This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
Joefromrandb, you are welcome to redlink names if you like, but please do not bold names. Please see WP:MOSBOLD for more information. Bolding is used for the subject of an article, in the lede of the article. Thank you. I am now going to remove the bolding. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:MOSBOLD, or are you just making up policy like you tried to do at the AfD? Joefromrandb (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article (and often its synonyms) in the lead section, as well as terms that are redirected to the article or its sub-sections.
Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases
Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text.
Bolding names in the List article does not follow WP:MOSBOLD and is inappropriate bolding. Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? Nothing you've posted here supports that claim.Joefromrandbtalk) 07:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the text I quoted above, and/or the entire WP:MOSBOLD. Below I will emphasize the relevant passages of the parts I quoted:
Boldface is ... only for certain uses.
The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article (and often its synonyms) in the lead section, as well as terms that are redirected to the article or its sub-sections.
Use boldface in the remainder of the article only in a few special cases
Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text.
This is the last time I will respond to what is essentially the same question. Softlavender (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "essentially" the same question, it's exactly the same question. I see you're still unable to answer it. Surely you're not considering list-entries "article text". Joefromrandb (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Joefromrandb:@Softlavender: has explained that MOS:BOLD does not support the bolding in this article. Could you please explain why you are bolding the names of the commanders; The list in the MOS says in certain cases and these are listed
Article title terms: first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article (and often its synonyms) in the lead section, as well as terms that are redirected to the article or its sub-sections.- This does not apply
Automatically applied boldface- This does not apply
Other uses : Terms that are the subject of redirects to the article or section- This does not apply. Mathematical object- this does not apply. In some citation formats, for the volume number of a journal or other multi-volume works- this does not apply.
If you cannot explain why they are bolded then please do not revert the edits that apply the MOS correctly. I believe that you may be confusing Bolding with redlinking. If you consider that these people are notable enough to have their own WP pages and that is why you want them to stand out then you can WP:REDLINK them but you must consider creating the articles rapidly afterwards. Please also remember that you do not WP:OWN pages that you have edit and that the reasoning behind the modifications by Softlavender are solid and backed up by the manual of style. Domdeparis (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, Softlavendar hasn't "explained" anything, but enjoy your little game. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bolding of the commander's names is an obvious violation of the MOS. Joefromrandb, please stop wasting the time of other editors on this. Zerotalk 11:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly was puerile, hence my response. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I forgot that you pretend to be obtuse sometimes...Your response was puerile following a perfectly reasonable comment by @Zero0000:. Domdeparis (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes indeed. Passive-aggressive trolling at its finest. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is everyone a troll for you? You are writing things on pages that are on my watchlist and your incivility offends me because I also told you that the bolding was incorrect so when you tell someone to "fuck off" because they are saying the same thing as me I sort of feel that I was the target too. At least no-one could accuse you about being passive with your aggressiveness. Domdeparis (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo! If you had been "the target too", I would have told you to fuck off, which I clearly did not. Way to stir the pot though. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
