings! Sorry if I misrepresented you at Talk:The Holocaust. I will reply there once I have time to formulate a response. In the mean time, again welcome and I hope you stick around! VQuakr (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee has decided that editors with less than 500 edits, such as yourself, may not edit any article which is broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Please to not continue to edit such articles until you have accumulated 500 or more edits in other areas of the encyclopedia. Read more about the case here

This must be the absolutely most retarded rule Wikipedia has ever enacted. They might as well delete their whole Israel/Palestine section. Only people who will now edit it are the true fanatics who can spend hour upon hour collecting edits and those who are paid for their time. Well maybe that's the point of it.

I should explain why the rule is retarded. It mostly stems from the principle that if you are reasonable and not acting like an ass, then you should be treated reasonably and not as if you were acting like an ass. Since this rule breaks that principle by treating people who act reasonably unreasonable it is a retarded rule. ImTheIP (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may not believe this, but there are people on both sides of the PIA debate who consider themselves reasonable but whose actions are disruptive. This decision came about through bitter experience. The vast majority of editors who are not affected by the 500 edit rule do not spend hour upon hour collecting edits or are paid for their time (and there are very few of those and most of them are editing articles about companies and celebrities). Doug Weller talk 13:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, you can go through my contributions list if you want and see that all my edits have been constructive and in good faith and I haven't (yet) resorted to any name calling. So it is not only that I consider myself "reasonable" I have evidence to back it up. By all means, punish all people who are assholes, but if rules punish those who aren't, then those rules are idiotic. Actually, do whatever you want it's fine by me. If you can't even edit talk pages to point out errors in articles then the rules on Wikipedia has gone way to far and I'm done with editing it. ImTheIP (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lost track of this. We now allow talk page comments. Doug Weller talk 05:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm TonyBallioni. ImTheIP, thanks for creating Res derelictae!

I've just tagged the page, using our

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Stig Jägerskiöld, ImTheIP!

Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Desperately needs references to reliable sources for verification. try not to create new articles with zero references.

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

Learn more about

— InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom, User:ImTheIP. I saw your recent edits in the article Right of return, where there you deleted the following sourced account: "Israel's Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was reported as saying in June of 2017 that his government will not allow any Palestinians to settle in the lands claimed by them and currently part of Israeli territory.[1]"

Note:

[1]Tom O'Connor, Israel Will Not Accept A Single Palestinian To Old Borders, Says Defense Minister, (23 June 2017)

My question to you is whether or not you think this is relevant to the section in that article? I'm not actually saying that it is a relevant piece, but just curious to know whether you may have inadvertently deleted this account and reference. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: I have noticed that articles related to Israel-Palestine have a tendency to spiral out of control. Editors "pack" articles by adding all tangentially related pro and con arguments they can think of. I don't like that because exactly the same arguments gets rehashed over and over in dozens of articles. So IMHO, it is better to refer to the main article, Palestinian right of return, and keep the Right of return article focused on the universal human rights concept. ImTheIP (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right if you refer to the other references deleted by you, but this one, my friend, can hardly be construed with a "tangent" or with "diverging from a previous course or line; being erratic." Avigdor Lieberman's comments are directly related to the subject matter, and hits it on the nail. I, personally, do not care to mention his words, but if for the reasons you've mentioned, his comments are actually perfectly in place. IMHO.Davidbena (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: I agree that the comment is relevant to the Palestinian right of return article. I believe that comment and similar arguments should be kept in that article. The Palestinians role on the Right of return page is only as an example of a group claiming that their RoR has been violated. Therefore, brief overview. All the details does not need to be included. ImTheIP (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare this "brief overview" with the other "overviews," it is both very brief and pertinent to the section. Would you like to do a RfC on this question?Davidbena (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the topic here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stateless nation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scottish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your message on my user page and for your review of the BD article.

I don’t particularly mind, but my preference would be that we discuss all the ones that need discussion here, and only move the simpler ones to the FAC page. This is on the basis that too much discussion at FAC can discourage other editors from submitting their own reviews, because they don’t want to have to wade through other people’s complicated debates.

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Imtheip, I have replied to all the comments on your review page that I think need discussion, and would be keen to hear your thoughts on those.

The ones I did not respond to yet are the ones that I plan to implement as you have proposed them, via the FAC page. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: I'll try and respond but it will prob take a little while. The subject is difficult so it takes a little while for me to formulate useful feedback. ImTheIP (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, ImtheIP. I really appreciate your thoughtful input here, particularly the fresh angles you are bringing. Taking the time to think, research and discuss is the best trait a Wikipedian can have IMHO. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IMtheIP, I just wanted to check if you're waiting for me to do anything? If you find time to look at this again maybe it would be worth transferring some of your comments to the FAC review? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: Nope. I just have had exactly 0 time for Wikipedia. :) ImTheIP (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ImTheIP. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 17:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SportingFlyer was:

This submission is not adequately supported by

Referencing for beginners and Citing sources

.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Experimentalist governance and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SportingFlyer talk 06:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ImTheIP! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SportingFlyer talk 06:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Israeli nationality law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver

)

added a link pointing to

IDF

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ImTheIP. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you remove your violation [1] --Shrike (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: I don't understand what you mean. That is a comment by Bolter21. I'm not responsible for that. ImTheIP (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry wrong diff [2] --Shrike (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: Sorry, I don't think that comment can be construed as a personal attack. ImTheIP (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Take a look at this discussion. The Israel article doesn't have a text to cover the 400 years(!) of Ottoman rule in the area, despite there were relevant events, as I told you before. Could you please write a text (no more than a paragraph) about the Ottoman period in Palestine? Technically this is not part of ARBPIA because it's not related to Jews and happened before the first Zionist Aliyah (which of course is widely covered in the Israel article), but I prefer that you make the content on the Ottoman period, since I've noticed you have a talent to make proper summaries. I mentioned this issue to other users but apparently they are not interested. I found two easy sources here and here. I don't have the patience to start reading books. Thanks in advance. Have a good week.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @יניב הורון:, and thank you for the kind words! Unfortunately I've taken on to much Wikipedia work already so I don't have time for any more articles for a few weeks. But I'll definitely look at it in the future! ImTheIP (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE this - such reverts are not

I didn't mark the revert as minor. I can locate sources in due time, as can you. ImTheIP (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well - it is actually is marked as minor - but never mind that. Please replace those four broken refs with at least one reasonable one - e.g. Whelan (though I'm not sure he supports "one of the holiest in the world" - but he definitely supports "holy" and "pilgrimage site"). I specifically can not do so - I would be breaking 1RR in removing the broken refs you just re-added. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit is not marked as minor. It wasn't a "full revert" either for that matter. You are free to add as many sources as you like. It shouldn't be hard to find sources listing the site as one of the holiest in Islam. ImTheIP (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This 16:07, 4 December 2018 revert, coupled with 16:33, 4 December 2018 this revert is a 1RR violation (as there was a non-minor intervening edit) on

The page has no ARBPIA banner. ImTheIP (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The banner (which any user may place - e.g. Shrike and Huldra both have placed these on many articles) is irrelevant in terms of enforcement. Icewhiz (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the banner is not irrelevant and the page isn't about the IP conflict. And please assume Wikipedia:Assume good faith. ImTheIP (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You, a regular I/P participant, added a source entitled: "The Holy Land, Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Qur’an, Sunnah and other Islamic Literary Source" to a page about the "holiest" shrines in Islam where the question at talk is how to discuss the Muslim holy places in Jerusalem and you argue that this "about the IP conflict." Disingenuous.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi E.M.Gregory! I'm a very irregular IP participant, currently two months into my stint. As a recovering IP participant, I try to stay away from Wikipedia and those topics as much as possible, but relapses are bound to happen. I'd like to kick the habit for good, but it isn't as simple as just wanting to stop. ImTheIP (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help

). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
  Draft:Gaza Sky Geeks
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ImTheIP,

Thanks for creating BADIL! I edit here too, under the username Rosguill and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that

The article is neutrally written but could use more references to pro-Palestinian RS for analysis in addition to the pro-Israel sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ImTheIP. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 08:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've seen you are editing articles related to the recent events in the I/P conflict. I am willing to help if you have something in particular. Kinda tired of editing articles alone.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Peace Initiative

added a link pointing to Gaza

List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2020

added a link pointing to Shiloh

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International Socialist Review.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This draft is visible incomplete. Sections in Programs, and the Geek Labs and Challenges sections, are sentence fragments.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
  Draft:Gaza Sky Geeks
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  Draft:Gaza Sky Geeks, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 09:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to know why you splitted responses by various governments against BDS in a separate article and how do you determine which government responses against BDS should stay in the article on BDS proper and which ones should be moved to your new article? It seems like a big move. Are you trying to leave government responses that support BDS in the article while transfering all the government responses in the opposite direction to a separate article? I don't see any consensus for the split, but maybe I'm missing something. I'm just trying to understand what you want to do instead of rejecting it from the start. Thanks.--Aroma Stylish (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and explain on the talk page of the

BDS movement.ImTheIP (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Blocked as a sock. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anti-BDS laws, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nassau County.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://books.google.ca/books?id=BtqBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA223, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be understanding what "promotional" means. I took a lot of it out of the draft in order to help you get it through review, but you've put most of it back. It won't ever move from draft unless you take note. Primary sources are not good places to back up these statements. Deb (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: Why don't you comment on the talk page of the article? That is the proper venue for discussing content issues. ImTheIP (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not notice the edit summary that I wrote when I first removed the promotional content? Deb (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: You are making this discussion more personal than it has to be. I kindly ask that you move the discussion to the proper venue. My talk page isn't. ImTheIP (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ImTheIP! The thread you created at the archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ebru Timtik is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebru Timtik until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 🆔 APO ^Discuss✍ 04:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the intrusion: just a quick note to say that this nomination was part of a string of recent disruptive nominations by the user above. I'm sure that that ugly tag will be gone from your article very soon! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I think so too! ImTheIP (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

added a link pointing to Durham County

Raed Salah

added a link pointing to Balad

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Deir Yassin massacre

added a link pointing to Beit HaKerem

Simon Wiesenthal Center

added a link pointing to Hillel

Steven Salaita hiring controversy

added a link pointing to Gaza

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Tenther movement into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also hope you checked that the sources meet our criteria. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's an odd policy. Live and learn, I guess. Yes, everything is properly sourced. ImTheIP (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

StandWithUs

added links pointing to James Jones and Pinkwashing

Anti-BDS laws

added a link pointing to Mark Hutchinson

Deir Yassin massacre

added a link pointing to Beit HaKerem

Model act

added a link pointing to Israel lobby

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

StandWithUs

added links pointing to James Jones and Pinkwashing

Anti-BDS laws

added a link pointing to Mark Hutchinson

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i'd like to Cooperate with you on working on the StandWithUs page. I see that you edit the page often.

Unfortunately I was at a lost to see that you reverted my minor edits with no reason, i'd like to hear from you.

I am new and would love to hear from you on the right way to edit, please teach me instead of just reverting my edits.

Looking forward. YZM1987 (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YZM1987: You are not allowed to edit the StandWithUs page because you don't have 500 edits to your name. In fact, for that reason you cannot edit any page related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. To influence the content, you need to add suggestions on the respective articles talk pages and gave someone else do the editing.

Furthermore, given your edit history, one can suspect that you are a

WP:COI user. That is, you have a personal relation to StandWithUs. If so, I believe the Wikipedia policies states that you need to reveal who you. Editing without disclosing a conflict of interest is a serious rules violation that can lead to yo getting banned from Wikipedia. ImTheIP (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alan Brinkley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Provost.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Lobby (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page JTA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/10/boycott-divestment-sanctions-movement-israel-palestine One for your box. Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you. ImTheIP (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yw, https://time.com/5914975/what-to-know-about-bds/ Seen this one? Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! I found a home for it: [3] ImTheIP (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITT.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Killing of Sa'ad Muhammad Youssef al-Atrash has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

As per

WP:NOTNEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Killing of Sa'ad Muhammad Youssef al-Atrash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Sa'ad Muhammad Youssef al-Atrash until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Killing of Muhammad al-Na'im is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Muhammad al-Na'im until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shurat HaDin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Jihad.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked nicely,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1990_Temple_Mount_riots&oldid=prev&diff=988034577 so I won't repeat my edit, but I really believe that wall of text is inappropriate. Debresser (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to post a quick thanks for picking up my edit on Expulsions and exoduses of Jews , didn't have the necessary posts yet to meet the requirements and was stumped for what to do! LonelyProgrammer (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Megiddo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Palestine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Thebes and Mizpah.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

11Fox11 (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jh15s. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kae Tempest have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Jh15s (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• AMCHA Initiative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello ImTheIP. You've been warned for edit warring per the outcome of a complaint. To avoid further trouble I suggest you don't make blanket reverts in the future. Any changes in non-BLP material should count toward the 1RR when reviewed by an admin. It should not be too much trouble for you to identify the actual BLP-related items, and only deal with those. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Can you please have a look at Talk:AMCHA_Initiative#November_2020_edits? The core of the issue from my perspective was that 11Fox11 was stonewalling me and not engaging in discussion. As you can see from the talk page, they didn't tell me anything of what they then brought up on the edit warring noticeboard. I even asked them "I wonder if you are attempting to goad me into reverting one to many times to be able to file a complaint?" but they didn't answer. How on earth can that be editing in good faith? ImTheIP (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of good faith by the other party is not listed as an exception in

WP:DR gives the steps. Given the subject of this article, one would expect to see horrid warring; it's lucky it is only this bad. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@EdJohnston: My three non-ARBIA sanctioned reverts were on November 27, November 28, and December 3. Not sure what I could have done differently since 11Fox11 wasn't willing to discuss on the talk page. ImTheIP (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were making blanket reverts starting on 25 November. After that, other people were undoing your changes, mostly using blanket reverts as well. Neither side was getting any credit for narrowing down toward a solution. The average admin might choose to block both sides for long term edit warring. The intransigence by

WP:RFC. Both sides were very generous in giving themselves BLP exemptions for their reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:COI-user who weren't allowed to edit the article because they didn't have the required 500 edits. Such reverts are, I believe, exempted from the edit warring rules. ImTheIP (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Judah.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you teach me how to know how much hits a google query gets? Ridax2020 (talk) 09:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just search on Google and check how many results it reports. ImTheIP (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary is false [4] is not just mere attribution but a removal of information about the stencil. Please don't do it in the future Thanks --Shrike (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: Sorry for that. The "holding a gun" part isn't found in the source. That's why I removed it. I'm not sure whether it was in one of the sources you and 11Fox11 removed or if it was I who assumed the stencil must have been of the iconic Leila Khaled image. Regardless, since it's not supported by the source it shouldn't be there. ImTheIP (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ImTheIP, You may be right but you should clearly state that in the edit summary. Shrike (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ImTheIP, you are not new to wikipedia. You know how things are done here. You made certain unexplained edits, and were then reverted. What you should have done is gone to the talk page and tried to reach consensus. Instead you opted to merely revert. Please follow common procedure, undo your latest revert and take it to the talk page. I trust you are not looking for an edit war. Poliocretes (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that my changes were unjustified so I justified them in the edit message. That's SOP on Wikipedia and I'm not looking to start a fight with you. Now, if you don't think my justification is any good, feel free to revert. Though I'm not sure why you would since ancient historians definitely aren't reliable sources. Furthermore, the text attributed to Josephus (the source in the references I removed) is plain incorrect and contradicted by modern historians. ImTheIP (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings,

This is just for your kind info. Since previously you have participated in an inconclusive RfC discussion at this RfC in year going by, and since some related aspects are under discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity may be you want to join in to share your inputs or opinions.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit the Rfc you recently commented on at Talk:Ethnic_cleansing#RfC, in view of the fact that an option C has been added. Debresser (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assume you are still following it but looks like this is done with now. Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thank you. ImTheIP (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Palestine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sophronius.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

for reverting the vandalism to Peter Beinart's page by BrxBrx, who has been harassing me and reverting all my changes. That editor lied when it wrote "Inexplicable removal of COI tag without consensus" ... it wasn't inexplicable at all, as I had explained the removal with "rm absurd baseless tag that appears to be a stereotyped smear". It was clearly a violation of BLP, and didn't need any consensus for its removal--there was no consensus or discussion or explanation of the tag in the first place. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Timeline of the history of the region of Palestine

added a link pointing to Church of the Resurrection

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza Sky Geeks, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation

if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation

.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

warmly, ezlev. talk 05:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I come across your work often and am generally impressed by it, but something about your work improving and resubmitting Gaza Sky Geeks really struck me. This is a good article and one that should exist on Wikipedia. Thanks for the time and effort that must have gone into it, and that must go into the rest of your editing. warmly, ezlev. talk 05:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

East Jerusalem was annexed to Israel in 1967 immediately after the Six Day War by primary legislation (amendment by Section 11A of the Administration & Law Ordinance, 1948) and subsidiary legislation immediately enacted under the new Section 11A which delineated the borders of East Jerusalem. Israeli law, administration and jurisdiction were thus applied fully to East Jerusalem in 1967 in the prism of internal Israeli law, although this was, and still is, deemed null and void by the UN and the entire international community. The 1980 Basic Law: Jerusalem the Capital of Israel was declaratory in nature and changed nothing in practice, apart from arguably raising the principle of the unity of Jerusalem to the level of a constitutional precept. Shall you revert your reversion or shall I? Monosig (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.

For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.

I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 15 August 2021.

You have been invited to take part because you are one of the top-ten contributors (according to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo) to four of the articles in my corpus: Hamas, History of Palestine, Israeli Occupation of the West Bank, and Right of Return. If you believe you have been invited to fill out this survey in error, my apologies and feel free to ignore this. If you are no longer active on Wikipedia, you are still eligible to take part in this survey.

Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.

Thanks so much,

Sarah Sanbar

Sarabnas ^{I'm researching Wikipedia} _Questions? 20:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bushra al-Tawil has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Breach of Wikipedia's policy on

WP:PARTISAN with no suitable sources available for remediation. See the talk page

for more information.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dazzling4 (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bushra al-Tawil is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushra al-Tawil until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dazzling4 (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]