User talk:Supreme Deliciousness

Please do not start edit wars

I must admit, your statements on your own userpage don't help much in considering your edits to Israeli-related articles genuine attempts to improve the articles. The fact that you are willing to open edit wars for these edits don't help either. This is not the place to advocate for political agenda concerning the Golan Heights or any other politically debated issue. DrorK (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Israel_and_Mount_Hermon

Just to let you know that I've mentioned you in the above thread. The main discussion should be at the thread you started inTalk:Israel, but I've posted to the IPCOLL board so that people who are supposedly interested in impartial coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute are made aware of this going on.

BTW, I did once compose a long post for this page in which I was suggesting that you read various policies such as WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:Consensus etc. which are likely to be quoted at you and also pointing out that admins etc. are more likely to be sympathetic to editors who contribute to non-controversial articles and not just the ones where there are big edit wars. I notice that you are in any case doing that with Circassians etc. But it's always worth joining projects on other topics. Given that you voted for the pirate party, I assume that there are some music or films that you might be keen enough to write about.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet allegation

I now know it's not you as Checkuser cleared you. I do still think that those are single purpose sockpuppets, but I'm now short of ideas on who may be responsible. It's unfortunate that they were borrowing your phrasing to make it seem like you. Also one of them had a foody user name which is unfortunately reminiscent of your id too. Sorry for the false accusation.

On the other matter, our friend Drork has been blocked for 12 hourse for violating WP:3RR by reinstating the picture of Mount Hermon four times.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that IP address is in the UK and you are in Sweden. Although people can use different computers at home and at work and be able to fool some methods of identity matching by operating different accoutns form those places, the UK and Sweden are too far apart for that trick to work.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

golan

You realize you are not helping anything with some of the language you are using on that page right? It would be better if you toned down your attitude on that page. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but just insulting others and talking down to people wont help. We need to stop encouraging the nationalism that causes people to dispute basic facts and the way we do that is to tone down our own nationalism. Nableezy (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My neutrality

I wanted to discuss in a little bit more depth my closure of the Golan Heights RfC and your questioning of my neutrality. I have no problem with you questioning my motives given the userboxes I have on my user page. That's the point of the userboxes, actually, so that people can know where I'm coming from and evaluate any perceived bias. First off, the fact that I'm Jewish is unrelated to this topic. Many Jews neither know nor care about Israel, and some are even anti-Israel. While I understand the argument that the fact that I support the existence of Israel impugns my judgment, I don't believe that it precluded me from acting fairly in regards to this topic. The fact that I support the existence of the state of Israel (as do the vast majority of the Western World) does not itself speak anything about my opinion of the Golan, nor about my ability to fairly read opinions and generate a compromise based on consensus. There are many Israelis who support the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and the return of the Golan to Syrian control. My personal beliefs on these matters are irrelevant so long as I can act in a way that is fair and neutral. What I would therefore ask you is this: when you read my closing, before you read my name and checked my user page, did you believe it to be unfair or biased towards Israel? If so, which parts of it are unfair and how could they be more fair?

Additionally, for future reference, it is considered courteous to discuss matters on users' talk pages before opening up a talk section about them. If you're not going to do that it's strongly recommended that you let a user know on their talk page after you open the section. Oren0 (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that you sided against 99% of the world that calls it Syrian territory occupied by Israel. So I believe that I was right. You shouldn't have been 3rd view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Asmahan

The issue isn't over? You have two people who agreed with you and said that the version with the sources (this one) should be the one used. The 3O has been given - actually, two opinions have been given - so the issue is closed. Or am I mistaken? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The other person just dropped a message on my page, so let's see how this goes. Either way, a third opinion has been given, so the article was delisted. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Lobby

Your edit summary suggested a POV reason to your adding the information; attacking editors you have a differing opinion with by calling them "Israeli Lobby" isn't neccessary. Your direct quote was: "The israeli lobby "forgot" to mention the whole story, so I added it"; so, based on your edit summary, I have reverted it as it appears you made the edit with a non-neutral pov intention. --Nsaum75 (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In response, I was not commenting on the neutrality of the content, but of your edit summary. --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

because you attacked editors in your edit summary (calling everyone who edits from a standpoint different from you "Israeli lobby"), which suggested you were adding the information not in good faith. I have no problem with properly sourced content, as long as its done in good faith and doesn't lead to the end result of creating WP:UNDUE --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

General sanctions

I am not sure if you are aware of this or not, but all articles related to the Israeli/Arab conflict are under general sanctions. From your edits, it is clear that you are here to edit with an obvious agenda. Using language like "stubborn Zionist" on a talk page is inappropriate, but attempting to insert that sort of wording into an article is completely out of the question. If you continue to edit war or insert biased language into articles, you will be topic banned from articles relating to the Israeli/Arab conflict. --Leivick (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Supreme Deliciousness. You have new messages at Daniel J. Leivick's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit warring and WP:3RR

Please be aware of the three revert rule, which states that any user who reverts edits more than three times in 24 hours will be blocked from editing. You have passed this limit on Golan Heights. Please also note that this page falls under an arbitration committee decision, which imposed even stricter sanctions regarding edit warring on related pages. Consider this a warning, both of the three revert rule, and of the sanctions on this article. If you continue to edit war, you risk being blocked. Oren0 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)