Dank Chicken

Welcome!

Hello, Dank Chicken, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Nuclear weapons and Israel have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Ifnord (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't actually change any statistics. I just checked all numbers and sources aldready listed on this article and Wikipedia, and they provided the information that I summarised. Dank Chicken (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Alert

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.

In addition, one of the restrictions in place is that no editor with fewer than 500 edits or thirty days since registration may make any article edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Some of your edits clearly fall into this category. If you continue making such edits to articles, you will be blocked from editing to enforce the restriction. You may use article talk pages to discuss constructive changes to articles, but the tolerance for bad behaviour in such cases is very low indeed. GoldenRing (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, there is a discussion concerning you ongoing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Continued_pushing_from_new_SPI. GoldenRing (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I answered via your link. Dank Chicken (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Nobel laureates per capita. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That's because IP keeps vandalasing the page. Please block him, he does not wait for consensus despite repeated warnings! Dank Chicken (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The IP's edit is as good-faith as yours is. You do not qualify for the vandalism-cleanup exemption from 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I've repeatedly explained to IP why Faroe Islands is not to be added. Also, IP is the one who started adding it after the last extended confirmed user edit. I simply keep reverting to his edit. Dank Chicken (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

However, you are the one who has made three reverts in the past 24 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Because he keeps vandalising! What am I supposed to do instead? Dank Chicken (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, I see no evidence that the IP has vandalized the page. You and the IP are engaged in a content dispute. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

IP keeps reverting before consensus. As I stated, last edit by an extended confirmed user was in my favour. Dank Chicken (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

If we really want to trace the consensus back, your removal of the Faroe Islands wasn't that long ago. It could be argued that the status quo position has them on the list. With limited participation, I don't think we have a new consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

No, because the Faroe Islands laurate is already counted with Demmark, it's an atonomous region which hasn't claimed independence unlike Tibet and Hong Kong. Dank Chicken (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That's your position on the issue. The IP disagrees. There is no consensus established. The question is whether the status quo is before or after your removal of the Faroe Islands on 16 November. —C.Fred (talk) 17:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That is not simply my position. Those are facts that can easily be checked. Dank Chicken (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying the Faroe Islands is not a territory? Because territories are within the scope of the list. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The Central Park is a territory of New York City. I'm not sure what your point is. Dank Chicken (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please take it easy

Please take it easy. This comment was way too harsh for a first time edit. Not to mention that it was this edit's first edit on Wikipedia, and please see WP:BITE. Debresser (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Debresser:, @46.166.165.108: I'm sorry, I was just upset because another IP did the same to me a few days ago. I should have assumed that this was another individual acting in good faith. Again, my apologies. Dank Chicken (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem here. We all get annoyed once in a while. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Edits in violation of arbcom sanctions

The demographic history of Palestine is key background to the Israeli-Arab conflict and so is covered by the sanctions that you have been informed of earlier. You must cease editing in that area until you reach extended-confirmed status. Zero^talk 10:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Then why is it not locked? I was told I shouldn't edit templates regarding the Arab/Israeli conflict before I'm extended confirmed, but this is a normal, unlocked article. Arguably, it's not part of the conflict since it's strictly informational and statistical. Dank Chicken (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

AE request

I've filed a request at AE. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Thanks for your alert! I've responded now. Dank Chicken (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the Palestine-Israel editing restrictions, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. 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.  Sandstein 20:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

---

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."

In reply to your e-mail:

"This is extremely odd. Why did I get blocked for simply contributing with high-quality information backed by very reliable sources? The only reason I have been given is that "I edited an article that was a part of the Arab Israeli conflict". But this doesn't make any sense!

1. Nowhere in the article "Demographics of Israel/Palestine" does it inform it's about said conflict.

2. My edits were strictly factual. I simply contributed with statistics to a chart.

3. If I wasn't supposed to edit the article, then why was it neither (a) locked, nor (b) stating that it's about a controversial subject not to be edited by new users?"

An Arbitration Committee decision, WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, prohibits new users from contributing to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". This certainly applies to an article about the demographics of the conflict area. The merits of your edits are not relevant for the purpose of this restriction. Because you did not heed warnings, a block is necessary to prevent you from continuing to violate this restriction. Sandstein 21:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

(1) Articles don't themselves indicate that they come under ARBPIA. Some of them have a banner on their talk page, which this article has had for more than 6 years. However, neither a banner nor protection is required by the rules for an article to be covered. Demographics is at the heart of the Israel-Palestine conflict so the inclusion of this article is beyond argument. (2) "McNutt 1999, pp. 46–47" is not a citation unless the full bibliographic details of the source are in the bibliography section of the article. Read WP:CITE. (3) Even if you were allowed to edit there, your edit would have been reverted because it combined information from two sources and drew a conclusion that neither source draws. Both authors are referring to a small region of Palestine, make the point that the new villages there were small, and don't attempt to compare their population to the rest of Palestine. Read WP:SYNTH. Zero^talk 00:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

In response to your second mail: Please post your unblock request here so that others can see and comment on it. Sandstein 09:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I was acting in good faith. I didn't realise the article was even considered remotely related to the Arab Israeli conflict seeing as it was strictly demographic. The only people who claimed so were normal users and not admins, and I thought they were mistaken. When you informed me, I was already blocked. So now that I'm aware of the rules, can't I just be unblocked and I won't edit ANY similar articles until I'm 30/500... Dank Chicken (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss and EdJohnston:; your comments? Sandstein 16:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dank Chicken. Your claim of ignorance of the restriction on this article isn't plausible. There is a large notice about three inches high at Talk:Demographic history of Palestine which announces the ARBPIA restriction, which states that edits by new users are not allowed. You also got a personalized notice of the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions here on your talk page on 24 November (still visible above) by GoldenRing, who is an administrator. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, @Sandstein: I didn't read the desktop talk page, and nobody told me to read it before now. The section I wrote on the talk page was with the mobile version, which didn't show the alert template. And I'm already blocked, which is really unfair. Can I at least get a second chance and be unblocked? If I break the rules again, you can block me permanently because that won't happen! Dank Chicken (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but the user is uncompromising in his edits and his edits insist a certain POV. I suggest he makes the best out of the block by editing other articles in the meantime and learning how wp works. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with EdJohnston. The unblock request is declined. Sandstein 21:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss:, @Sandstein: What's "I suggest he makes the best out of the block by editing other articles in the meantime and learning how wp works" supposed to mean? I can't edit ANY articles because I'm blocked! At least allow me to edit articles unrelated to the subject, or don't give such weird "suggestions" which you've made me incapable to fulfill... Dank Chicken (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Your previous account

Whats the name of your previous account at Wikipedia?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember, it must have been years ago, that's why I created this one. Why are you asking? Dank Chicken (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Your first edits at Wikipedia shows your a veteran editor.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I see. Dank Chicken (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I think its important that you come clean and tell us the name of your previous account. You should probably remember it, you can go to the articles you used to edit and check their history's. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I second this question. Also, were you under any sanctions the you last left Wikipedia? That is, blocked, topic banned, or anything like it? Huldra (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I think my name was Man, followed by a couple of numbers. As I said, it was years ago so I don't remember excactly. I wasn't sactioned, I simply left Wikipedia. But why is this so important anyways? Dank Chicken (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Dank Chicken, there is a whole policy about WP:SOCK. If you previously had another account whose name you can't remember, you should dig it up and declare your old username-- that way these sorts of accusation will hold negative weight. However, as I said on the talk page, it is also wrong for people to follow you around and use this to tar your reputation. Actually persistence on this point on their part would be considered quite wp:uncivil. --Calthinus (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edit comment

Amnot certain if you intended your edit comment as a genuine query, but i think a substantial reply is quite superfluous. Unless one is a little kid, any adult person knows countries help only themselves: it could be merely for the purpose of boosting an image, creating good will; but in this case things are all too obvious and actually elaborated on at the bottom of that section (not written by me). On second thoughts, massive help to Israel by the U.S. is probably an exception: very hard to explain by anything rational, except an obvious state of massive delusion among the American population.Axxxion (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course countries don't do things that they know will damage their own interests. I'm just asking what makes you so sure Israel tries to "recruit and debreif" the Syrian victims that they treat. Is it really so hard to understand why USA helps Israel? The countries are in a symbiotic relationship, they cooperate in everything from military operations to intelligence gathering. It's also good PR for the U.S. to be friends with Israel because both countries have >6M Jews in their populations. Dank Chicken (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, naturally i have no first-hand knowledge of what is going on there, but it would be foolish of any country′s spying agency not to use such opportunity for their purposes (and this operation is directly carried out by the military): a massive influx of, and direct contact with population from across the border of a country where hostilities are occurring, etc: Ok, lots of kids and elderly, but even a handful of potentially useful sources (fighters, scouts, minor officials) may well be among a big number of charges of this aid operation. My principal beef was about the uncritical broadcast of IDF propaganda spin, and in fact it was all unsourced too! Apropos, the U.S.A.: I consider it delusional because, contrary to what you said, the main driving force behind the U.S. implicit support of Israel (I talk of the period since the USSR collapse) is not the Jewish diaspora in the U.S. (just about two percent of the population, much of which critical of Israel), but rather WASPish evangelicals, who demand the end of the world now: The biggest fans of President Trump’s Israel policy? Evangelical Christians., Analysis Armageddon? Bring It On: The Evangelical Force Behind Trump's Jerusalem Speech. Ok, this extreme group may be fringe, but the overall Christian theology, the way it is preached from pulpits, is essentially Zionist in the U.S.A.; and this even predates 1948. There is affinity between the two nations, no doubt: firm belief in being exceptional and God-chosen. Any psychiatrist will tell you that such belief (if that is a true belief) is a delusion, characteristic of psychotic conditions, but very efficient for promoting national interests and domination (as long as the peeps in charge are not delusional themselves, an important caveat). Ignore my blabbing if you are tired or annoyed.Axxxion (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

As for ″they cooperate in everything from military operations to intelligence gathering″: Don’t Trust This Spy. Interestingly, it is clear from this attestation by a person in the know that the guy was blatantly delusional, yet he was enlisted to U.S. intelligence, which begs further questions about the state of the States...Axxxion (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim. Thank you. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Haha, this is such a joke! Anyways, I replied at your link. I hope you will find it amusing. :) Dank Chicken (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)