User talk:Kingsindian/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Welcome!

Hello, Kingsindian/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• 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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Journalist (talk · contribs)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Knight tour by the Turk

It looks to me like it starts and ends at d4. Do you agree? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I added a comment on the knight's tour talk page. The move from f3-h7 is illegal.Kingsindian (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it goes from f3 to g5 and from there to h7. Actually h7-g5-f3 the way the arrow is drawn. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Referring to Hamas

I also updated the talk. Kind regards. Moomima (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

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 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Kingsindian, 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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! -- Kendrick7^talk 05:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:Lead for Israeli-Lebanese conflict

Thanks for the heads-up. I've replied on the article talk page. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not as quick to correct as usual... quite astonishing veiled threats against just another person testing the language employed. is that it for me again? Just because I have a brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.31.184 (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding Palestinian rocket attacks in 2014 to "timeline" section

Hi. I've responded on the talk page here.WarKosign (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

My editions

Hey! I removed one of your recent editions in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. The problem was with it being WP:SYNTH. Please consider reading this criteria and re-edit the desired material and re-insert it using other suitable sources. Don't insert it in the background or any other sections if you can't find suitable sources which can avoid WP:SYNTH. Mhhossein (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

1RR

You have broke 1RR please revert yourself [1],[2]. I really don't want to report you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: I didn't realize, I'll revert. Kingsindian (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Though we have opposite povs I think you are good editor.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You deserve a Barnstar !

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You admirable efforts in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict made me give you this Barnstar. Keep on your good job of maintaining the quality of wikipedia. Mhhossein (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair. 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) 09:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:3O

Hey there, I see that you have answered two 3O posts so far...Welcome! The Third Opinion project can always do with more volunteers. I'm glad that the main page posts have been answered more frequently because of two new volunteers (you and MarshalN20). Anyway, this project is a relatively tiny and quiet one with few long-term volunteer editors watching and taking down posts. I hope you continue here and have read through regarding answering posts, when to decline disputes and where to notify, etc; this is all on the main 3O page in addition to WP:Third opinion/User FAQ. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Thanks. I had some free time the past few days. I am not sure how much free time I will have in the future, but I will try to keep participating in this. Seems a good process. Kingsindian (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaza blockade

Sorry, I realized I should make comments to the talk page of the article, not here. NewbieAtEditing (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Unconnected like Shatz's article, but well worth reading if you missed it

Nicholas Blincoe, 'Phantom Bids,' London Review of Books 14 August 2014 Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Combatants or civilians

Have they in any way indicated they have unknown/unidentified people in their toll? EkoGraf (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Than read the IDF sources. The IDF has been clear. They stated an overall toll and in arguments how many civilians were killed by the Palestinians organisations they countered how many of their toll were militants. Logic dictates they regard the rest as civilians. Again, they have in no way implied they have unidentified people in their count. If you are of the opinion they have unidentified people in their count you need to provide sources for that. EkoGraf (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AFP. 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) 09:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kingsindian reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla raid

Is under a 1RR restriction, which this edit violates, please salf revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: I am not sure if that counts as a revert. I would be happy to revert though. Would you prefer to add the sentence as I phrased yourself? Do you agree that it is a good rephrasing, as per the discussion? Any more discussion is welcome on the talk page. Kingsindian (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a revert, you restored content you had already restored. Please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox rants

Thanks for the info on how to behave on wikipedia. I am not sure if this is anything bad or against the rules but you are mentioned as well. [3]GGranddad (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: Don't think it is against any rules. Let him rant if he wishes. Kingsindian (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@GGranddad: As an aside, I notice that many of your edits on pages are only on the talk page, and not on the article page. You should read WP:BRD. Editing is the main way to reach consensus. Talking is important, but it is secondary. In my opinion, DS was absolutely correct in his original edits to the lead; his folly was to keep insisting that his edits were correct. Of course, while editing, one always has to keep in mind WP:1RR. Kingsindian (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not allowed to edit many of the pages I would like to yet as they are protected and my account is not old enough. I have made edits where I can.GGranddad (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not that conspiracies exist, but most politicians think and act as though they are normal and

the kind of thing Avnery writes of must be read, contextually, in terms of something often stated in the I/P literature

‘The IDF employs the sanitizing term ‘focused obstruction’ or ‘focused preemption’ to describe these assassinations. Such rhetoric is repeated by most of the popular Israeli media, which conceals as far as possible the real impact of the killings, mostly avoiding to mention the names of Palestinian civilians killed in Israeli attacks and the display of the corpses, blood and body parts – the very images on which it lingers when covering the aftermath of a Palestinian terror attack. Indeed, the Israeli media’s use of selective imagery allows it to project assassinations not only as necessary, but also as ethical, rhetorically legalizing it by what Neve Gordon called ‘the discursive production of a pseudo-judicial process’.’ Eyal Weizman,'Targeted Assassinations: The Airborne Occupation' in Weizman, Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation, (2007) Verso 2012 p.245

‘’The government still believed that targeted assassinations provided it with ‘military solutions to situations that were thought of as militarily unsolvable’. It was, however, security operatives who filled the political vacuum of the Intifada, dictating political developments. The way these operatives sought to generate a political effect was in fact no different to the way Palestinian militant groups timed their terror attacks to maximize political impact. Every time a political initiative, local or international, seemed to be emerging, threatening to return the parties to the negotiating table, an assassination followed and derailed it. The list demonstrating this is long, so only a few examples are given here: on July 31 July 2001, the Israeli Air Force bombed an apartment building in Nablus, in which a Hamas office was located, killing two Hamas leaders, Jamal Mansour and Jamal Salim, and two boys, bringing an end to the nearly two-month-long Hamas ceasefire. The January 2002 killing of Ra’ad Karmi, a leader of Fatah’s own militant group- Tanzim – in preparation for which the GSS had already invested millions, could not have been stopped or postponed by anyone within the political system, although the killing was certain to bring about the collapse of a cease-fire that/started in December 2001 and would certainly bury and American diplomatic initiative. The assassination achieved this aim, leading to the spate of Palestinian suicide attacks of February and March 2002. On 23 July 2002, the day before the Tanzim was to announce a unilateral cease-fire, Salah Shehadeh was assassinated, closing this development. A year later, at the beginning of the summer of 2003, another type of cease-fire, the Hudna, was declared and another American diplomatic initiative was launched. In June 2003, while this initiative was in the process of being formulated, the military attempted to assassinate Rantissi with missile fire. A few weeks later, Israeli security forces targeted Tanzim militant Mahmoud Shawer in Qalqilya, derailing the initiative completely. On 1 December 2003, the same day that the Geneva Initiative was launched, the IDF conducted a massive operation attempting to kill Sheikh Ibrahium Hamed, head of Hamas in Ramallah. In June 2006, just as Mahmoud Abbas was about to declare a referendum vote on a progressive political initiative of the ‘prisoners’ document’, Israel targeted Jamal Abu Samhadana, the commander of the Popular Resistance Committees in Gaza and the idea for the referendum was shelved’ pp.247-8 Weizman ibid. (thought this research note comment best put here for your curiosity rather than bloat the biblio section on my page)Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User history

Curious if you've ever edited under another username? Doesn't really add up that you made barely over 100 edits between August 24, 2005 and July 14, 2014 on a random assortment of subjects, and now you've jumped in as a single issue I/P editor since then, making 1000+ edits in a fraction of the time. And that you appear to be quite well versed in Wikipedia policy. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler: No, I have not edited under another username. You are correct in that most of my recent edits are on I/P. However, there is a simple, if non-exciting reason. The recent events in I/P are the cause of my sudden enthusiasm to edit a burning topic page. As to being well versed with WP policy, as you can see, I have been on Wikipedia as a reader/user for 9 years, so I have picked up the 5 pillars stuff. The rest I learnt on the job, so to speak. Kingsindian (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Pings

I already asked you to stop pinging me all the time, the page is obviously on my watchlist, so for the second time, stop pinging me. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intifada. 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) 09:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for support in the arbitration

It's not trivial that you posted to support me, even though we disagree on many topics. It would be easy for you to ignore it, would remove one annoyance while editing. Still may happen. WarKosign (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@WarKosign: No problem. I always had a dislike for "tribal" thinking, which takes sides based on sympathy with the person or cause rather than the issues. It is a lazy way of thinking, but we all use it, because it saves time and trouble. Kingsindian (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Great job

		The Third Opinion Award
		Hi Kingsindian. I thought your third opinion on the Shudra question was admirable, and your handling of the whole saga was excellent. — Stfg (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice

DRN discussion on Hamas rockets.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi The message that you left Zero0000 could be considered Wikipedia:Canvassing as he involved user in WP:ARBPIA --Shrike (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: I did not select based on whether Zero0000 would support or oppose my viewpoint, but based on his experience. I would be happy to send one notice to any one other person you suggest. Kingsindian (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You intentions was probably good but next time consider to invite someone uninvolved for example some of the regulars of WP:RSN or make announcement at WP:Military history . It will make you case stronger.--Shrike (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: It is not clear to me from reading WP:Canvassing that one only should invite editors uninvolved in ARBPIA. For example, the section Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification specifically lists:

On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:

• Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article
• Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
• Editors known for expertise in the field

In my understanding that Zero0000 was "uninvolved" in the sense of uninvolved in my content dispute with Darkness Shines. Kingsindian (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please look at the table below do you truly think that you left the message to "Nonpartisan" audience?--Shrike (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Shrike: Unfortunately, in this area, everyone can be seen as "partisan". I have had very limited interaction with Zero0000 before but he seems knowledgeable about the area. I thought of pinging Nishidani, but he would definitely be seen as "partisan". In the future, I will try the other venues you suggest. Kingsindian (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please be careful...

In case it wasn't plainly obvious, discretionary sanctions apply to topic areas, not just to individual articles. The same sanctions that apply to the article and to its talk page apply equally to its AFD. Your comment in response to another editor there was a not-very-subtle personal attack suggesting the editor was biased and that his bias was causing him to contribute to similar AFDs in dissimilar ways. 1. They aren't the similar and I have explained why. 2. That doesn't matter anyway; suggestions of bias without evidence can be considered a personal attack. In a topic area like that it's best just to stay well away from ad-hom stuff. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: Thanks for the warning. However, I am not sure how that counts as a personal attack. I was directly addressing the inconsistency in the argument. Kingsindian (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The arguments are inconsistent because what is being discussed is completely different. A single WP:EVENT and WP:GNG vs. multiple events, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. Those two discussions are about entirely different things and having a different opinion on each isn't a sign of anything at all. Suggesting that it demonstrates a bias (when it plainly doesn't) is a personal attack. Anyway, not running off to ANI or anything silly like that. You're a smart guy and I think you know what I'm talking about. Put that smart guy hat back on, that's all. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice hat. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: That went over my head...what hat? Kingsindian (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. I suggested putting your smart guy hat back on and your subsequent reply with clarification was smart (I thought) so I complimented you on your hat. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Citevar

This is not "fixing refs" but changing the format entirely, contrary to WP:CITEVAR. It is best not to use harv, sfn etc in caste articles because they are edited by a lot of newbies and they tend to be clueless when it comes to citing anyway. Using the form you do means that they have to edit a bibliography as well as a citation - it just makes more work for poor sods like me. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: Sorry, I was not even aware of that policy. I will change it to older format asap. Kingsindian (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, ta. I'm not so bothered about the citevar policy itself: there weren't many citations in the article and you'd probably more than doubled its size. What concerns me more is the issue about newbie editors not understanding harv etc. They do at least have tools that can help them create {{cite}}-style references. Personally, I quite like {{sfnp}} but I avoid it in caste-related stuff: there are enough poor contributions to those things without creating a rod for our own backs. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: I agree. I edit a lot in WP:ARBPIA and see the same issue. Now I realize why the harv format is not used there. I have changed it to the previous format. Kingsindian (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This does not work

I'm sorry. You cannot remove citations like this.[4] While I think it is rude to demand during argument that someone reverts. This is a case where I would be "rude" and humbly request you consider that option. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC) cleaner MarciulionisHOF (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I don't understand your point. There was no citation originally on "Hamas-controlled". I reverted to the version which was stable, before all this drama, and started an RfC for which version to use. Kingsindian (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking to find longevity, the discussion on variations and objections, including poorly thought objections based on feelings rather than sources, requires citation. I reiterate my "rude" request that you consider the long term effects of citation removal. To be honest, it also goes to skew the RfC you opened. Bad faith might lead considerations this was advanced chess-play. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@MarciulionisHOF: I have already told you the reason. The original version had no footnote: I went back to the original version which was stable. This is simply an application of WP:BRD. While discussion (RfC) is going on, the stable version should be kept. There was no consensus on any footnote. The phrase is widely used and does not need a footnote. If, after all, there is a consensus on Hamas controlled, you will get the chance to add a footnote and argue over it. Kingsindian (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Hyderabad State (1948–56) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Single Purpose Account

Hello user:Kingsindian, I have been advised to place this tag on your page. I can see that in the past few days you have begun to edit pages related to India and not solely pages related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I hope this continues but otherwise I think it is likely that your overwhelming focus on this issue will be seen as advocacy and therefore disruptive and preventing NPOV.

@Monopoly31121993: Did you notice that this template has already been placed in a section above? Kingsindian (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Monopoly31121993: Please note the message that is displayed when leaving a notification like this—it clearly states that there must not be more than one notification per year. @Kingsindian: I just left an opinion at WP:AE and given that brevity and focus are wanted there, may I suggest that your final sentence should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I am referring to your 06:27 comment. Johnuniq (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I am not sure if one sentence matters much for brevity. It is relevant because of WP:GAMING. I have instead removed the later comment, which was replying to Shrike. Kingsindian (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the WP:SPA tag already on Kingsindian's page. If it were I would remove it. I stand by the WP:SPA tag since as far as I could tell 99% of Kingsindian's edits were directly related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: You have misunderstood the point of this alert. This is a discretionary sanctions alert, not an WP:SPA alert. I have already received a disc. sanctions alert before; you are not supposed to give more than one per year. Anyway, as I said, I don't care if you think of me as an WP:SPA, this is just for your information. Kingsindian (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I got this tag from a user on an admins notice board. If it's incorrect I can remove it. Should I remove it? I guess having a WP:SPA doesn't matter so good luck editing the conflict pages. Hopefully the bias and all of selective editing doesn't result in more deaths or foster more hatred than is already present there.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Monopoly31121993: It does not matter to me that this alert is present. Just be careful in the future because other people might find it disruptive. Kingsindian (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Ok, I see it now and I removed the tag too.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

would you have a clue

as to what has happened when one opens up a wikipage to edit, and finds all of the markup/language etc tool bars no longer there under the editing window? It happens to me from time to time, (much to the relief of those whose duties oblige them to track down Hitler's spoors as they wreak havoc on decent articles), and I'll be a on-key's muncle if I can figure out the magical secret (of how to make things like that, or myself, disappear?) If it's a mystery, don't bother. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC) (can't even sign my name except by copypasting the tildes' nudge at the top of this page)

@Nishidani: On first glance, looks like a Javascript error. If it goes away on its own, probably nothing to worry about. Does just reloading the page help? You might also want to try Wikipedia:Help_desk, they have lots of wizards there who have seen it all. I've got quite a few good tips from there. Kingsindian (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. I'm sure Dhu Nuwas's shade can enjoy a respite from my editing as I get this fixed!Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Stables

Could you please expand more on your criteria for "stable"? I am having difficulty following this gate-keeping methodology when there's so many changes made to the text. What is the minimum stay for a text for you to consider it stable? MarciulionisHOF (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this is not on the article talk page? Anyway, stable has no fixed meaning. The lead has been worked on for many weeks now. Search in the archives for the evolution of the lead. Please make further comments on the talk page. People may answer you there. Kingsindian (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The lead was subject to many discussions and many changes for weeks. This "stable" issue is now a repeating reasoning to revert on completely unstable material. An excuse that can be used regardless of the situation on evolving articles. Try to avoid it. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The central subdivision of the North American judicial district of the global country of U.N-istan.

Hi. Thank you for your comment on the IWBB page.

I want to reiterate that I am not expressing a POV about whether I think the ICJ should be more relevant. I am only expressing the POV that we live in a world of countries each having their own judicial systems and most having their own armored tank divisions which uphold the authority of the judicial institutions. In Israel, the Israeli Supreme Court is the highest judicial body. This is (mainly) true for the West Bank, also. The reality is that ICJ opinions get filed in the circular file. Again, I am not expressing whether I think this is good or bad but only that it is the current reality.

For example, I live in the United States and for (most) any legal issue I have, the United States Supreme Court is the supreme judicial body. The opinions of SCOTUS are final, binding, and determine what happens in the U.S. I do not live in the middle division of the North American judicial district of the global country of U.N.-istan. Again, I am not expressing an opinion regarding whether the world would be a better place if I did live where the supreme judicial body was the ICJ, but that is not here not now. Maybe someday. Maybe it will be an improvement. Maybe not. I do not know.

SeattliteTungsten (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@SeattliteTungsten: You are entitled to your POV. The US supreme court has jurisdiction over US, the Israeli supreme court has jurisdiction over Israel. It has no jurisdiction over the West Bank. Countries flout international law all the time, that is not relevant to whether X is illegal or not. Kingsindian (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Yes, I am entitled to my POV. Wikipedia readers are entitled to an article that is written with a/an NPOV that includes, "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" and I humbly suggest that ISC decisions having control over the IWBB is one of the several "significant views" that exist.

Once again, this may not be a POV that you like or a POV that I like or a POV that is good for the world but the country that controls the West Bank is Israel and the supreme judicial body of that country is the ISC. Given that the 1949 Armistice Lines are not borders and the existence of the armistice lines "shall [not] in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations," what is the legal definition of the West Bank? The answer to this question is not important. The fact that there exist different views about the answer is important. The importance of a non-binding, advisory opinion about Israeli controlled territory by a court in The Netherlands is one POV. The importance of the ISC's opinion is another POV. "The ISC has jurisdiction over the west bank" is one POV. "It has no jurisdiction over the West Bank" is another POV.

Do we agree that there are several POVs here? I recognize yours. You seem to acknowledge mine.

SeattliteTungsten (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@SeattliteTungsten: I am sorry, firstly, this should not be here. It should be on the talk page. Secondly, Wikipedia does not work on editor's POVs, what I think or what you think is irrelevant. On the legality of the wall, there are very few outside Israel who defend it as legal. It is not me who claims that the West Bank is not Israel, it the entire world. This business about armistice lines and so forth is irrelevant here. You are not an international law specialist and neither am I. Kingsindian (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

In general I think constructive communication is beneficial. Admittedly, it may be unclear where is best to have it.

Your point about editors' POVs vs. external POVs is correct. I meant to use editor's POVs as a shorthand for external POVs. "The [U.S.] Resolution further noted that twenty three countries, including every member of the G8 and several other European states, had "submitted objections on various grounds against the ICJ hearing the case" from another wiki page suggests that the entire world does not align with the ICJ's unquestioned authority or jurisdiction on this matter and that the issue, at least, has complexity.

The reason that the 1949 Armistice line is an issue here is that this line has never been recognized as a border between the State of Israel and a non-existent, future State of Palestine. The non-recognition of the armistice line as a border was done at the insistence of the Arabs who, in 1948, believed the non-recognition meant that Israel would later be defined as "1949 armistice lines OR LESS" and they wanted to emphasize the "OR LESS" part -- hoping that "OR LESS" would become "OR ZERO." They did not predict the future (1967) very well because now the non-recognition of the armistice lines means "1949 armistice lines OR MORE" and the reality on the ground is figuring out how much "OR MORE" is going to be.

If you don't think the ISC controls what happens in the West Bank, what country do you think does control this? We live in a world of countries where each country's supreme judicial body is the highest court in the land. We don't live in a world where the ICJ is the highest court in the land. Such a characterization does not describe reality. It would be foolish to insist that U.S. articles refer solely to the western states as "occupied Mexican territory" or to refer to Gdansk as Polish-occupied German territory. Again, I am not saying that this is good or bad, but only that "U.S. occupied Mexican territory of California" without at least equal weight given to the POV of "U.S. State of California having SCOTUS as the supreme judicial body" is unrealistic and not NPOV.

Back to what this means in the IWBB article, references to ICJ that are detailed enough to be sufficiently complete have to include (something like) references to ISC and this simply is too much to duplicate in the introduction. The points are all important and are included in the appropriate sections but an introduction, by necessity and definition, limits what is included.

If you want to comment again on the article talk page, may I suggest starting with, "I am writing to advocate AAA [or CCCC] and against DDD structure and here's why: ..."

Thanks. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Move request on Operation Polo

OK, moved. It was protected due to move waring over the title. No opinion on what name was correct, but the way it was closed left it open so I defaulted to as proposed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian integration of Hyderabad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subah. 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) 09:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear sir

Dear sir. Don't move my posts. Thanks. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Need your opinion

Kingsindian, I need your opinion on Talk:Death by burning#Undue and unrelated content, more discussion can be also found on User talk:John Harkins. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI

User:CONFIQ has opened an ANI concerning you, but hasn't notified you. I'm correcting that. DeCausa (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian integration of Hyderabad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Razakars. 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) 09:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Kingsindian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Shrike (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hezbollah discussion

There is currently a discussion regarding Hezbollah at Iranian-led intervention in Iraq. To help generate a faster consensus one way or the other, I am leaving a blanket (non-Canvass) notification on the Talk page of all recent contributors to the Hezbollah article in case they might like to participate. The discussion is here: [5] DocumentError (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Karan caste

This doesn't actually seem to be an article on the caste since these changes.[6] It's more or less a cutdown version of Madala Panji which seems wrong. There are comments on my talk page about this and arguments at List of Shudra Hindu saints‎. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I am afraid I haven't the foggiest idea what that article is about. I just removed unsourced info, but I wouldn't trust what's in there either. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear I'm not alone. Taking it to Wikiproject Indian. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

How could I be more clear than "Should the lead and "Background" sections include statements by Israeli officials and news reports claiming that Hamas started firing rockets circa June 30, while the Hamas members killed in Khan Yunis accidentally blew themselves up in one of their tunnels?"TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: By being precise on what statement you want to include. I ask you again to read the directions I gave. If you can find any neutral admin who thinks the statement of the RfC is neutral, let me know. By the way, in the background section, the statement by Goldberg is already present. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Hi, Kingsindian. :) As I mentioned at VPP, since this is slightly off-topic for that RFC, I thought perhaps we could talk about it over here.

The real problem with close paraphrasing is that there is no clear line as to when it becomes copyright infringement - what goes too far is very subjective, both in the courts and on Wikipedia. I've worked copyright here for about seven years, and I've seen things blanked at WP:CP where I thought myself that line was not crossed, and I've seen things that editors just flagged with {{close paraphrase}} (which is supposed to be for less severe cases) where I thought the line was.

Wikipedia is deliberately very careful with copyright for a couple of reasons. First, because it is so subjective, we don't want to be on the wrong side of guessing whether something is okay. But, second, because our content is deliberately created to be used anywhere for any reason, we are trying to reach a standard that works best internationally, even commercially, and some countries are even more restrictive on copyright than the U.S. is. As much as possible, we use free content. We are a little more liberal with text than we are with media files, but there are good reasons to require that content copied from non-free sources be used as quotation rather than close paraphrase - our policies promise re-users that we will mark non-free content so that they can determine how it should be used in their own contexts. Quotation marks are the best way we do this with text. :)

As a general rule of thumb, close paraphrasing should be avoided as much as possible with non-free sources - which is, of course, most of them. (WP:PD and WP:COMPLIC talks about some notable exceptions.) One of the best ways to do this is to never copy content from your sources into your draft at all. There's two reasons for that. First, if you don't copy it to begin with, you can't accidentally save it (this has happened to me once or twice). Second, it is really hard to rewrite content sentence by sentence in your own words. The easiest way to do it to avoid accidental plagiarism or close paraphrasing is to take notes from your source, look at the notes and construct new text from that. It's a good idea to check your final version against your source even so, because sometimes we unconsciously mimic the structure we remember. Even better is when you can take notes from multiple sources and weave them together. :) Sometimes, avoiding close paraphrasing means losing detail, and this is less likely to be an issue when we have more than one sources. Facts are not copyrighted, but selection of facts can be. If you're using facts from multiple sources, you aren't accidentally stepping on the creativity of fact selection in one.

I myself don't assess my own writing against whether I think it will infringe copyright; I just try to avoid it altogether. This helps me avoid pushing boundaries and also keeps me compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policies.

Please let me know if I can or should elaborate on any of this or if you want to talk about any of this further or if I've drifted and haven't actually answered your question. I will try to keep an eye on your talk page, but if you want to get my attention I recommend notifying me, by linking my username. I love that technical innovation. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: Thanks for the tips. The one about taking notes, then using the notes for writing on WP is very useful. If you have the time, would you mind taking a look at the two paragraphs in the section I mentioned, and give an opinion about whether that constitutes close paraphrasing? If not, that is fine as well, this is already very useful. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Kingsindian. :) I would be happy to, but currently I'm being told the source is not available. Maybe it's a temporary glitch? It's a very short passage; if you can see the source still, you could post the original content here that you based the material on. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: I can see the source just fine. It's a pdf. If you cannot access it, let me know, and I will post the material. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I cannot, I'm afraid. When I follow the link, it says "This webpage is not available". Perhaps it's blocked for me locally or inconsistent with some setting I have on my machine. But if you can post just those several paragraphs, that would be helpful. I won't have time to look right now, so your convenience is fine - if I can, I will take a look later today or tomorrow morning. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: Ok, here is the material on which it is based:

<snipping, cause I copied most of it below. :)> That's all. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is not at all a terrible case of anything. :) On balance, I think there are places that are a bit too closely paraphrased. That you're thinking about it shows that you're aware. :) Again, it's not that substantial, but a couple of sentences that follow closer than others make the weight of the others a little more serious in context. It helps replicate the feel of the source. I've pulled out the sentences that I think are an issue. I have eliminated everything else.

Source

Article

Amongst the poor peasantry and landless labourers, there was great resentment against the jagirdari system of landholding which governed 43 per cent of land in the state. "In addition, urban communists and wealthier peasants had initially fought their own battles under the communist banner, but by 1948, the coalition between poor and middling peasants had fallen apart." "Though at the outset, they only targeted zamindars and deshmukhs, the police and military were pulled into the conflict at the request of local magnates, and by December 1945, the communists had launched a full-scale agitation against the state." (pg 23) "Between July and November 1946, encounters between the communists and the Nizam’s forces grew increasingly violent, and in the last two months of that year, the Nizam’s police and military, with the occasional aid of local Razakars, undertook coordinated action against the communists. The Nizam’s forces’ tactics were varied. They cordoned off villages and captured suspected communists en masse, shot into crowds, burnt villages and engaged in widespread loot in a manner than that was described by one Congressman as ‘absolutely indiscriminate and organised.’" (pg 23) According to a pamphlet that the Government of India had drawn up for public consumption, between 15 August 1947 and 13 September 1948, the communists had murdered 2000 people..." (pg 8)

Among the poor peasants, there were grievances against the jagirdari system, which covered 43% of land holding. Initially they also drew support from wealthier peasants who also fought under the communist banner, but by 1948, the coaliation had disintegrated. Initially, in 1945, the communists targeted zamindars and deshmukhs, but soon they launched a full-fledged revolt against the Nizam. Starting mid-1946, the conflict between the Razakars and the communists became increasingly violent, with both sides resorting to increasingly brutal methods. The Razakars cordoned off villages, captured suspected communists en masse and engaged in ‘absolutely indiscriminate and organised' (according to one Congressman) looting and massacres. According to an Indian govt. pamphlet, the communists had killed about 2,000 people by 1948.[14]

What I'm seeing here is occasional duplication of structure coupled with a bit of spotty taking of language. It looks like the kind of issue I see (and run into myself) when trying to rewrite sentence by sentence - which is nearly impossible. It's a whole lot easier to take the facts and build something new.

• 43% of the land in the state was governed by the jagirdari system of landholding
• Poor peasants and landless labourers were unhappy about this
• Wealthier peasants and poor peasants coalesced as communists until 1948
• Communists did good things
• Communists targeted zamindas and deshmukhs (I don't know what these are) at first but expanded when pushed by magnates until they had full state revolution by December 1945
• Violence climbed from mid- to late-1946. Nizam forces and sometimes local Razakars fought communists through various actions, including closing off villages and rounding up suspected communists, burning villages, and looting.
• The Government of India claimed in a pamphlet that 2,000 people were murdered by communists between 15 August 1947 and 13 September 1948

So, to put that into a potential structure (and I'll work in your quote) off the top of my head (understanding that I do not know the background!)

Source

Alternative

Amongst the poor peasantry and landless labourers, there was great resentment against the jagirdari system of landholding which governed 43 per cent of land in the state. "In addition, urban communists and wealthier peasants had initially fought their own battles under the communist banner, but by 1948, the coalition between poor and middling peasants had fallen apart." "Though at the outset, they only targeted zamindars and deshmukhs, the police and military were pulled into the conflict at the request of local magnates, and by December 1945, the communists had launched a full-scale agitation against the state." (pg 23) "Between July and November 1946, encounters between the communists and the Nizam’s forces grew increasingly violent, and in the last two months of that year, the Nizam’s police and military, with the occasional aid of local Razakars, undertook coordinated action against the communists. The Nizam’s forces’ tactics were varied. They cordoned off villages and captured suspected communists en masse, shot into crowds, burnt villages and engaged in widespread loot in a manner than that was described by one Congressman as ‘absolutely indiscriminate and organised.’" (pg 23) According to a pamphlet that the Government of India had drawn up for public consumption, between 15 August 1947 and 13 September 1948, the communists had murdered 2000 people..." (pg 8)

Poorer peasants, like landless labourers, were angry with the existing governance, under which 43% of land was tied up in the state. But even wealthy peasants, who had their own grievances, joined in to fight with the communists for the first several years of the rebellion. The communists brought many positive changes to the people. According to the Indian intelligence Bureau Deputy Director, the social and economic programs of the political party were "positive and in some cases great...The communists redistributed land and livestock, reduced rates, ended forced labour and increased wages by one hundred percent. They inoculated the population and built public latrines; they encouraged women’s organisations, discouraged sectarian sentiment and sought to abolish untouchability." Starting in 1945, the conflict initially pitted the communists against the zamindas and deshmukhs, but by the end of the year it had spread to a full rebellion against the state. The violence of the clashes intensified through the middle of 1946, until, in November and December, Nizam forces and sometimes local Razakars began employing sweeping measures against the communists, including burning villages and cordoning them off, taking away suspected communists and looting. Undaunted, the communists continued the clash, killing 2,000 people between 15 August 1947 and 13 September 1948, according to a pamphlet released by the Government of India.

Again, I want to emphasize that what you have is not bad. I do think it's a bit close. Generally, the best way to avoid this is to pull out the facts, look at the facts and see how they can be structured in your own words. It's much easier to do this if you have more than one source.

That text is proposed off the top of my head and, since I don't know the background, I may have made some errors in understanding. But if any of that language works for you, you are welcome to use it without attributing me. :) I'll waive that right. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: Thanks. Since I plan to expand that article a lot more in the coming days, this was very useful. It will take a bit more effort, because it is a two-step process, as you said, taking note of facts (or just taking proper notes) and then rewriting from your notes. But it will result in more polished and less problematic prose. By writing "sentence by sentence" paraphrase, often I find that the sentences I churn out are quite clunky. Thanks again for your help. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi, I began a discussion of a large-scale refactoring in articles concerned with events on a timeline of the Israel-Palestine conflict, I wonder if you have an opinion on the subject.“WarKosign” 18:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Precious

reason in conflict
Thank you, fairie, for your bold first article The Man Who Loved Only Numbers, for your quality improvements to the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, for sound advice to editors in conflict, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks. I did not even remember that I created that article. Almost 10 years ago! Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for Close

Hi - I randomly chose you as you as recently closed a RfC. If you have a few minutes, would you mind evaluating this for a close consensus / no-consensus? Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: RfCs usually run for 30 days. 7 days is too little a time to close them. Kingsindian ♝♚ 03:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)