User talk:Zarcademan123456

Hello, Zarcademan123456, 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. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to

I noticed that your edits got reverted. You said "fix citations." I haven't read the article lately, so can you briefly describe for me what is wrong with them?--Quisqualis (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zarcademan123456 and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to History of the Jews in the Soviet Union, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Jaywjay03 (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

I have reverted several of your recent edits to various articles. I would like to inform you that it is Wikipedia policy that all articles should continue to use whichever era style was used in the article originally. Changes in era style are required to be discussed on the talk page before any changes are actually made so that editors can establish a consensus beforehand. For more information, please consult

WP:ERA. Thanks! --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

And yet again, an undiscussed change in era style, this time at

Carmen Saeculare. Not a particularly useful habit. Haploidavey (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's

Unfortunately, some of your constructive edits at Roman Empire have been lost through my wholesale reversion, including your provision of sources for segments of previously uncited content. You're very welcome to restore those beneficial changes - but please, not the undiscussed era changes. Haploidavey (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Galen.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. If you continue like this, you will be blocked. Haploidavey (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zarcademan123456. 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]

Hello, Zarcademan123456. 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]

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.

....introducing euphemistic language like this. The source clearly says "confiscated" (and not "reclassified"): please don't make up words. If you continue to do this, I will report you to

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Spencer^T•C 20:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 21:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you might think there's bias involved, I can assure you that I prefer BCE myself. But I try to observe our guideline. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zarcademan123456 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Ok I understand. I didn’t know to look at the talk part of the page to know why I was blocked...thanks, sorry for the trouble

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra 07:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Blue-ringed octopus. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. That's not a minor edit, it's not a spelling correction, and it is against the talk page consensus on which plural form to use. Meters (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on Existence of God. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Jonah. Melcous (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, you are correct to note the overuse of SoP as opposed to the simple P.(the UN uses these terms interchangeably nowadays). Nevertheless, there are editors who will make an issue out of this distinction without a difference, see Trump peace plan for example. So it is best to err on the side of caution and use SoP unless it is undeniably clear that the Palestine being referred to is the SoP.Selfstudier (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make unsourced edits like this in the IP area. I have copy edited and sourced from the Israeli settlement article to replace your unsourced edit.Selfstudier (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

..like you did here: nowhere in the source does it say that it is due to "Due to security concerns", that permission is only granted to the property owner. This is not the first time I have seen you insert unsourced info: please stop.

Also, the ARIJ source use the word confiscated (and not "expropriated") about the land loss. There are subtle differences between the words, as noted here: " Expropriation can be done with the owner’s consent and/or with compensation paid. Confiscation usually implies without the owner’s consent and without compensation."

If this behaviour continues, expect to end up at

Note, Huldra (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please stop making these mass changes without discussion
2. Please stop changing the wording of the source regarding expropriated or confiscated
3. Please stop introducing a factual error in saying that after the 1967 war the area was occupied. The occupation began during the war, and beyond that your wording leaves ambiguous the current status (occupied)

Thank you, nableezy - 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also, imagine for a second if any mention of an Israeli or American Jewish NGO was preceded by "the Jewish NGO". Stop badging Palestinian NGOs similarly. Thank you. nableezy - 23:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. There are a couple things you should be aware of regarding Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates on

consensus. When one of your edits is challenged you should not reinstate that edit, nor should you continue making the same edit across tens or hundreds of pages. It is not a simple thing trying to go through all the pages you have made these changes to and fixing the issues. As far as starting discussions, it is simple. You need to go to the talk page of an associated article and create a new section. I understand the visual editor is not available on talk pages (so far as I know) and that may be an impediment to your participating there if you do not know how to use wiki markup. I dont really have an easy answer to that problem Im sorry to say. Once upon I time I had no idea how to indent or sign or create a citation, but I got the hang of it and if you give it a try you may find it easier than you think. I'm glad you will stop making these changes, but a month pause doesnt really solve the root problem.

Your edits, and comments, suggest that you feel that certain wording delegitimizes Israel. Now there are two problems with this. All of your edits on this topic involve areas that are not in Israel. The West Bank is not in Israel, and as of yet, excepting East Jerusalem, has not even been claimed by Israel to be in Israel. Beyond that, we on Wikipedia are not in the business of legitimizing or delegitimizing Israel or any other state or entity. We strive to reflect our sources, the end. Please try to understand that this not an Israel-centric encyclopedia, that our job is not to make Israel look good or make Israel look bad, it is simply to reflect how the sources describe a situation. Thanks, nableezy - 23:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Just for my clarification then, if an article sources material that is blatently biased (of course we are all biased by internal biases, but I digress) then wikipedia is just supposed to cite the article and not point out bias? Isn't it our duty, if we profess to be an encyclopedia, to use terminology as neutral and non-biased as possible?Zarcademan123456 (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bias according to who? You? All sources are biased all you can do about that is to fairly reflect all sources. All editors are biased (have a POV), that's why we only reflect sources and not our own opinions.Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bias on Wikipedia means something specific, that it does not adhere to

WP:V to get a better understanding of what we are aiming to do here. nableezy - 22:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I understand a bit better. Thankyou Zarcademan123456 (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the changes to the occupation status and the scare quotes around confiscated. See

Hello Zarcademan123456. See this complaint, which ended without action. But if you intend to participate again on articles about the West Bank, it is best to propose your changes first on talk pages before making them. If others get the impression that you are changing articles to favor one side of the dispute, they may report you to administrators. (Nobody should be promoting either the Israeli cause or the Palestinian cause on Wikipedia). We are expected to edit neutrally, whenever we write about real-world disputes. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol Just realized I can reply here, ignore my post on ur talk page I guess.

Thank you for informing me. I still am grasping how to use Wikipedia. I guess one of my questions regards terminology...in addition to my question about when and if to change terminology to being neutrally, how does one go about proposing a topic for review? Also one of the reasons I was given for not changing “confiscate” to “expropriate” was because the source given used “confiscate”...what sources qualify as biased?? thanks for any and all help Zarcademan123456 (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Zarcademan123456 (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to

Ein Yabrud (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Palestine

Right to exist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Palestine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing State of Palestine to Palestine in wikilinks if it will cause confusion. If it is appropriate to refer to the State by its official name then that is the way it should be. You should only use Palestine if it is clear from the context that what is meant is the State. If you just want to say Palestine in some or other context, then don't wikilink it.Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted a recent edit you made, among several problems with it:

The document you attempted (and failed) to link is A/Res/181(II) [1].

In describing the boundaries of the intended Arab state, it says, using the biblical names: "The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea starts on the Jordan River at the..." (1946 Survey of Palestine). Here is an article for you The West Bank is not "Judea and Samaria"

In general, I would advise you to cease and desist from your current editing practices, which leave a lot to be desired.

Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for enlightening me. Why did the link fail? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is an old out-of-date link, UN has changed the system.Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but At the time, pre-1947, an area roughly congruous (although either smaller or bigger, as the article by Jstor you directed to me noted) to the West Bank was known as Judea and Samaria? I believe the link I used implied (if not explicitly said) the UN USED to refer to roughly that area as Judea and Samaria, no? So wouldn’t that solve the issue of the link bring out of date? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, the source being used is a primary source (it's the report of a UN committee on the partition plan), not a secondary source. Also it does not say Judea and Samaria it says "The boundary of the hill country of Samaria and Judea...". Nor does it say who knew it by which name...the British? A small number of Jews in Palestine at that time? What did the Arabs or the Ottoman call it? It is definitely not true to say that the UN usually called the area Judea and Samaria, UN speak at the time referred only to the "Question of Palestine". There is a more fundamental problem, don't cherry pick tangential documents to push a POV position. The best thing you could do is find proper RS that describes the history of the area. Finally, even if it were true that some specific area was once called Judea and Samaria by someone, so what? What does it prove? Nothing at all.Selfstudier (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judea and Samaria were within Palestine though, they would not refer to all the provinces within it though...being used within a UN document though certainly seems to speak to some international consensus on the term, similar to how the term “west bank” is now used in UN documents, no?

I admit to cherry picking documents, but I will day I googled “West Bank UN document” and could not find any reference to that name before 1948 Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.Once again you are mixing things up. I already explained above that the UN attributed the mapping to the 1946 Survey of Palestine. The UN do not attribute the use of the term West Bank to anyone because it is a term in common usage at the UN (along with others related to it). Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank).Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand I think then; the UN merely quoted a term from the British Survey, but after the 1948 war the term “west bank” came into common use. More or less? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave you to study the exact details. From a WP standpoint, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) is the current guideline, that's what you need to follow on here.Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood... thank you for your assistance Zarcademan123456 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just broke 1 RR on Beit Fajjar (reinserting the same stuff twice within minutes), Please self-revert, or you risk being reported, Huldra (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What’s an RR? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1RR, Huldra (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

May I ask what was so objectionable that I added? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are re-adding info which is in the linked articles...., in short, (at least with the Jordanian link): you are Cherry-picking info from the linked article, and putting it into dozens (hundreds?) of other articles. This you are doing without ever taking it up on talk-pages. You are being extremely disruptive. Now, please self-revert, so I don't have to spend time reporting you, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this, Huldra (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this means you are taking me to arbitration...where do I plead my case? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am taking you to

WP:AE; just follow the link above, Huldra (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Although I can’t find it now, you had provided me with a link so that I could plead my case via the arbitration...thank you for providing me with the means to defend myself, although we obviously respectfully disagree in this manner. It os the sign of someone who prefers facts over being right...anyways thankyou Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird..it didn’t show when I was writing before, the link above, lol Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding the following sentence to many articles:

"It was annexed by Jordan in 1950, although there was limited international recognition (the UK and Iraq)."

You do not provide a source or attribution for the addition. This is a requirement on WP in general and for IP articles specifically.

You are also being selective in the information that you add (why do you only mention Iraq and the UK?).

Frankly it is debatable whether these additions represent an improvement in the articles; imo they do not.

Please add appropriate sourcing or attribution to any article that you have edited in this way and if you are unable to do so, self revert.

Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The UK and Iraq were the only countries to recognize. I hear you regarding the sourcing, ok. Also “WP” I assumes stands for Wikipedia...what does “IP” mean? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Palestine - the rule is each and every sentence requires a source or attribution (or be blue sky). Perhaps it is true that only those 2 countries recognized, you need to source that else it is just you saying so.Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Also thank you for bringing to my attention; it appears I misunderstood the talk page at “Jordanian annexation of the West Bank” and it seems Pakistan did recognize the annexation Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please read the top part of this. Things were not so clearcut as you think. Zero^talk 02:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Admittedly de facto, not de jure, but I hear. Similar to how one says the US was the first to recognize Israel, even though the USSR was the first to do so de jure, correct? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The USA distinguished between recognising the state and recognising the government. The USSR did not distinguish between de jure and de facto. So this issue can be spun in different ways. Zero^talk 06:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. More complicated than I thought. Thank you Zarcademan123456 (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ב== Your current editing (again) == I note that you are (again) editing WB village articles in a manner that appears intended to cause disruption. Going through a list of WB villages amending every one in a similar way seems a peculiar thing to to be doing. As has been explained to you more than once, it would be desirable to get a central agreement so that the same argument does not take place for every single village.Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine doing that. I tried putting an RFC on the central cite Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you havens gotten a consensus for those changes you are making to many articles. Again: please stop doing that, you will only be reverted and you are wasting everyone's time (including your own time), Huldra (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I tried to make an RFC centrally, but I can not figure out how to do it Zarcademan123456 (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...and then you just thought that it was ok to change it, the way you liked it?? Think again, please, Huldra (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---and again, Seriously, you have been warned about making the same changes to many pages, without getting the consensus first. You will end up at

Beginning to think we have a severe case of wp:Ididnothearthat.Selfstudier (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, Zarcademan asked me for help with the Rfc on my talk page, but I didn't get the chance to delve into the merits of it yet. In any case, this is simply not an area to be making

bold edits like this. Havradim (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

From Jordanian rule

To Jordanian rule. It was annexed by Jordan in 1950.

The net new information being added is "in 1950" which can anyway be found in the given wikilink. This is just pointless editing of no value and about which you have been warned repeatedly.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Shuyukh al-Arrub and others, you may be blocked from editing. Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, changing "the Palestine Exploration Fund's Survey of Western Palestine (SWP)" to "the PEF's Survey of Western Palestine (SWP)" makes it harder for readers to understand without adding any value. Please do not do that again. Zero^talk 14:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hereSelfstudier (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you make a change that is reverted you are not supposed to simply re-revert your change. We operate on consensus, and when you make an edit that is challenged you need to establish that there is a consensus for your changes, not attempt to force them in through sheer will and mass editing. Please stop. I dont particularly want to report you for this as I dont think you are operating maliciously, but your repeated reverts to force in your changes need to stop. nableezy - 15:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are once more making contentious edits. The situation is not as clear cut as you think it is. :This is also the current position. Are you going to include that as well? (There is also a question as to whether the US policy change is even legitimate in International Law). Or do you just want to include the things that you like? Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the UN position has not changed, why is that relevant to the changing position of the US? And sure, if you want to include that, why not? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it shows that the US is opposing a resolution affirmed by itself (ie the US position is illegitimate) And I have included it.

Also, I just reverted you on your edit to annexation article and you partially restored it directly without any discussion on the talk page (BRD) and giving a nonsense reason for the restoration, a garbled sentence about "occupied from" which is not even proper English.Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. “Occupied from” does not make sense Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I assume that it was just an oversight that you did not source the statement that “...the U.N. position on the Golan has not changed.”? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no oversight. If material is sourced in the article body it does not have to be resourced in the lead. If you read the edit summary (you obviously didn't) it says "sourced in article body").Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is Wikipedia policy that “If material is sourced in the article body it does not have to be resourced in the lead”? I respectfully ask because I learned in grad school that one is supposed to cite a source the first time one makes a claim, then re-reference (although only if blatantly needed) every time thereafter Zarcademan123456 (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may consult here for full detail. I will equally respectfully remind you that WP is not grad school and of an old saying "Learn to walk before you try to run".Selfstudier (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Balfour Declaration, it is a featured article~(one of WP best articles), I was one of the contributing editors. See how many sources there are in the lead?Selfstudier (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Police it taken, thank you Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, thank you Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reverted a total of three times. The last time, you were asked to take it to talk and not only have you failed to do so you have once again tried to push through your edit without consensus. This is disruptive editing.Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We both know that will take weeks. Will you just change the language so it makes sense? How can we claim to be an encyclopedia when we don’t use proper grammar?? One “captures” FROM something/something, not “occupy” from them. Do I prefer capture? Yes. Is my primary argument about preference here? No. It’s about proper grammar Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The language makes perfect sense to me and that language evidently makes perfect sense to all the other editors who have seen no need to change it. Even if the language was incorrect, you cannot just push through your edits against consensus, you were reverted by two editors and just ignored them.Selfstudier (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you add a note anywhere, you need to add an appropriate template on the main page (else you will get an error message at the bottom of the page).

==Notes== {{reflist|group=note}}

This will make the note show up at the bottom of the page after the references and also allow users to read the message by mouseover. I have done it for you on the Majdal Shams article.Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for leaving the others for me to do...all I did was copy paste but that works lol.

You have put it in the wrong place it has to go after the reflist template as in Majdal Shams example I gave.Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also I still strenuously disagree that “occupy...from...” is proper grammar, but at least four other editors has used language such as this, so I will yield to the majority. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked ChipsAhoy about this, he also tries to make this argument..I have no idea what "from" has to do with anything. x occupies y is standard English. No "from" (or "to" either).Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reading ChipsAhoy reply, I think we agree. Occupy from is bad. If you see that anywhere, you can just put occupy (some place), that's all. I am only objecting to "capture" when it should be occupy. OK, you can put capture and occupy but you cannot occupy something you have not captured so...Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe I have a thorough-enough knowledge of nouns verbs adjectives and sentence structure to argue intelligently on this...lol that all being said, I’ll argue unintelligently. It just doesn’t “sound” right to me...I’ve spent 10 minutes trying to formulate why, but I cannot. It’s just “Jake occupied the table from John”...doesn’t capture the essence of taking, occupy (to me) encapsulates more a sense of being Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Although obviously we are differing views on subjective views, I’m glad that we can agree on more objective views of grammar Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, it should be something like “captured from Jordan, subsequently occupied.” Much more clunky tho

Occupation is nowadays quite a complicated subject, you should accept that in many articles what you see is a compromise position because otherwise you would need to write a small book every time to explain. Normally it does not matter because most people can usually agree on whether there is an occupation (I usually think of being occupied as being subject to the orders of a foreign military but this is also simplistic).Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to bring an RFC somehow on the transition from Ottoman rule to Britain rule in most West bank village articles...we must explain the change of occupying/ruling powers. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)~[reply]

This is also very complicated, you will not be able to write this up in a short way. You have to explain all the way through from WWI to Lausanne treaty for a full treatment. And there are some issues on the way through.Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just mean something at most basic “Britain captured Palestine from the Ottoman Empire in WWI.” Everything else can be explained in links Zarcademan123456 (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Start here so you can see what is wrong with what you just wrote.Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you did not notice my comment above, you put the ==Notes== {{reflist|group=note}} in the wrong place on the others, it has to go in the same place after reflist (the same as in Majdal Shams).Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Capture” means the territory was taken, skirts over the issue of whether territory was occupied or ruled. Either way needs to be addressed.

That is not the only thing, it is not just Britain.Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll look into what you said regarding notes in the wrong place Zarcademan123456 (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still not in the right place, you put them immediately after reflist" (this is what makes the references show up at the bottom and you want the notes yto be right after those).Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British empire troops led the way I think. Especially in central Palestine, where the West Bank villages are located.

Also depends on exactly what you mean by "Palestine".

I’ll try to write something up, will post on your page when I think of it Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at the issue with the notes, I copy and pasted just as you had done at Majdal shams I had though... You are absolutely right, depends on what is meant by Palestine (Ottoman Vilayet, the Mandate pre or post 1921, the general region...) all those concerns notwithstanding, the way it stands now is that we have mention of the Ottoman Empire and then suddenly a British census in 1922, without any information on transition of power. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is my final point, what exactly is the point that you are trying to make? As you say, at the moment, the pages do not explain it but the question is "Why does it need to be explained at all?" What benefit is it to readers of WB village articles to know all of this? There is no single wikilink for the explanation, at a minimum you would need parts of 5 or 6 articles to explain it and then you will have people complaining that you only explained a part or that you missed something out and on and on...you know how it goes by now.Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re the notes, in the page you find the template {{reflist}}, it has to go immediately after that.Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m looking at two diff pages open, comparing mas’ade and Majdal shams...I’m sure this is more frustrating to you than it is to me at this point as I continually don’t get it, but I am sorry, it appears to be immediately after

Zarcademan123456 (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Can you change Mas’ade to how it should be, and by comparing the differences I can see where my mistake was? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding British rule, the transition of governance is part of the history of the villages. We mention the transition to Jordanian governance due to the 1948 war, we mention the transition to Israeli governance due to the 1967 war, and we mention the transition to Palestinian governance (if only obliquely, If the area in question is either in area a or b) due to the 1995 accords. We even mention the change of governance of the villages under the crusaders if that is applicable (in this case who taxes were paid to usually). I am not doing internationally trying to push an “agenda” but am merely trying to provide information regarding the village in question. I personally would be happy with:

“[village name] was captured in 1917 by the British during the Palestine campaign in WW1. Initially under a military occupation government, [village name] became part of the Palestine Mandate in 1920.”

Given the realities of biases, however, I could live with a simple:

“[village name] was captured by the British during the Palestine campaign in WW1.”

We need to mention how it came into British possession. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The village did not come into "British possession", the areas in the link I gave you before became subject to a military occupation. After that, the military occupation became a civilian rule. What about all the villages in Israel, you are going to be putting this information in there as well, right? And all the places outside the boundary of Mandate Palestine as it ended up. What you can live with is not the issue, the issue is whether what you put is accurate or not, as far as I can see, you do not understand the situation at all.Selfstudier (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the notes on Mas'ade, you need to fix the others, if you don't know how to do this you should not be making any notes at all until you do.Selfstudier (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“[village name] was captured by the British during the Palestine campaign in WW1.” That covers both occupation and subsequent mandate. Perfect cannot be the enemy of good. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not listening to what I am saying (at all). The British did not "capture villages".Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buq'ata is the last one to fix (look at the page to see what is wrong, the notes are appearing after the nav bars instead of after the citations).Selfstudier (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the British not capture villages? Why not analogous to how Israeli captured villages then occupied them? According to wiki page, the British were the main force in Palestine campaign, with support from local Arabs Zarcademan123456 (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Israel didn't capture villages either, they occupied the West Bank (including villages that they didn't capture). You forgot the French. If you are serious about doing this (I think you could find much better and more useful things to do) then I suggest you write a whole new article about the transition from Ottoman rule (you might also learn how to do notes and other things while doing that so its good practice) and then just wikilink to it.Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically we are arguing about the meaning of “capture”. I think what you are arguing is that once a village is abandoned, it can only be “occupied” not “captured”. I think it can still be captured, captured from self-rule. But if you want to say the British occupied these villages (we are only talking right now within West Bank, which was never within French sphere of influence; also according to wiki page, French had minimal role in palestine campaign) in 1917 after the ottomans were defeated, that’s fine too.

The essence is that it’s very jarring right now reading articles, reading abt ottoman rule then British rule/administration/occupation, without educating the reader about how we got there. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I may take you up on that suggestion about writing an article, idk Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should at least try to do the article, there is an assistant that helps you.21:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I understand your problem with the wording now, you seem to think that occupation is only a physical thing eg the entry into some territory, a village or a town, whatever. Occupation is the exercise of control by a military in a territory outside its own jurisdiction...like a government exercises control in towns and villages within its territory. Whereas capture IS the physical act (usually) unless you use it in the sense of capturing an entire territory. Doers that help?Selfstudier (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. So to sum up: my argument for using capture takes more of the physical attributes into account (how a piece of territory changed hands) whereas your use of occupation takes into account the exercise of power once captured. In that regard they should always be used together then, village was captured, hence came under occupation. Would you agree with this characterization? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, because you can occupy without capturing (unless you use capture in the sense of an entire occupied territory but in that case capture would be redundant, you just say occupy ie not like you did at History of Palestine where you used capture but neglected to mention occupation).Selfstudier (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say it is very "jarring" so does the article for let's say, Jaffa, jar as well? Or is it only WB villages that have this effect on you? Maybe you should experiment on the Israeli pages first.Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not fixed the notes on Buq'ata page.Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i will look at buqata thank you. Why would Jaffa be jarring? It explains the process through which it came into British control in 1917. And if you your argument for using “occupation” instead of “capture” is for the pure sake of conciseness, I hear, that is a very good argument. I still m confused tho, because given the principle of self-rule (for example, if Ramallah was a city state, under self rule) wouldn’t it have to be “captured” before “occupied” ? Again, if the argument is from pure conciseness, then you may have a point,but if purely as an excuse to use the word “occupy” in relation to Israel...that is pushing a bias.

I assumed that you are using “occupy” out of conciseness then... Zarcademan123456 (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shajara,_Tiberias

ThisIMO is a better example of article that needs updating. Similar to West Bank village articles, it does not explain transition between ottoman and British rule Zarcademan123456 (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation at Jaffa (or any other place in Israel) is no better than in the WB articles ie there is no explanation (because its complicated). Have you managed to explain it to yourself yet, most people do not understand it?

Nothing to do with conciseness, it is called an occupation because a) That is what it is, and b) That is what the majority of reliable sources also call it (which is what we do on WP, we follow RS).

Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t figure out buqata, I am sorry Zarcademan123456 (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it, you should not edit any more notes until you know how to do it properly.Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing it.

If it has nothing to do with conciseness, then why not put capture then subsequently occupied? Because that is what happened.

Because there is no need? If you occupy it, you must have captured at least some part of the territory. Nableezy let you away with it but thought it was funny. I won't though.Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Jaffa, it nentions there was a battle between ottoman and English...that’s all I want, to inform readers that the reason the territory is under British occupation/rule/administration is because of the war. I don’t see why we can’t just say that it came under British administration during ww1, remaining so until1948. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if there is no need, then that means it is done for conciseness, no? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are just being awkward now. When you edited History of Palestine you were quite happy to put Egyptian occupation without mentioning capture and Jordanian annexation without mentioning capture so why does capture need to be mentioned only when it is Israel? Hmm? Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If all you want to do is mention the war (and nothing else) then you can use this link[[2]] and as well put the infobox if you actually really do want to be informative.Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

your absolutely right, thank you for identifying a bias I heretofore had not recognized. That being said, You avoided my previous question before though... Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not deliberately avoiding it, I did say "No". I suppose at the end of the day, it is conciseness although I would prefer to phrase it as "occupation implies capture". I was more interested in the thought process that leads to the desire to include the word capture (they do it in the press as well but it is quite unnecessary, I think they do it because they think it will be easier for their readers to understand but I sort of object to this kind of "dumbing down").Selfstudier (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And since all I want to do is mention the war, what phrasing do you think would be best to mention said war? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me think it over, I don't want to start any new wars.Selfstudier (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just to be clear, if talking about the taking of a territory from a sovereign, I will continue to use “capture”, but if talking about the governance of the territory, I agree “occupy” as a term is more precise and concise. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite as simple as that, I'm afraid, it depends on the exact usage. SO "During the 6 day war, Israel captured..." is OK, BUT "After the 6 day war, Israel occupied..." is correct. Using captured and occupied together is generally a waste of ink unless for some specific reason it is necessary to distinguish between the act of capturing and the (subsequent) act of occupation (usually such distinguishing is unnecessary). Capture is usually used to mean the physical taking of territory while occupation need not involve physical capture, merely the setting up of a miltary authority/control (this is why Gaza is "occupied", by the way).Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chips Ahoy has made a helpful comment about the capture/occupy thing on the talk page of Jordanian annexation of the West BankSelfstudier (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no, it isnt helpful, it is patent nonsense that sources directly show to be nonsense. "occupied from X" is a perfectly valid use found in any number of sources. nableezy - 17:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is helpful, I now understand what the problem has been. I disagree with Nableezy, this construction is not usual in English, it sounds awkward and odd when you say it. That is not to say that there are not contexts in which it could be used for effect or for clarity but in the articles that we are are looking at, the context is quite clear and the addition "from (somewhere)" completely redundant.Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think one could still say that “during the 6 day war, Israel occupied...” because we are talking about a specific time in which something was occupied, not occupying from another entity, which doesn’t make sense in english~.

I am simply allowing for the possibility that the battle is still being fought and the occupation has not yet been established.Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don’t believe that the setting up of military authority at borders of Gaza constitutes control, “occupation” if you will, as hamas is in control in Gaza...perhaps under siege is more precise? For example, my army is besieging a city, that does not mean I occupy the city... I don’t want to argue this point though, more or less just want to have the last word as a child often does lol Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether you believe it, that's what it is and all the sources say so (except Israeli sources, which don't count).Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just read your notes on the Jordanian annexation talk page...if one of us were to consult a grammarian, I believe we could get an answer to the “occupy from” question. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Levivich said and I agree, it's not a question of grammar, we said it is awkward, not ungrammatical.Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, the opening sentence at Jordanian annexation of the West Bank reads "..was the occupation of the West Bank by Jordan...". Let's suppose that we are able to use "occupy from", who would that be in this case?Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of, if and only if you are a grammarian will I accept that answer that it is awkward...as (nableezy I think it was) pointed out, just because it sounds awkward to us doesn’t make it not true. That would be relying on our subjective (extremely limited) knowledge...my father use to always tell me that you can fill infinitely more volumes of books with what I don’t know than what I do know lol...point is, I would think there’s a grammatical reason it sounds awkward, just as there’s a grammatical reason (if I remember elementary school right) that one says “I taught him the lesson” instead of “I learned him the lesson”.

There are 4 editors agreeing it is awkward, if you want to consult a grammarian, feel free.Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, i know we here at Wikipedia use sources, as we should, but IMO (please rebut logically if you disagree) saying Israel is “occupying” Gaza is much less accurate (even if everyone says it) than saying Gaza is under an Israeli “siege” (one could think Israeli “prison”, but a “prison” presupposes that I control what goes on inside the prison)...again, if I am in a city/fort/Gaza, behind walls, irrelevant of who built the walls, but I control what goes on behind the walls, than logically I am under “siege” not “occupation” right? Because “occupation” just like “prison” presupposes that I control what goes on inside that territory, in addition to the paraphernalia that gets into my “occupied” area...

The siege (often called a blockade) is a part of the reason why Gaza is occupied.Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding “Israeli sources, which don’t count...bias??

No, "Hamas sources" also don't count, sources need to be independent of the situation.Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, it a possibility that during a war no one “occupies” this area, still being fought over (first thing that comes to mind is Stalingrad...) I just want to ensure we are using consistent terminology (I really appreciated what you pointed out before about “Egyptian occupation without mentioning capture and Jordanian annexation without mentioning capture so why does capture need to be mentioned only when it is Israel? Hmm?”, thx again...)

Lastly, in the Jordanian “occupy from?” Case, just like Egypt occupation (and Israeli occupation beyond partition) as the Arabs rejected partition, it was never legally binding on any party to adhere to partition boundaries...then logically Jordanian didn't “occupy from” anyone, as there was no previous sovereign.

Maybe you can make an argument they were occupied from All-Palestine government, but that was mostly a puppet regime Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the question, isn't it? Many people would argue that the sovereign was "Palestine" (class A mandates were states) and failing that, it was the people living in the mandate area who held the sovereignty (self determination). Some have argued that sovereignty was vested in the UN as a LoN successor.Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Gaza, again, logically, if an area is under blockade then how can it logically be occupied?? Occupation implies control of an area.

This is a variant of the discussion we already had about "capturing", it is not necessary to capture to control. If Israel is controlling militarily entry/exit, customs, air, sea and can and does enter Gaza militarily whenever it wants, then that is a military occupation for all practical purposes (and the UNSC has so decided).Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If hamas sources don’t count, then neither do PA sources...when you say that you mean direct from those sources, you don’t mean NGO’s associated with gov’t, correct?

Biased sources are OK because you can bring sources with the opposite bias, what is not OK are sources with a vested interest in putting out a point of view (they tell lies, misrepresent the situation, push propaganda etc).Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the West Bank, as Palestine never accepted partition, it never become part of international law, whereas the 1920 San Reno conference, which became international law, declared all of Palestine to be the homeland of the Jewish people ..maybe it was “occupied from” Israel?. However, I admit that that argument glosses over self-determination, so idk how strong of an argument that is. Also, why do you say class A mandated were states? I just looked at wiki page, perhaps I overlooked, but I don’t see information implying that anywhere

"declared all of Palestine to be the homeland of the Jewish people" (completely false, do some reading).

On state, you misunderstood me slightly, that is the (legal) argument being made ie "provisional recognition" per Article 22 of the Covenant (also Palestine was considered to be a state in legal proceedings eg Mavrommatis case) and some countries referred to (mandate) Palestine as a state. It can be argued the other way of course.Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, just because 4editors (including myself) think it is awkward terminology, doesn’t imply it is, just leads us into trap of groupthink...groupthink can often override logic Zarcademan123456 (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, consult a grammarian if you want to, I don't need to.Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I retract what I say about successor states class a mandates, I see now that it is clearly a “Proto-state”. The question is how much of a claim the Arab-Palestinians have on that state, seeing as they rejected partition and as the pre-1967 lines were explicitly not prejudiced to the final borders. Does later international law override earlier law? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The eternal problem with QoP is that the legal questions were never addressed by the UN. Instead, they chose to push for a political solution, Britain refused to allow its forces to be used to enforce partition and the US and other countries did not want to commit their forces in support of it either. It is clear that is what they wanted though and Palestine has been on the UN agenda ever since because the international community has an obligation to solve the problem that was created by itself (starting with it's informal and later formal backing of the Balfour Declaration and then after the UK threw in the towel, at the UN with one unenforced resolution after another).Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Jewish home was to be established “in” not “of” Palestine, thank you. And I think I understand your assertion now, via Palestine being recognized more of as a “state-in-being” under foreign administration than a “Proto-state”.

If your position is that Gaza is occupied, even when not suffering Israeli military incursions (when even I would agree is under an occupation), I am just curious, would you also characterize Vienna as occupied during the unsuccessful siege of 1529? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna) or any of a myriad of other similar situations during the Middle Ages? If so, that is your prerogative; I am just curious how loose you define “occupation”

"Law of occupation" is complicated but for myself I judge these things with reference to rights laws which are relatively recent affairs. You should consult a good reference work (like this for a proper view (warning, it's heavy going).Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding biased sources, then it is a judgement call on whether a source is biased or putting out “propaganda”, correct?

Yes and no, there some obvious rules (like when parties are directly involved) and other cases might require some discussion. Most of the time, attribution will deal with any problem but not always.Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the grammar, while I agree with you, are we not falling into the fallacy of groupthink? Which is ok to do, as long as we are aware of it.

Well, no, not really, I thought what I thought well before anyone agreed with it.Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, “occupy from”...seeing as the state was not declared until 1988, then it seems to reason that until then, there was no Palestine to occupy from, no? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was mainly me having a little fun at the expense of "occupy from" supporters. It is in fact quite a good argument against that formulation because here we have a case where it doesn't really work (at least, not without a lot of explanation). Since I would not use that formulation myself, it is not really an issue, I would prefer to address the post mandate situation of "Palestine" in an article of it's own but it is quite difficult to do it justice here on WP because complex legal things aren't widely reported outside of legal blogs and specialist publications.Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, if you have read that whole oxford book good for you. So your argument is basically that because the times are different what used to not be considered an occupation is now considered an occupation?

Yes, that's right. Rights law is more my thing and that's a more recent way of looking at these things.Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the grammar, “ I thought what I thought before anyone agreed with it”...you previously asserted that “occupy from” was fine, did you not?

I have never supported that construction as far as I know, can you point me to that?Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brief aside, out of personal curiosity, you are a lawyer or a legal clerk? You seem to have a head for complex legalese Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some legal background, nothing terribly serious.Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the grammar construction, I think you had defended it without supporting it...akin to Dershowitz defending trump without supporting him, lmao. If I come across text that supports that I will let you know.

I went to a yeshiva (Jewish seminary school) for a few years in my 20’s, that is my legal background...it amazed me how precise we must be with our words in order to not be misconstrued. It’s a pleasure by the way to debate civilly without getting personal, thank you. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the simplest way I can think of to get what you want without misleading people. eg Battir, where it says "British Mandate era" put as first sentence:

"Following the partition of the Ottoman empire Britain was awarded the mandate for Palestine".

Because this is not centrally agreed, it is possible you may face questions from editors. Maybe try it half a dozen at a time and see what happens.

Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I am treading over territory already covered, but why would you object to “Britain captured [village name] from ottomans in ww1. After a couple of years under military government, Britain was given the mandate...”

Because they may or may not have captured the village, in most cases , they did not capture the village. I have explained this quite a few times now.

We can cut out the middle sentence about military governance I suppose, though I would like something to link to OETA, a part of the past of every locality in the Palestine mandate Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me for my suggestion and having thought about it, I have given it. If you choose to ignore that and do something else that is up to you. When I suggested starting with OETA before you refused that idea, the difficulty is that it is complicated and the more you put in the more you are likely to mislead and if you put in too much, you will be in effect synthesizing (WP synth ie OR) unless you have a source that reflects what you are trying to say.10:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Selfstudier (talk)

I’ll be honest, I am mostly not understanding the matter, so i will let the matter drop for now. IF I get to a computer I will make that article you mentioned about the transition. From ottoman to British rule Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you btw Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yw.Selfstudier (talk)

You have broken the 1R rule at Jabel Mukaber and are obliged to self-revert.Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not undo, I manually changed the page Zarcademan123456 (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, still counts as a revert. Also this specific matter is subject of a |central RFC that is not yet closed. In addition, "occupation" was specifically negated at the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank as a description of the period of Jordanian control prior to annex. I would self revert if I were you. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is recurrent, not understanding policy. Revert or be reported.Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will just revert in 30 hours, but ok Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an acceptable response. Edit warring is edit warring even if you wait an extra 6 hours. You should not continue making edits that have been disputed. If you do then I would expect a topic ban to result. nableezy - 22:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got hotheaded before. Sorry for the ill advised and blatantly provocative comment Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:Jordanian annexation of the West Bank were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. --Bsherr (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made this edit in the wrong section, if you intended it as a comment on the recent move discussion. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thats not the right place to oppose a move? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You put it in the wrong section of that page - the move is being discussed in a different section, at the bottom of the page. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed it thank you.

On a completely other topic, there is no mention in most of villages that are/were in mandate Palestine about the transition to British rule...just bringing to your attention, see my talk page for conversation about how to rectify situation, I could use some help Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zarcademan123456?markasread=188963544&markasreadwiki=enwiki#The_Ottoman_to_Britain_transition.

I just don’t know how to work RFC’s/most of Wikipedia lol. Any help appreciated, if not not end of would. Thx

And thx for heads up about me putting “oppose” in wrong place Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll take a look at those other articles. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You broke 1R at the above article, making 2 reverts one after the other. Kindly self revert one or other of the edits.Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No he didn't. Two successive edits in a series count as one (see

WP:EW: " A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." ) Don't mislead new editors this way, or you may find yourself sanctioned. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

There is an RM covering the "occupation" question, note that the two edits I am complaining about were made after this RM was set up by Zarcademan himself; that will resolve the matter in due course without edit warring.Selfstudier (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RM has nothing to do with the edits made, and an RM (generally) just prevents further renaming the article. I suggest you strike out your false and misleading warning above, it looks like an attempt to bully a new user into undoing an edit you don't like, under false pretenses. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)

The RM is exactly to do with the reverted edits and that's exactly why those reverts were made. In fact the RM is in all likelihood a result of my making the edits that were reverted in the first place. The difference is I don't usually edit war and I am happy to wait for the outcome of the RMSelfstudier (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RM is "Requested Move" - it deals only with the name of the article, not edits to the article body. Stop trying to bully your way into getting what you want. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bullying involved, look at the edit summaries."As there was no previous sovereign, “occupy” is more accurate than “capture”". So Zarc overall position is that Israel is not an occupier because there was no previous sovereign but Jordan is an occupier because there was no previous sovereign. Duh.Selfstudier (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about your petty content dispute. The bullying is in attempting to mislead a new editor into undoing his edits you don't like, by falsely appealing to "rules" not supported by policy. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)

It depends if you are using occupy in the physical sense of the word or the governing sense of the word, as you pointed out in RFC. We need a guideline on which to use when Zarcademan123456 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a number of edits at the Trump peace plan article.

Not only did you remove properly sourced material, you failed to provide an edit summary for any of the edits in contravention of policy.

I will do my utmost to ensure doesn’t happen again, thank uou Zarcademan123456 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you do not understand my position about "occupy....from".

You changed

"Israel captures and occupies the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria" to

"Israel captures the Gaza Strip...etc" ie you deleted the words "and occupies" and you gave as a reason in your edit summary

"Since me cannot occupy “from” another, not proper English".

That is NOT my position. I am NOT objecting to the use of the word "occupy". I AM objecting to the "from Egypt", "from Jordan" and "from Syria" being used together with the word occupy/occupied/occupation. So I have changed it so that it reads:

"Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights"

---which also happens to be what the reference source says "..occupied the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.".

Do you understand now? Selfstudier (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy doesn’t convey the sense of taking from territory from someone else... but the main thing thing I was concerned with was “occupy from”...

I do have beer stand your position by the way, deleting the word got rid of true issue CJ do think needs to be reworded to include “capture” or “seize” as that captures (pun not intended) the essence of taking Zarcademan123456 (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights” much too passive...I submit that out of a desire to highlight Israel’s occupation, we are doing a disservice to the reader, making it seem as if those countries left and then Israel simply “occupied” the territory, instead of being forced out Zarcademan123456 (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Occupy doesn’t convey the sense of taking from territory from someone else.."

That is wrong. These are two different concepts, occupy implies capture, capture does not imply occupy. So in this case by putting capture you misrepresented the source.

There is no "desire" to highlight occupation or any other thing, that is what the source says, it needs no further explanation. It is perfectly clear without any further interpretation from you as to what it means, beyond what it says.

Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends if you are using occupy in the physical or governing sense. Since the context is “territorial changes” this implies occupy is being used in a physical sense... One physically occupies territory not necessarily by force, while “capture” or “seize” unambiguously implies taking said territory by force, which is what happened

Regarding the source, a different source can always be retrieved Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy doesn’t necessarily imply capture, is the essence of my argument Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat (again), occupy in IP area has one meaning only. If you want to use it in the sense of physically occupy either say physically occupy or just use capture (which does not imply occupy).

You cannot achieve an occupation (ie a military occupation, which is all we are discussing here) without having first captured. How did the military force get into the position of occupation without capturing anything? Go consult your grammarian, I don't propose to debate the English language with someone who doesn't understand it.

As for sources,. you again demonstrate ignorance of how WP works, you don't see a source you don't like, delete it and put another one that you do. You want to challenge a source, you can do it in a variety of ways which I will leave you to study by yourself. Just bringing in a new one is not enough, you have to show that your new one is the majority opinion in all relevant sources (which you will not be able to do because the one that is there now IS the majority opinion of all relevant sources).

Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the source (I'd like an answer). As I said at Huldra's page, we need to use the term used in the source. But to use only one term - eg the one you reverted to, is indeed a violation of NPOV - see Israeli West Bank barrier. We need to use both. Doug Weller talk 10:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source says segregation, a word used to mischaracterize Israeli rule. While true factually (the wall separates or segregates the Palestinian population) the governance is different than South Africa. Furthermore, “segregate” is no longer used due to toxic history (American and South African segregation; one argue same is true for “separate” given “separate but equal”). I equate the reasons no longer using segregate to why “retard” or “mongoloid” is no longer used to describe those with special needs; political correctness. Israeli segregation and separation gives Palestinians equal rights in their areas; while equivalent in that sense to “separate but equal” (idk about South African apartheid) using these terms glosses over the terroridm employed by the Palestinian governate, acts which were not employed as widely (or as deadly) in America and South Africa. Conclusion: comparable in some ways, not in others, IMO not enough to warrant analogous terms. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have edited "It was annexed by Jordan in 1950."

This is false, Aqraba was not annexed, the West bank was annexed and the article already says that before your edit.

I agree we should be waiting for the RFC outcome, so why are you not doing it?

Selfstudier (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting what Huldra took out Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If territory B is within and part of trrritory A, and territory A is annexed, then by extension territory B was annexed as well. I guess a better reason for my edit was restoring status quo Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"If territory B is within and part of trrritory A, and territory A is annexed, then by extension territory B was annexed as well."

Even if this was true, I don't think it is a very good way to phrase it, you would still need a source that actually says it and you will not be able to find one. Nableezy formulation, if it gets accepted, will do what you want, just wait for that rather than inventing new problems.Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off why is this not true? Please provide example. I included “if part of” to exclude cases like Lesotho (Swaziland) wholly surrounded by South Africa but not part of South Africa. Secondly, I was only maintaining status quo. I have done my utmost to not add “annexed by Jordan in 1950” (even though factually correct) while this RFC is working itself out. I will not stand by while people change the status quo before this RFC went came into being Zarcademan123456 (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it wasn't true, I said even if it was true... and then went on to say that the way you had phrased it was not very good (awkward... Nableezy version is much better). I also said it was unsourced, which it is. Your "status quo" argument is baloney, the article already linked to Jordanian annex before your edit and the only reason any of this is a problem at all is because you decided to mass edit articles according to your opinion and without getting a central consensus first. It was you who first disturbed the status quo.Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo before left out the information about Jordanian annexation. Most agree it should be included, the only question is how to phrase. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also do I have to source “the sky is blue”? It’s an undisputed fact it was annexed in 1950. If mentioning the lack of recognition, then I do think need sourcing though Zarcademan123456 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you are perfectly well aware, there is a RfC on this at the moment, (

WP:CHERRYPICKING, Huldra (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

condemnation of Israel is in every West Bank village article. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There is a link to an article (Israeli occupation of the West Bank), but I have not cherrypicked undisputed facts from that article and put it in each and every West Bank village article. Huldra (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you and I differ on definition of “condemnation of israel”

Regarding “held” under Israeli occupation, what does that word add to comprehension? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we obviously do. But neither of us are allowed to "force" one POV on all articles by making a tsunami of edits. (You have been told this dozen of times, by now)

Also, with "held" is is clearer, IMO.

Oh, and I believe you just broke 1RR on 'Aqqaba, please self-revert, Huldra (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Aqaba there was no undo, there was no “revert”. Also, WHY is held clearer what does it add? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 'Aqqaba you 21:02, 9 May 2020 you removed part of the word "held" (which had been in the article, so when you removed it, it was a "revert"). On 21:36, 9 May 2020 you removed "held" (ie 2 revert), Huldra (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up Wikipedia policies, for revert, apparently not limited to undo, I will replace held. Regardless, I am curious as to why, IYO, “held” adds to article comprehension? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a commonly used phrasing, eg [3], [4]. I dont exactly see why it should be removed, to me it reads better with held. Being concise is not the determining factor in good writing. nableezy - 22:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given Israeli military is only present in area C and arguably area B, would we at the very least agree area A is not “held” under occupation? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, IF that had been true all the time. But it isn't. Israeli military go everywhere they like on the West Bank, including Ramallah, if they want to. Huldra (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the entirety of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is held under military occupation. And it is not up to us to agree, what matters are the sources, and they are very clear on this point. nableezy - 22:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources could say segregate, yet we don’t say that because of NPOV. Why is this different? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV means giving each view it's due weight, with that weight determined by the weight afforded to a view by the sources. It is a super-majority view that the West Bank is occupied territory, thus we are required, per NPOV, to say the same. Same thing for your Stern Gang edit, that is the name that sources use, it does not matter that you think "gang" is less neutral than "group". NPOV does not mean downplaying what the sources say to appease some person's personal preferences. nableezy - 22:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll agree on occupy, but the view of “held” leads to bias Zarcademan123456 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? How? Before you said it was an issue of superfluousness, now it is bias? How does held lead to bias? nableezy - 23:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it over, argument via “held” bias is in itself biased. Would only argue based off conciseness Zarcademan123456 (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re your recent editing at Jordanian annexation of the West Bank

Notifying you of 3R policy (You are already familiar with the 1R policy for IP related pages).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just got this Zarcademan123456 (talk) 12:26, 11 May 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. Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification Thx for Zarcademan123456 (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no time stamp...why does that happen Zarcademan123456 (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you are entitled to revert once every 24 hours you are wrong. If you think you can force your views into our articles through sheer force of will, you are wrong. Please stop edit-warring across a range of articles. I do not want to report you and ask for any type of ban, but if you continue to ignore the fact that your edits have been contested and you must work on achieving consensus for them I will do so. nableezy - 19:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani I saw had supported me on your talk page... Zarcademan123456 (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what? nableezy - 19:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was discussing general principles. Where settler+Palestinian conflict is a particular feature of an area, it will have a substantial history. Yitzhar for example. In those cases, a section on conflict is appropriate because it is widely documented. One off examples are questionable for the reasons Nableezy gave. And, please note, it was very easy to document, with 3 sources, in a few minutes several aspects of Geva Binyamin which were out there but ignored - no terror and blood and guts stuff. Encyclopedic article construction is one thing: running around dozens of articles with automatic additions of 'terror' incidents, or generic statements (Jordan annexed West Bank hence every article on every single village in the WB must follow that phraseology) is simple POV pushing. Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, no? Is not one of the essences of an encyclopedia standardization? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get the WP: NOTNEWS, if I see any one offs like that then I will delete per the policy. Regarding unsourced phraseology though (for example regarding Jordanian annexation) it should be standard, as befits reputable encyclopedia, no? Listen I may be incorrect...if I am fine. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For support I would note “The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this.[2]” Exact phrasing locating in nearly all settlement articles. Zarcademan123456 (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me any source for the idea that 'standardization' is characteristic of encyclopedias or historical research? News to me. What your 'standardization' seems to consist of is making mechanical changes, unbacked by any consensus, to introduce a meme across pages regardless of context. To do that you require some consensus. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the principle you are advocating all over, everywhere. At Wadi Qana my reading provided a dozen examples of settlers intimidating the Palestinians, in individual incidents. They weren't added for the reasons Nableezy gave (though I didn't consult him). What editors like yourself do is not encyclopedic, because you range over numerous pages with word fixes for a POV, without actually looking, as serious editors do, at the relevant sources on this or that village, and adding all sorts of historicalm social geophysical data. They build articles, and do not use them to push some minor POV angle.Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt you are aware that in some West Bank villages over more than a decade, a half of the population has been gassed or shot at with rubber bullets during protests, Would it be encyclopedic to enumerate every incident. No. When this is a recurrent phenomenon, one makes a section synthesis, with illustrative details (as at Bil'in), because that is one of the notable features reported of that place. Totally different from Geva Binyamin, though if you can muster several such incidents, that would be different.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The line on Israeli settlements being illegal took literally years of discussion and had an RFC with a closure finding consensus for that line. It was not put in place by one editor making the same rote insertion across all articles without the backing of an explicit consensus for it. You have been making mass changes without any such consensus. Some of them are fine, some are not. The important part though is what happens when your mass changes are reverted. You should not simply re-revert. If you continue doing that you may well end up being topic-banned. When your change is reverted, or challenged, it is incumbent on you to demonstrate that there is a consensus for your change. Not simply attempt to force it in. nableezy - 21:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree regarding the encyclopedia standardization, but if that’s what the majority says one must submit. Tyranny of the majority is a unfortunate byproduct of democracy, but better than authoritarianism. Ok thx Zarcademan123456 (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Tyranny' is an odd way to spin 'consensus', which is an antonym of the same. Every editor here, including those who disagree with your points here, has had to get used to not having their way, particularly where their views may smack of an admanantine certainty. For unless a source corroborates one's perception of a reality, one's opinions count for nothing whoever well grounded in an understanding of the topic. Nishidani (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can We not both be correct? 5 consenting opinions and 1 dissenting opinion is “tyranny of the majority”, no? I merely was pointing out an undesired byproduct of democracy.

That being said, I recently moved to Israel from America, and I find that parliamentary democracy allows minority parties to have outsized influence, arguably worse than the us “winner take all” system.

I only meant to highlight a dysfunction of democracy, nothing more nothing less Zarcademan123456 (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed you adding here and there, I forget exactly where but the latest is at the History of Palestine article, that the Zionists accepted the partition plan. I have tagged this for a citation because afaik, the situation is not that of simple acceptance, the reality would be something more along the lines described here https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-revisiting-the-un-partition-plan-1.5430627. I did provide a link to the discussion of this at the partition plan article but you appear to have ignored it.Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it is possible that I did not see the link (as is the case). Second, even if acceptance was only a tactic, the fact is that the Zionist Congress, even if only as a tactic, accepted partition.

The article you pointed out wants to draw attention to actions taken after the war commenced. Again, if I am reading correctly, Ben Gurion accepted partition, even if it was reluctantly Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of only many sources on the subject, the majority of NPOV sources will not simply state "accepted", the very least would be reluctant acceptance and others go further. At the moment the statement in the article is nothing more than your opinion.Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you like I will put “reluctant” before acceptance Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2020

It's tagged for a citation, so that means you or anyone can provide one that backs up (or not) what you have written.Selfstudier (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you put citation needed before the comma...I know that citation goes after the period at end of sentence...is it policy to put before comma (or parenthesis) in middle of sentence? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now after the back and forth we have messed up the article a bit by including citations into the lead (it did have a couple in there but most of the material was already cited in the body). We should include all the material into the body so that we don't need the actual citations in the lead. Normally it is better to first edit the body and only then summarize that in the lead, it doesn't matter with many less good or important articles but it does in this case, to upgrade this article at all we need to fix such problems eventually).Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I hear. If you would like to just revert to whatever it said before I intervened, that is fine.

No, it can be fixed, there is a section in the article body about the partition, the material can go in there. Leave it, I will do it.Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I fixed it up, you can review it.Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of left field, what the answer to my question about commas and citation? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that, I usually just put the cn tag immediately after the material that needs the cite.Selfstudier (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, perhaps I’m just misunderstanding, before or after comma? Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care there is a comma or not, I just put the cn tag immediately after the material that needs citing.Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had just edited under “modern era” by the way, obviously change if you deem POV. We can hash out later obv Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at it later, the only thing obviously wrong is that Britain never "renounced" (that was why the citation was required, I guess).Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the issue was Jewish acceptance of partition...whatever seems like everything being taken care of lol Zarcademan123456 (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is another thing, the 1939 wp is frequently misrepresented as something which it is not, anyway, I gave direct reference to the wp.Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for letting me know looks fine to me thx Zarcademan123456 (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read my discussion with Nableezy to understand what is really about --Shrike (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provide link to discussion pleas, perhaps I read wrong discussion. Also, if you don’t mind I would appreciate you viewing talk page at Geva Binyamin, I am trying to get opinions on WP:NOTNEWS Zarcademan123456 (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article talk page for discussion. Zero^talk 11:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this, Huldra (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to self rv and then sort things after it Shrike (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this ok Zarcademan123456 (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Already undid by Huldra thx for suggestion tho Zarcademan123456 (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are

broadly construed

.

You have been sanctioned per this discussion

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guy (help!) 09:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

this, Huldra (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are

broadly construed

.

You have been sanctioned per this discussion

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

It is completely obvious that this and this are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Therefore they violate your topic ban. Zero^talk 03:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for arbitration enforcement. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to two edits above, you also made this edit today. Thus, all three edits made after your topic ban has been extended in fact violate this topic ban. To enforce it, I blocked your account for two weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, you are still topic-banned from the I/P-area, so how come you thinks it is ok to do edits like this?

Please undo, or risk a report to

Please note this, Huldra (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for Violating your topic ban as laid out at this AE Request, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

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

---

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerillero (talk • contribs) 16:48, November 17, 2020 (UTC)