User talk:Dailycare

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Dailycare. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 20:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hi there! I invite you to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above. If you see me editing an article, just walk the other way. I shall do the same in the reverse circumstance.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said I wanted no interaction with you, and I meant it. I do not trust you. Delete this if you wish.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Parts of Jerusalem that are geographically in North West Jerusalem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you made the edit, I think you should be the one to add the second source. The present source mentions only Israel, now we need to add the second source stating West Bank. Debresser (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was not an edit war. One revert does not count as an edit war. Post another message like that, and you will find yourself at AN:I.

This is your only warning.

Evildoer187 (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 are currently on your second revert. Do not revert again.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#The final countdown. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Wikipedia, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again everyone. Now that the Jerusalem RfC has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start step six of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...about the editing conflict between myself and Sonicyouth86. You did your homework by taking the time to read some of the original sources.

Sonicyouth86 has brought a complaint against me based on that editing conflict. If you are interested, you can check it out here.

Thanks, Memills (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your willingness to step into this contentious situation to provide a neutral perspective. Perhaps a "quieting down" period is needed, and, as you suggested, editors need to focus on the edits, not each other. Memills (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop polluting WP with PA propaganda and then coming to support your buddies as though you were some kind of neutral arbiter. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be able to reply in the Drn ? Ykantor (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be able to reply in the DRN ? Ykantor (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "West Bank". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Evildoer187 (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an RfC on the BP article and would welcome a response from you. I am sending this message to all users who have edited that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited One-state solution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Jihad (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) 08:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona might interest you.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comment on the noticeboard, I just replied you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.22.46 (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, a gang member of DrChrissy has been removing/censoring my communication with other editors because I reported their misconducts. He just removed my reply to you on the noticeboard. But You can find it in the history version.124.170.226.136 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dailycare I am not opposing your idea but the problem is two editors on Superpower that bully edits with no exception here[8][9][10] have both have showed anti China & Russia on the superpowers page. If you got sources, forget about it they will undo any source you have see here[11][12] [13]. You know winner takes all, well that simply is what is happening as you can see their refusal here[14] absolutely no compromise but bullying[15] content and sources. If fact, if you have a valid source or sources, they'll put an anti opinion on your source and say keep looking look at what they did here[16]. So that is the basis of the problem of the superpowers is if you bring something up see what happens[17], then they'll gather like here[18][19][20][21][22] up a conflict of interest editors[23] by contacting them to come over to put the sources to shame the source even more. So yes there is corruption on Wikipedia even if you have all the valid sources to present, get ready for denial. Sure there's good facts and sources on China Russia are superpowers and even India and even the US as a great power or a superpower under the Obama administration or not a superpower under the Obama adminstration. You got pro USA editors[24] and when you have go USA editors then prepare your sources[25] to be bullied

Now what I am telling you is not attack on anybody but the plain truth. Some editors spend 8 to 10 hours a day on Wikipedia with no job but edit and edit and even some get paid to edit by special interests[26]. Which also brings up another question, somebody is paying someone to edit on Wikipedia and it really looks like it is on the superpowers and military pages which might have to get a hold of Edward Snowden to find out who's on Wikipedia.

So my solution is that some articles need to be reconsidered because there is sources that are been place as sources and they not really reliable sources so why should some say, no we need that but you can't have that. That's what I mean and that has been the case since December 28 2013[27].

The source you mentioned on Superpowers talk, I know it will be denied by the two editors, so I am not opposing the US is a superpower or not a superpower but really I am opposing that China and Russia are not superpowers, that is out of context that to say world stage countries are not superpowers because of academic sources. Well there is academic sources it's just two to three editors insist on saying no and then they are editors that are saying yes, not just from different ip's but users.

I am not anti American because I live in the States and born in the States if I bring these sources of saying the US is not a superpower, they are just sources. I could pull up sources saying the opposite too but I just put this in line what I have. U.S. No longer Superpower, now a Besieged global power - University George Press by Edward A. Kolodziej, Roger E. Kanet May 26, 2007 [28] America Was Once a Superpower Now It's Not - Truth-Out.org by Thom Hartmann Oct 30, 2013 [29] Is America About to Lose Its "Superpower" Status? - Daily Finance by Katie Spence Jan 25, 2014 [30] The US is NOT a Superpower Anymore - Israel National News by Tamar Yonah March 5, 2013 [31]

Russia and China, there is many but as many as I bring up on the superpowers, they will be denied, so I guess I need your opinion or support if you wish to add. Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower[32] Russia is a Superpower CNN, US Senators telling the truth[33] http://www.voanews.com/content/netanyahu-heads-to-russia-with-call-for-crippling-sanctions-on-iran-84341537/112463.html --198.134.105.62 (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that you violated 1rr with this edit. [34]. Also, I reviewed the cited source and it does not appear to say, as you stated in your edit, anything about "Most scholarly accounts." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BC, the edit is not a revert as it merely adds new material to the article, that was not previously there. Concerning the content, I refer you to the citations from the book on the talkpage. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If my statement that following references to the 2009 Goldstone report must be reconsidered in light of his 2011 reconsideration/retraction is "unsourced editorializing" and must be removed, then how shall we deal with this simple fact?

Shall I go through the document and add a reference to "Goldstone Reconsiders" at every point that the 2009 report is referenced? Which approach would be better for the document? Some accommodation must be reached, since much of the document relies on dated material. Brownwn (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for contributing to my talk page. I think what needs to be done is to write in the article of the issues that reliable sources describe that relate to the international-law aspect of the Gaza war. So if reliable sources draw a connection to Goldstone's partial reconsideration in connection with some specific point, then that ought to be mentioned in connection with that specific point. What cannot be done, on the other hand, is making such connections ourselves. Hope this helps, --Dailycare (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• /> World outrage grows as Israel pursues 'quiet and security', Guardian weekly, Aug. 8-14th, 2014)<br />[http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/05/374152/spain-puts-arms-exports-to-israel-on-halt/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have delayed my response to your unbelievable editing of my talkpage, as I hoped to stay calm, but your writing suits Orwell quote: "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful ". Behind your polite writing there is a complete upside down text. You consistently disregard Wikipedia rules, but try to blame me for it. ! Let's go to specific points.

• Your edit: [[35]]. You breach wp:preserve :"Instead of removing text, consider:..adding more of what you think is important to make an article more point-of-view balanced". You removed a well supported text against this rule. Moreover, I deliberately chose a somehow Anti Israeli source, so there won't be any claim of using a pro Israel biased source.
• Regarding the same edit, you explains that:"we know that most academics attribute the war to an escalation on both sides,". You breach the wp:or policy.
• Your edit: [[36]]. You ignore wp:Cherrypicking. You use the quote that suits you, and ignores other contradicting quotes. The relevant talkpage discussion:[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War#Nasser_steps_made_the_war_ineviteable ].
• Regarding the same talkpage discussion, you breach the wp:faith. It is not the first time for you to use an attrition warfare tactic. You ignore the other side claims and repeat your claims that have been already refuted, in order to have endless discussion. You quotes Maoz's sloppy (or contradicting) text , instead of behaving like a "good faith" editor, who would have look for other source who support this wrong thesis, that both side are equally responsible for the war.

So, who started the 1967 six days war? . There was an escalation period of months or years but the crisis itself started at 14 June 1967, when Egypt began to move the army to Sinai, close to the border with Israel. The trigger was a Soviet false claim, that Israel already positioned a big force near it's border with Syria. Although Nasser knew that this is not true, " Nasser took 3 successive steps that made the war virtually ineviteable: On 14 May he deployed his troops in Sinai near the border with Israel, On 19 May expelled the UN peacekeepers stationed in the Sinai Peninsula border with Israel, and on 23 May closed Tiran straits to Israeli shipping.(Shlaim, Rogan, 2012 pp. 7, 106)"

Moreover, I have looked for sources that can't be suspected of being pro Israel:

1. The Egyptian president, Nasser:
   1. Shlaim, Avi (2012). The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107002364 :
      1. pp. 7, 106. " Nasser took 3 successive steps that made the war virtually ineviteable: On 14 May he deployed his troops in Sinai near the border with Israel, On 19 May expelled the UN peacekeepers stationed in the Sinai Peninsula border with Israel, and on 23 May closed Tiran straits to Israeli shipping."
      2. p. 63. : ""he claimed in a public speech to have been aware of all the implications: "Taking over Sharm El Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel. It also means that we ready to enter a general war with Israel. It was not a separate operation".."
      3. p. 66 :Nasser seems to have been encouraged by the fact that Israeli rhetoric condemning the Tiran blockade and subsequent developments was relatively mild. Even the fact that the United States counselled restraint was interpreted as an attempt to protect Israel from Arab wrath — and therefore as further evidence of her need for protection
      4. p. 63 : the leaders of the confrontational states were caught by complete surprise when Israel took their threats at face value
      5. p. 7 : Nasser appeared to challenge Israel to a duel
      6. p. 63 : In the end of May 1967, Nasser claimed in a public speech to have been aware of the Straits of Tiran closure implications: "Taking over Sharm El Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel. It also means that we ready to enter a general war with Israel. It was not a separate operation"
      7. p. 68 : the testimony of Bassiouny, who recalls that when the Washington Embassy reported that Secretary of State Dean Rusk had information that Egypt was going to start the war, Amer wrote on the cable, “Shams, it seems there is a leak.
   2. An Arab historian, Samir A. Mutawi (18 July 2002). Jordan in the 1967 War. Cambridge University Press. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-521-52858-0.
      1. p. 95. "On 26 May he declared, ‘The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel’.” The same day Hasanayn Heyical, a close associate of Nasser, wrote an article in Al-A ahram explaining why war with Israel was inevitable: ‘The closure of the Gulf of Aqaba... means first and last that the Arab nation represented by the UAR has succeeded for the first time, vis-a-vis Israel, in changing by force a fait accompli imposed on it by force To Israel this is the most dangerous aspect of the current situation — who can impose the accomplished fact and who possesses the power to safeguard it. Therefore it is not a matter of the Gulf of Aqaba but of something bigger. It is the whole philosophy of Israeli security. Hence I say that Israel must attack.”7 He went on to say that the international situation was such that Egypt would have to allow Israel to strike the first blow and concluded, ‘Let Israel begin. Let our second blow then be ready. Let it be a knockout.
      2. p. 111 :"On 25 May Israel declared total mobilization..the Israeli economy ground to a standstill. ..soon Israel open a war because ...Israel could not tolerate such a total stoppage for very long"
   3. An Arab historian, Abd al-Azim Ramadan: "the prominent historian and commentator Abd al-Azim Ramadan, In a series of articles published in AlWafd, subsequently compiled in a hook published in 2000, Ramadan criticized the Nasser cult, …. The events leading up to the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, as other events during Nasser’s rule, Ramadan wrote, showed Nasser to be far from a rational, responsible leader. … His decision to nationalize the Suez Canal was his alone, made without political or military consultation. … The source of all this evil. Ramadan noted, was Nasser’s inclination to solitary decision making… the revolutionary regime led by the same individual—Nasser— repeated its mistakes when it decided to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967. Both decisions led to a state of war with Israel, despite the lack of military preparedness" (Elie Podeh; Onn Winckler (1 December 2004). Rethinking Nasserism: Revolution and Historical Memory in Modern Egypt. University Press of Florida. pp. 105, 106. ISBN 978-0-8130-3137-8)
   4. An Egyptian senior aid of Nasser, [ http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5195412 Abdel Magid Farid]"Abdel Magid Farid, however, suggests that Nasser did actually consider the first strike option until early on 27 May, when he was hauled out of bed at 3 by the ambassador from the Soviet Union [13] and warned not to precipitate a confrontation", (Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p68)
2. The Israeli steps:
   1. Shlaim, Avi (2012). The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107002364 :
      1. p. 66 :"In private, Eshkol had sent Nasser secret messages urging deescalation. In public, he continued to assert Israel’s peaceful intentions, call for international mediation, and avoid criticism of Egypt. This reinforced the existing image of Egyptian military superiority — if Israel wanted to avoid war, it was presumably because Israel thought it would lose"
   2. Mutawi
      1. p. 93 : Although Eshkol denounced the Egyptians, his response to this development was a model of moderation
      2. p. 111 : On 25 May Israel declared total mobilization..the Israeli economy ground to a standstill. ..soon Israel open a war because ...Israel could not tolerate such a total stoppage for very long Ykantor (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comment. Firstly, I'd like to thank you for remaining calm which, as you know, is a prerequisite for any successful collaboration. Concerning the specific points you make:

• concerning wp:preserve, the UNEF issue and Straits closure remained after my edit, so I don't agree with you concerning this.
• concerning wp:or, we have the Maoz source stating explicitly that most scholarly accounts do this, so I drew no new conclusion. Further, I don't see how one could violate wp:or in an edit comment, rather than in edited article text.
• concerning this edit, see also this edit, where even more views are presented in the same sentence.
• concerning the discussion, I can truly promise I have the least possible interest in an "endless discussion".

Concerning the cherrypicking issue in general, do you think that someone might feel you're doing it by collecting your Nasser quotations? We also have quotations from him promising not to attack Israel. The crisis didn't begin with Nasser moving his forces to the Sinai, but with a sequence of events that included the Samu raid, the Independence day parade in Jerusalem, the combat of April 7th (which was an escalation on Israel's part), Fatah attacks in Israel, the Syria-Egypt pact and, importantly, the public and explicit Israeli threats to attack Syria. David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan both felt Israel, and not Syria or Egypt, was responsible for creating the crisis (Tom Segev, "1967", loc 4587 + loc 5213 in Kindle edition). General Aharon Yariv, head of IDF intelligence, said Nasser moved his forces to the Sinai as a response to Israel's threats against Syria (Segev, loc 4399). Shemesh (Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War, p. 182, 187) makes the same point. Nasser didn't start the war. The US advised Israel Egypt wasn't about to attack (Segev, loc 5141). Israel started the war. Rabin said after the war that Nasser didn't want a war. Israel's generals lied to prime minister Eshkol to get the war started (Popp, p. 297). So overall there were many things done and interpreted by the parties involved, that contributed to the escalation. Exactly as Maoz said. Trying to pin the blame on Nasser and exonerate Israel from any wrongdoing isn't neutral or truthful, since sources collectively paint a more nuanced picture. The notion that Israel couldn't keep the mobilization ongoing doesn't square well with the fact that just before the war, Israeli cabinet ministers were considering waiting for six months to see how the situation develops. And at the eve of the war, Israel had 160.000 troos mobilized whereas Egypt had only 50.000 in the Sinai, so Israel could easily have de-mobilized a great deal if it chose to. Cheers, and sorry for writing a long reply, --Dailycare (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "collecting your Nasser quotations":

1. During the 1st week of the crisis, most commentators estimated that Nasser was making a show off.
2. At the 2nd week end, Egypt planned to attack Israel at the 27 May but the Russians (alerted by the U.S) told Nasser in the middle of the night that they were not happy with Egypt being an aggressor. Nasser immediately canceled the attack.
3. During the 3rd and the crisis last week: "as may drew to a close Nasser's declarations against Israel became increasingly extravagant and he taunted Israel to open hostilities." (Mutawi p. 94). 'Hasanayn Heyical, a close associate of Nasser, wrote an article in Al-Ahram explaining why war with Israel was inevitable. ...He went on to say that the international situation was such that Egypt would have to allow Israel to strike the first blow and concluded, ‘Let Israel begin. Let our second blow then be ready. Let it be a knockout."

• There is a difference between the escalation period, along the months or years before the war, and the crisis which was initiated by Nasser at the last few weeks before the war. e.g. "the situation entered new phase with Russia's announcement...on 13 May... this evoked an immediate response in Nasser... the following day he announced the mobilization of the Egyptian army. 2 divisions were ordered into Sinai" (Mutawi, p. 93). Israel is justifiably blamed for its share during the escalation period (mainly by provoking the Syrians with an Israeli tractor plowing in the DMZ, over reacting in Samu raid etc.) However, as for the Crisis period, ""In private, Eshkol had sent Nasser secret messages urging deescalation. In public, he continued to assert Israel’s peaceful intentions, call for international mediation, and avoid criticism of Egypt. This reinforced the existing image of Egyptian military superiority — if Israel wanted to avoid war, it was presumably because Israel thought it would lose"" (Shlaim, Louis, 2012,The 1967 Arab-Israeli War, p. 66)
• "David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan both felt Israel, and not Syria or Egypt, was responsible". Correct, but for the escalation and not for the crisis.
• "General Aharon Yariv, head of IDF intelligence, said Nasser moved his forces to the Sinai as a response to Israel's threats against Syria". Correct. as said, During the 1st week of the crisis, most commentators estimated that Nasser was making a show off.
• "Shemesh makes the same point. Nasser didn't start the war" (and Segev as well). Correct. As said Nasser canceled Egypt planned attack at the last minute because of the Russian's warning. Later he taunted Israel to attack.
• "Rabin said after the war that Nasser didn't want a war.". I have yet to read the full source. However, Egypt planned an attack on the 27 May, which was canceled at the last minute because of the Russians. Hence Egypt wanted to start the war, at least until the 27 May.
• " Israel's generals lied to prime minister Eshkol to get the war started" I am not sure what was the lie. Anyway, it is correct that the generals demanded a war, before more Arab division may advance to the Israeli border (e.g. Iraq). The Israeli army, was smaller than the Egyptian army, let alone all the other Arab armies.

but the prime minister decided to hold on.

• Currently Maoz is cherry picked quoted here. As said, he has contradicting statements, and one should not avoid the other quotes. Moreover, the supposed difference between literature and scholar is a wp:or.
• "The notion that Israel couldn't keep the mobilization ongoing doesn't square well with the fact that just before the war, Israeli cabinet ministers were considering waiting for six months to see how the situation develops" Some ministers were afraid of Israel annihilation by the powerful Arab armies, so they preferred to hold on, although it was not possible. e.g. The women,pupils and old men milked the cow, and there were no means of shipping the milk from the farms to the towns.
• "at the eve of the war, Israel had 160.000 troos mobilized whereas Egypt had only 50.000 in the Sinai," . Looking in the "strength" table at the Six-Day War:

1. Israel: Total troops: 264,000, 100,000 deployed
2. Arab armies: Total troops: 547,000, 240,000 deployed

Ykantor (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll try to keep my response shorter this time. As to the theory that when Israel does something it's "escalation" but when Nasser does something it's "crisis", I don't see that in the sources. Concerning then the text, again, the current version doesn't cherry-pick since it explicitly covers also the non-academic view (the "conventional narrative"). And even if it didn't, it'd be a statement Maoz makes concerning the balance of academic opinion, which is perfect for Wikipedia's purposes. His statements, again, for the god-knows-how-manyeth-time, are not contradictory. You yourself above acknowledge Israel's culpability in the escalation. No-one in Israel's government was under the impression the country faced annihilation. As late as June 2nd this government was advised the Egyptian forces were in a defensive posture, and again, they considered whether to wait six months. The US implored Israel to not attack Egypt. Israeli generals implored the government to attack, and even considered attacking without authorization. Israel started the war and then lied that Egypt would have fired the first shots. Now, running this through your mind, can you honestly say that your proposed text is a faithful representation of what went on? I mean, really? Kind regards, --Dailycare (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• yours "As to the theory that when Israel does something it's "escalation" but when Nasser does something it's "crisis", I don't see that in the sources".

1. The weeks after 14 May 1967 are generally referred to, as the crisis or as a new phase, as I have just quoted Mutawi, an Arab historian. Please read again my previous post. It is no wonder that Nasser massing of his Army in Sinai, is a different ball game.
2. "when Israel does something it's "escalation". Israel has its share in the escalation, but this is limited to provoking the Syrian by an Israeli tractor plowing in the DMZ or supposedly over reaction to a terror attack which resulted in Samu attack. On the other hand, the Syrians reacted to the tractors with shooting and bombardments, from time to time they initiated attacks, they openly promoted terror attack on Israel and tried to deprive Israel of its' legitimate quota of the Jordan river water. Hence both countries share the blame for the escalation, and not Israel only.

• Concerning Maoz's quote, it is clear that he is contradicting himself or at best it is a sloppy text. Would you mind to ask for mediation?
• other claims:

1. No-one in Israel's government was under the impression the country faced annihilation. This claim contradicts the next one. Those ministers who wanted to wait 6 months, were very worried of a possibility of annihilation.
2. they considered whether to wait six months. correct for some of the ministers
3. As late as June 2nd this government was advised the Egyptian forces were in a defensive posture'. correct, but as Rabin, the chief of staff said, it was a matter of few hours to move from defensive posture to offensive positions.
4. The US implored Israel to not attack Egypt. correct
5. Israeli generals implored the government to attack. correct
6. and even considered attacking without authorization. not true
7. Israel started the war and then lied that Egypt would have fired the first shots. correct

• You have not reffered to most of my last post claims. The claims are repeated here. I'll appreciate it if you refer to them:

1. During the 1st week of the crisis, most commentators estimated that Nasser was making a show off.
2. At the 2nd week end, Egypt planned to attack Israel at the 27 May but the Russians (alerted by the U.S) told Nasser in the middle of the night that they were not happy with Egypt being an aggressor. Nasser immediately canceled the attack.
3. During the 3rd and the crisis last week: "as may drew to a close Nasser's declarations against Israel became increasingly extravagant and he taunted Israel to open hostilities." (Mutawi p. 94). 'Hasanayn Heyical, a close associate of Nasser, wrote an article in Al-Ahram explaining why war with Israel was inevitable. ...He went on to say that the international situation was such that Egypt would have to allow Israel to strike the first blow and concluded, ‘Let Israel begin. Let our second blow then be ready. Let it be a knockout."
4. ""In private, Eshkol had sent Nasser secret messages urging deescalation. In public, he continued to assert Israel’s peaceful intentions, call for international mediation, and avoid criticism of Egypt. This reinforced the existing image of Egyptian military superiority — if Israel wanted to avoid war, it was presumably because Israel thought it would lose"" (Shlaim, Louis, 2012,The 1967 Arab-Israeli War, p. 66) note that Shlaim is not suspected as being pro Israeli. Ykantor (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you wrote above that you want to avoid an "endless discussion" and I agreed with you then, and still do. So for the sake of efficiency I'll just address a few of the points you raise in your latest entry. Concerning the Egyptian plan to attack Israel, so what? IIRC the jury is out whether Nasser even knew of this plan. We do on the other hand know that Israel not only planned to attack Egypt, Israel actually did attack Egypt. Israel also planned to attack Syria, publicly threatened to attack Syria, and in fact did attack Syria on April 7th. Israel also attacked Samu. Israel had invaded Egypt in 1956. This point, and similar points in your entry, don't directly relate to the edit we're discussing, I'm also partly to blame for that. Now concerning the actual edit, you mention mediation. While I'm not opposed to mediation and can participate, I sincerely feel it would be a waste of your time, my time and the mediator's time. A plain reading of the text clearly, IMHO, reveals that Moaz contrasts the traditional studies that blame Egypt with the majority academic viewpoint that a multi-party escalation led to the war. He explicitly emphasizes what the majority academic viewpoint is. This is exactly the kind of source that is most useful to us since it describes the balance of opinion in reliable sources. As I have, frankly, now repeatedly written. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- The planned Egyptian attack- it was canceled in the last minute on 27 May because of the soviet threat. So, at least during the days before the 27 May Egypt wanted a war.

- All the mentioned Israeli attacks were preceded by Arab attacks, except the 5 June Israeli attack on Egypt. I can't understand why you did not mention it.

- As for Maoz's text, there is nothing more to say. Everyone who read this text can clearly see that Maoz's text is sloppy at best, or even contradicting itself.

- Even if Maoz's text is fine, than according to the Wikipedia rules you should not delete a different point of view supported by plenty of wp:rs, including Arab sources or Shlaim, who is very far from being pro Israeli. Ykantor (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the alleged Egyptian plan to attack, the Israeli diplomat Oren concedes in his book ("Six Days of War") that it was unclear whether Nasser even knew of that plan (Kindle edition, loc 2328). And Oren elsewhere tries to make this plan into a big deal, so you can see he's scraping the barrel. Of course, the Israeli plan to attack Egypt was actually carried out, as I've already pointed out. Why you've decided to concentrate on the Egyptian plan (which may not have even existed) instead of the Israeli plan which was carried out, I don't know. I agree with you that we've covered Maoz, although I don't accept the conclusions you mention. Concerning your last point, not everything belongs in the lead, not all viewpoints deserve mention and, I'm once more repeating myself, the conventional studies that blame Nasser are covered in the lead. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-You show again why the discussion with you is futile. You reply mention Oren, whose support was deliberately not used by myself, and avoid referring to my supports: Arab sources and Shlaim (who can't be suspected as being pro-Israeli, in understatement.)

- I modify the Lead in order to reflect the wp:rs, which is missing at the moment. Ykantor (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm discussing the edits you're proposing to the article, and not just the sources you cite. The article needs to reflect what sources collectively say, not just what the sources you pick say. Regards, --Dailycare (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dailycare. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 19:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Dawn (1967), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Quigley. 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) 15:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Six-Day War page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I disagree with your edit, but I fear that any addition to that section signals to some people that the floodgates are open to add more. It may have been better just to revert. DeCausa (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Six-Day War page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA3 is now open and evidence can be submitted until September 8. 62.90.5.221 (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You weighed in briefly on this conversation. I'd appreciate you (and others) chiming in again so that the outcome is not just about what two editors have been going around and around on. PPX (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dailycare. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For having the audacity of saying I edit war, when I made a first revert, while you yourself ignore WP:BRD and restore disputed content you added without discussion to establish consensus.

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

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was serious with this warning. Per all accounts you should discuss first and edit later. If you make one more revert before first establishing consensus, I will see myself compelled to report you, however little I may like that. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Debresser, a user who seeks to change the consensus version is the user who, after being initially reverted, should initiate discussion on the talkpage. I am not the user who is in favour a change in the longstanding version (see e.g. this version from 2015). If you'll take a few minutes to read what the sources say, it is quite straightforward to realize that "some scholars" is not a neutral description of "Experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine (...)", "the myth of an exile (...) is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions", ""in the popular imagination of Jewish history, in contrast to the accounts of historians or official agencies, there is a widespread notion that the Jews from Judea were expelled in antiquity (...). Even more misleading, there is the widespread, popular belief that this expulsion created the diaspora." Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the last stable version said "some scholars". In any case, your edit warring is becoming annoying. Debresser (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"not accepted by historians"/"not correct" has been in the article, in slightly varying wordings, in 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012, the last one being in briefer form. "Some scholars" has not, wherefore it is not the stable version and "not accepted" is the stable version. You have made a revert without addressing the source interpretation arguments I present above, and yet charge me for edit-warring and lack of discussion, which is illogical. You have also, it appears, given up on the argument presented in your edit summaries that there would only be one source. Of course, one reliable source would be quite sufficient, but anyway, as I pointed out in my edit summary of March 9th, there are three reliable sources for this. Again, if you'd like to make changes to the stable version, we can discuss such suggestions. I'm copying this to the article talkpage. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jewish diaspora. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Dailycare (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for this edit, where, as explained in the edit summary, I reverted the text to the stable form preceding this IP edit. For some reason, this text has become the subject of a bizarre dispute. The other editor in this dispute, Debresser, has adopted the IP's edit and has been edit-warring it into the text. I've initiated discussion on the topic on my talkpage, the article talkpage and on the NPOV noticeboard, however participation from uninvolved parties has been sparse. Clearly, there has been no consensus concerning changing the text, and Debresser's participation in the discussions appears half-hearted. As the NPOV noticeboard entry was archived as stale, and Debresser had ceased responding concerning substance on the talkpage, I reverted the text to the stable version as discussion had died down. I don't consider this edit-warring, since the stable version should remain in case there is no consensus to change. I believe the blocking admin made a "Solomonic" judgement in blocking both users to avoid reading the material through, which is understandable. I realize this is a short block, but I'd nonetheless prefer to have it cancelled to clear my name in this matter. Before December last year, the text has been in the article, with minor changes in wording, for several years: (2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012, the last one being in briefer form.) I realize I made a series of reverts earlier. Although these were made with edit comments responding to the various reasons offered by Debresser, I should have escalated the dispute sooner and will do so going forward.

Accept reason:

This is to close the unblock request. The block expired yesterday and no unblocking is needed at this time. Thanks for acknowledging the reason for the block however, and if you wish to continue the discussion, feel free to do so on your talk page here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Hi Dailycare. I semi-protected your user talk page for two weeks to prevent an IP-hopping racist leaving you harassing messages. Just let me or another admin know if you want the semi-protection lifting earlier. CIreland (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dailycare. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dailycare. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dailycare. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]