On 17 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jisr el-Majami, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Italy helped to renovate a bridge between Israel and Jordan? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Jisr el-Majami), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 12:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I more than doubled the resolution of Jerusalem 10K. Next I'll upload two 1:20K of the same place for 1930s and 1940s. Zero talk 13:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I am working on a new article "Declarations of State Land in the West Bank". Want to team up on it? You can put in your dyk list when its done:) I'll do a stub and go from there. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
K, the article is here now. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
On 7 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that only one hydroelectric plant was built on the Jordan River, out of the fourteen planned by Pinhas Rutenberg (depicted)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Edit_requests#Argument_about_these_procedures Zero talk 12:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Why do people add sources to a reference section when they aren't used as reference in the article. Isn't that what we have a general "Sources" section for? I am asking you after noticing this edit of yours. Debresser ( talk) 20:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
In this map, there are both a black dashed line and a red dashed line, some distance apart, around the E and S of Palestine. Do you know anything about that? Zero talk 13:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
On 27 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Handala, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Handala is considered to portray the Palestinian identity "with astounding clarity"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Handala. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Handala), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I found the information I need here. Now I can make a script that takes a piece A of the 1940s maps with known borders in the Palestine Grid, and automatically constructs a piece B of maps.wikimedia of the same location at the same scale, and an animation C from A to B. The initial image A will need to be made by hand using the grid lines. Instead of C, we can explore javascript options and make a template for it. Do you see any issues? Zero talk 12:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Infobox settlement#Why_not_more_wikidata?. Also use the Archives search for "Wikidata" at Template talk:Infobox person. I share many of the concerns raised. Zero talk 06:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Survey of Palestine at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
CMD (
talk)
17:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Hebraization of Palestinian place names at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
BlueMoonset (
talk)
17:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The Dumbledore Wizardry Barnstar | ||
For Once’s cartographic acumen, and coordination in magically putting Palestinians back on the map. Nishiduncy 07:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC) |
Sorry, I'm technically inept, and I'm sure one more competent than I (doesn't take much) can readapt to get the right, discreetly smaller image centered. Best regards Nishidani ( talk) 09:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
On 20 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Survey of Palestine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Survey of Palestine was the only government department in Mandatory Palestine not headquartered in Jerusalem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Survey of Palestine. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Survey of Palestine), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I've recreated the 1945 maps of Mandatory Palestine into an SVG file that can be editted. Right now I am mastering the map and on the same time making a map of population count in each locality ( preview). Do you have any idea what kind of maps can be produced with this? I am planning on making a map for population density and religious affiliation.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 16:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this, how comes it says " Survey of Israel (1928)"? I didn't know there was a "Survey of Israel (1928)"?
I could change it direct, but I assume it is from some central template, or whatnot, and we should change it there? Huldra ( talk) 23:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Responses_(MEMRI). If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please strike your comment.
Infinity Knight (
talk)
17:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Onceinawhile. I noticed that your recent edit to
Al-Khalasa added a link to an image on an external website or on your computer, or to a file name that does not exist on Wikipedia's server. For technical and policy reasons it is not possible to use images from external sources on Wikipedia. Most images you find on the internet are copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia, or their use is subject to certain
restrictions. If the image meets Wikipedia's
image use policy, consider
uploading it to Wikipedia yourself or
request that someone else upload it. See the
image tutorial to learn about wiki syntax used for images. Thank you.
- Sumanuil (
talk)
02:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Al-Hamma, Tiberias needs construction by hand because of its location. See here. It isn't on the PEF map. There is a map by Schumacher that could be used in place of PEF. For Al-Mansura, Acre, the overlay map breaks but the other three maps are ok and I'll send them. Zero talk 08:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
On 7 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the name of the former Palestinian village al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta may have been a tribute to the Mamluk sultan al-Zahir Baybars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
In Special:Diff/971814668, you used {{ Image frame}} with both align=left and align=right. What did you mean to do there? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 18:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
On 11 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hebraization of Palestinian place names, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there is a recent trend to reverse the Hebraization of street names in mixed Jewish–Arab cities in Israel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hebraization of Palestinian place names. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Hebraization of Palestinian place names), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I updated Template:Historical map series to allow 6 maps. See Talk:Kfar Chabad for an example. I didn't try to add that to the article infobox. Three things about this template are sub-optimal: (1) text doesn't flow around it, (2) it would be good if the "show all" option could be optionally suppressed, (3) how to put it in a figure with an overall caption? See User talk:Jackmcbarn#switcher-container class. Zero talk 14:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Bloom6132 (
talk) has given you a
dove! Doves promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{ subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
I'm sorry for the things I said in the heat of the moment. Thanks for proving to be the bigger person! — Bloom6132 ( talk) 21:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi habibi, please tag your new articles with {{PHOA}} assessment tag and add categories to the mainspace. If you hesitate or don't feel like it ping me and i will take it from there. NB: GREAT JOB! ~ Elias Z. ( talkallam) 05:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again for the amazing work (and Zero!) have done on the map-section of the 1948-villages!
I have one little point: this in effect means that there are 4 new files to put into each commons-category; I have started to do so (eg on Arab Suqrir), alas I am slooooow (and ~400x4 =~1600 edits).
Do you have any magic method to speed it up? cheers, Huldra ( talk) 23:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
To editor Huldra: We have a much larger collection of map sequences for post-1948 locations, but they need a lot of work before they are ready. Zero talk 07:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Also, at Az-Zakariyya something has gone wrong with the maps? Huldra ( talk) 20:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Yoninah (
talk)
14:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Survey of Palestine 1942-1958 1-100,000 sheet index georef.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
17:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Hi. I was dealing with the Siege of Jerusalem page when a careful editor removed this: "Sack of Jerusalem (350 BCE) by Artaxerxes III, who retakes the city from Jewish rebels and burns it down", correctly noting that the linked article says nothing about Artaxerxes and Jerusalem. I dug a bit deeper, and found out that this line was adopted from the Timeline of Jerusalem, where loooong time ago you added a lot of good material, but also this:
The edit is here, 22:38, 17 September 2010.
That seems to be totally wrong, unless you can prove otherwise (there are no inline sources for the entire paragraph; 2010, I know, different times). I can see from good sources, not just from Wiki, that there have been several regional revolts against Achaemenid rule in the region around that time, leading to Persian interventions. During the one fitting the date, in 351-50, Pharaoh Nectanebo II successfully repelled the Persians. In a next revolt, taking place between 350-347, King Tennes of Sidon (r. 351-347) and several allies managed to repulse two satraps, but was defeated when Artaxerxes arrived with an army of Greeks and Persians, burning down Sidon (he or the citizens themselves did it). Jews of Phoenicia who had been allied to Tennes were exiled to the south coast of the Caspian Sea. So in c. 347, not 350. In a 1986 paper from the the Society of Biblical Literature, on p. 638, the expedition of Artaxerxes III against Tennes and his allies (so from c. 347) is cited as the cause for the destruction layers excavated at Hazor, Megiddo, Athlit, Lachish, Jericho - but not a word about Jerusalem. Then Artaxerxes again invaded Egypt in 343 and this time he defeated Nectanebo II, Jews from Egypt being sent either to Babylon or to the same location on the Caspian Sea as those from Phoenicia in 346.
There had been previous revolts and wars, one between Nectanebo I and Artaxerxes II beginning in the 370s and continuing throughout the 360s, starting off a wave of regional revolts. The son of Nectanebo I, Tachos/Teos, tried around 360 to take the war to the Persians, but failed. In the 1986 paper, it's the 365/4-362 revolt that is associated with the story of Bagoas/Bagoses. One of the Persian generals of Artaxerxes III is a certain Bagoas, and Nöldeke, Wellhausen and others identify him with Bagoses from Josephus' Antiquities (so says the Jerusalem art. of the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906). Josephus writes how Bagoses defiled the Temple and had the Jews pay a tax on each lamb offered at the Temple for the next 7 years because the High Priest John/Yohanan had killed his own brother Jesus/Yeshua inside the Temple, and Yeshua happened to be Bagoses' friend (see the text for instance here, Ant. 11.302-347 or here, Book XI, Ch. 7:1-2). Anyway, the paper states almost as proven fact that the High-Priest-cum-governor from Jerusalem had also taken part in that revolt during the 2nd half of the 360s (pp. 637-8).
That's all I could find. Nowhere anything from this period about a siege of Jerusalem by Artaxerxes III ending with him burning down the city. Wherever else in Judea there are traces of Persian destruction, it's from the earlier war, in c. 362, by the previous Persian king, Artaxerxes II, not A. III. Also the Caspian Sea exile is from c. 347 (this one maybe comes close) and 343. Nothing fits.
This would also have been a third destruction of Jerusalem, quite memorable, and everybody only mentions two, 586 BCE and 70 CE.
So: can you figure out what the source was, and check again if you still trust it? For now I will amend both pages based on what I have found. Thank you, Arminden ( talk) 21:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, it makes perfect sense now, this would fit well the Temple desecration story from Josephus or who knows what. No burning down of Jerusalem, that's important now. Somebody probably overinterpreted those difficult two verses from Isaiah and presented their imaginative interpretation as historical fact. Don't worry, I started editing after you, I think, and didn't do it any different. Arminden ( talk) 23:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear Onceinawhile. You are an amazing Wikipedian, whereas I am still a novice. However, I found that you just like me often use quotations in footnotes (e.g. Philistines and Kadesh inscriptions). However, despite undeniably enhancing verifiability, they seem not to be well accepted among editors. Some deleted the quotations my footnotes (see Battle of Entzheim revision 18:55 29 June 2020). Some want me to change to a simpler citation style "In future, 'Burke (1949), p. 3' is all that is necessary." ( Talk:Sir George Hamilton, Comte Hamilton). Certain AWB users apply "General fixes" to my quotations thereby "correcting" them, mainly by removing commas from dates in old-fashioned formats (e.g. "1 July, 1642" -> "1 July 1642"). One friendly, very experienced user on 28 Oct 2019 logged the bug T236729 "Genfixes removes comma from quoted date" in Phabricator, but its status still is "Open, Needs Triage". I wonder whether you have experienced similar problems. What could be done to make editors see the usefulness of quotations in footnotes? With many thanks, Johannes Schade ( talk) 16:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Russian Bank at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Binksternet (
talk)
01:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi habibi do you have an article about the Ford collection sarcophagi? Also can you help me populate Category:Phoenician art?
In 1930, the American Presbyterian Mission School donated the newly named Ford Collection of anthropoid sarcophagi to the Beirut National Museum together with a number of other artifacts. This is still today the largest collection of this type of sarcophagi in the world.
Hello! Your submission of
Carpentras Stela at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --
RoySmith
(talk)
22:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
On another issue, do you know an easy way to split up books, and upload the pictures independently?
To be specific; Charles William Meredith van de Velde published a book in 1857, it is uploaded to commons, here. That is nearly useless, unless they are uploaded individually and categorised. Looking at the contents, it has some pictures from places where we have no previous pictures from, say Kfarhamam.
I have uploaded some, one after the other, link, link, link, but it is sloooooow.
Do you know of any easier way of doing it? (I don't mind adding the correct cats to the files, afterwards, if neccessary!) Huldra ( talk) 23:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
That is excellent! A few I suspected (like the Mount Carmel one) some of the other (eg Ayta ash Shab) were completely unknown to me. Incidentally, Victor Guérin (who I believe visited Hazour ou Hazireh); his books at archive have been completely mixed around :( That means my User:Huldra/Guerin is pretty useless/needs to be updated :( not only that, but each and every Guérin-link on en.wp needs to be updated :( I hope this is just a "glitch" and that they will return the old links....
While we are at it, there were a few others I wondered about, if you could check I would be grateful:
Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 21:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
On 13 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Russian Bank, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Russian Bank, also known as Crapette or Tunj, has been called "probably the best game for two players ever invented"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Russian Bank. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Russian Bank), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hook update | |
Your hook reached 21,573 views (898.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2020 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 19:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Yoninah (
talk)
20:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The article cites "Wilson 1881" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]]
to
your common.js page. Thanks,
Renata (
talk)
01:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
My edit was not a "joke". Trump has been nominated multiple times for the Nobel Peace Prize. [9] (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind the revert, but I didn't see any consensus for this article to be exempt from MOS:LEAD. Can you point me at it explicitly? Cheers. The Rambling Man ( Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
On 1 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that almost half the known words in Phoenician inscriptions (example pictured) have never been found again? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hook update | |
Your hook reached 10,142 views (780.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2020 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 09:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Onceinawhile! FYI, the answer on ANI [10] is not really satisfactory ("content dispute"). If have asked for page protection now. [11] – Austronesier ( talk) 09:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Greetings to you 🙂 Mr.Karmi ( talk) 23:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, Just a note that the PEF-section map in Al-Dalhamiyya isn't particularly useful? Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 20:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, Khirbat al-Muntar, on SWP map 4 Kh. el Muntar is just east of the present SWP-map in the article? Huldra ( talk) 23:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
On 7 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carpentras Stele, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Carpentras Stele, the first ancient Semitic inscription ever published, was originally thought to be Phoenician but is actually ancient Aramaic? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Carpentras Stele), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
—valereee ( talk) 12:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article West Bank bantustans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Memories :) Selfstudier ( talk) 14:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I would say that it is by no means clear that the deleters have cleared the bar for deletion, they would need a rough consensus and since there are quite a few keepers, it seems to me the likely outcome is no con/do a rename. You never know what a closer will do of course but a straight vote count seems not the right thing here, those alleging a fork have made a very poor case and it is notable that many of the "outside" voters are keepers. If it is deleted, so be it, then at least we know what we are dealing with. It's your article so I'm not going to criticize your tactics but personally I would not discuss a rename before a decision. I would rather know if Wikipedia is willing to delete an article like this based on that discussion. Selfstudier ( talk) 00:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Let me know and I'll take a look tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I saw two recent edits of yours with edit summary "Replying to Selfstudier" that were actually replies to other people. I don't know how reply-link works; was that your slips or is there a bug that needs reporting? Zero talk 12:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
West Bank bantustans at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! As a minor note, one quote includes the text "the o≤cial Oslo II map", which I assume is a typo for "official"?
CMD (
talk)
17:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I just came to Wikipedia to look up something and thought to check up on WP friend, who had a link to the bantustan's deletion, and so I'm drawn in. Not retired, yet, and have no Basic Income so not going to be drawn back into WP editing. Good luck.
Alatari ( talk) 13:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
11Fox11 ( talk) 02:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't like to use the word lie but sadly I am afraid you told a rather bold untruth about me. I at no point confirmed anything about citation, and as a matter of fact never even commented on how widely cited Motro was. Could you please strike the untruth that I "How helpful of you to confirm that the source is widely cited". I think everything would go a lot better if we were honest. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 03:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I really think we ought to de-emphasize the "West Bank" aspect and tilt the material especially in the lead (title has to wait) to "Palestine". People looking at West Bank and promptly start talking about Oslo, A's and B's when Gaza is a bantustan and East Jerusalem is being turned into them as well. One overarching idea behind the creation of these "islands" is the prevention of a de facto State of Palestine. You see what I am getting at? Selfstudier ( talk) 12:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
More like:
The bantustans, [a] figuratively described as the Palestine Archipelago, [b] [3] [4] [5] are proposed enclaves for Palestine under a variety of US and Israeli-led proposals to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [c] [6]
References
Hi, Is there any reason what there is no "1940s with modern overlay map" for Al-Mansura, Acre? Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 20:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
And did the "modern overlay" slip up on Danna, Baysan? Pleas see this, Huldra ( talk) 22:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Abu Zurayq, Ein Hod and Atlit are missing? And on Arab al-Fuqara, the SWP7 map does not include Mukam Sheikh Helu? (the section is to the west of the Mukam) Huldra ( talk) 21:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey could you please improve the page Colony of Libera Kanto7 ( talk) 09:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Here is a good link Colony of Liberia Kanto7 ( talk) 11:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Please improve this page. I feel like the Colony of Liberia needs it's on page as the page called Military Administartion in Ethiopia exists and it has barely any info Kanto7 ( talk) 11:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
National parks and nature reserves of Israel This article is very annoying, yes it admits that some of them are not in Israel but the title.... As you are aware the legal gymnastics required to spin this as somehow not being COGAT control, the entire legal set up is completely distinct from the parks that are actually in Israel. This has to be non-NPOV doesn't it? Selfstudier ( talk) 12:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Idalion bilingual at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Yoninah (
talk)
01:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
For your orientation, your editing is criticized in https://david-collier.com/wiki-antisemitic/. A link was posted to Wikipedia:Help desk#Hate on Wikipedia. PrimeHunter ( talk) 14:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
RM and RFC. Thank you.
Shrike (
talk)
21:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Shall we do something about Mount Hebron? Selfstudier ( talk) 23:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I am posting on your edits at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. 11Fox11 ( talk) 08:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Within minutes of Golan’s speech, the right wing spin machine leaped into action, inflating his words, taking them out of context, blowing them up to diabolical proportions. Rather than challenging Golan’s assertion that disturbing trends in Israeli society evoke associations to Germany and Europe in the 1930s, which is what he actually said, his words were twisted to suggest that he had compared the IDF to the Wehrmacht, Israel to the Nazis and Palestinians, by logical extension, to persecuted Jews about to be carted off to concentration camps. With the ground thus prepared, politicians started piling up on Golan, accusing him of defiling his own IDF, defaming the state and aiding and abetting BDS. The self-induced mass hysteria quickly turned into a virtual witch-hunt, which I can only assume Golan was also prepared for, because it is part and parcel of the ominous trends that he was warning against
I'm flabbergasted to see the process against you at the AE board! I cannot imagine an editor who is more able to keep his cool than you are. It seems to me that some users are successfully gaming the system by carefully going through their enemies edits and collecting evidence and then initiating trials. I think this is underhanded. The right way to go about it is to first warn users that you think their behavior is over the line and then, if they don't change, start a trial. The user who filed the suit against you used a similar strategy against me. They did not tell me what they thought was improper, but when they had enough evidence they launched a trial. It's a shame that the administrators are unable to stop this. These attempts by editors to snipe others are very unpleasant. ImTheIP ( talk) 11:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile, To avoid having 17 more tabs open in my browser, I lifted the following from the "Statement by Levivich" at the AE thread, since he helpfully included short relevant quotes. Yeah, the context isn't all there, but it's something to work with.
Extended content
|
---|
|
Now the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. A commonality in the excerpts above is that you are discussing other editors. In some limited cases (like sock-puppetry) that is acceptable, but generally it's not helpful. It derails discussion, inflames emotions, and impedes the formation of consensus. What I want from you is a commitment to focus on content instead of contributors. ~ Awilley ( talk) 05:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Awilley. Feel free to ignore this, if only on legitimate WP:TLDR grounds.
The residual effect of a Catholic background unfortunately makes me feel Sunday without a sermon is somehow not quite Sunday. May I be permitted a reflection on this ugly little incident? There is an Italian proverb: Lanciare/tirare il sasso e (poi ritirare) nascondere la mano (throw a stone and hide one’s hand). It refers to behaviour where the first person to trigger an escalation intervenes so deftly that their role as provocateur is lost to view, while everyone focuses on the behaviour, the reaction, of the person hit by the stone, and it is he or she who is threatened with being hauled to the pillory.
Thought I do not believe the person who threw the stone here thought of his remarks in terms of the motivation implied by the proverb, his remark did skew Once’s coolheaded argument about analogies (ghetto/Warsaw for instance) as implicitly antisemitic. Has there ever being a single instance of a public discussion of Israel and its occupation where someone hasn’t tried to shut down the conversation by derailing it into an innuendo about the participants’ ulterior motives? i.e., by raising the spectre of antisemitism? This has become the default mode of parrying criticism of an occupation, by endlessly suggesting that whoever raises the topic must pass some quarantine inspection for their general attitudes to Jews, before they dare venture to comment. It carries with it a strong sense of the ethnic ownership of the arguments: the word ghetto refers to ‘our’ history: use it of Palestinians and you are preying on ‘our’ sensitivities, an open wound. This is what Michael Rothberg ( 'From Gaza to Warsaw: Mapping multidirectional memory in Criticism , Fall 2011, Vol. 53, No. 4,pp. 523-548) would call a zero-sum game in an absurd rivalry over remembramce that occasionally leads to polemics where each party endeavours to secure a singular position in what is a kind of competitive claim to victimization. Analogy between distinct ethnic realities is thought of as humiliating rather than enlightening.
No. No one owns language, and no ethnic proprietorial right can be imposed on history. Ghetto itself has been used as a generic term for lower class slums, run-down metropolitan ethnic enclaves, since the late 19th century. The Warsaw analogy was notoriously evoked by an IDF officer two decades ago, and has emerged cconsistently since, so that even a Jewish MP at Westminster was moved to make the comparison after a visit to Gaza in 2003. Whether that analogy is heuristically helpful or not is another question: but in itself there is no intrinsic slight or animus present in the comparison. To assert the contrary is tantamount to adopting the instrumental view that ‘our’ unique history is, uniquely, outside of the framework of comparative analysis, must be understood in its own terms, as defined by its own heirs, and those outside the pale who meddle with it are somehow spurred to do so by ethnic hostility to Jews. This, and it is extremely commonplace, locks down rational argument by restricting what can and cannot be said, and subjecting all discussion to prior vetting of the anti-antisemitic credentials of the participants before they can be tolerated to speak of the topic. It is astutely Orwellian, astutely, because the claim is advanced ostensibly to defend a human right to dignity and respect while actually serving a political function of clamping down on free speech and, indeed, imposing strict parameters even on academic research.
In the I/P area, article construction has three sides(a) editors who do extensive research and write up sizeable articles on that basis; (b) tweakers who pass by to adjust a word or two, a sentence; and (c) editors who sit on them as POV monitors, predominantly to ensure (and that is a useful function) that material regarding Israel (not Palestine) is treated neutrally. A large part of what the third group does consists in drawing up, over time, extensive lists of remarks made by this or that editor for eventual inclusion in a formal complaint at ANI or AE. The purpose is to get rid of category A, which, offline, is seen as an offensive group of ‘anti-Israeli’ fanatics forming an insidious cabal to shame by distortion Israel’s rightful place in the world. This absurd fiction is as fantastical, though certainly no where as toxic, as the sort of pathological thinking that generates antisemitic conspiracy theorists themselves Since, oddly, despite the reported ‘toxic’ nature of the I/P area, you rarely see any of the mania and venom reported in so many ANI/AE complaints, the evidence to indict, and thus rid the project of editors in category A has to rely on the fine-print of WP:NPA, a policy which, if translated into a mandatory warrant for extreme nicety of language to avoid any possibility of offense, would effectively eviscerate intelligent article construction. For the topic generates by its nature controversy, and clashing perspectives are never ironed out by adopting the strict rules of conversation in a 19th century Victorian parlour.
All one needs to game this and turn the policy into a ruse to get rid of editors whose work or attributed POV one might detest, or regard as politically harmful for the image of a country, is to play the semantic fusspot, urge the bowlerization of normal language to the point where any remark that smacks of an ‘attitude’ is potentially devastating to one’s feelings. I.e. if I respond to an editor who, against both English usage, and logic, thinks that ‘de facto’ can be used of a future scenario, by dismissing this (after reasoning why) as an example of muddled thinking, then my use of ‘muddle’ is a personal attack and I have so seriously disturbed the courteous atmosphere of wikipedia that my presence here endangers the project. That is argumentatively, in rhetoric, comparable to a device called hyperbole, but which we now customarily call 'going ballistic'. If Once responds to an innuendo that his use of ghetto or Warsaw is antisemitic by inverting the assertion (an acceptable rhetorical method in argument) that immediately justifies halling him to court as a suspected antisemite, or as a provocateur. That the evidence here is nugatory is beside the point. One can do this several times, on frail or frivolous 'proofs', and have the case dismissed. But then another logic kicks in: 'there is no smoke without fire' so, somewhere down the line, in an nth case of a report again an otherwise content-focused and generally equable editor, the odds will run to secure a verdict against him, and blot his record, making log-checkers in future arbitration instantly wary of the sanctioned person. That strategy has long been in place here, and it is utterly cynical. This is the third-dimensional chess aspect of wiki reports on 'disruptive' I/P editors.
In the real world, in any serious forum of adult argument, this level of pertinacious linguistic witchhunting to fudge up evidence that one’s interlocutor should suffer a social sanction, or be excluded from the company, would be regarded as itself a breach of good manners, an attempt to poison the well by ostracism, or as a crafty ‘topping it the cry-baby’ (to use a 18th century idiom), something that merited only the censure of silent disregard.
The purpose of this place is to write articles, not to make it so amenable to politically correct (which often translates into politically biased ) monitoring and sanctions that editors must learn to monitor every jot and tittle of their language to avoid laying themselves open to attack and sanctions. If you do that, very shortly, you will find yourself unable to think, because thinking can’t function incisively if it is bound up, hamstrung, knackered, by some prior obligation to take into consideration aforethought the extreme sensitivities of any or everywhere, regardless or whether they have some familiarity with your chosen field of research or (as is almost always the case) know almost nothing about it. The fundamental thing in judgment is to familiarize oneself beforehand with a thorough knowledge of the discursive field embedded behind the talk page arguments, not to ply the worry beads dithering about social sensitivites: unfortunately, 90% of comments there show no grasp of the field, but only of potential political side-effects in terms of national images. Nishidani ( talk) 15:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
On 9 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Idalion bilingual, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Idalion bilingual, one of six Phoenician inscriptions found in 1870 at Dali, Cyprus, was the " Rosetta Stone" for the decipherment of the Cypriot syllabary? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Idalion bilingual. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Idalion bilingual), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
in here Selfstudier ( talk) 19:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
"Ambassador to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza" Selfstudier ( talk) 19:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
more reliable, I guess Selfstudier ( talk) 19:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Aw ;) Selfstudier ( talk) 19:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Onceinawhil shalom. With respect to your comment on Talk:Beit Shearim, please be apprised that one article deals specifically with the necropolis (system of burial caves), which is located near, but not in Beit Shearim. The necropolis is a World Heritage site, not the village ruin itself. The other article specifically refers to the village Beit Shearim, which is different from the necropolis itself. The village is the place mentioned in historical records. As for the third article (which is NOT an overkill, as you thought), the article deals with a Moshav (modern agricultural village) by that name and which has NO CONNECTION to the ancient site and sits a great distance afar off. See Beit She'arim. There is a disambiguation link in each article. Davidbena ( talk) 02:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Onceinawhile. If you write to me, I'll send to you a very important pdf file that I just now received from Zero0000 on Beit Shearim, written by the archaeologist Benjamin Mazar. Davidbena ( talk) 17:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
24 hours is the limit at 1RR DS pages, not "26," as you noted, so I'd appreciate it if you would strike your untrue accusation of a 1RR violation at this talk page. Bad faith, and false, accusations of edit warring poison the discussion, and I only made tweaks to language that had already been updated since my last edit. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 13:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
With regards to your move of Beit She'arim (moshav) and amending of the redirect, it looks like you made no effort to repair the incoming links to Beit She'arim, which largely reference the moshav, e.g. Highway 75 (Israel) or Jezreel Valley Regional Council. You also failed to update the link on {{ Jezreel Valley Regional Council}} (which I have fixed). These are all actions expected of you if you make such changes.
In the meantime, I have turned Beit She'arim into a disambiguation page, but there are still several links pointing at it – could you correct these please.
Also, seeing as Beit Shearim refers to the subject as 'Beit She'arim', it possibly should be moved to a suitable title (perhaps 'Beit She'arim (Roman-era Jewish village)' for consistency). Number 5 7 12:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if you have followed the developments in Islam in Israel. I feel hounded by a user that is reversing most of my edits, on this page and others. Now a new user has been created to continue his work.
Do you have any suggestion how to handle this? I'm not interested in edit wars. Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 16:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the recent talk page section you opened. I think it might show good faith if you started off with your own examples of others arguments you recognize. I've added my own paragraph to the section. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I respect your decision to continue to avoid answering the question, even though I don’t understand it.
No, Onceinawhile, just no. They said they did answer it, and that's that (whatever it was). Please don't feign respect. You can say that their answer sidesteps whatever the question actually is, but not that. Look, you must immediately tone down on the passive-aggressive retorts. You are a hair-breath away, from being banned from the above page. In fact, if anything, you should try to convince me why you should even be allowed to continue editing it, despite having already received a
logged warning about misconduct concerning it. Note that, as it stands, I'm leaning toward a prohibition over probation. Because, clearly, it continues to be a stumbling block for you. In any case, I am logging another warning for you, which should really be seen as a final warning. Please, you need to keep it in check. Thanks as always,
El_C
22:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Please don't feign respecta little too loosely, in a manner which caused offense, and have now clarified in a reasonable manner. Yet you are suggesting that if I make such a mistake, even once more, my editing career in this area of the project may be over.
Onceinawhile, it is what it is. I'm not omniscient and can only act on the evidence that is before of me. If you can find an admin who is willing to do more (intensively, extensively), I'm happy for them to take the lead on this. As a possibility, expect a nominal error rate to may be a factor, in general, as you do with all things. I'm not expecting perfection from you, so you should, in turn, not expect it from me. I just expect you not to slip again on that page, at least not for a long while.
Anyway, I am not going to otherwise immerse myself further in this dispute at this time. If you think I've exceeded my AE purview in this matter, you are free to seek any clarifications you see fit from the Committee at WP:ARCA, including asking for my admonishment or censure outright. But that's the thing with WP:ACDS (the d stands for discretionary), I've got to make decisions according to my interpretation of the matter at hand.
Significantly, in the vein of two-steps-forward one-step-back, I submit to you that your choice of words regarding threat
and permaban
(and "permaban threat"), isn't a good look and that, as an approach, it is not serving you well.
To sum up, again, if you don't think that you're up for it (for whatever reason), I'm good with that. I wish the best for you, of course, but it's really all the same to me how you choose to proceed. Regardless, I hope it all ends up working out amicably. El_C 01:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
“I just expect you not to slip again on that page, at least not for a long while”means. I have received a Final Warning – a very powerful term – for a half-sentence misinterpretation in a month of comments. Are you suggesting, for example, zero misinterpretations in a year?
I respect your decision to continue to avoid answering the question, even though I don’t understand itis an example of finesse. It broadly translates – in my understanding of long form standard American English – to "I completely accept and acknowledge your right not to answer my question, even though I would have done so if it was me." It is the act of "drawing a line" and moving on, which is an important element of elegant communication; without finesse the sentence wouldn't even have been used and we would have moved on leaving uncertainty as to whether there had been hard feelings. If you heard me speak you would be able to hear the tone in it. Anyway, I have acknowledged and apologized above for how it was interpreted. The reason for this reflection is that I am thinking hard about implementing finesse without creating further misunderstandings. The type of delicate and skilful language which I consider true finesse can be ornate and rhetorical, which creates complexity in assessing others' interpretations.
I am still not finding you to be responsive enough to several of my salient points- which ones have I not fully addressed please? I am trying to address everything carefully.
if you don't think you're up for it- I thought I had already answered you and provided the requested commitments on this, but perhaps I don't understand what you mean?
I am not expecting perfection from you, your handing out of a "final warning" shows that you have expected perfection with respect to the specific matter of this half-sentence-in-a-month. I have been trying my absolute best, so I feel really hard done by to have the Sword of Damocles placed above my head.
Israeolocentricpoint of view and of evaluating sources according to whether they are
anti-Israelor not. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe that Onceinawhile (is) the most diplomatic of all those on the opposing side of the debate
I'm just going to be clear with you on this: you present yourself as being diplomatic and complain about the fact that you were warned, but when the rubber hits the road you engage in the same disruptive behavior as Nableezy and Selfstudier
They mention you: https://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/project-wiki-exposes-how-wikipedia-is-breeding-armies-of-anti-semites/2021/01/01/
-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 00:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"our office occasionally looks at Wikipedia entries when the subject matter is relevant to the messaging we want to get across. We do this in order to better understand what information is given to the average individual on the internet and to find misinformation that should be dispelled. It is our hope that our tweet will inspire some of Wikipedia’s editors..."[28]
Im going to refresh to you the Wikipedia policies here:
1) As per /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensus"In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."
I actually went over all of the edits JJNito did and chose to try to fix things and not remove all his work despite the above violation he committed. You and JJNito however are reverting with vague reasons such as "JJNito spent lots of months doing this" which is not a reason for reverting as per wikipedia policies.
2) As per /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems Do not remove content or change the whole content. Rephrasing to more accurately represent the sources is the way to fix things otherwise you are exhibiting ownership behavior. Caution is needed when removing or rewriting large amounts of content because JJNito nor you nor anybody own this nor any article here in Wikipedia. This is a WP:HANDLE and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR violation and as per /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Examples_of_ownership_behaviour
3)When I made partial reversal I invited the people involved in the major reword to look into the long discussion that has been ignored and hence the reason for adding back things that were taken out and taking out things that were already discussed that should not be in this article.
You are ignoring my invitation to reopen the discussion in /info/en/?search=Talk:Arab_Christians/Archive_8 that you and JJNito chose to ignore and go over consensus building talk. You and JJNito have both chosen to revert my edit twice with reopening the discussion which shows your and his inability to understand the policies of consensus violating /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_discussion.
If you revert again and choose not to reopen the /info/en/?search=Talk:Arab_Christians/Archive_8 discussion I will report you for disruptive editing and violating the specified policies Chris O' Hare ( talk) 22:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I looked through the archives and couldn’t find any consensus supporting your position. I have found three editors who disagreed though.
Three editors that disagree with me? This whole discussion was me and Syphax98 so you must be hallucinating on something when you looked at the discussion. I provided Syphax98 dozens of sources that he tried very hard to ignore and kept on denying them and kept coming back with nothing and asking me for more sources. He requested for comment and got nothing because he had nothing and was just pushing a point of view without any reliable sources.
And if you dont support my "position" aka sources you are welcome to elaborate and open the discussion again. Im not here in Wikipedia to present my "position", im here to present sources and stick to wikipedia's policies.
JJNito I suspect is doing the same thing with his newly published book aka major edit. He is trying to make it seems as if All Melkites and Orthodox Christians are mostly non racially Arab by toning down that Maronite are indeed non racially Arab and bring down numbers to contradict, distort and confuse the reader into believing ALL Arab Christians are the same, at least thats the tone the newly worked article now has.
Lebanese Melkites and Lebanese Orthodox Christians are indeed also non racially Arab and descendants of the Canaanites. When it comes to the Syrian Christians and some Palestinian Christians its way more mixed there since the evidence points out at least half of the Greek Orthodox Christians from Syria are descendants of Arab tribes that converted to Christianity early on in the 1st-2nd century AD.
Also lots of “Syrians” today from what used to be the Tripoli Eyalet /info/en/?search=Tripoli_Eyalet later part the Beirut Vilayet /info/en/?search=Beirut_Vilayet and “Palestinians” or “Israeli Arabs” today from what used to be the Sidon Eyalet /info/en/?search=Sidon_Eyalet later part as well of Beirut Vilayet that are being called of “Syrian descent” or “Palestinian descent/Israeli Arab descent” in the post 1945 Middle East as well as the diaspora just because those territories ended up being part of Syria in the north and Israel (before Mandatory Palestine) in the South.
So for example, someone like Teri Hatcher, whose ancestors left Ottoman Syria before 1917 from Latakia which was of the Tripoli Eyalet for like 500 years and then part of the Beirut Vilayet before the fall of the Empire in 1917 its considered of “Syrian descent” just because that area ended up as part of what is today Syria.
However when her ancestors immigrated it was part of the Beirut Vilayet-Tripoli Eyalet which makes her actually of Lebanese descent not Syrian since those areas were part of the larger “Lebanon” aka Beirut Vilayet.
Everybody whose ancestors migrated from what was the Beirut Vilayet should be called of Lebanese descent since all that area was inhabited by Christians of Lebanese descent. Only those whose ancestors migrated from what was the Vilayet of Syria outside of the Vilayet of Beirut as can be seen here https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ottoman_levant.png
Only those whose ancestors migrated from what was the Vilayet of Syria outside of the Vilayet of Beirut as can be seen here https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ottoman_levant.png should be called of “Syrian descent” or "Palestinian descent" Chris O' Hare ( talk) 23:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
2019 Selfstudier ( talk) 16:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be good if checkpoint 300 was a wl (with a really good pic)? Selfstudier ( talk) 20:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I did some editing on Ashkelon, and as one can see; the Ottoman/Mandate era has two different maps; and frankly: I think it looks messy. What if the "the ruins of the ancient city" was separate, further up? Under "Crusaders, Ayyubids, and Mamluks"?
And then "unite" the PEF map with the "Switcher"-map? (as normal)? And all on the right? There many many more wonderful pictures from Majdal that could be added, perhaps take a "gallery"-section before the "Israel"-section?
There is no hurry, but I would like hear what you think about it? Huldra ( talk) 21:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Sursock Purchases at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Guerillero
Parlez Moi 04:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
04:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Nakba is A10 because it duplicates an existing article.-- Geshem Bracha ( talk) 10:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Category:Nakba has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Geshem Bracha ( talk) 12:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
On 5 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Present (2021 film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2021 Palestinian film The Present is about a present and the present? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Present (2021 film). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, The Present (2021 film)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
On 8 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sursock Purchases, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Sursock Purchases represented almost a quarter of all land purchased by Jews in Palestine until 1948? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sursock Purchases. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Sursock Purchases), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Many people won't be able to see the difference between the two shades of green. There is some guidance at WP:COLORCONTRAST, though it is most aimed at text. Cheers. Zero talk 01:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
On 11 April 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Aten (city), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 00:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Zero talk 07:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Category:Nakba has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Given the ongoing furore, I am wondering whether this article might be better titled SJ evictions or similar. The current title makes it sound like a normal landlord tenant type affair and it obviously isn't. I leave it you, anyway. Selfstudier ( talk) 23:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
On 23 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nakba, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Nakba – the destruction of Palestinian society, their homeland, and the permanent displacement of a majority of the Palestinian people – has been described as an ongoing catastrophe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nakba. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Nakba), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
On 23 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nakba, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Nakba – the destruction of Palestinian society, their homeland, and the permanent displacement of a majority of the Palestinian people – has been described as an ongoing catastrophe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nakba. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Nakba), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you have this? Selfstudier ( talk) 15:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Sheikh Jarrah property dispute at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
ezlev
tlk/
ctrbs
23:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
To editor Huldra: and Once: It seems to me that we are not making enough use of the annual reports, which are loaded with detailed information. The versions at unispal.un.org are only snippets; for example the 1934 report at unispal stops at page 12 of the full report that runs to 307 pages. The 1938 unispal snippet has 34 pages out of 452. And so on. The full reports also have long sections on Transjordan. I have library access to all of the full reports but so far only managed to scrounge PDF files for these: 1920–1925, 1929, 1934, 1936-1938. Of course you are welcome to them. The last published report was 1938, so that means I'm missing 1926–1928, 1930–1933, and 1935. If you can manage to find any of them that would be great (a possibility is the League of Nations archive, which I find very hard to navigate). Zero talk 13:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The version of the 1924 report at https://biblio-archive.unog.ch/Dateien/CouncilMSD/C-452(I)-M-166(I)-1925-VI_EN.pdf is further enlightening as it is also abridged. See the second page for a LofN note to that effect. So, while it ends on page 58, the version published by the UK government as Colonial No. 12 has 98 pages. I think I got it from Hathitrust. I haven't sorted out the differences but one example is that the longer version contains texts of ordinances that the shorter version doesn't have.
Speaking of Hathitrust, can you all please poke your browsers at this catalogue entry. I see only "Limited (Search Only)" for each entry, but I know this can vary according to the country of the viewer. In particular someone in the USA (or with a VPN in the USA) might be able to see more. In the event that it is possible to view the document but not download the whole thing, send me mail ;). Zero talk 03:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
here Selfstudier ( talk) 10:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
For other displaced and defeated peoples, an independent state – though it sometimes constitutes only a small part of the larger homeland that was lost – has been a source of consolation, a home in which the displaced rebuilt their lives, and on which they focused their national aspirations. They could continue to dream of the realms of the past with a nostalgia tempered by the awareness that a return to them was impossible. This was the case, for example, with the Armenians, the Greeks who were dislodged from Asia Minor or Northern Cyprus, and millions of Germans who were expelled from Eastern Europe during and after World War II.which is definitely true. Palestinians would have by and large moved on and focused on the future if they had been allowed to build a sovereign nation. But they haven't and they won't be, so his suggestion is pointless; bantustans do not work.
Until they attain sovereignty of some sort, the Palestinians will not be able to develop a critical discourse about their past – and without such discourse it will be difficult to get the Israeli public to pay heed to the Palestinian narrative. For the sake of a more stable existence, therefore, the two peoples must make painful but essential historical decisions, and their practical decisions must be accompanied by an effort to reshape collective consciousness and memory.He says Palestinians need to do something that he says is impossible.
obligat[ing] both sides to consolidate a collective memorybut the more important thing is to see the here-and-now for what it really is. South African Apartheid was a competition of narratives as well, but in the end it was accepted that – irrespective of the history – the present day was unacceptably inhumane.
Hi, I just moved Kafra to Kafra, Baysan (in order to prepare for a Kafra, Lebanon article).
Alas, that messed up the maps, which now have been removed. How can I fix that?
Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 20:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I have just started articles about three Lebanese villages.
Could they possibly become a DYK? Say, with the handle "Did you know ..that the three villages Safad El Battikh, Ayta al-Jabal and Kafra in the Bint Jbeil District in Southern Lebanon were all mentioned in the 1596 Ottoman tax-records? I am not sure, though, that they have enough text? (I used to have DYK-check: have no idea where that went), Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 23:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Why does this page exist? Selfstudier ( talk) 15:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Palestinian enclaves you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Ganesha811 --
Ganesha811 (
talk)
15:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.
For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.
I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.
Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.
Thanks so much,
Sarah Sanbar
Sarabnas I'm researching Wikipedia Questions? 20:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
https://www.academia.edu/49925414/The_Origins_of_the_term_Palestinian_Filasṭīnī_in_late_Ottoman_Palestine_1898_1914?email_work_card=view-paper Zero talk 05:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to drop a quick thank you for tagging me in an interesting case study. While researching, one of the things I have found impressive is just how far the conflict spills over into other areas - including topics that might seem irrelevant to the uninitiated outsider. The article on hummus comes to mind as a humorous example of that :) If any others come to mind, I'd appreciate a tag as well. All the best, Sarabnas I'm researching Wikipedia Questions? 15:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Removing a 15-year-old tag - well done! I'm not sure I've ever removed an older one, although I've been close. I wonder what the oldest hatnote in wikipedia is? - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 11:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wadi_Hilweh&action=history
Why to there and not Silwan? Any objection if I change it? Selfstudier ( talk) 11:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
This template must be substituted. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes ( talk) 17:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi buddy, can you please add WP:PHO tags to your new Phoenicia-related articles talk pages? This will help with inventorying them.
el.ziade (
talkallam)
08:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Onceinawhile, your recent move of Buddha is based on a discussion from 2018. It has caused a malplaced disambiguation page and a boat-load of links to be fixed. Should this perhaps be discussed again to be sure that it has consensus? Leschnei ( talk) 13:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I have been trying to clean up the Lebanese populated localities; in that connection I subdevided villages the South Governorate according to their district:
Ugh, then I see that I should not have added the "the"; I should have called them
(You notice when you look at:
...all the South Governorate districts comes up under "P")
Is there a quick metod to change the cat (of some ~ 90 location)? Huldra ( talk) 23:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I see you uploaded the pictures from Mission de Phénicie to commons; I am trying to "cat" them, and I have a question: Do you know where this is from? It really reminded me of this; made in the same style/period? cheers, Huldra ( talk) 22:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
"It was in Tire and its surroundings that Renan's mission discovered many remains, notably the site of Qabr Hiram. What intrigued him was the presence of this tomb in this region and its shape. Excavations began around the tomb, a necropolis was discovered, wine presses and the remains of an ancient village. An unexpected discovery came to prove the importance of the site; a few yards from the mausoleum, one of the soldiers noticed the foot, barely emerging above the ground, of a column bearing a Greek cross. After a few blows of a pickax to clear the pillar, he came to a pavement of a small Byzantine church, which was entirely covered with a mosaic, very well preserved and under a minimal thickness of topsoil ranging from 30 to 40 centimeters. The excavation work lasted four days and the mosaic appeared in its brilliantly beautiful form, with an inscription in Greek dedicating the church to Saint Christopher (of Canaanite origin) and dated to 575."
The article
Palestinian enclaves you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Palestinian enclaves for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Szmenderowiecki --
Szmenderowiecki (
talk)
17:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/palestinian-west-bank-mahmoud-abbas-palestinians-ramallah-b1955362.html Selfstudier ( talk) 19:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
[38] Inf-in MD ( talk) 02:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Who is "Ice" in your edit summary [39]? Shrike ( talk) 07:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
U like this sort of thing, right? (if you didn't see it already) Selfstudier ( talk) 18:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
socks have a free hand Selfstudier ( talk) 22:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
On 22 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Phoenician metal bowls, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the discovery of Phoenician metal bowls (example pictured) in 1849 created the entire concept of Phoenician art? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Phoenician metal bowls. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Phoenician metal bowls), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Hook update | |
Your hook reached 11,409 views (475.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2021 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/she) 01:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Season's Greetings | |
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod ( talk) 14:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
Apologies for my mistaken corrections, I was reading the Haaretz article, which had a different spelling, presumably a paraphrasing. My guess is that with shin/tuf is referring to biblical term Phlishtim? A small note, templates don’t work in edit messages, so you’d need to type User:Example instead of Example. I take your point re avoiding a broad stroke of “two sides” or treating people as monoliths. Thinking more thoroughly, I’d like to know what the government terms are, during the negotiations proceedings for example. I’ll save more thoughts for the talk page itself. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The process was very easy. In the agreement signed in '93, all those areas that would be part of final status agreement—settlements, Jerusalem, etc.—were known. So I took out those areas, along with those roads and infrastructure that were important to Israel in the interim period. It was a new experience for me. I did not have experience of mapmaking before. I of course used many different civilian and military organizations to gather data on the infrastructure, roads, water pipes, etc. I took out what I thought important for Israel.Since it is now widely considered that even the new Israeli government will not negotiate with the Palestinians (arguing that a negotiated outcome is "impossible"), the government terms today are almost certainly the same as they were at Oslo – keep everything important for Israel, and the Palestinians can keep the rest. As to what "the rest" is, well it seems that successive US and Israeli administrations have simply not spent the time to understand what the resulting enclaves feel like from a Palestinian perspective and thus why no Palestinian leader would ever be able to acquiesce to them. My personal view is that the Palestinian leadership would be willing to find a compromise on everything else (Jerusalem, refugees, etc) but to agree to a permanent state of being divided and surrounded by their century-long oppressor is impossible. Onceinawhile ( talk) 03:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Re this, since he didn't write it why is it relevant? It is nothing like his writing and if anything misrepresents him by association. Zero talk 13:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Bonar and McCheyne returned to Scotland as well and distributed a widely read memorandum, "A Narrative of a Mission of Inquiry to the Jews From the Church of Scotland in 1839" (1842). This was followed by "Memorandum to Protestant Monarchs of Europe for the restoration of the Jews to Palestine" and appeared in the London Times (1840). Lord Shaftesbury was integrally involved in these developments…
The article
Palestinian enclaves you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:Palestinian enclaves for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Szmenderowiecki --
Szmenderowiecki (
talk)
02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
On 2 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Palestinian enclaves, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank (map pictured) constitute an "archipelago" of 165 islands? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Palestinian enclaves. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Palestinian enclaves), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 12:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hook update | |
Your hook reached 11573 views (964.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2022 – nice work! |
Bruxton ( talk) 04:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
date = n.d.
) or author(s) (use author = <!-- not stated -->
). Off to bed now. --
NSH001 (
talk)
23:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Hi, do you know the exact location of Umm al-Amad, Lebanon? On wikidata there are two co-ords, I think the southern-most is correct, no? Huldra ( talk) 23:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
On 12 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of Egyptian obelisks, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there are only about 30 Ancient Egyptian obelisks (example pictured) left standing worldwide—and Italy has more than Egypt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of Egyptian obelisks. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, List of Egyptian obelisks), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hook update | |
Your hook reached 13,953 views (1,162.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2022 – nice work! |
Bruxton ( talk) 14:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I just came by to thank you for this amazing article. You never cease to amaze me! el.ziade ( talkallam) 23:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Drsmoo (
talk)
05:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
El_C 10:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Onceinawhile ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
@
El C: I asked for your help the last time we interacted, over a year ago,
to understand more about how to avoid crossing your perceived red lines. Unfortunately we ran out of time. We established back then that you choose to read into and interpret editors' words in certain ways, perhaps influenced by the petitioners' initial characterization, and it is not always possible editors like me to predict that. You wrote a year ago Onceinawhile, it is what it is. I'm not omniscient and can only act on the evidence that is before of me. If you can find an admin who is willing to do more (intensively, extensively), I'm happy for them to take the lead on this. As a possibility, expect a nominal error rate to may be a factor, in general, as you do with all things. I'm not expecting perfection from you, so you should, in turn, not expect it from me. I just expect you not to slip again on that page, at least not for a long while.
We can discuss each others' perspectives on the sentence that you objected to, but last time you didn't have time to discuss in detail and I suspect you won't have time now either. You have made your judgement against my choice of words, but did not provide any explanation. You admitted your own wording mistake when we discussed a year ago, having written "Please don't feign respect"
. In your ANI post just now you wrote about "their camp"
, which is not appropriate language for any of us to use. What do you think my camp is? Other established editors who build high quality articles in a difficult topic area? I also reacted when reading the sentence The problem with issuing a TBAN to an established ARBPIA editor...
and would ask you to reconsider it. You did not mention what I consider to biggest problem to be, that established editors in the area contribute hugely to this project. Sometimes we all use language too loosely, and that is wrong. So long as no disruption is occurring (which it most certainly was not), we should each be given an opportunity to discuss, consider, and resolve any concerns. I acknowledge we have an onus on us to be careful; as I said to you a year ago, I am trying. In the last year I have given a lot to this project, with a good article, multiple DYKs, and about 5000 edits. You said a year ago that I am not expecting perfection from you
, but now you appear to be.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
11:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I hadn't realized that you had multiple open unblock requests when I closed the one below. My apologies. Procedural close - no longer blocked. SQL Query Me! 00:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
We can discuss each others' perspectives on the sentence that you objected to, but last time you didn't have time to discuss in detail and I suspect you won't have time now either. You have made your judgement against my choice of words, but did not provide any explanation.
You admitted your own wording mistake when we discussed a year ago, having written "Please don't feign respect"
. In your ANI post just now you wrote about "their camp"
, which is not appropriate language for any of us to use. What do you think my camp is? Other established editors who build high quality articles in a difficult topic area? I also reacted when reading the sentence The problem with issuing a TBAN to an established ARBPIA editor...
and would ask you to reconsider it. You did not mention what I consider to biggest problem to be, that established editors in the area contribute hugely to this project.
Sometimes we all use language too loosely, and that is wrong. So long as no disruption is occurring (which it most certainly was not), we should each be given an opportunity to discuss, consider, and resolve any concerns. I acknowledge we have an onus on us to be careful; as I said to you a year ago, I am trying. In the last year I have given a lot to this project, with a good article, multiple DYKs, and about 5000 edits. You said a year ago that I am not expecting perfection from you
, but now you appear to be.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
11:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)}}
Onceinawhile, what do you mean? You are the petitioner here, not really addressing your own conduct sufficiently. You want me to spell out the narrow circumstances of that final warning? That I started it by saying that an ARBPIA TBAN would be "draconian" (i.e. only an WP:ABAN was on the table)? Here, I guess. But you should know that I regretted saying that as the conversation continued, because I felt you were NOTTHEM bludgeoning, much like you are doing now.
You may or may not care for my advise, but I'll give to you at least one more: the spirit of NOTHEM would have been to take a more flowingly introspective approach overall, rather than getting bogged down in the weeds of a particular dispute from a year ago. Because the impression people might get is you trying to navigate procedure rather than getting to the heart of the matter.
But you know what? Maybe I'm the one who has gotten it wrong here. We can see what others have to say. You are of course entitled to a robust defense of your own choosing, which I don't intend of standing in the way of. El_C 13:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Personally I think it would have been appropriate to first assume good faith and ask me what I meant by my words.Okay, so it was inappropriate and a failure to assume good faith on my part. Got it. But, to me, that feels like NOTTHEM, yet still. Sorry, I don't really have much else to add right now. El_C 15:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Onceinawhile ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
I made a mistake. And the block was a mistake too.
My mistake was to use a phrase which was too strong, and too easily misunderstood. My choice of wording was poor. I was trying to summarize in half a sentence something that happened four years ago, and I used unnecessarily elaborate words which I had not fully thought through. I certainly did not mean to make an allegation (and actually I do not believe) that there was any unusual coordination between the three editors back in 2018. Two links to support this: (1) an explanation of why I did not anticipate the word "concerted" being read literally, [41] and (2) proof that in almost 40,000 edits here I have never used the word "concerted" before and so had never really thought through its implications. [42]
The block was a mistake because:
Since the spectre of a TBAN warning was raised, I should also point out that such a warning would be equally inappropriate:
"our encyclopedia has the opportunity to become the subject's most balanced reference point, with a truly bilateral narrative"; we cannot make that happen whilst living in fear.
El C was kind enough to write "But you know what? Maybe I'm the one who has gotten it wrong here. We can see what others have to say."
[48], and I appreciate his open-mindedness. For the avoidance of doubt, rescinding the block would not change the fact that I made a mistake, which I fully accept and apologize for.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
19:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I just don't see how one can claim that "I remember finding the concerted attack frightening", is anything other than an intense statement of us-vs-them and tendentious editing. Regarding alternate definitions of concerted, the word was applied to the cumulative actions of three different editors, so it can't be claimed that it was meant in the singular sense. The usage fits the standard definition perfectly. And even, for the sake of argument, if a conspiracy wasn't being alleged, it's still being referred to as an "attack" and "frightening". How is one supposed to edit constructively with someone who views standard edits that reflect another viewpoint as "frightening" and an "attack"?
I also resent and reject the claim that there were "false characterizations" in my post, there weren't.
It may be worth pointing out that hostility and personal attacks are absolutely nothing new from this editor, I have personally, (along with others) been the recipient of a large amount of vitriol from this editor over a long period, some of which has been recorded in noticeboard posts, some of which remains strewn across talk pages. As an example, being baselessly called a racist just over a year ago (which is partially what inspired the previous warning), along with all of the other vitriolic comments Onceinawhile made across that talk page.
The below are some examples copied from an AN/I filed back in 2016(!), so this is nothing new:
And here is the A/R/E submission from roughly a year ago, particularly, the additional examples posted by Levivich, the aggressive editing has continued. Drsmoo ( talk) 02:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Decline reason:
Block has expired. SQL Query Me! 16:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi @ El C: thanks for your question. I don't know the difference between the two – the block was at AN, so that seems more natural, but should it matter either way? Onceinawhile ( talk) 10:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
acknowledge [your] mistake and take full responsibility for itrather than qualifying it with a but them counter at every turn. That is not "full," in my view, it is partial at best. El_C 11:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
many attempts [etc.]. Anyway, I don't really want this 'venue thread' to turn into a parallel mini-appeal, so let's not spit that discussion further. Thanks. El_C 11:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
El_C. I've watched this, and the prior episodes of this on-going interpretative incomprehension between Onceinawhile and yourself for years now, disconcerted as a linguist at the, well, frankly, madness of this Kafkian interaction. Everyone knows that Onceinawhile is one of the finest historically minded editors in this impossible area, and since the minefield he works in has been accumulatively criss-crossed with intricate tripwires about what can and cannot be said or implied by him, each new tripwire being the result of piddling complaints that have some undoubted rationale nonetheless in the recondite niceties of policy perfectionism, Onceinawhile has been forced to gyrate with an absurd gymnastic discursiveness that, as you read it (WP:NOTTHEM), cannot but feed your own sense of fedupedness, ergo: ban him for life from the IP area where he excels over what seems to me to be pettifogging punctilio. These humilitating convolutions can't but remind one of Catherine Zeta-Jones's gymnastic ballet in sneaking past the lasar-protected system in Entrapment, which is the mot propre inadvertently set in place by this reciprocal talking at cross purposes.
In short, I think you erred in arrogating to yourself the discretion to go ballistic if the latest trip wire was grazed. Ridding Wikipedia of a superlatively knowledgeable and, almost invariably, consensus-building contributor means all perspective has been lost. When you stated:'broadly speaking, your side is pro-Palestine, while the opposing camp is pro-Israel,' you should have taken the hint from your own words. I have always read, for example, the Che Guevara photo on your page as implying an analogy between 1948 and Che's theory of wars of liberation. Perhaps I am wrong. The opposition, as often noted, between 'pro-Israeli' and 'pro-Palestinian' is politically insulting and instrumentally tactical: those who see things in stark binary oppositions are tempted to ignore the merits of specific edits, and take them as predictably biased towards a cause depending on whose perceived camp the editor in question is in (WP:AGF is violated). Just recently, I can't recall where, Onceinawhile found himself arguing against several editors whom, in your description, belong to the same 'camp' (as opposed to several editors who are somewhat obsessive about historical details). He stuck by his guns, and argued intensively for his point of view, precisely as he does in interacting with you. Patience. No harm done. Best practice should have been to be somewhat more detached, given the fact you two do not get along, and ask another arbitrtator or two to look at the crux. It is obvious over the years escapes both of you. It is also obvious that few people on the planet would have the sitzfleisch to scrupulously examine the rubbled mountain of ancient exchanges that has been piled up from the molehill of nugatory discursive infractions Onceinawhile has been systematically accused of by those who dislike his presence here. That, for example, saying recalling one was 'frightened' at the way three editors some years ago, one a notorious sockpuppet, appear to act in a 'concerted' fashion is somewhat pathetic: people in the real world shouldn't be 'frightened' by such petty noxiousness, any more than someone should think they are acting rationally, and in the high interests of an encyclopedia, by jumping at such a confession as appalling evidence that the editor who wrote that en passant should be hauled before the execution platoon and have his wiki career 'liquidated'. Jeezus. Nishidani ( talk) 12:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't expect Selfstudier, Zero0000, or Nishidani to take issue when I indef TBAN'd one of the appellant principal opponents at the time, Wikieditor19920. It makes sense that they wouldn't.
( edit conflict) I don't think I've lost perspective, Nishidani, I'm just not interested in getting into a drawn out thing with you about the epistemology of it; like, which side supports which positions, how each views their opposition, pro/anti, etc. And even if the s-word itself should be uttered. But I do think that I have a nuanced understanding of ARBPIA and other DSs (not to be un-humble, more than most). Knowing how and when to employ nuance is, well... nuanced. Obviously, the rulers are shit, that isn't really in dispute, at least between you and me.
But there are still positions, concerning the masses of people. Historical and political and economic positions. I don't know what else you expect me to say that you wouldn't consider "piddling" or "dead wrong." I'm not going to apologize for trying to maintain an environment conducive to collaboration, in any of the DS areas. But, if the appeal succeeds, then I'll certainly be re-evaluating all that. Which may well happen, who knows. El_C 14:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
El C, this doesnt really belong on AE as it isnt pertinent, but I also find the characterization misleading. There are approximately 0 editors who can objectively be said to advocate "views that usually favour the Palestinian position versus those which usually favour the Israeli one" of things here. I'm probably the closest to that, and it has earned me the undying love of various pro-Israel websites on the interwebs, but there is legit not one single person who can objectively said to do that. There is certainly an internationalist one, but no, definitely not a Palestinian one. Nobody advocates for Hamas' position the way Likud's is here. Or the PFLP apropos Jewish Home. People certainly do push a right wing Israeli position, but no, nobody is writing Tel Aviv is in occupied Palestine and being treated as though they were a serious editor here. Thats been the problem with trying to divide people in to these groupings and think of this as the Palestinian side vs the Israeli side. The West Bank vs Judea and Samaria conflict is representative of that in this regard. You had one group advocating for the use, in Wikipedia's "neutral" voice, terminology that was very much identifiable with one "side". Nobody advocated for the language used by the other "side". Nobody would say occupied Palestine for Ramallah much less Jerusalem, much less Tel Aviv. That would be advocating "views that favour the Palestinian position", but it simply does not exist. nableezy - 22:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
As Nishidani points out, I have been trying to understand El C's interpretation of NOTTHEM for some time. El C does not wish to discuss further, which is fine.
Can anyone else help me understand? I would like to be able to give El C comfort that I have listened and learned.
My specific question at the moment is how [the] statement (that I have tried to reconcile in the past) qualifies my acknowledgement and responsibility for my mistake.
Explanations of any examples from my appeal would be appreciated too. I thought I was 100% clear that I fully accept and take responsibility for my mistake.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Please could someone copy this to the AE. Onceinawhile ( talk) 13:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTTHEM and bludgeoning problems [in discussions with admins]… adoption of novel ideas that concern warnings, sanctions… just a bit [of]… self-restraint [in discussions with admins].
Please could the below be copied to the AE discussion. Many thanks. Onceinawhile ( talk) 00:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
seem to lack the overall understanding of what kind of behavior is acceptable and not acceptable- by appealing, I have made it harder for people to see my understanding of the mistake I made. My fault.
Just found this. Interesting, but did you know you copied some of my text into it? I doubt it, but didn't you know that when you copy from another article it's a legal requirement to mention it in the edit summary? And I don't see a source for the last sentence. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
On the article page for Byblos syllabary, you posted a color picture of one of the objects. I had not previously seen a color photograph of these. I was wondering where you were able to get this and if there are other color photographs of this and the other objects somewhere? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18ainrete ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, on the map File:Palestine Land ownership by sub-district (1945).jpg, the French description do not reflect the English historical translation. Indeed the French annotation reads "Réparation de la propriété agraire" which can be translated as "Distribution of the agrarian property", which relate to the cultivated land as of 1945 and do not describe ownership over all territories.
The white area is public land but also leased land, and foreign ownership was very common, evaluated as around 8%. I think there should be an extensive description of those "non-Jewish areas", in fact not mentioning it is misleading, as a significative pourcentage of land ownership is omitted. -- Vanlister ( talk) 11:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
…which relate to the cultivated land as of 1945 and do not describe ownership over all territories… The white area is public land but also leased land, and foreign ownership was very common. The data I provided allows you to see the entire picture – it is the full dataset, which I thought it what you were hoping to see. Onceinawhile ( talk) 15:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Just an FYI that selectively notifying participants, while in the middle of a discussion, and particularly when the “ideological factions” are so well known could be perceived as Canvassing. To be clear, I actually don’t have any objection to your or the previous editor’s contributions in these instances, but notifying specific users is something I have always avoided for the reasons below :
canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While
friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a
neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are
indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain
point of view or side of a debate, or which are
selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
Drsmoo (
talk)
11:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I’m referring to pinging specific uninvolved users in the middle of a discussion. Please see above for more clarification Drsmoo ( talk) 11:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
On 17 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jisr el-Majami, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Italy helped to renovate a bridge between Israel and Jordan? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Jisr el-Majami), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 12:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I more than doubled the resolution of Jerusalem 10K. Next I'll upload two 1:20K of the same place for 1930s and 1940s. Zero talk 13:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I am working on a new article "Declarations of State Land in the West Bank". Want to team up on it? You can put in your dyk list when its done:) I'll do a stub and go from there. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
K, the article is here now. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
On 7 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that only one hydroelectric plant was built on the Jordan River, out of the fourteen planned by Pinhas Rutenberg (depicted)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Edit_requests#Argument_about_these_procedures Zero talk 12:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Why do people add sources to a reference section when they aren't used as reference in the article. Isn't that what we have a general "Sources" section for? I am asking you after noticing this edit of yours. Debresser ( talk) 20:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
In this map, there are both a black dashed line and a red dashed line, some distance apart, around the E and S of Palestine. Do you know anything about that? Zero talk 13:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
On 27 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Handala, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Handala is considered to portray the Palestinian identity "with astounding clarity"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Handala. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Handala), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I found the information I need here. Now I can make a script that takes a piece A of the 1940s maps with known borders in the Palestine Grid, and automatically constructs a piece B of maps.wikimedia of the same location at the same scale, and an animation C from A to B. The initial image A will need to be made by hand using the grid lines. Instead of C, we can explore javascript options and make a template for it. Do you see any issues? Zero talk 12:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Infobox settlement#Why_not_more_wikidata?. Also use the Archives search for "Wikidata" at Template talk:Infobox person. I share many of the concerns raised. Zero talk 06:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Survey of Palestine at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
CMD (
talk)
17:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Hebraization of Palestinian place names at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
BlueMoonset (
talk)
17:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The Dumbledore Wizardry Barnstar | ||
For Once’s cartographic acumen, and coordination in magically putting Palestinians back on the map. Nishiduncy 07:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC) |
Sorry, I'm technically inept, and I'm sure one more competent than I (doesn't take much) can readapt to get the right, discreetly smaller image centered. Best regards Nishidani ( talk) 09:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
On 20 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Survey of Palestine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Survey of Palestine was the only government department in Mandatory Palestine not headquartered in Jerusalem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Survey of Palestine. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Survey of Palestine), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I've recreated the 1945 maps of Mandatory Palestine into an SVG file that can be editted. Right now I am mastering the map and on the same time making a map of population count in each locality ( preview). Do you have any idea what kind of maps can be produced with this? I am planning on making a map for population density and religious affiliation.-- Bolter21 ( talk to me) 16:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this, how comes it says " Survey of Israel (1928)"? I didn't know there was a "Survey of Israel (1928)"?
I could change it direct, but I assume it is from some central template, or whatnot, and we should change it there? Huldra ( talk) 23:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Responses_(MEMRI). If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please strike your comment.
Infinity Knight (
talk)
17:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Onceinawhile. I noticed that your recent edit to
Al-Khalasa added a link to an image on an external website or on your computer, or to a file name that does not exist on Wikipedia's server. For technical and policy reasons it is not possible to use images from external sources on Wikipedia. Most images you find on the internet are copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia, or their use is subject to certain
restrictions. If the image meets Wikipedia's
image use policy, consider
uploading it to Wikipedia yourself or
request that someone else upload it. See the
image tutorial to learn about wiki syntax used for images. Thank you.
- Sumanuil (
talk)
02:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Al-Hamma, Tiberias needs construction by hand because of its location. See here. It isn't on the PEF map. There is a map by Schumacher that could be used in place of PEF. For Al-Mansura, Acre, the overlay map breaks but the other three maps are ok and I'll send them. Zero talk 08:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
On 7 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the name of the former Palestinian village al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta may have been a tribute to the Mamluk sultan al-Zahir Baybars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
In Special:Diff/971814668, you used {{ Image frame}} with both align=left and align=right. What did you mean to do there? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 18:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
On 11 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hebraization of Palestinian place names, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there is a recent trend to reverse the Hebraization of street names in mixed Jewish–Arab cities in Israel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hebraization of Palestinian place names. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Hebraization of Palestinian place names), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I updated Template:Historical map series to allow 6 maps. See Talk:Kfar Chabad for an example. I didn't try to add that to the article infobox. Three things about this template are sub-optimal: (1) text doesn't flow around it, (2) it would be good if the "show all" option could be optionally suppressed, (3) how to put it in a figure with an overall caption? See User talk:Jackmcbarn#switcher-container class. Zero talk 14:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Bloom6132 (
talk) has given you a
dove! Doves promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{ subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
I'm sorry for the things I said in the heat of the moment. Thanks for proving to be the bigger person! — Bloom6132 ( talk) 21:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi habibi, please tag your new articles with {{PHOA}} assessment tag and add categories to the mainspace. If you hesitate or don't feel like it ping me and i will take it from there. NB: GREAT JOB! ~ Elias Z. ( talkallam) 05:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again for the amazing work (and Zero!) have done on the map-section of the 1948-villages!
I have one little point: this in effect means that there are 4 new files to put into each commons-category; I have started to do so (eg on Arab Suqrir), alas I am slooooow (and ~400x4 =~1600 edits).
Do you have any magic method to speed it up? cheers, Huldra ( talk) 23:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
To editor Huldra: We have a much larger collection of map sequences for post-1948 locations, but they need a lot of work before they are ready. Zero talk 07:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Also, at Az-Zakariyya something has gone wrong with the maps? Huldra ( talk) 20:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Yoninah (
talk)
14:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
File:Survey of Palestine 1942-1958 1-100,000 sheet index georef.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
17:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Hi. I was dealing with the Siege of Jerusalem page when a careful editor removed this: "Sack of Jerusalem (350 BCE) by Artaxerxes III, who retakes the city from Jewish rebels and burns it down", correctly noting that the linked article says nothing about Artaxerxes and Jerusalem. I dug a bit deeper, and found out that this line was adopted from the Timeline of Jerusalem, where loooong time ago you added a lot of good material, but also this:
The edit is here, 22:38, 17 September 2010.
That seems to be totally wrong, unless you can prove otherwise (there are no inline sources for the entire paragraph; 2010, I know, different times). I can see from good sources, not just from Wiki, that there have been several regional revolts against Achaemenid rule in the region around that time, leading to Persian interventions. During the one fitting the date, in 351-50, Pharaoh Nectanebo II successfully repelled the Persians. In a next revolt, taking place between 350-347, King Tennes of Sidon (r. 351-347) and several allies managed to repulse two satraps, but was defeated when Artaxerxes arrived with an army of Greeks and Persians, burning down Sidon (he or the citizens themselves did it). Jews of Phoenicia who had been allied to Tennes were exiled to the south coast of the Caspian Sea. So in c. 347, not 350. In a 1986 paper from the the Society of Biblical Literature, on p. 638, the expedition of Artaxerxes III against Tennes and his allies (so from c. 347) is cited as the cause for the destruction layers excavated at Hazor, Megiddo, Athlit, Lachish, Jericho - but not a word about Jerusalem. Then Artaxerxes again invaded Egypt in 343 and this time he defeated Nectanebo II, Jews from Egypt being sent either to Babylon or to the same location on the Caspian Sea as those from Phoenicia in 346.
There had been previous revolts and wars, one between Nectanebo I and Artaxerxes II beginning in the 370s and continuing throughout the 360s, starting off a wave of regional revolts. The son of Nectanebo I, Tachos/Teos, tried around 360 to take the war to the Persians, but failed. In the 1986 paper, it's the 365/4-362 revolt that is associated with the story of Bagoas/Bagoses. One of the Persian generals of Artaxerxes III is a certain Bagoas, and Nöldeke, Wellhausen and others identify him with Bagoses from Josephus' Antiquities (so says the Jerusalem art. of the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906). Josephus writes how Bagoses defiled the Temple and had the Jews pay a tax on each lamb offered at the Temple for the next 7 years because the High Priest John/Yohanan had killed his own brother Jesus/Yeshua inside the Temple, and Yeshua happened to be Bagoses' friend (see the text for instance here, Ant. 11.302-347 or here, Book XI, Ch. 7:1-2). Anyway, the paper states almost as proven fact that the High-Priest-cum-governor from Jerusalem had also taken part in that revolt during the 2nd half of the 360s (pp. 637-8).
That's all I could find. Nowhere anything from this period about a siege of Jerusalem by Artaxerxes III ending with him burning down the city. Wherever else in Judea there are traces of Persian destruction, it's from the earlier war, in c. 362, by the previous Persian king, Artaxerxes II, not A. III. Also the Caspian Sea exile is from c. 347 (this one maybe comes close) and 343. Nothing fits.
This would also have been a third destruction of Jerusalem, quite memorable, and everybody only mentions two, 586 BCE and 70 CE.
So: can you figure out what the source was, and check again if you still trust it? For now I will amend both pages based on what I have found. Thank you, Arminden ( talk) 21:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, it makes perfect sense now, this would fit well the Temple desecration story from Josephus or who knows what. No burning down of Jerusalem, that's important now. Somebody probably overinterpreted those difficult two verses from Isaiah and presented their imaginative interpretation as historical fact. Don't worry, I started editing after you, I think, and didn't do it any different. Arminden ( talk) 23:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Dear Onceinawhile. You are an amazing Wikipedian, whereas I am still a novice. However, I found that you just like me often use quotations in footnotes (e.g. Philistines and Kadesh inscriptions). However, despite undeniably enhancing verifiability, they seem not to be well accepted among editors. Some deleted the quotations my footnotes (see Battle of Entzheim revision 18:55 29 June 2020). Some want me to change to a simpler citation style "In future, 'Burke (1949), p. 3' is all that is necessary." ( Talk:Sir George Hamilton, Comte Hamilton). Certain AWB users apply "General fixes" to my quotations thereby "correcting" them, mainly by removing commas from dates in old-fashioned formats (e.g. "1 July, 1642" -> "1 July 1642"). One friendly, very experienced user on 28 Oct 2019 logged the bug T236729 "Genfixes removes comma from quoted date" in Phabricator, but its status still is "Open, Needs Triage". I wonder whether you have experienced similar problems. What could be done to make editors see the usefulness of quotations in footnotes? With many thanks, Johannes Schade ( talk) 16:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Russian Bank at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Binksternet (
talk)
01:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi habibi do you have an article about the Ford collection sarcophagi? Also can you help me populate Category:Phoenician art?
In 1930, the American Presbyterian Mission School donated the newly named Ford Collection of anthropoid sarcophagi to the Beirut National Museum together with a number of other artifacts. This is still today the largest collection of this type of sarcophagi in the world.
Hello! Your submission of
Carpentras Stela at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --
RoySmith
(talk)
22:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
On another issue, do you know an easy way to split up books, and upload the pictures independently?
To be specific; Charles William Meredith van de Velde published a book in 1857, it is uploaded to commons, here. That is nearly useless, unless they are uploaded individually and categorised. Looking at the contents, it has some pictures from places where we have no previous pictures from, say Kfarhamam.
I have uploaded some, one after the other, link, link, link, but it is sloooooow.
Do you know of any easier way of doing it? (I don't mind adding the correct cats to the files, afterwards, if neccessary!) Huldra ( talk) 23:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
That is excellent! A few I suspected (like the Mount Carmel one) some of the other (eg Ayta ash Shab) were completely unknown to me. Incidentally, Victor Guérin (who I believe visited Hazour ou Hazireh); his books at archive have been completely mixed around :( That means my User:Huldra/Guerin is pretty useless/needs to be updated :( not only that, but each and every Guérin-link on en.wp needs to be updated :( I hope this is just a "glitch" and that they will return the old links....
While we are at it, there were a few others I wondered about, if you could check I would be grateful:
Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 21:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
On 13 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Russian Bank, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Russian Bank, also known as Crapette or Tunj, has been called "probably the best game for two players ever invented"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Russian Bank. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Russian Bank), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hook update | |
Your hook reached 21,573 views (898.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2020 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 19:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Yoninah (
talk)
20:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The article cites "Wilson 1881" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]]
to
your common.js page. Thanks,
Renata (
talk)
01:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
My edit was not a "joke". Trump has been nominated multiple times for the Nobel Peace Prize. [9] (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind the revert, but I didn't see any consensus for this article to be exempt from MOS:LEAD. Can you point me at it explicitly? Cheers. The Rambling Man ( Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
On 1 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that almost half the known words in Phoenician inscriptions (example pictured) have never been found again? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Hook update | |
Your hook reached 10,142 views (780.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2020 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/ they) 09:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Onceinawhile! FYI, the answer on ANI [10] is not really satisfactory ("content dispute"). If have asked for page protection now. [11] – Austronesier ( talk) 09:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Greetings to you 🙂 Mr.Karmi ( talk) 23:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, Just a note that the PEF-section map in Al-Dalhamiyya isn't particularly useful? Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 20:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, Khirbat al-Muntar, on SWP map 4 Kh. el Muntar is just east of the present SWP-map in the article? Huldra ( talk) 23:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
On 7 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Carpentras Stele, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Carpentras Stele, the first ancient Semitic inscription ever published, was originally thought to be Phoenician but is actually ancient Aramaic? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Carpentras Stele), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
—valereee ( talk) 12:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article West Bank bantustans is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bank bantustans until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jr8825 • Talk 17:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Memories :) Selfstudier ( talk) 14:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I would say that it is by no means clear that the deleters have cleared the bar for deletion, they would need a rough consensus and since there are quite a few keepers, it seems to me the likely outcome is no con/do a rename. You never know what a closer will do of course but a straight vote count seems not the right thing here, those alleging a fork have made a very poor case and it is notable that many of the "outside" voters are keepers. If it is deleted, so be it, then at least we know what we are dealing with. It's your article so I'm not going to criticize your tactics but personally I would not discuss a rename before a decision. I would rather know if Wikipedia is willing to delete an article like this based on that discussion. Selfstudier ( talk) 00:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Let me know and I'll take a look tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I saw two recent edits of yours with edit summary "Replying to Selfstudier" that were actually replies to other people. I don't know how reply-link works; was that your slips or is there a bug that needs reporting? Zero talk 12:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
West Bank bantustans at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! As a minor note, one quote includes the text "the o≤cial Oslo II map", which I assume is a typo for "official"?
CMD (
talk)
17:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I just came to Wikipedia to look up something and thought to check up on WP friend, who had a link to the bantustan's deletion, and so I'm drawn in. Not retired, yet, and have no Basic Income so not going to be drawn back into WP editing. Good luck.
Alatari ( talk) 13:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
11Fox11 ( talk) 02:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't like to use the word lie but sadly I am afraid you told a rather bold untruth about me. I at no point confirmed anything about citation, and as a matter of fact never even commented on how widely cited Motro was. Could you please strike the untruth that I "How helpful of you to confirm that the source is widely cited". I think everything would go a lot better if we were honest. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 03:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I really think we ought to de-emphasize the "West Bank" aspect and tilt the material especially in the lead (title has to wait) to "Palestine". People looking at West Bank and promptly start talking about Oslo, A's and B's when Gaza is a bantustan and East Jerusalem is being turned into them as well. One overarching idea behind the creation of these "islands" is the prevention of a de facto State of Palestine. You see what I am getting at? Selfstudier ( talk) 12:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
More like:
The bantustans, [a] figuratively described as the Palestine Archipelago, [b] [3] [4] [5] are proposed enclaves for Palestine under a variety of US and Israeli-led proposals to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [c] [6]
References
Hi, Is there any reason what there is no "1940s with modern overlay map" for Al-Mansura, Acre? Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 20:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
And did the "modern overlay" slip up on Danna, Baysan? Pleas see this, Huldra ( talk) 22:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Abu Zurayq, Ein Hod and Atlit are missing? And on Arab al-Fuqara, the SWP7 map does not include Mukam Sheikh Helu? (the section is to the west of the Mukam) Huldra ( talk) 21:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey could you please improve the page Colony of Libera Kanto7 ( talk) 09:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Here is a good link Colony of Liberia Kanto7 ( talk) 11:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Please improve this page. I feel like the Colony of Liberia needs it's on page as the page called Military Administartion in Ethiopia exists and it has barely any info Kanto7 ( talk) 11:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
National parks and nature reserves of Israel This article is very annoying, yes it admits that some of them are not in Israel but the title.... As you are aware the legal gymnastics required to spin this as somehow not being COGAT control, the entire legal set up is completely distinct from the parks that are actually in Israel. This has to be non-NPOV doesn't it? Selfstudier ( talk) 12:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Idalion bilingual at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Yoninah (
talk)
01:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
For your orientation, your editing is criticized in https://david-collier.com/wiki-antisemitic/. A link was posted to Wikipedia:Help desk#Hate on Wikipedia. PrimeHunter ( talk) 14:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
RM and RFC. Thank you.
Shrike (
talk)
21:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Shall we do something about Mount Hebron? Selfstudier ( talk) 23:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I am posting on your edits at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. 11Fox11 ( talk) 08:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Within minutes of Golan’s speech, the right wing spin machine leaped into action, inflating his words, taking them out of context, blowing them up to diabolical proportions. Rather than challenging Golan’s assertion that disturbing trends in Israeli society evoke associations to Germany and Europe in the 1930s, which is what he actually said, his words were twisted to suggest that he had compared the IDF to the Wehrmacht, Israel to the Nazis and Palestinians, by logical extension, to persecuted Jews about to be carted off to concentration camps. With the ground thus prepared, politicians started piling up on Golan, accusing him of defiling his own IDF, defaming the state and aiding and abetting BDS. The self-induced mass hysteria quickly turned into a virtual witch-hunt, which I can only assume Golan was also prepared for, because it is part and parcel of the ominous trends that he was warning against
I'm flabbergasted to see the process against you at the AE board! I cannot imagine an editor who is more able to keep his cool than you are. It seems to me that some users are successfully gaming the system by carefully going through their enemies edits and collecting evidence and then initiating trials. I think this is underhanded. The right way to go about it is to first warn users that you think their behavior is over the line and then, if they don't change, start a trial. The user who filed the suit against you used a similar strategy against me. They did not tell me what they thought was improper, but when they had enough evidence they launched a trial. It's a shame that the administrators are unable to stop this. These attempts by editors to snipe others are very unpleasant. ImTheIP ( talk) 11:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile, To avoid having 17 more tabs open in my browser, I lifted the following from the "Statement by Levivich" at the AE thread, since he helpfully included short relevant quotes. Yeah, the context isn't all there, but it's something to work with.
Extended content
|
---|
|
Now the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. A commonality in the excerpts above is that you are discussing other editors. In some limited cases (like sock-puppetry) that is acceptable, but generally it's not helpful. It derails discussion, inflames emotions, and impedes the formation of consensus. What I want from you is a commitment to focus on content instead of contributors. ~ Awilley ( talk) 05:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Awilley. Feel free to ignore this, if only on legitimate WP:TLDR grounds.
The residual effect of a Catholic background unfortunately makes me feel Sunday without a sermon is somehow not quite Sunday. May I be permitted a reflection on this ugly little incident? There is an Italian proverb: Lanciare/tirare il sasso e (poi ritirare) nascondere la mano (throw a stone and hide one’s hand). It refers to behaviour where the first person to trigger an escalation intervenes so deftly that their role as provocateur is lost to view, while everyone focuses on the behaviour, the reaction, of the person hit by the stone, and it is he or she who is threatened with being hauled to the pillory.
Thought I do not believe the person who threw the stone here thought of his remarks in terms of the motivation implied by the proverb, his remark did skew Once’s coolheaded argument about analogies (ghetto/Warsaw for instance) as implicitly antisemitic. Has there ever being a single instance of a public discussion of Israel and its occupation where someone hasn’t tried to shut down the conversation by derailing it into an innuendo about the participants’ ulterior motives? i.e., by raising the spectre of antisemitism? This has become the default mode of parrying criticism of an occupation, by endlessly suggesting that whoever raises the topic must pass some quarantine inspection for their general attitudes to Jews, before they dare venture to comment. It carries with it a strong sense of the ethnic ownership of the arguments: the word ghetto refers to ‘our’ history: use it of Palestinians and you are preying on ‘our’ sensitivities, an open wound. This is what Michael Rothberg ( 'From Gaza to Warsaw: Mapping multidirectional memory in Criticism , Fall 2011, Vol. 53, No. 4,pp. 523-548) would call a zero-sum game in an absurd rivalry over remembramce that occasionally leads to polemics where each party endeavours to secure a singular position in what is a kind of competitive claim to victimization. Analogy between distinct ethnic realities is thought of as humiliating rather than enlightening.
No. No one owns language, and no ethnic proprietorial right can be imposed on history. Ghetto itself has been used as a generic term for lower class slums, run-down metropolitan ethnic enclaves, since the late 19th century. The Warsaw analogy was notoriously evoked by an IDF officer two decades ago, and has emerged cconsistently since, so that even a Jewish MP at Westminster was moved to make the comparison after a visit to Gaza in 2003. Whether that analogy is heuristically helpful or not is another question: but in itself there is no intrinsic slight or animus present in the comparison. To assert the contrary is tantamount to adopting the instrumental view that ‘our’ unique history is, uniquely, outside of the framework of comparative analysis, must be understood in its own terms, as defined by its own heirs, and those outside the pale who meddle with it are somehow spurred to do so by ethnic hostility to Jews. This, and it is extremely commonplace, locks down rational argument by restricting what can and cannot be said, and subjecting all discussion to prior vetting of the anti-antisemitic credentials of the participants before they can be tolerated to speak of the topic. It is astutely Orwellian, astutely, because the claim is advanced ostensibly to defend a human right to dignity and respect while actually serving a political function of clamping down on free speech and, indeed, imposing strict parameters even on academic research.
In the I/P area, article construction has three sides(a) editors who do extensive research and write up sizeable articles on that basis; (b) tweakers who pass by to adjust a word or two, a sentence; and (c) editors who sit on them as POV monitors, predominantly to ensure (and that is a useful function) that material regarding Israel (not Palestine) is treated neutrally. A large part of what the third group does consists in drawing up, over time, extensive lists of remarks made by this or that editor for eventual inclusion in a formal complaint at ANI or AE. The purpose is to get rid of category A, which, offline, is seen as an offensive group of ‘anti-Israeli’ fanatics forming an insidious cabal to shame by distortion Israel’s rightful place in the world. This absurd fiction is as fantastical, though certainly no where as toxic, as the sort of pathological thinking that generates antisemitic conspiracy theorists themselves Since, oddly, despite the reported ‘toxic’ nature of the I/P area, you rarely see any of the mania and venom reported in so many ANI/AE complaints, the evidence to indict, and thus rid the project of editors in category A has to rely on the fine-print of WP:NPA, a policy which, if translated into a mandatory warrant for extreme nicety of language to avoid any possibility of offense, would effectively eviscerate intelligent article construction. For the topic generates by its nature controversy, and clashing perspectives are never ironed out by adopting the strict rules of conversation in a 19th century Victorian parlour.
All one needs to game this and turn the policy into a ruse to get rid of editors whose work or attributed POV one might detest, or regard as politically harmful for the image of a country, is to play the semantic fusspot, urge the bowlerization of normal language to the point where any remark that smacks of an ‘attitude’ is potentially devastating to one’s feelings. I.e. if I respond to an editor who, against both English usage, and logic, thinks that ‘de facto’ can be used of a future scenario, by dismissing this (after reasoning why) as an example of muddled thinking, then my use of ‘muddle’ is a personal attack and I have so seriously disturbed the courteous atmosphere of wikipedia that my presence here endangers the project. That is argumentatively, in rhetoric, comparable to a device called hyperbole, but which we now customarily call 'going ballistic'. If Once responds to an innuendo that his use of ghetto or Warsaw is antisemitic by inverting the assertion (an acceptable rhetorical method in argument) that immediately justifies halling him to court as a suspected antisemite, or as a provocateur. That the evidence here is nugatory is beside the point. One can do this several times, on frail or frivolous 'proofs', and have the case dismissed. But then another logic kicks in: 'there is no smoke without fire' so, somewhere down the line, in an nth case of a report again an otherwise content-focused and generally equable editor, the odds will run to secure a verdict against him, and blot his record, making log-checkers in future arbitration instantly wary of the sanctioned person. That strategy has long been in place here, and it is utterly cynical. This is the third-dimensional chess aspect of wiki reports on 'disruptive' I/P editors.
In the real world, in any serious forum of adult argument, this level of pertinacious linguistic witchhunting to fudge up evidence that one’s interlocutor should suffer a social sanction, or be excluded from the company, would be regarded as itself a breach of good manners, an attempt to poison the well by ostracism, or as a crafty ‘topping it the cry-baby’ (to use a 18th century idiom), something that merited only the censure of silent disregard.
The purpose of this place is to write articles, not to make it so amenable to politically correct (which often translates into politically biased ) monitoring and sanctions that editors must learn to monitor every jot and tittle of their language to avoid laying themselves open to attack and sanctions. If you do that, very shortly, you will find yourself unable to think, because thinking can’t function incisively if it is bound up, hamstrung, knackered, by some prior obligation to take into consideration aforethought the extreme sensitivities of any or everywhere, regardless or whether they have some familiarity with your chosen field of research or (as is almost always the case) know almost nothing about it. The fundamental thing in judgment is to familiarize oneself beforehand with a thorough knowledge of the discursive field embedded behind the talk page arguments, not to ply the worry beads dithering about social sensitivites: unfortunately, 90% of comments there show no grasp of the field, but only of potential political side-effects in terms of national images. Nishidani ( talk) 15:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
On 9 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Idalion bilingual, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Idalion bilingual, one of six Phoenician inscriptions found in 1870 at Dali, Cyprus, was the " Rosetta Stone" for the decipherment of the Cypriot syllabary? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Idalion bilingual. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Idalion bilingual), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
in here Selfstudier ( talk) 19:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
"Ambassador to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza" Selfstudier ( talk) 19:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
more reliable, I guess Selfstudier ( talk) 19:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Aw ;) Selfstudier ( talk) 19:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Onceinawhil shalom. With respect to your comment on Talk:Beit Shearim, please be apprised that one article deals specifically with the necropolis (system of burial caves), which is located near, but not in Beit Shearim. The necropolis is a World Heritage site, not the village ruin itself. The other article specifically refers to the village Beit Shearim, which is different from the necropolis itself. The village is the place mentioned in historical records. As for the third article (which is NOT an overkill, as you thought), the article deals with a Moshav (modern agricultural village) by that name and which has NO CONNECTION to the ancient site and sits a great distance afar off. See Beit She'arim. There is a disambiguation link in each article. Davidbena ( talk) 02:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Onceinawhile. If you write to me, I'll send to you a very important pdf file that I just now received from Zero0000 on Beit Shearim, written by the archaeologist Benjamin Mazar. Davidbena ( talk) 17:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
24 hours is the limit at 1RR DS pages, not "26," as you noted, so I'd appreciate it if you would strike your untrue accusation of a 1RR violation at this talk page. Bad faith, and false, accusations of edit warring poison the discussion, and I only made tweaks to language that had already been updated since my last edit. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 13:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
With regards to your move of Beit She'arim (moshav) and amending of the redirect, it looks like you made no effort to repair the incoming links to Beit She'arim, which largely reference the moshav, e.g. Highway 75 (Israel) or Jezreel Valley Regional Council. You also failed to update the link on {{ Jezreel Valley Regional Council}} (which I have fixed). These are all actions expected of you if you make such changes.
In the meantime, I have turned Beit She'arim into a disambiguation page, but there are still several links pointing at it – could you correct these please.
Also, seeing as Beit Shearim refers to the subject as 'Beit She'arim', it possibly should be moved to a suitable title (perhaps 'Beit She'arim (Roman-era Jewish village)' for consistency). Number 5 7 12:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if you have followed the developments in Islam in Israel. I feel hounded by a user that is reversing most of my edits, on this page and others. Now a new user has been created to continue his work.
Do you have any suggestion how to handle this? I'm not interested in edit wars. Jokkmokks-Goran ( talk) 16:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate the recent talk page section you opened. I think it might show good faith if you started off with your own examples of others arguments you recognize. I've added my own paragraph to the section. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 17:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I respect your decision to continue to avoid answering the question, even though I don’t understand it.
No, Onceinawhile, just no. They said they did answer it, and that's that (whatever it was). Please don't feign respect. You can say that their answer sidesteps whatever the question actually is, but not that. Look, you must immediately tone down on the passive-aggressive retorts. You are a hair-breath away, from being banned from the above page. In fact, if anything, you should try to convince me why you should even be allowed to continue editing it, despite having already received a
logged warning about misconduct concerning it. Note that, as it stands, I'm leaning toward a prohibition over probation. Because, clearly, it continues to be a stumbling block for you. In any case, I am logging another warning for you, which should really be seen as a final warning. Please, you need to keep it in check. Thanks as always,
El_C
22:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Please don't feign respecta little too loosely, in a manner which caused offense, and have now clarified in a reasonable manner. Yet you are suggesting that if I make such a mistake, even once more, my editing career in this area of the project may be over.
Onceinawhile, it is what it is. I'm not omniscient and can only act on the evidence that is before of me. If you can find an admin who is willing to do more (intensively, extensively), I'm happy for them to take the lead on this. As a possibility, expect a nominal error rate to may be a factor, in general, as you do with all things. I'm not expecting perfection from you, so you should, in turn, not expect it from me. I just expect you not to slip again on that page, at least not for a long while.
Anyway, I am not going to otherwise immerse myself further in this dispute at this time. If you think I've exceeded my AE purview in this matter, you are free to seek any clarifications you see fit from the Committee at WP:ARCA, including asking for my admonishment or censure outright. But that's the thing with WP:ACDS (the d stands for discretionary), I've got to make decisions according to my interpretation of the matter at hand.
Significantly, in the vein of two-steps-forward one-step-back, I submit to you that your choice of words regarding threat
and permaban
(and "permaban threat"), isn't a good look and that, as an approach, it is not serving you well.
To sum up, again, if you don't think that you're up for it (for whatever reason), I'm good with that. I wish the best for you, of course, but it's really all the same to me how you choose to proceed. Regardless, I hope it all ends up working out amicably. El_C 01:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
“I just expect you not to slip again on that page, at least not for a long while”means. I have received a Final Warning – a very powerful term – for a half-sentence misinterpretation in a month of comments. Are you suggesting, for example, zero misinterpretations in a year?
I respect your decision to continue to avoid answering the question, even though I don’t understand itis an example of finesse. It broadly translates – in my understanding of long form standard American English – to "I completely accept and acknowledge your right not to answer my question, even though I would have done so if it was me." It is the act of "drawing a line" and moving on, which is an important element of elegant communication; without finesse the sentence wouldn't even have been used and we would have moved on leaving uncertainty as to whether there had been hard feelings. If you heard me speak you would be able to hear the tone in it. Anyway, I have acknowledged and apologized above for how it was interpreted. The reason for this reflection is that I am thinking hard about implementing finesse without creating further misunderstandings. The type of delicate and skilful language which I consider true finesse can be ornate and rhetorical, which creates complexity in assessing others' interpretations.
I am still not finding you to be responsive enough to several of my salient points- which ones have I not fully addressed please? I am trying to address everything carefully.
if you don't think you're up for it- I thought I had already answered you and provided the requested commitments on this, but perhaps I don't understand what you mean?
I am not expecting perfection from you, your handing out of a "final warning" shows that you have expected perfection with respect to the specific matter of this half-sentence-in-a-month. I have been trying my absolute best, so I feel really hard done by to have the Sword of Damocles placed above my head.
Israeolocentricpoint of view and of evaluating sources according to whether they are
anti-Israelor not. Wikieditor19920 ( talk) 22:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe that Onceinawhile (is) the most diplomatic of all those on the opposing side of the debate
I'm just going to be clear with you on this: you present yourself as being diplomatic and complain about the fact that you were warned, but when the rubber hits the road you engage in the same disruptive behavior as Nableezy and Selfstudier
They mention you: https://www.jewishpress.com/news/israel/project-wiki-exposes-how-wikipedia-is-breeding-armies-of-anti-semites/2021/01/01/
-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 00:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"our office occasionally looks at Wikipedia entries when the subject matter is relevant to the messaging we want to get across. We do this in order to better understand what information is given to the average individual on the internet and to find misinformation that should be dispelled. It is our hope that our tweet will inspire some of Wikipedia’s editors..."[28]
Im going to refresh to you the Wikipedia policies here:
1) As per /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensus"In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."
I actually went over all of the edits JJNito did and chose to try to fix things and not remove all his work despite the above violation he committed. You and JJNito however are reverting with vague reasons such as "JJNito spent lots of months doing this" which is not a reason for reverting as per wikipedia policies.
2) As per /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems Do not remove content or change the whole content. Rephrasing to more accurately represent the sources is the way to fix things otherwise you are exhibiting ownership behavior. Caution is needed when removing or rewriting large amounts of content because JJNito nor you nor anybody own this nor any article here in Wikipedia. This is a WP:HANDLE and WP:OWNBEHAVIOR violation and as per /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Examples_of_ownership_behaviour
3)When I made partial reversal I invited the people involved in the major reword to look into the long discussion that has been ignored and hence the reason for adding back things that were taken out and taking out things that were already discussed that should not be in this article.
You are ignoring my invitation to reopen the discussion in /info/en/?search=Talk:Arab_Christians/Archive_8 that you and JJNito chose to ignore and go over consensus building talk. You and JJNito have both chosen to revert my edit twice with reopening the discussion which shows your and his inability to understand the policies of consensus violating /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_discussion.
If you revert again and choose not to reopen the /info/en/?search=Talk:Arab_Christians/Archive_8 discussion I will report you for disruptive editing and violating the specified policies Chris O' Hare ( talk) 22:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I looked through the archives and couldn’t find any consensus supporting your position. I have found three editors who disagreed though.
Three editors that disagree with me? This whole discussion was me and Syphax98 so you must be hallucinating on something when you looked at the discussion. I provided Syphax98 dozens of sources that he tried very hard to ignore and kept on denying them and kept coming back with nothing and asking me for more sources. He requested for comment and got nothing because he had nothing and was just pushing a point of view without any reliable sources.
And if you dont support my "position" aka sources you are welcome to elaborate and open the discussion again. Im not here in Wikipedia to present my "position", im here to present sources and stick to wikipedia's policies.
JJNito I suspect is doing the same thing with his newly published book aka major edit. He is trying to make it seems as if All Melkites and Orthodox Christians are mostly non racially Arab by toning down that Maronite are indeed non racially Arab and bring down numbers to contradict, distort and confuse the reader into believing ALL Arab Christians are the same, at least thats the tone the newly worked article now has.
Lebanese Melkites and Lebanese Orthodox Christians are indeed also non racially Arab and descendants of the Canaanites. When it comes to the Syrian Christians and some Palestinian Christians its way more mixed there since the evidence points out at least half of the Greek Orthodox Christians from Syria are descendants of Arab tribes that converted to Christianity early on in the 1st-2nd century AD.
Also lots of “Syrians” today from what used to be the Tripoli Eyalet /info/en/?search=Tripoli_Eyalet later part the Beirut Vilayet /info/en/?search=Beirut_Vilayet and “Palestinians” or “Israeli Arabs” today from what used to be the Sidon Eyalet /info/en/?search=Sidon_Eyalet later part as well of Beirut Vilayet that are being called of “Syrian descent” or “Palestinian descent/Israeli Arab descent” in the post 1945 Middle East as well as the diaspora just because those territories ended up being part of Syria in the north and Israel (before Mandatory Palestine) in the South.
So for example, someone like Teri Hatcher, whose ancestors left Ottoman Syria before 1917 from Latakia which was of the Tripoli Eyalet for like 500 years and then part of the Beirut Vilayet before the fall of the Empire in 1917 its considered of “Syrian descent” just because that area ended up as part of what is today Syria.
However when her ancestors immigrated it was part of the Beirut Vilayet-Tripoli Eyalet which makes her actually of Lebanese descent not Syrian since those areas were part of the larger “Lebanon” aka Beirut Vilayet.
Everybody whose ancestors migrated from what was the Beirut Vilayet should be called of Lebanese descent since all that area was inhabited by Christians of Lebanese descent. Only those whose ancestors migrated from what was the Vilayet of Syria outside of the Vilayet of Beirut as can be seen here https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ottoman_levant.png
Only those whose ancestors migrated from what was the Vilayet of Syria outside of the Vilayet of Beirut as can be seen here https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Ottoman_levant.png should be called of “Syrian descent” or "Palestinian descent" Chris O' Hare ( talk) 23:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
2019 Selfstudier ( talk) 16:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be good if checkpoint 300 was a wl (with a really good pic)? Selfstudier ( talk) 20:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I did some editing on Ashkelon, and as one can see; the Ottoman/Mandate era has two different maps; and frankly: I think it looks messy. What if the "the ruins of the ancient city" was separate, further up? Under "Crusaders, Ayyubids, and Mamluks"?
And then "unite" the PEF map with the "Switcher"-map? (as normal)? And all on the right? There many many more wonderful pictures from Majdal that could be added, perhaps take a "gallery"-section before the "Israel"-section?
There is no hurry, but I would like hear what you think about it? Huldra ( talk) 21:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Sursock Purchases at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Guerillero
Parlez Moi 04:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Guerillero
Parlez Moi
04:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Nakba is A10 because it duplicates an existing article.-- Geshem Bracha ( talk) 10:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Category:Nakba has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Geshem Bracha ( talk) 12:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
On 5 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Present (2021 film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2021 Palestinian film The Present is about a present and the present? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Present (2021 film). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, The Present (2021 film)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
On 8 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sursock Purchases, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Sursock Purchases represented almost a quarter of all land purchased by Jews in Palestine until 1948? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sursock Purchases. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Sursock Purchases), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Many people won't be able to see the difference between the two shades of green. There is some guidance at WP:COLORCONTRAST, though it is most aimed at text. Cheers. Zero talk 01:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
On 11 April 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Aten (city), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Step hen 00:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Zero talk 07:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Category:Nakba has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Given the ongoing furore, I am wondering whether this article might be better titled SJ evictions or similar. The current title makes it sound like a normal landlord tenant type affair and it obviously isn't. I leave it you, anyway. Selfstudier ( talk) 23:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
On 23 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nakba, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Nakba – the destruction of Palestinian society, their homeland, and the permanent displacement of a majority of the Palestinian people – has been described as an ongoing catastrophe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nakba. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Nakba), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
On 23 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nakba, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Nakba – the destruction of Palestinian society, their homeland, and the permanent displacement of a majority of the Palestinian people – has been described as an ongoing catastrophe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nakba. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Nakba), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you have this? Selfstudier ( talk) 15:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Sheikh Jarrah property dispute at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
ezlev
tlk/
ctrbs
23:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
To editor Huldra: and Once: It seems to me that we are not making enough use of the annual reports, which are loaded with detailed information. The versions at unispal.un.org are only snippets; for example the 1934 report at unispal stops at page 12 of the full report that runs to 307 pages. The 1938 unispal snippet has 34 pages out of 452. And so on. The full reports also have long sections on Transjordan. I have library access to all of the full reports but so far only managed to scrounge PDF files for these: 1920–1925, 1929, 1934, 1936-1938. Of course you are welcome to them. The last published report was 1938, so that means I'm missing 1926–1928, 1930–1933, and 1935. If you can manage to find any of them that would be great (a possibility is the League of Nations archive, which I find very hard to navigate). Zero talk 13:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
The version of the 1924 report at https://biblio-archive.unog.ch/Dateien/CouncilMSD/C-452(I)-M-166(I)-1925-VI_EN.pdf is further enlightening as it is also abridged. See the second page for a LofN note to that effect. So, while it ends on page 58, the version published by the UK government as Colonial No. 12 has 98 pages. I think I got it from Hathitrust. I haven't sorted out the differences but one example is that the longer version contains texts of ordinances that the shorter version doesn't have.
Speaking of Hathitrust, can you all please poke your browsers at this catalogue entry. I see only "Limited (Search Only)" for each entry, but I know this can vary according to the country of the viewer. In particular someone in the USA (or with a VPN in the USA) might be able to see more. In the event that it is possible to view the document but not download the whole thing, send me mail ;). Zero talk 03:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
here Selfstudier ( talk) 10:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
For other displaced and defeated peoples, an independent state – though it sometimes constitutes only a small part of the larger homeland that was lost – has been a source of consolation, a home in which the displaced rebuilt their lives, and on which they focused their national aspirations. They could continue to dream of the realms of the past with a nostalgia tempered by the awareness that a return to them was impossible. This was the case, for example, with the Armenians, the Greeks who were dislodged from Asia Minor or Northern Cyprus, and millions of Germans who were expelled from Eastern Europe during and after World War II.which is definitely true. Palestinians would have by and large moved on and focused on the future if they had been allowed to build a sovereign nation. But they haven't and they won't be, so his suggestion is pointless; bantustans do not work.
Until they attain sovereignty of some sort, the Palestinians will not be able to develop a critical discourse about their past – and without such discourse it will be difficult to get the Israeli public to pay heed to the Palestinian narrative. For the sake of a more stable existence, therefore, the two peoples must make painful but essential historical decisions, and their practical decisions must be accompanied by an effort to reshape collective consciousness and memory.He says Palestinians need to do something that he says is impossible.
obligat[ing] both sides to consolidate a collective memorybut the more important thing is to see the here-and-now for what it really is. South African Apartheid was a competition of narratives as well, but in the end it was accepted that – irrespective of the history – the present day was unacceptably inhumane.
Hi, I just moved Kafra to Kafra, Baysan (in order to prepare for a Kafra, Lebanon article).
Alas, that messed up the maps, which now have been removed. How can I fix that?
Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 20:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I have just started articles about three Lebanese villages.
Could they possibly become a DYK? Say, with the handle "Did you know ..that the three villages Safad El Battikh, Ayta al-Jabal and Kafra in the Bint Jbeil District in Southern Lebanon were all mentioned in the 1596 Ottoman tax-records? I am not sure, though, that they have enough text? (I used to have DYK-check: have no idea where that went), Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 23:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Why does this page exist? Selfstudier ( talk) 15:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Palestinian enclaves you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Ganesha811 --
Ganesha811 (
talk)
15:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello :) I am writing my MA dissertation on Wikipedia Wars and the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I noticed that you have contributed to those pages. My dissertation will look at the process of collaborative knowledge production on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the effect it has on bias in the articles. This will involve understanding the profiles and motivations of editors, contention/controversy and dispute resolution in the talk pages, and bias in the final article.
For more information, you can check out my meta-wiki research page or my user page, where I will be posting my findings when I am done.
I would greatly appreciate if you could take 5 minutes to fill out this quick survey before 8 August 2021.
Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and anonymous. There are no foreseeable risks nor benefits to you associated with this project.
Thanks so much,
Sarah Sanbar
Sarabnas I'm researching Wikipedia Questions? 20:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
https://www.academia.edu/49925414/The_Origins_of_the_term_Palestinian_Filasṭīnī_in_late_Ottoman_Palestine_1898_1914?email_work_card=view-paper Zero talk 05:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to drop a quick thank you for tagging me in an interesting case study. While researching, one of the things I have found impressive is just how far the conflict spills over into other areas - including topics that might seem irrelevant to the uninitiated outsider. The article on hummus comes to mind as a humorous example of that :) If any others come to mind, I'd appreciate a tag as well. All the best, Sarabnas I'm researching Wikipedia Questions? 15:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Removing a 15-year-old tag - well done! I'm not sure I've ever removed an older one, although I've been close. I wonder what the oldest hatnote in wikipedia is? - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 11:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wadi_Hilweh&action=history
Why to there and not Silwan? Any objection if I change it? Selfstudier ( talk) 11:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
This template must be substituted. -- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes ( talk) 17:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi buddy, can you please add WP:PHO tags to your new Phoenicia-related articles talk pages? This will help with inventorying them.
el.ziade (
talkallam)
08:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Onceinawhile, your recent move of Buddha is based on a discussion from 2018. It has caused a malplaced disambiguation page and a boat-load of links to be fixed. Should this perhaps be discussed again to be sure that it has consensus? Leschnei ( talk) 13:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I have been trying to clean up the Lebanese populated localities; in that connection I subdevided villages the South Governorate according to their district:
Ugh, then I see that I should not have added the "the"; I should have called them
(You notice when you look at:
...all the South Governorate districts comes up under "P")
Is there a quick metod to change the cat (of some ~ 90 location)? Huldra ( talk) 23:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I see you uploaded the pictures from Mission de Phénicie to commons; I am trying to "cat" them, and I have a question: Do you know where this is from? It really reminded me of this; made in the same style/period? cheers, Huldra ( talk) 22:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
"It was in Tire and its surroundings that Renan's mission discovered many remains, notably the site of Qabr Hiram. What intrigued him was the presence of this tomb in this region and its shape. Excavations began around the tomb, a necropolis was discovered, wine presses and the remains of an ancient village. An unexpected discovery came to prove the importance of the site; a few yards from the mausoleum, one of the soldiers noticed the foot, barely emerging above the ground, of a column bearing a Greek cross. After a few blows of a pickax to clear the pillar, he came to a pavement of a small Byzantine church, which was entirely covered with a mosaic, very well preserved and under a minimal thickness of topsoil ranging from 30 to 40 centimeters. The excavation work lasted four days and the mosaic appeared in its brilliantly beautiful form, with an inscription in Greek dedicating the church to Saint Christopher (of Canaanite origin) and dated to 575."
The article
Palestinian enclaves you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:Palestinian enclaves for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Szmenderowiecki --
Szmenderowiecki (
talk)
17:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/palestinian-west-bank-mahmoud-abbas-palestinians-ramallah-b1955362.html Selfstudier ( talk) 19:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
[38] Inf-in MD ( talk) 02:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Who is "Ice" in your edit summary [39]? Shrike ( talk) 07:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
U like this sort of thing, right? (if you didn't see it already) Selfstudier ( talk) 18:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
socks have a free hand Selfstudier ( talk) 22:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
On 22 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Phoenician metal bowls, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the discovery of Phoenician metal bowls (example pictured) in 1849 created the entire concept of Phoenician art? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Phoenician metal bowls. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Phoenician metal bowls), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Hook update | |
Your hook reached 11,409 views (475.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2021 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/she) 01:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Season's Greetings | |
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod ( talk) 14:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
Apologies for my mistaken corrections, I was reading the Haaretz article, which had a different spelling, presumably a paraphrasing. My guess is that with shin/tuf is referring to biblical term Phlishtim? A small note, templates don’t work in edit messages, so you’d need to type User:Example instead of Example. I take your point re avoiding a broad stroke of “two sides” or treating people as monoliths. Thinking more thoroughly, I’d like to know what the government terms are, during the negotiations proceedings for example. I’ll save more thoughts for the talk page itself. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The process was very easy. In the agreement signed in '93, all those areas that would be part of final status agreement—settlements, Jerusalem, etc.—were known. So I took out those areas, along with those roads and infrastructure that were important to Israel in the interim period. It was a new experience for me. I did not have experience of mapmaking before. I of course used many different civilian and military organizations to gather data on the infrastructure, roads, water pipes, etc. I took out what I thought important for Israel.Since it is now widely considered that even the new Israeli government will not negotiate with the Palestinians (arguing that a negotiated outcome is "impossible"), the government terms today are almost certainly the same as they were at Oslo – keep everything important for Israel, and the Palestinians can keep the rest. As to what "the rest" is, well it seems that successive US and Israeli administrations have simply not spent the time to understand what the resulting enclaves feel like from a Palestinian perspective and thus why no Palestinian leader would ever be able to acquiesce to them. My personal view is that the Palestinian leadership would be willing to find a compromise on everything else (Jerusalem, refugees, etc) but to agree to a permanent state of being divided and surrounded by their century-long oppressor is impossible. Onceinawhile ( talk) 03:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Re this, since he didn't write it why is it relevant? It is nothing like his writing and if anything misrepresents him by association. Zero talk 13:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Bonar and McCheyne returned to Scotland as well and distributed a widely read memorandum, "A Narrative of a Mission of Inquiry to the Jews From the Church of Scotland in 1839" (1842). This was followed by "Memorandum to Protestant Monarchs of Europe for the restoration of the Jews to Palestine" and appeared in the London Times (1840). Lord Shaftesbury was integrally involved in these developments…
The article
Palestinian enclaves you nominated as a
good article has passed ; see
Talk:Palestinian enclaves for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Szmenderowiecki --
Szmenderowiecki (
talk)
02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
On 2 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Palestinian enclaves, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank (map pictured) constitute an "archipelago" of 165 islands? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Palestinian enclaves. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Palestinian enclaves), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 12:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hook update | |
Your hook reached 11573 views (964.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2022 – nice work! |
Bruxton ( talk) 04:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
date = n.d.
) or author(s) (use author = <!-- not stated -->
). Off to bed now. --
NSH001 (
talk)
23:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Hi, do you know the exact location of Umm al-Amad, Lebanon? On wikidata there are two co-ords, I think the southern-most is correct, no? Huldra ( talk) 23:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
On 12 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of Egyptian obelisks, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there are only about 30 Ancient Egyptian obelisks (example pictured) left standing worldwide—and Italy has more than Egypt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of Egyptian obelisks. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, List of Egyptian obelisks), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hook update | |
Your hook reached 13,953 views (1,162.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2022 – nice work! |
Bruxton ( talk) 14:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I just came by to thank you for this amazing article. You never cease to amaze me! el.ziade ( talkallam) 23:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Drsmoo (
talk)
05:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
El_C 10:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Onceinawhile ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
@
El C: I asked for your help the last time we interacted, over a year ago,
to understand more about how to avoid crossing your perceived red lines. Unfortunately we ran out of time. We established back then that you choose to read into and interpret editors' words in certain ways, perhaps influenced by the petitioners' initial characterization, and it is not always possible editors like me to predict that. You wrote a year ago Onceinawhile, it is what it is. I'm not omniscient and can only act on the evidence that is before of me. If you can find an admin who is willing to do more (intensively, extensively), I'm happy for them to take the lead on this. As a possibility, expect a nominal error rate to may be a factor, in general, as you do with all things. I'm not expecting perfection from you, so you should, in turn, not expect it from me. I just expect you not to slip again on that page, at least not for a long while.
We can discuss each others' perspectives on the sentence that you objected to, but last time you didn't have time to discuss in detail and I suspect you won't have time now either. You have made your judgement against my choice of words, but did not provide any explanation. You admitted your own wording mistake when we discussed a year ago, having written "Please don't feign respect"
. In your ANI post just now you wrote about "their camp"
, which is not appropriate language for any of us to use. What do you think my camp is? Other established editors who build high quality articles in a difficult topic area? I also reacted when reading the sentence The problem with issuing a TBAN to an established ARBPIA editor...
and would ask you to reconsider it. You did not mention what I consider to biggest problem to be, that established editors in the area contribute hugely to this project. Sometimes we all use language too loosely, and that is wrong. So long as no disruption is occurring (which it most certainly was not), we should each be given an opportunity to discuss, consider, and resolve any concerns. I acknowledge we have an onus on us to be careful; as I said to you a year ago, I am trying. In the last year I have given a lot to this project, with a good article, multiple DYKs, and about 5000 edits. You said a year ago that I am not expecting perfection from you
, but now you appear to be.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
11:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I hadn't realized that you had multiple open unblock requests when I closed the one below. My apologies. Procedural close - no longer blocked. SQL Query Me! 00:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
We can discuss each others' perspectives on the sentence that you objected to, but last time you didn't have time to discuss in detail and I suspect you won't have time now either. You have made your judgement against my choice of words, but did not provide any explanation.
You admitted your own wording mistake when we discussed a year ago, having written "Please don't feign respect"
. In your ANI post just now you wrote about "their camp"
, which is not appropriate language for any of us to use. What do you think my camp is? Other established editors who build high quality articles in a difficult topic area? I also reacted when reading the sentence The problem with issuing a TBAN to an established ARBPIA editor...
and would ask you to reconsider it. You did not mention what I consider to biggest problem to be, that established editors in the area contribute hugely to this project.
Sometimes we all use language too loosely, and that is wrong. So long as no disruption is occurring (which it most certainly was not), we should each be given an opportunity to discuss, consider, and resolve any concerns. I acknowledge we have an onus on us to be careful; as I said to you a year ago, I am trying. In the last year I have given a lot to this project, with a good article, multiple DYKs, and about 5000 edits. You said a year ago that I am not expecting perfection from you
, but now you appear to be.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
11:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)}}
Onceinawhile, what do you mean? You are the petitioner here, not really addressing your own conduct sufficiently. You want me to spell out the narrow circumstances of that final warning? That I started it by saying that an ARBPIA TBAN would be "draconian" (i.e. only an WP:ABAN was on the table)? Here, I guess. But you should know that I regretted saying that as the conversation continued, because I felt you were NOTTHEM bludgeoning, much like you are doing now.
You may or may not care for my advise, but I'll give to you at least one more: the spirit of NOTHEM would have been to take a more flowingly introspective approach overall, rather than getting bogged down in the weeds of a particular dispute from a year ago. Because the impression people might get is you trying to navigate procedure rather than getting to the heart of the matter.
But you know what? Maybe I'm the one who has gotten it wrong here. We can see what others have to say. You are of course entitled to a robust defense of your own choosing, which I don't intend of standing in the way of. El_C 13:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Personally I think it would have been appropriate to first assume good faith and ask me what I meant by my words.Okay, so it was inappropriate and a failure to assume good faith on my part. Got it. But, to me, that feels like NOTTHEM, yet still. Sorry, I don't really have much else to add right now. El_C 15:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Onceinawhile ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
I made a mistake. And the block was a mistake too.
My mistake was to use a phrase which was too strong, and too easily misunderstood. My choice of wording was poor. I was trying to summarize in half a sentence something that happened four years ago, and I used unnecessarily elaborate words which I had not fully thought through. I certainly did not mean to make an allegation (and actually I do not believe) that there was any unusual coordination between the three editors back in 2018. Two links to support this: (1) an explanation of why I did not anticipate the word "concerted" being read literally, [41] and (2) proof that in almost 40,000 edits here I have never used the word "concerted" before and so had never really thought through its implications. [42]
The block was a mistake because:
Since the spectre of a TBAN warning was raised, I should also point out that such a warning would be equally inappropriate:
"our encyclopedia has the opportunity to become the subject's most balanced reference point, with a truly bilateral narrative"; we cannot make that happen whilst living in fear.
El C was kind enough to write "But you know what? Maybe I'm the one who has gotten it wrong here. We can see what others have to say."
[48], and I appreciate his open-mindedness. For the avoidance of doubt, rescinding the block would not change the fact that I made a mistake, which I fully accept and apologize for.
Onceinawhile (
talk)
19:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I just don't see how one can claim that "I remember finding the concerted attack frightening", is anything other than an intense statement of us-vs-them and tendentious editing. Regarding alternate definitions of concerted, the word was applied to the cumulative actions of three different editors, so it can't be claimed that it was meant in the singular sense. The usage fits the standard definition perfectly. And even, for the sake of argument, if a conspiracy wasn't being alleged, it's still being referred to as an "attack" and "frightening". How is one supposed to edit constructively with someone who views standard edits that reflect another viewpoint as "frightening" and an "attack"?
I also resent and reject the claim that there were "false characterizations" in my post, there weren't.
It may be worth pointing out that hostility and personal attacks are absolutely nothing new from this editor, I have personally, (along with others) been the recipient of a large amount of vitriol from this editor over a long period, some of which has been recorded in noticeboard posts, some of which remains strewn across talk pages. As an example, being baselessly called a racist just over a year ago (which is partially what inspired the previous warning), along with all of the other vitriolic comments Onceinawhile made across that talk page.
The below are some examples copied from an AN/I filed back in 2016(!), so this is nothing new:
And here is the A/R/E submission from roughly a year ago, particularly, the additional examples posted by Levivich, the aggressive editing has continued. Drsmoo ( talk) 02:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Decline reason:
Block has expired. SQL Query Me! 16:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi @ El C: thanks for your question. I don't know the difference between the two – the block was at AN, so that seems more natural, but should it matter either way? Onceinawhile ( talk) 10:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
acknowledge [your] mistake and take full responsibility for itrather than qualifying it with a but them counter at every turn. That is not "full," in my view, it is partial at best. El_C 11:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
many attempts [etc.]. Anyway, I don't really want this 'venue thread' to turn into a parallel mini-appeal, so let's not spit that discussion further. Thanks. El_C 11:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
El_C. I've watched this, and the prior episodes of this on-going interpretative incomprehension between Onceinawhile and yourself for years now, disconcerted as a linguist at the, well, frankly, madness of this Kafkian interaction. Everyone knows that Onceinawhile is one of the finest historically minded editors in this impossible area, and since the minefield he works in has been accumulatively criss-crossed with intricate tripwires about what can and cannot be said or implied by him, each new tripwire being the result of piddling complaints that have some undoubted rationale nonetheless in the recondite niceties of policy perfectionism, Onceinawhile has been forced to gyrate with an absurd gymnastic discursiveness that, as you read it (WP:NOTTHEM), cannot but feed your own sense of fedupedness, ergo: ban him for life from the IP area where he excels over what seems to me to be pettifogging punctilio. These humilitating convolutions can't but remind one of Catherine Zeta-Jones's gymnastic ballet in sneaking past the lasar-protected system in Entrapment, which is the mot propre inadvertently set in place by this reciprocal talking at cross purposes.
In short, I think you erred in arrogating to yourself the discretion to go ballistic if the latest trip wire was grazed. Ridding Wikipedia of a superlatively knowledgeable and, almost invariably, consensus-building contributor means all perspective has been lost. When you stated:'broadly speaking, your side is pro-Palestine, while the opposing camp is pro-Israel,' you should have taken the hint from your own words. I have always read, for example, the Che Guevara photo on your page as implying an analogy between 1948 and Che's theory of wars of liberation. Perhaps I am wrong. The opposition, as often noted, between 'pro-Israeli' and 'pro-Palestinian' is politically insulting and instrumentally tactical: those who see things in stark binary oppositions are tempted to ignore the merits of specific edits, and take them as predictably biased towards a cause depending on whose perceived camp the editor in question is in (WP:AGF is violated). Just recently, I can't recall where, Onceinawhile found himself arguing against several editors whom, in your description, belong to the same 'camp' (as opposed to several editors who are somewhat obsessive about historical details). He stuck by his guns, and argued intensively for his point of view, precisely as he does in interacting with you. Patience. No harm done. Best practice should have been to be somewhat more detached, given the fact you two do not get along, and ask another arbitrtator or two to look at the crux. It is obvious over the years escapes both of you. It is also obvious that few people on the planet would have the sitzfleisch to scrupulously examine the rubbled mountain of ancient exchanges that has been piled up from the molehill of nugatory discursive infractions Onceinawhile has been systematically accused of by those who dislike his presence here. That, for example, saying recalling one was 'frightened' at the way three editors some years ago, one a notorious sockpuppet, appear to act in a 'concerted' fashion is somewhat pathetic: people in the real world shouldn't be 'frightened' by such petty noxiousness, any more than someone should think they are acting rationally, and in the high interests of an encyclopedia, by jumping at such a confession as appalling evidence that the editor who wrote that en passant should be hauled before the execution platoon and have his wiki career 'liquidated'. Jeezus. Nishidani ( talk) 12:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't expect Selfstudier, Zero0000, or Nishidani to take issue when I indef TBAN'd one of the appellant principal opponents at the time, Wikieditor19920. It makes sense that they wouldn't.
( edit conflict) I don't think I've lost perspective, Nishidani, I'm just not interested in getting into a drawn out thing with you about the epistemology of it; like, which side supports which positions, how each views their opposition, pro/anti, etc. And even if the s-word itself should be uttered. But I do think that I have a nuanced understanding of ARBPIA and other DSs (not to be un-humble, more than most). Knowing how and when to employ nuance is, well... nuanced. Obviously, the rulers are shit, that isn't really in dispute, at least between you and me.
But there are still positions, concerning the masses of people. Historical and political and economic positions. I don't know what else you expect me to say that you wouldn't consider "piddling" or "dead wrong." I'm not going to apologize for trying to maintain an environment conducive to collaboration, in any of the DS areas. But, if the appeal succeeds, then I'll certainly be re-evaluating all that. Which may well happen, who knows. El_C 14:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
El C, this doesnt really belong on AE as it isnt pertinent, but I also find the characterization misleading. There are approximately 0 editors who can objectively be said to advocate "views that usually favour the Palestinian position versus those which usually favour the Israeli one" of things here. I'm probably the closest to that, and it has earned me the undying love of various pro-Israel websites on the interwebs, but there is legit not one single person who can objectively said to do that. There is certainly an internationalist one, but no, definitely not a Palestinian one. Nobody advocates for Hamas' position the way Likud's is here. Or the PFLP apropos Jewish Home. People certainly do push a right wing Israeli position, but no, nobody is writing Tel Aviv is in occupied Palestine and being treated as though they were a serious editor here. Thats been the problem with trying to divide people in to these groupings and think of this as the Palestinian side vs the Israeli side. The West Bank vs Judea and Samaria conflict is representative of that in this regard. You had one group advocating for the use, in Wikipedia's "neutral" voice, terminology that was very much identifiable with one "side". Nobody advocated for the language used by the other "side". Nobody would say occupied Palestine for Ramallah much less Jerusalem, much less Tel Aviv. That would be advocating "views that favour the Palestinian position", but it simply does not exist. nableezy - 22:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
As Nishidani points out, I have been trying to understand El C's interpretation of NOTTHEM for some time. El C does not wish to discuss further, which is fine.
Can anyone else help me understand? I would like to be able to give El C comfort that I have listened and learned.
My specific question at the moment is how [the] statement (that I have tried to reconcile in the past) qualifies my acknowledgement and responsibility for my mistake.
Explanations of any examples from my appeal would be appreciated too. I thought I was 100% clear that I fully accept and take responsibility for my mistake.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 16:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Please could someone copy this to the AE. Onceinawhile ( talk) 13:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTTHEM and bludgeoning problems [in discussions with admins]… adoption of novel ideas that concern warnings, sanctions… just a bit [of]… self-restraint [in discussions with admins].
Please could the below be copied to the AE discussion. Many thanks. Onceinawhile ( talk) 00:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
seem to lack the overall understanding of what kind of behavior is acceptable and not acceptable- by appealing, I have made it harder for people to see my understanding of the mistake I made. My fault.
Just found this. Interesting, but did you know you copied some of my text into it? I doubt it, but didn't you know that when you copy from another article it's a legal requirement to mention it in the edit summary? And I don't see a source for the last sentence. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
On the article page for Byblos syllabary, you posted a color picture of one of the objects. I had not previously seen a color photograph of these. I was wondering where you were able to get this and if there are other color photographs of this and the other objects somewhere? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18ainrete ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, on the map File:Palestine Land ownership by sub-district (1945).jpg, the French description do not reflect the English historical translation. Indeed the French annotation reads "Réparation de la propriété agraire" which can be translated as "Distribution of the agrarian property", which relate to the cultivated land as of 1945 and do not describe ownership over all territories.
The white area is public land but also leased land, and foreign ownership was very common, evaluated as around 8%. I think there should be an extensive description of those "non-Jewish areas", in fact not mentioning it is misleading, as a significative pourcentage of land ownership is omitted. -- Vanlister ( talk) 11:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
…which relate to the cultivated land as of 1945 and do not describe ownership over all territories… The white area is public land but also leased land, and foreign ownership was very common. The data I provided allows you to see the entire picture – it is the full dataset, which I thought it what you were hoping to see. Onceinawhile ( talk) 15:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Just an FYI that selectively notifying participants, while in the middle of a discussion, and particularly when the “ideological factions” are so well known could be perceived as Canvassing. To be clear, I actually don’t have any objection to your or the previous editor’s contributions in these instances, but notifying specific users is something I have always avoided for the reasons below :
canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While
friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a
neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are
indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain
point of view or side of a debate, or which are
selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of
consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.
Drsmoo (
talk)
11:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I’m referring to pinging specific uninvolved users in the middle of a discussion. Please see above for more clarification Drsmoo ( talk) 11:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)