User talk:Dalai lama ding dong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Dalai lama ding dong, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

As you have just started editing, I hope you find the following selection of links helpful and that they provide you with some ideas for how to get the best out of Wikipedia.

Happy editing! Fæ (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

=?[edit]

We really do not need to have a policy against people creating odd sections with random "equal" signs at the top. No one needs to be told that it is disruptive to create odd sections with random "equal" signs at the top. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits[edit]

Dalai lama ding dong, I am concerned with your edits. Your entire editing history on Wikipedia has consisted of trying to prove that 1) ancient Israelites did child sacrifices, 2) Jews did forced conversions, 3) Benjamin Netanyahu's son is anti-Arab, 4) Israel has desecrated an ancient Arab cemetery, 5) the Anti-Defamation League is anti-Muslim, and 6) the EUMC working definition of antisemitism is discredited. The sum total of your edits indicates a rather obvious agenda. Rather than continuing on this path, please review WP:SPA and WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so you response to my comment here was to again add the WP:UNDUE material to the Child Sacrifice article,[1] and again promote your agenda regarding the EUMC definition of antisemitism at two different article. Please review WP:DISRUPT, and the remedies for this kind of disruptive behavior. Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would you think that any of my work here is a response to you? The work I have done on the EUMC definition has nothing to do with any agenda, and that is clear. With reference to your above list. 1) ancient Israelites did child sacrifices, 2) Jews did forced conversions. I have added academic references to both these articles, they do not 'prove anything' but they do offer a summary of academic opinion. I can not help it if you do not like these majority opinions.

3) Benjamin Netanyahu's son is anti-Arab, If that is true, then it is 'proved' by his words, not by my addition of them to an article on anti Arabism. 4) Israel has desecrated an ancient Arab cemetery, This again, if true is shown by the facts, not by my 'proving' of them.5) the Anti-Defamation League is anti-Muslim, and 6) the EUMC working definition of antisemitism is discredited. These last two are just silly. I have said neither of these things. I still await proof of your opinion on signing.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Username[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Dalai lama ding dong) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it may be promotional or disparaging of the institution of the Dalai Lama, and it may be offensive because Ding Dong is "a euphemism for the penis". The combination of religious and sexual references in your username is multiplicatively disruptive. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you. Quigley (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware that the phrase ding dong is generally regarded as being solely a euphemism for the penis. It certainly has many more meanings than that. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ding-dong) (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cCVnlIUTpg4C&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=ding+dong+pensi&source=bl&ots=cRLrUZMSkr&sig=G1RPbeoUY_jRmgabrckxprOzHNo&hl=en&ei=ab4yToGHMoKEhQeOiq38Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Since Buddhism is one of the few 'great' religions of the world whose 'sacred texts' have no concept of religious slaughter, i.e. no equivalent of the ban, or jihad, I doubt if you can find any Buddhist who would be offended by a play on a song title. Indeed here is someone who is sympathetic to Buddhism who uses equivalent forms of dalai lama rama ding dong and lama-rama-la-ding-dong (http://www.myspace.com/spitdoesntmakebabies/blog/137417396) How much checking did you do? 


 Please check the following to see evidence that the DL is regarded as having a great sense of humour, 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGF9ciXeMs4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DLb7NwsCTc&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83_zj_w0gMw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rAKmWPlZ5A&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu2ANgwDFuM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yWQp7Gxvzw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NKtV4GJ4zc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTIrgZkW34I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uls4YdV2ns&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p_xIUcltmw&feature=related

Would you like to contact some Buddhist organisations to see if they are offended by my user name? Alternatively, I will change it to dali llama ding dong, is that acceptable to you? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support you keeping your current name if you wish to. The basic listing on the OED for ding-dong does not include the penis interpretation (neither does the full OED entry which is not available free online) and there are many, many words that are slang terms for penis. Personally I would read your account name as "heated discussion about the Dalai Lama" which does not appear immediately offensive or intended to offend. Fæ (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the username clearly has non-disruptive interpretations, so I have removed the concern category. Quigley (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a couple links since the appeared to be contributory copyright infringement. An essay can be seen at WP:VIDEOLINK that says everything I have to say on the matter. Let me know if you need any clarification.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in Norway[edit]

Hi Dalai. Your edit here appeared to contain info identical or very similar to the source, so there may be copyright problems. See WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE and WP:PLAGIARISM. Also, one of the sources was unreliable. Thanks. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TERRORIST[edit]

In reference to your recent edits at Jewish religious terrorism, I advise you to review the guidelines at WP:TERRORIST. In particular, note that "Value-laden labels...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I tried explaining this to you on the Discussion page, but I'm willing to consider that you simply haven't understood. When using labels of an exceptionally charged nature, such as "terrorist organization," you must demonstrate that the label is widely used by reliable sources and use in-text attribution. Please address these concerns soon, or else expect to have your edits reverted.—Biosketch (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous account[edit]

Hi. What was your previous username?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tags[edit]

Hi, To ask for a citation use this: {{subst:cn}}. It adds the correct tag and fills in the date.[citation needed]. Zerotalk 16:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use the nowiki tags, just the part with the double curly braces. Zerotalk 11:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert[edit]

The page was locked due to edit warring. If you revert again you will be edit warring and someone like me will be seeking your block. Instead, follow the dispute resolution process. I recommend that an admin gives you a heads up on the additional scrutiny editors are under in this topic area based on a history of disruptive editing. I feel that I cannot give you the proper advice since you choose to not listen and I do not have the patience do deal with you.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA was opened because there has been a history of contentious editing. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision is what you should focus on. What you doing is against Wikipedia policy and makes you more likely to be blocked. Editors have explained WP:IRS and WP:OR. You have no excuse for not reading them.Cptnono (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to fail to understand policies linked to you. You chose not to understand ARBPIA. What would make it easier for you to understand?Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation at Textbooks in Israel[edit]

FYI.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I am talking about. Pay more attention.Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA[edit]

You restored similar material twice in one day at Textbooks in Israel. Since this might be construed as a WP:1RR violation appears to be edit warring I am leaving you the discretionary sanctions notice. I have also added the {{ARBPIA}} template to the article talk page to make sure no one is in doubt about the status of this article, or the existence of a 1RR restriction.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to your comment at User talk:EdJohnston#Dalai lama ding dong. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See another reply on my talk page. Your reverts at Itamar attack getting close to requiring admin action. "I have not quite waited twenty four hours, so I will wait and do this later" looks like gaming the restriction. You are not even discussing the removal of that sentence on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised my comment above so it no longer claims you made a 1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it?[edit]

I understand you opened a dispute resolution regarding use of "Land of Israel" in Jewish History. I did not see a notice of it in either the Judaism or Jewish History Wikiprojects, or on my user page. Was this done? Please note that I cannot respnd until next wekk, nor can many others, due to the holiday.Mzk1 (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert[edit]

Your have now twice in 2 days removed a section from the article saying it repeats the lead. Well, the rules of composition are that the lead summarizes the body of the article. By removing the reduplication in the main body of the article, you destabilize the lead, which now has no follow-up in the text. The lead section is problematic, not the redupliction you erase. You should have pared down the Gesher-Poll data in the lead, while retaining all of the information in the appropriate sub-section. In short, you turned the correct procedure upside down by retaining too much information on that poll in the lead, and then erasing the copy of it, there for expansion, below. Do you understand now why I had to revert you? Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intro sentence of Textbooks in the Palestinian territories[edit]

Hi there. My point with this edit was simply that the sentence I deleted was inherently information-free. The title of the article is Textbooks in the Palestinian territories, and the sentence I deleted was:

Textbooks in the Palestinian territories are school textbooks published in the Palestinian territories.

You reinstated the sentence with the rationale that this sentence "distinguishes these textbooks from those produced in East Jerusalem". I think this sentence cannot possibly achieve this goal, since it contains no information that isn't already present in the article title. Do you agree? --Doradus (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, perhaps you're referring to the word "published"? --Doradus (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, is this acceptable? --Doradus (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you did here. I think we've arrived at a pretty good intro sentence. --Doradus (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jewish history. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You've made your point, and it has been challenged. For further discussion please use the talk page, per WP:BRD. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Child sacrifice shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Jayjg (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish history[edit]

Please stop. Discuss your proposed changes on the article's Talk page or you may find yourself being blocked for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the definition of revert, and note that the adding of links does not constitute a revert. Please then remove the above suggestion. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Jewish history. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Beit Shemesh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canaanite (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) 10:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sikrikim in Beit Shemesh[edit]

Beit_Shemesh#Gender segregation and violence against Orot Banot girls’ school

Please stop undoing my edits. It is clear from reference 21 [2] that the violence was perpetrated by the Sikrikim, not a group of unknown Ultra Orthodox men. This is a huge POV issue, as your edit makes it sound like it's the fault of the entire Ultra Orthodox community while my edit puts the blame on a small group of troublemakers. Yserbius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, Wikipedia's back on, let's talk. Specifically about a few quotes from the aforementioned [[Jewish Press article], [this Forward article] and [this Jerusalem Post article]. Specifically these: 

attacks on local women and children by a group of radical haredim affiliated with the Sikrikim

8-year-old Na’ama Margolis, the daughter of Orthodox American immigrants, was spat on by a member
of the Sikrikim

Upon their arrival, the radicals attempted to intimidate both religious and non-religious residents
by attempting to impose a strict “dress code” in and around their enclave. In recent months, members 
of the radical faction have become increasingly violent, hurling rocks at young girls who attend Orot 
Banot, calling them “sluts” and “shiksas.”

The new Orot Banot girls’ school is situated on a major road that is the seam between the city’s 
Modern Orthodox neighborhood and one that is home to members of violent ultra-Orthodox faction 
known as the “Sikrikim.”

Earlier this year, the Post reported that “the same group of Sikrikim has also targeted an ice 
cream store in the Geula neighborhood because they thought licking ice cream cones in public was 
immodest. Haredi media reported last year that Sikrikim in Beit Shemesh have targeted shoe stores 
in ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods that refuse to remove high-heeled shoes from their selection.”
...
These radicals are also said to be related to the extremist group causing trouble at the Orot Banot 
nationalreligious school in Beit Shemesh.

Now, can you please explain to me why this isn't enough to warrant a specific "blame" in the article as opposed to the vague "some Ultra-Orthodox Jews" language that you prefer? Yserbius (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you should be on the talk page for the article. You need to provide a RS for every claim that is there. Until you provide anRS that actually says what is presently in the article then the claim will be removed.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish history redux[edit]

Regarding this edit summary: There is no deadline, and there is no "urgent need" to do anything with the article. Jewish history is a subject about which you obviously feel strongly, but keep in mind that there is no race to improve the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus[edit]

Hello,

There are 3 main versions about these events and all shoul be placed on the same level, particularly in a synthesis of the main article that talks about that :

  • many think the feld due to Arab leaders call
  • many think Yishuv organised an ethnic cleansing
  • many think the causes result of the cumulated consequences of a war

It is true that the first version is not much followed but it is certainly not Karsh alone who defends that thesis as well as it is not Pappe alone who defends the ethnci cleansing thesis. All in all, the 3rd version is currently the one that is mainly followed by historians except that 'mainly' is not a word to use.

91.180.121.51 (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Itamar attack[edit]

In this edit, you reverted a passage from the lead that is supported by a WP:RS later in the article, with an edit summary claiming that the passage is an "Unsourced claim." This is problematic for two reasons. In the first place, the information is sourced, later in the article at Itamar_attack#Palestinians. I'm guessing you were aware of the source when you made your edit, otherwise you wouldn't have described the poll as "small." Secondly, whereas you had no problem adding unsourced commentary to contextualize information in the lead in a very particular way, you apparently do have a problem when information in the lead indicates that one third of the Palestinians supported the massacre. At this point I have two helpful suggestions to offer you: 1. Revert your edit that removed reliably sourced information from the lead; and 2. read WP:Tendentious editing, which is a sanctionable offense at WP:AE.—Biosketch (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if you were aware that the poll was sourced later in the article, then you should not have removed my comment, and should not have referred to it as personal

Commentary. If you wanted to change my comment, e.g. To remove the word small then that would be understandable, but you should not have removed it, when you knew it to be correctly referring to a later sourced claim The stand alone remark that one third of Palestinians supported the attack is not correct, as is clearly meaningless. If you want it to stay then it should include the fact that this statement is based on an opinion poll. You should either leave the article as is, or if you want to add in the reference to one third of Palestinians, then add in the fact that this is based on an opinion poll. The statement that I added in to explain that this claim is based on an opinion poll,is as much RS, as the claim that one third of Palestinians supported the attack.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalai lama ding dong (talk • contribs)

I removed your comment because it was unsourced commentary. You added a characterization of a poll as "small" without a source to support that assertion. What other purpose did the edit serve if not to diminish the poll's importance? I'm just wondering.
But now the problem's been made worse, as you've actually removed sourced information from the lead, and you're refusing to self-revert despite my pointing out to you where the source for the information is in the article. I'm telling you from experience, this is not how editors in the Israel-Palestine topic area are expected to conduct themselves.—Biosketch (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
so why did you not just remove the word small? Why do you not replace the original, with the additional information that the claim is based on an opinion poll? The claim that one third of Palestinians supported the attack is not sourced, the claim that one third supported it in an opinion poll is sourced. I am seeking concensus, and will accept my change without the word small. I am not able to revert again until 24 hours. Either' make my change and remove the word small, or wait for me to do it, but the reference to the opinion poll must be added, or the claim will be removed again as not sourced.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalai lama ding dong (talk • contribs)
Is the issue of the poll what this is really about? Obviously not, since there's no other way to determine that 32% of the Palestinians supported the attack other than via a poll. The issue is why you characterized the poll as "small" in the lead when you had no source for that assertion. What is your answer to that?—Biosketch (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the issue is entirely about the fact that the original statement was unsourced. The reference to the opinion poll must be added. You could easily have removed the word small. There is no further point in discussing this, and I leave you to make the change.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalai lama ding dong (talk • contribs)
I take it then that you can offer no policy-based explanation for why you characterized the poll as "small" in the lead.—Biosketch (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take it then that you can offer no policy based explanation as to why you did not remove the word you disagreed with, or state the bass of your disagreement, and instead removed information that is sourced? This discussion is now ended as I have accepted the removal.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalai lama ding dong (talk • contribs)
The discussion here may have ended, but since you still aren't self-reverting your removal of sourced content from the lead despite being directed to the source in the article, I'm compelled to pursue the matter at WP:AE: [3]—Biosketch (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AE result[edit]

While no formal action will result from the recent AE thread, you are hereby cautioned that if the manner of editing for which you reported become a pattern, you may be the subject of further reports, where you may end up topic-banned. Sincerely, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AE[edit]

[4]--Shrike (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here Ankh.Morpork 19:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating the ARBPIA 1RR restriction on the page Golani Brigade. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

I have never heard of a 1RR rule, and was given no warning when editing the golani brigade page that there was any limit on the number of reverts that could be made. I added RS info that was relevant to the page,and each time it was removed it was not on reasonable grounds.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notification; per this AE thread, you are topic banned from all areas falling under the Israeli-Palestinan conflict for 90 days, having started immediately after your block expired. If you have any questions regarding the scope of your ban, please ask me or request a clarification. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Dalai lama ding dong. You have new messages at The Blade of the Northern Lights's talk page.
Message added 21:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I-P topic ban[edit]

As has been explained to you already, the FRC definition of antisemitism is covered by your I-P topic ban. Retract this statement or you will be taken to enforcement. Jayjg (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you the opportunity to self-revert when you come online, and if you do I won't count this against you (I'm willing to let this slide as lack of clarity on my part), but that is a pretty clear violation of your topic ban. When banned from a topic area, that means you can't edit anything directly related to it. The Fundamental Rights Agency article covers many broader issues which you are certainly allowed to edit, but you can't edit parts of the article related to I/P; same goes for other articles (i.e. if you wanted to edit Foreign policy of the Clinton administration, that would be fine, except for anything to do with his handling of I/P issues). If you have any further questions, I'm happy to clarify; I'd rather you ask me beforehand than get dragged to AE and receive further sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps you could first do me the courtesy of re reading my initial pst, and my last post. I clearly stated that I was intending to write about the FRA definition of anti semitism. I Would also like to know how this European definition relates to I-P. I do not understand how pointing out that the section contains a factual error is related to I-p. if you read JJ s now deleted reply you will see that he does not answer my point. He skirts around the issue, but does not answer my point. If you force me to revert, then I will merely have to wait and make the correction,later, but I do think that you have been hoodwinked here, you really have. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is really getting tiresome. Now you've reverted someone on an edit obviously related to the I-P conflict. Do you imagine something that discusses Netanyahu's visit to the White House and Iranian reactions could be about anything else? Jayjg (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I-P violations at FRA and Purim aside, the edit-warring (and technical 1rr violation) is also hugely problematic. The material you removed has been there since who knows when, appears solidly sourced, and you blanked it twice in the span of 30 minutes, without even making any sort of attempt at a talk page discussion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating your topic ban here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Just a further comment; I really, really didn't want it to come to this. Many other admins would have gone for either a 72 hour or 1 week block, but to be completely fair I can understand where some of my directions were a little vague. However, the diff above is pretty clearly a violation. I truly hope this is a one-time occurrence, and that you'll be able to get through your topic ban without further incident. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

As I've said at Chesdovi's sanction appeal, editing anything that's explicitly tagged under the remit of ARBPIA is covered by an ARBPIA topic ban. If you're interested in finding something to replace the I/P conflict for the duration of your topic ban, I have plenty of areas where we could use more editors to help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can not see anywhere on the antisemitism page that states anything about ARBPIA. Incidentally I thought the ban was Israel Palestine, which is not the same as Arab Palestine. The killings in France have nothing to do with Israel Palestine. Absolutely nothing. I cannot anticipate bizarre rulings such as this, and therefore will come back when the three month ban has ended.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's your perogative, and you're not the first editor to have done that. If you're at all interested, though, I know of a couple places where we could use your help. If you want to try your hand at Indian caste articles, the editors there are under constant siege from POV pushers, and you seem like someone who can weather that kind of environment without too much difficulty. I spend a lot of time cleaning up there, and some good work there would help your case to get your topic ban lifted early. Please let me know if you have any interest, and I'll be more than happy to get you involved; I do think you have a lot of potential as an editor, and redirecting your editing style to a place that needs it would be good for everyone (and as an aside, you'll find I'm a much friendlier person to experienced editors in that set of articles). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things to do[edit]

20:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC) + 90 days = 28th May

Block[edit]

I won't go through the motions of slapping a giant AEblock template on your talkpage, but per User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#Dalai lama ding don't again (the second thread with that title, at the bottom of my talkpage) I'm forced to agree with Jayjg that you've violated your topic ban again. This block will e for 8 days, twice the duration of your previous block. If you wish to take me up on my offer above, let me know; if you want to appeal this block, request that someone start an AE thread on your behalf. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

Dalai lama ding dong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I removed this text from the page Holocaust Denial, 'Taking aim at Israel as a political enemy, since the 1960s, the Soviet Union promoted the allegation of secret ties between the Nazis and the Zionist leaders'. My ban is on Israel and the Arab conflict. I am not banned from editing pages on Israel, or the Soviet Union. This removed text has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. The claim that Mahmoud Abba's opinions on the numbers killed by the Nazis is related to the conflict with Israel as to the case for a Palestinian state is purely POV, as is the case that this is related to Anti Zionism. The block should be removed.

Decline reason:

You've been warned that special provisions apply to pages broadly related (direct quote from this very talkpage) to Israel - Palestine conflict. The rule of thumb here is if someone might think the article is related PI, better not risk. Max Semenik (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article in question is not broadly related to Israel Palestine it is about the number of victims of the Nazis in Russia. There is no link between them.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history at Holocaust denial shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Holocaust denial". Thank you. --Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AE[edit]

Please see this thread. Ankh.Morpork 10:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Username2[edit]

Please see the portion of Wikipedia's username policy which states: "Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not required to notify users when their usernames have been report at WP:UAA, but since the discussion there has become rather extensive, in all fairness you should be able to respond. You'll find the discussion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFCN[edit]

Hi. It's my intention to open a WP:RFCN concerning your username. The directions there require prior discussion here. I note that there is some discussion above, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to respond to my specific objections here, in case we can resolve the problem without further dramah.

My concern is that because your name references a living person (the Dalai Lama) and because one possible interpretation of "ding dong" is "a fool" or "an idiot", your name is in violation of Wikipedia's policy on living persons. In addition, as I pointed out above, the username policy forbids the use of the names of real people in usernames. For these reasons, I think it would be best if you were to change your username. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have edited since I posted the comment above, so I'll take that as an indication of your disinterest in discussing the objections to your username which were expressed on WP:UAA. Given that, I'll be opening the RFCN at my earliest convenience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BtS[edit]

Re: this removal. That statement is in the source so I think its removal is an error. It probably shouldn't be in the lead, the opinion should probably be attributed wherever it goes as it is just one of many labels, and if something is in the lead it should also be in the article per WP:LEAD, so Shrike removing it from the body of the article here was also probably in error. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

The consensus is probably rough if it requires three reverts ;)

  1. 5 June 2012 - Removed as per talk page consensus.
  2. 10 June 2012 - Removed as per talk page consensus.
  3. 11 June 2012 - Stop restoring material for which the talk page concensus is that this is recent and undue.

I have not followed talk page discussion. I'm just amused to see three identical edits, all supported by consensus on my watchlist. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you should bring this up at the article talk page, not here.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert yourself[edit]

"not in the sources"? Check the second ref there: "Israel's repatriation of the bodies is part of a goodwill gesture to Abbas."

And now that your verification issues at Nurit Peled-Elhanan have been resolved, why aren't you removing the citation tags you added there?—Biosketch (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and....it is not clear to me why you are making a point of posting the BLP issues of tabloids on my personal talk page and on the NPE talk page. is there a particular source you feel is a tabloid? Soosim (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite topic-ban from Arab-Israeli conflict[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Standard discretionary sanctions, and in response to this request at the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, you are indefinitely topic-banned from editing any page or material related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly defined.

If you'd like to appeal this sanction, you can post your appeal at the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard; the {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template can be helpful in formulating an appeal. If you demonstrate productive editing in other areas of the project (unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict), then that may weigh favorably in requests to have the sanction lifted in the future. MastCell Talk 18:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing for flagrantly violating your topic ban, on top of a long history of disruptive editing and previous topic-ban violations. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. MastCell Talk 02:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dalai_lama_ding_dong&oldid=1142953362"