Blindjustice

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome! —Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs}

Alger Hiss

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) At least two editors disagree with the edit you have repeatedly made to Alger Hiss, and reasons have been given in the edit summaries. As I say in my most recent edit summary, if you want to argue for this edit you are more than welcome to do so in the Talk:Alger Hiss page. KarlBunker 02:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin

Your outrage at the claims made in this article are understandable. But we need to stick to the WP policy on, for instance, "Original Research", "Synthesis" and the rest of it. The fact that others are less careful doesn't allow us to get away with anything. Pace yourself, look at the information available, and concentrate on getting good information into the articles of the encyclopedia. There's masses of it out there - and it would be scandalous if other editors are able to keep it out indefinitely. Regards, PalestineRemembered 22:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

good word

i just thought i'd give you a good word for what seems to be a fair edit that advances the article. i may play with it some in the future to be less "numbered", but in general, i feel this edit was constructive.^[1] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s. as we discussed on talk, if you plan on using the problematic title of AI, then you should also include the title of CAMERA. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

question - is it safe to say that i can archive this section? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

CAMERA article is entitled "A Study in Palestine Duplicity and Media Indifference"

• I do not know what Camera article you are referring to. Blindjustice 21:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is entitled "A Study in Palestinian Duplicity and Media Indifference" - and contains such gems as "despite copious evidence of their blatant lying ... refuting their fictitious 'massacre'". Needless to say, we should never be using such very poor material in the encyclopedia, it's clearly not an acceptable RS. (But it's further proof that the "No Massacre" thesis is a "Minor View"!) PalestineRemembered 11:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Note

your recent edits have exceeded the definition of POV and i suggest you avoid what could be regarded as vandalism in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Careful

Your recent edit on Battle of Jenin - [2] - was a serious violation on POV, as you've added WP:WEASEL words ("some") to describe interpretations of secondary sources

There have been many reports about atrocities reported in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. Ignoring these reports has made this an unbalanced article giving undue weight to the Israeli government narative and zero weight to the Palestinian narative. I was just trying to add balance.

and added a Palestinian report submitted to the Secretary-General quote ("Many credible sources have reported about atrocities committed... it is probable that a massacre and a crime against humanity might have been committed in the Jenin refugee camp") under a "However, the UN report contained the following" descriptive, giving the Palestinian submission a a UN validation quality it does not posses. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"However, the UN report contained the following" is a direct quote from the report from the UN web site.Blindjustice (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't - see source. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Type of sources

Hi. I noticed in your edit summary, for Battle of Jenin, you mentioned primary and secondary sources. Though I don't know you, I hope you don't mind my recommending the Wikipedia policy about primary and secondary sources. Maybe this seems counter-intuitive, but a key point is that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." This is because the encyclopedia is mainly a "tertiary" source that depends on solid secondary sources, and because the interpretation of primary sources would draw us into original research, i.e., to be avoided. If the topic concerns media coverage of an event, then you are right to see that a given media report like Ha'aretz is functioning as a primary source, which therefore means that we should rely on secondary sources that put the Ha'aretz and other coverage into the proper context and analysis. I say this without prejudicing whether your proposed finding ("evidence of massacre") is correct or not. See what I mean? Hope this is useful. HG | Talk 16:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am no longer using an anonymous login, as per suggestion. Also, I have edited many articles, not just the Battle of Jenin. Concerning the Haaretz source, it is important because a high ranking member of the Israeli government would not talk about a 'massacre' based on a mere rumor, and in fact, the article continues with statements by the Israeli armed forces stating that over 100 Jenin fighters and civilians had already been killed, again implying that a massacre was in progress and expressing fears of international reaction. Israel did initiate a public relations campaign to deny that a massacre occurred, by retracting or downplaying previous statements indicating otherwise. Omitting sources which would tend to support the contention that a massacre occurred is most definitely POV, since this is a major point of controversy concerning this article. Contrast this with non-reliable sources being used to support the contention that a massacre did not occur, such as the Washington Times article concerning alleged Palestinian verification of a low death toll. The original of the Washington Times article has been removed from the internet, so indirect links from pro-Israeli blogs are used. Using a search engine reveals NO OTHER MAJOR AMERICAN NEWS OUTLET with content on the web ran the Washington Times story. Yet this questionable source remains, while the Haaretz source is deleted. I was just trying to restore NPOV.

Decline reason:

You're not blocked directly; this may be an autoblock. Follow the instructions below in order to help us fix this :-) — Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

1. If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
   Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
   If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
2. Try to edit the Sandbox.
3. If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-ip|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.
4. Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I am still blocked. The following message appears when I try to edit a page: Editing from 68.37.255.64 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Swatjester for the following reason(s): POV pushing, edit warring, and vandalism on Battle of Jenin and others.

Decline reason:

I am declining on the basis that the IP in question is a residential IP that has focused solely on disrupting middle eastern articles for over a year. Therefore, it is highly probable you are that IP and should remain blocked. — MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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

Blindjustice (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I specifically disabled anon-only on this block because I was certain that this IP was a sockpuppet of some user, logging out to avoid detection. Surprise surprise, it was. According to your unblock request above, you haven't learned from your POV pushing and edit warring, and that you intend to do it further. Accordingly, this account should be blocked as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Under the provisions of the Palestine Israel arbitration committee, this account is topic banned from articles relating to Israel/Palestine for 60 days from the cessation of the above block. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

No link is provided concerning "Palestine Israel arbitration committee," so I am unable to know what provision you are referring to. Also, no reason given for contention that an important citation from a reliable source is POV. Also, I have edited pages other than on Israeli-Palestine issue, so statement that I have "focused solely on disrupting middle eastern articles for over a year" is not correct; and some of my edits were not "disrupting", "edit wars", or "POV," since they were incorporated into articles without objection. Administrator User:Swatjester is biased by his/her own POV and should recuse.

Decline reason:

This is what he's referring to, and it's pretty solid reasoning for the block and topic ban. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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

Blindjustice (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This Barnstar awarded to an editor I always thought was careful and scholarly. I see no evidence, and no attempt at documenting, that your IP was "POV pushing, edit warring, and vandalism on Battle of Jenin and others" as claimed. I would have disputed that if I'd been offered the opportunity, as I feel sure many others would have done. I know of no policy that says that, once having opened an account, you would be required to edit under that accont sine die. There may come a time when Wikipedia ceases to be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - but there's been no public announcement or discussion to that effect so far. PRtalk 19:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey vote request

Please vote in survey over whether to include text in History of the the Islamic Republic of Iran

Text and dispute is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran&diff=274961453&oldid=274952179

Arguements

found in edit summary and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#Deletion_by_KneeJuan

Thank you --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Yitzhak Rabin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IDF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

May 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Israel, Palestine, and the United Nations. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but you have violated WP:1RR as per Arbcomm restrictions on I/P articles. Do see the top of the article talk page, and don't do it again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lausanne Conference (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brendan F. Boyle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montgomery County. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beit Hanoun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IDF. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Blindjustice. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edit-warring at Deir Yassin massacre

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Blindjustice. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)

Deir Yassin massacre

Your recent revert violated the 24-hour restriction that applies to the article under WP:ARBPIA. It's too late for you to self-revert and fix the problem so I won't report you, but next time you will be reported and you may be blocked from editing. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Blindjustice. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)

Alert

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

You have recently shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any 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.

--Shrike (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

NPA

Saying another editor's constructive edits are "Vandalism" would be a personal attack. Please retract this baseless accusation. Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The total deletion of an edit is NOT constructive, the removal of reputable sources is vandalism.

The wholesale deletion of relevant information, along with its reputable sources, is indeed vandalism.Blindjustice (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)