User talk:Crock81

(Moved after deletion by Nishidani from his talkpage)

I'm not sure why you reverted my edit last week, as you left no explanation.

However, I noticed that I had made a mistake in any case, so I had placed it back in the corrected form.

I might note, reading the extensive discussion in the talk page, that it seems Wikipedia editors involved lack cultural awareness enough to edit this article since you have been discussing the wrong subject! Please discuss before taking any further action. Crock8 (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave an explanation: 'reverted crock'. Crock may be your handle, but the word, among other meanings, signifies 'nonsense'. I reverted a crock of crap, which you have now restored with this edit.

You are rude as well as ill-informed and tending towards being misleading. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Arabians – a Semitic people who live in a tribal societies and maintaining ancient tribal affiliation, customs and culture. Found in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Israel (Negev),^[1] Sinai (Egypt), Saudi Arabia, Lebanon (Beka'a valley), Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman and Yemen.

• Israelites – An ethno-religious group of the Eastern Mediterranean with recorded settlement in the area of modern Israel, Jordan, Syria and southern Lebanon, that had been mostly exiled from their tribal lands. Subsequent exiles and cataclysms created a global diaspora. Since the creation of the state of Israel, its government enacted the law of the Right of return which anticipated the principle of international law, codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, giving any person the right to return to, and re-enter, his or her country of origin. This principle is sometimes reflected in special consideration in a country's immigration laws (called "repatriation") which facilitate or encourage the reunion of a diaspora.

It's all a motherlode of crap because:-

• (1) Replacing Bedouins with Arabians consists in eliding a specific tribal group with an extensive page about it, by an indefinite term linked to an ostensible synonyn, on a new page that has no content other than a brief lead saying Arabians is the general term for a people sometimes called Bedouin. The page has no references save one, to the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Arabia, which talks of ethnic Arabs. Thus the Arabians are 'ethnic Arabs', but you don't even link to Arabs. The POV strategy is obvious.

The article is a list of indigenous peoples. Had you looked at the Arabs article, you will have seen that it, like the Arab people deal with the entirety of the global Arab populations. Arab tribes doesn't help much either. I would suggest, if you are so unhappy, to propose a merger of the four articles in whatever way please you, but Arabians, despite the obvious shortcomings of the article, suits the purpose of the list best. The use of Arab when referring to Bedouins is appropriate, while the reverse it seems is not, within the culture. Perhaps you can expand the Arabians article to a better standard? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• (2) Israelites. You haven't apparently even clicked on the link. The article is about 'indigenous peoples'. You have introduced a highly ambiguous historical, mythic term to smuggle in the POV that the Jews are indigenous to Palestine, which the talk page is undecided about, and thus are acting objectively on behalf of User:Evildoer187, to push this POV.

"a highly ambiguous historical, mythic term"? Israelites appears to be the correct plural adjective form in English of a member of any given ethnic group with a known place of origin, in this case Israel. Israeli, is not the correct grammatical adjective that would be Israelian, but Israelite is still a correct, though more archaic usage form. The people of Israel, Kingdom of Israel, and Israel as individual and community identity seem to have been fairly well established in history, Western and Easter, and supported by archaeology and linguistics among others. You may think its a 'myth', but its a fairly consistent 'myth' that the "Jews" preserved for over 2,000 years given the Greeks and Romans certainly believed it. But then, other cultures have myths also, right? So why don't you bring this up in other Wikipedia articles. If you are going to start debunking cultural myths, you may as well do a thorough job. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• (3)Israelites, in biblical lore, are an historic congeries of peoples, ancestral to the Jews, and neither in prehistory nor today an indigenous population. They are registered in ancient records in Egypt, the Sinai, in Syria and many other places, where biblical lore sets them. In the Biblical account they are nomadic tribes who invade Palestine and wrest it from the indigenous Canaanites. Secondly, the page lists contemporary peoples who are listed as 'indigenous' minorities. It does not list ancient peoples who may have been indigenous to a country. Thirdly, you provided no source saying these Israelites are listed as a (contemporary) indigenous people. There are no such sources.

Within the culture, the record (Torah) shows that the progenitor of Israelites, Abraham, purchased land in the Canaan. Lore to you, but cultural property to others. I think you are trespassing! It also details that he settled in the land, engaging in planted agriculture. That Israelites were nomadic is a theory. However, I would be happy if you enlightened me as to where in the Torah it says the Israelites were 'nomadic'. A subsequent invasion was in fact God-directed, so not really a subject to modern ethical analysis.

There are many contemporary indigenous people that are not minorities. In fact the largest indigenous people are the [Han Chinese|Han]] who are the majority in the Peoples Republic of China.

All indigenous peoples are 'ancient' by definition since most non-indigenous populations date only to early medieval (European) period, for example the Franks reaching the Pyrennes in the early 6th c. by displacing and assimilating the Gaulic Celts, or the Arabs (from 7th c.). The "Jews" however are fairly unique in that they have claimed a place of origin from the ancient times which comes with perhaps the best ancient identification of individual tribal lands and borders in existence.

Do you know what you are talking about in seeking a source for a "(contemporary) indigenous people"? If they are not 'contemporary', they are extinct! There are many such ethnic groups, and if you agree with the Nazis, Israelites also would have been "non-contemporary" along with Levites and Kohens. It seems to me that no sources are required to establish this fact. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• For these and many other obvious reasons, your edit was a 'crock', and will be reverted, I hope by neutral third parties who can see that your behaviour constitutes an intrusive attempt to tagteam and get round the objections on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

My avatar in Wikipedia is crock8, so I like to play with words just like you Glen, Glen West is it? However, it does not give you the right to sling personal abuse by converting my avatar to something entirely unsavoury.

As for tagteaming, cute try, but I had never heard of Evildoer187 until I started editing this list. I think this would be obvious from the edits.

Nor am I 'getting around' the objections raised in the talk page. Its just that the subject of the objections was wrong in the first place, as I informed when I began editing. Its called re-framing the question. I note that you make your entry there citing Tibetans and Basques, who are in fact Bodpa[ites] and Euskal[ites]. I therefore quoted John Trudell for your benefit. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• You are with this second edit further trying to game the process. The citation from Scharfstein reflects a religious POV, and happens to be controversial, not a statement of fact. The distinction between the ostensible self-defining ethnonym Israelites, and the putative foreign ethnonym, imposed on the Israelites by outsiders ignores the fact that the Hasmonean state used as its official term 'Judeans' to self-define, and used ḥever hayehudim on its coinage. Both Philo of Alexandria and Josephus use 'Israelites' for the Biblical era, and 'Ioudaioi' increasingly for for the post-biblical era, and their contemporary fellow Jews. and they are in this 'self-identifying'.

Of course Schaferstein is reflecting a religious point of view...its a book about religious rituals in Judaism!!! Doh! However, he doesn't seem to be the User:Schaferstein participating in the editing of this article. In what way is it controversial and not a fact?

The Hasmoneans were out to restore independence of Judea! What else would they put on the coins?! This did not overnight cause the Levites and Kohens to become 'Yehudim' from the date of minting!

You want to get into the analysis of why User:PhiloofAlexandria and User:Josephus switch between these terms? Are you saying that either of them made a difference to the self-identification of the millions of non-Levites and non-Kohens in their times? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

In short, you and Evildoer are combining to push into this article as well contemporary political rhetoric about Israel's right, as a state of presumptive autochthones, to take over the West Bank, whatever logic, the historical complexities of the issue, and the non-existence of sources for the notion of Jews as indigenous to Palestine allow us to say. The POV pushing comes out clearly in your formulation above:

'An ethno-religious group of the Eastern Mediterranean with recorded settlement in the area of modern Israel, Jordan, Syria and southern Lebanon.'

Actually, I reflect a plethora of maps way before any record of 'Palestinians' emerged in the 20th century which show Israelite tribal lands. Judea happens to be a reference to the tribe of Judah, and Samaria was the claimed capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. That you' read political overtones into the editing only says something about you. Most "Jews" appear to have a fairly good case of claiming for their land rights that geographic toponym from which the "Jew" is derived, but which only became "al-Ḍiffah al-Gharbiyyal" in 1950. So to be utterly consistent, those that live there are Gharbiyyalites, and I may well question their indigenousness. Instead perhaps you can find some sources of the Filistin indigenousness claims and claims of land rights in the Ottoman and earlier records? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Modern Israel does not refer to Judea or Samaria (the West Bank) which is where the Jewish people of high antiquity were concentrated. In leaving that obvious fact out, you are openly insinuating that Modern Israel includes the West Bank. I.e. you are pushing the settler POV of Eretz Israel.

The "West Bank" is not a recognised geographic toponym. The "al-Ḍiffah al-Gharbiyyal" was created only to distinguish the 30 deputies in the Jordanian Parliament from the "al-Ḍiffah al-Sharqiyyal", or "The East Bank" deputies. Since the west bank of the Jordan is not a useful geographic identifier of an area (being limited to a linear feature), I used more common and familiar identifiers. Is it my fault that the king of Jordan had no other Arabic name for his newly annexed territory? So what exactly do 'settlers' have to do with my editing? Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do serious editors have to keep AGFing this continual incremental thrashing of POV bullshit in the encyclopedia by prevaricating blowins, who make their usual dozen edits in other articles and then zoom in on the only area that interests them as POV warriors?Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Since apparently you think my editing is "continual incremental thrashing of POV bullshit in the encyclopedia", I will not give you the benefit of "AGF".

You accusations is striking though, as I have not edited so frequently in Wikipedia as you had, nor for so long, and this is my first dispute, which is more it seems than you can say.

I'm curious why you think that this "area" is the only one that interests me? Admittedly it is an area of interest, and it was only when I was wronged in a conversation, and informed that Wikipedia does not list "Jews" as indigenous that I was forced to wade through the "incremental thrashing of POV bullshit" in the talk pages before editing. I'm sorry you feel slighted, but facts are facts. Most "Jews" that care anything about their cultural practices know if they are Kohen, Levi or Yisrael. Crock8 (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You have broken several rules on the List of Indigenous Peoples talk page, namely Assume Good Faith and No Personal Attacks. I will report you, if this continues.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Gee whiz! I'm pooping myself. What a fright! Oh dearie me.Nishidani (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Please properly change usernames following the steps at Wikipedia:Changing username ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Documentary hypothesis, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_significance_of_the_Ras_Shamra_tablets, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Documentary hypothesis and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Documentary hypothesis, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Documentary hypothesis with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Documentary hypothesis. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Documentary hypothesis saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Alexrexpvt (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Crock81. You have new messages at Alexrexpvt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I deleted the copyvio (note that I am an Administrator and frequently work on copyvio issues). Please note that sources need to specifically discuss the subject of the article, so you need to find sources meeting our critiera at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY which discuss Ras Sharma and the documentary hypothesis. As it stood it was original research. Additionally, the way it was written went against our WP:NPOV policy when you wrote " The Ras Shamra discovery renders the theory of Wellhausen and others to be fallacious". Statements like that always need to be clearly attributed to their author who we would expect to be a recognised expert. Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Bagration, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Borisov and Nikolayev (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) 11:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Indigenous peoples 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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Mathsci (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As I have noted there, I am inclined to let this slide this time as you have not reverted after receiving the warning, but if you continue to edit war in future you may not be afforded such a courtesy. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Diff please as evidence Crock81 (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your supporting me in Bering's nationality question. Could you also post the arguments in the Bering's discussion page and also in munaus's talk page. This is what he replied to me just recently:

Nonsense. Get a source that call him "a Russian explorer" and you may have a case. Columbus was not a "Spanish explorer" because he worked for the Spanish, and Bertel Thorvaldsen was not an "Italian sculptor" because he worked his whole adult life in Rome. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Google Scholar search ""Vitus Bering" "Danish explorer"" = 99 hits (many of which say "in Russian service"), ""Vitus Bering" "Russian explorer" = 64 hits, most of which are not referring to Bering at all, and all the ones that are seem to be prefixed "Danish born" or similarly. You have no case.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rozmysl (talk • contribs)

A tag has been placed on José Ricardo Martínez Cobo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pichpich (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, 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 at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

I view the activities at Indigenous peoples to be an extension of the dispute at List of indigenous peoples, an article which has been under the ARBPIA 1RR restriction since April, 2011. You have already violated WP:3RR at Indigenous peoples. You seem to be on Wikipedia in service of a personal project. Apparently it is of great importance to you whether one or both of the contending parties in the Middle East should be considered to be indigenous peoples. You risk wearing out the patience of editors here with your wall-of-text posts. This is disappointing because you occasionally seem to reveal a knowledge of the subject matter that might be useful to Wikipedia. An inability to explain yourself briefly or to negotiate with others may prevent you from making any actual contribution here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, no. Actually, I'm not an 'expert' on the subject, but I had done a subject at university years ago on the Indigenous issues in economics, so I'm not a 'beginner' either.

Please explain your deduction to "Apparently it is of great importance to you whether one or both of the contending parties in the Middle East should be considered to be indigenous peoples."

If the patience of editors in reading my wall-of-text posts is wearing out, they can just WP:TLDR. Its just like the off button on the TV remote. In any case, I usually use point-fashion posts, so they can read and reply one point at a time so as not to strain their patience.

I hadn't expected to encounter the reaction I did in editing the List of indigenous peoples, and to date my reliable sources were only claimed to be [[WP:SYNTH] without further discussion by an editor who was blocked within an hour of starting to edit!

In effect I had not participated in any editing war I found myself in, because my actual intention with time off work just now was to edit articles related to the Operation Bagration related to the game I'm playing with some friends here in real life. I simply moved on to the Indigenous peoples article, because I realised the problem was not in the List of indigenous peoples, but in how entries are defined.

I can write more succinctly also.

Are you accusing me of taking Wikipedia personally, or in my willingness to defend my point of view, which happens to be that editors should follow Wikipedia rules and guidelines? Which is it?

Would you rather I stop editing the article, crap that it is now? Save us all some time, but that's not how I was brought up. Sorry.

Walls of text are good typing practice for editors. Another 'editor' that is ever so succinct, has failed to either develop the article before the 'RfC', or since (even the lead).

Frankly I think people that care more, generally have more to say. However, if you live in a democratic state, freedom of expression is also a freedom to stay silent, and the right to education is also a right to ignorance. I'd be grateful if you set me right on where Wikipedia stands on these two issues.

ARBPIA - did I invent that?! My fault was that before editing the List article, I hadn't read the header on the Talk page! Is that a blockable offence? I think that other 'editors involved' appear to be far from newcomers to that dispute, and milked it for all it was worth. Anyone who can translate a cultural identity and religious ritual of an ethnic group into a political conspiracy seems to perhaps not editing with even a teensy weensy bit of "good faith" as Wikipedia calls it.

You expect me to now drop to my knees and beg for forgiveness? Hmmmm. I hope you are a very patient person

By the way, you may have noticed that I am seeking advice from other uninvolved or moderately involved editors, and am not editing the said article. Can I be blocked for not editing? Crock81 (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Crock81. You have new messages at Sphilbrick's talk page.
Message added SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've responded further. Would you like a talkback when I respond, or are you watchlisting, and do not want one?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, if you have an issue with a redirect that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, please take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion rather than blank the page as you did with Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive Operation. Thanks! -- KTC (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mk44 (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) 11:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I just came across this Wikipedia article that you started (apparently deleted for copyright infringement:

José Ricardo Martínez-Cobo was born in Ambato, Ecuador on 24 August, 1921, a son of Dr. Luis Joaquin Martinez-Vásconez, a medical doctor, a Health Officer, and a Councilman in Ambato, who died in a traffic accident near Latacunga in 1977, and Coloma Mercedes Cobo.

From childhood he was an excellent student who did well at the boarding primary school Juan León Mera, and a high school in Bolivar where he graduated as Bachelor. He participated in sports, notably tennis, swimming and mountain climbing introduced to by his uncle Nicholas G. Martinez.

The young Martinez-Cobo chaired a Climbing Club of Ambato, made trips to the New Horizons Club of Quito and [etc.]

For future reference: This is just the way a biographical Wikipedia article should not begin, because after reading this far, I have no idea whether this person is noted as an athlete, a politician, a religious leader, a world checkers champion, an actor, a serial killer, a scientist, a novelist, a jungle explorer, an architect, a software expert, etc. etc. That should be made clear in the first sentence. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trawlers (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) 08:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Falklands War is about the Falklands War and not Operation Corporate, the operational name is referred to in the article see Falklands War#Initial British response. Per my edit summary I assumed your edit was done in good faith to improve the article but I reluctantly reverted it as it did not and explained my objections in my edit summary rv gf edit, don't think we need that in the lede, plus not only Argentina, its the Spanish speaking world (emphasis added). Firstly, it didn't help the lede as the article is not about the British Operation Corporate and, secondly, your edit implied the alternative Spanish name was exclusively Argentine, when it is not. There is no "inconsistency" as your talk page message implied and I would ask you in future follow WP:AGF, especially so when editors take the time to provide you with an informative edit summart as to why you were reverted. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military tactics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cyber. 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, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Redemption (theology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estate. 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) 10:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

All you have to do is search for '"East Bank" Jordan' (including quotes around "East Bank") and you will find a large number of capitalised usages including the one that you just deleted with a false assertion. Almost all your edits violate some policy or other. I rarely do it, but I am preparing a case to have you banned from editing. Zero^talk 23:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC) @Zero0000:

Ok, so I looked up '"East Bank" of Jordan' :-) The fact is that capaitalisation is only used for actual Geographic place names; there is NO capitalised 'East Bank' of Jordan until 1954. It was in fact invented by The Middle East: A Political and Economic Survey. THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. 2d ed.; London and New York. 1954. Three years later Raphael Patai also used capaitalised East Bank in his contribution to a book on the Kingdom of Jordan. The next use is in 1961. Not one source is using it in a Geographic sense though, but topographic. Also note after being appointed as Director of Studies, Professor Arnold Toynbee became the leading figure producing the Institute's annual Survey of International Affairs, a role he held until his retirement in 1955. The views Toynbee expressed in the 1950s continued to oppose the formation of a Jewish state, partly out of his concern that it would increase the risk of a nuclear confrontation. However, as a result of Toynbee's debate in January 1961 with Dr. Yaakov Herzog, the Israeli ambassador to Canada, Toynbee softened his view and called on Israel to fulfill its special "mission to make contributions to worldwide efforts to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war. So, it is likely that in 1954 the Survey's POV carried a Toynbee bias. Other than that, there is NO reaso to capitalise eastern bank (correct English useage) Crock81 (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Like most seasoned Wikipedia administrators you are just bullying me while being intellectually dishonest at the same time. The is NO East Bank of the Jordan River, but only the eastern bank, because it's course is South-North. The Kingdom of Jordan has neiother a Geographic nor a political administrative entity called the East Bank. Its the same as the inventions in Mount Zion sections, the e.g. Western Hill! How long was that there and no one did anything although the reference it was drawn from uses this uncapitalised? Years.

You can prepare all the cases you want. Your 'case' will not produce good articles, and neither will you despite your 400 books behind you. That is all Wikiepdia 'administrators' are good for, bullying others after they are done with their pet articles. If I'm banned, you will do me a favour. I won't need to 'negotiate' with people like you who do not see the need to trust anyone that doesn't goos-step to Wikiepdias's 'rules'. But, this is what EDITING is all about. Its a process. If Wikipedia has a policy of allowing perpetual editing, then an article is NEVER complete anyway. All one can do is seek to approach content completion to an nth degree. The real ptoblemis intellectual honesty of the editors. Based on the version I observed on Mount Zion for over 2 years, the editos involved had very little of it, and not much idea about content design or research methods.

Want to see hoiw intellectually honest Wikipedia is, or you are? Compare East Bank disambiiguation description of it (unreferenced) to the Bank (geography). You are actually arguing with Nature, because the amount of moisture that penetrates the bank soils affects extent of surrounding ecosystems, and these PHYSICALLY DEFINE the extent of a watercourse bank. Its not what Wikipedia wants for its own political reasons. The east bank of any river, including Jordan, is defined by the echosystems, and so does any other land alongside any other river.

Moreover, the east bank does not "is the part of the Southern Levant east of the Jordan River". There is no 'Southern Levant'! Levant was a French Renaissance term fo the region, perhaps used by some historians, but it isn't an existing Geographic region. That is called Eastern Mediterranean. Typical WP:IIB. :-) Crock81 (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You recently edited City of David. See section of Early Bronze Age? No references for the solitary sentence there, yet no one has removed it. I think whoever edited that in, needs to be banned immeditelly :-) Go to it Zero0000 make it a speedy one so the culprit will never ever add an unreferenced sentence to any Wikipedia article ever again. I mean the cheek! Crock81 (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Since I dislike the constructions "he and she" and "he/she", would you prefer that I use "he" or "she" on your charge sheet? Zero^talk 07:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious what the 'charges' are. Have you tried reading guide to administrators?

I prefer 'he'.

Regarding the east bank of Jordan, [[no doubt you are aware of this 'article'? The entire article is based on the Hebrew version of Jabotinsky's poem, but there are no capital letters in Hebrew :-). THIS is what my problem with Wikipedia IS. Put that in your 'charge sheet' also.

in the 19th century, the eastern bank of river Jordan was called el-Ghor in Arabic. Crock81 (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I will inform you when I file against you. Meanwhile, you are wrong about el-Ghor too. It meant the "Plain of Jordan", known today as the Jordan Valley. On both sides of the river. Zero^talk 08:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course I'm not wrong. I know what it means, and el-Ghor extends FROM the banks of River Jordan, in this case in the easterly direction for a very long distance. The King Abdullah Canal is on the eastern bank, and note the lack of capitalisation in that article. You might also note that the Jordanian site referenced to there uses uncapitalised east bank, and "West Bank". [article] suggests that the use here is 'Scare quotes used to mean "so-called" or to express irony: The "fresh" apples were full of worms.' Crock81 (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zero0000:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

It will be visible in a few minutes. You can write your response in the place provided. Zero^talk 07:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being unwilling to follow Wikipedia policy. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at WP:ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)