I'm enhancing West End Avenue and you appear to be a Wikipedia savant. Can you show me how to put the word historicist into a sentence, and have it link to the architectural syyle historicism (art), not the philosophical theory. Gratefully, Historicist ( talk) 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist reply

Take a look at Help:Pipe trick for more complete details, but if you look at the link here for historicist you'll see how it's done by typing [[historicism (art) | historicist]], which says to use the article for historicism (art), but display the text "historicist". I keep an eye on the article, and the easiest thing to do is edit away and worry about the formatting later. Alansohn ( talk) 16:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ECCN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel

UnReliable source ^{unreliable source?}

^{unreliable source?}

^who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Terrorism

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. ( Learn how and when to remove this message)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. ( Learn how and when to remove this message)

If the under construction tag hadn't been there, I would have nominated it for speedy deletion. The notability tag I put on it is a warning to the author that they need to provide some notability or it's going to be nominated for deletion. Little Red Riding Hood talk 02:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Among the features on the Wikipedia main page is Did You Know?, which highlights new articles. To qualify, articles must have been created (or expanded) within the past five days, be a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose and contain an interesting hook to draw people to the article of less than 200 characters. I took a look at your contributions and saw the article about Asher Lopatin. I did some cleanup, added a few sources and categories and took the liberty of nominating the article at Template talk:Did you know. I have seen some of your other articles, and the one for Anshe Sholom B'nai Israel, which would have been a great example of a hook with its creation over a straw hat. I will monitor the nomination and respond to any issues, and you can check the page at T:TDYK to follow the progress of the nomination. As you appear to have an interest in creating and expanding articles, this may be an outlet to reach a broader audience for your work. Alansohn ( talk) 04:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Historicist: there's not a lot I can tell you, I'm afraid. I knew of the fact of its founding, prob. as a result of Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but beyond that I know little.

On 2 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Asher Lopatin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen ( talk) 07:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Have you have seen a paper or microfiche copy of the obit? If so, please remove the note. Otherwise, we need to mention that it has not been checked. -- Avi ( talk) 21:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I am more than happy to take your word on it; I just like to ensure that someone is vouching for the accuracy of texts that are not instantly accessible. I could have made it to my local library on Sunday if necessary, but as you already checked it, that's fantastic. However, I guess we should source the Saudi citizenship to the obit, as opposed to now where it looks like it's supported by a different source. Thanks again, -- Avi ( talk) 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Our job as editors is to ensure that accurate information is properly cited; which is why I placed the {{ cn}} tag on the Saudi citizenship, since it was not found in the source supporting the rest of the sentence. Now that you have verified that information, the article is that much more accurate and complete. Thanks. -- Avi ( talk) 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

On 3 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Beth Israel (Scottsdale, Arizona), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen ( talk) 02:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I appreciate what you're saying, but we can still only go with what the sources say. If the article eventually gets to GA status, any unsourced claim will be immediately challenged. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Nice to see genuine attempts to resolve conflicts in a collaborative spirit and I give you full props for it. I hope we'll find an agreed upon final version sooner rather than later. Cheers, Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 19:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply

On 6 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Włodawa Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen ( talk) 09:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

thank you for your offercan you help me write the artical? here are some links: [1] [2] [3] [4] please tell me you have any questions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycowitz ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

there are ready is a page for a st. thomas synagogue but Beracha Veshalom Vegmiluth Hasidim was created first should we just mereger Beracha Veshalom Vegmiluth Hasidim with the other one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psycowitz ( talk • contribs) 16:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

email communication. Alternatively, you can reach me via email by clicking on Special:EmailUser/Alansohn. Alansohn ( talk) 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't know if you had a chance, but enable your email or send me one at [[Spe

thank you very much. i have cited many newspaper please tell me what you think Psycowitz ( talk) 01:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. By including a pipe (|) with a space after it, the article Synagogue shows up as the first article in Category:Synagogues instead of appearing sorted under "S". That's often done with the "main" article for a category. For example, Judaism is the first article in Category:Judaism, etc. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 04:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Nice work on synagogue articles recently btw though your attention is needed at DYK for your wooden synagogue nomination so that it can be featured on the main page. Are you going to write an article on Wolpa? Best, DVD 07:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC) reply

On 25 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wooden synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen ( talk) 22:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Wooden synagogues of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The result was Category:Wooden synagogues

Your recent additions are most welcome. Włodawa Synagogue and Łańcut Synagogue have some great photos too. Thanks! Chesdovi ( talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. Can you show me any sources that refer to the synagogue as the "Ancient Synagogue of Barcelona"? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 03:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

On February 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Beth Israel (Berkeley, California), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky ( talk) 15:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

[[Category:Art Nouveau]]
[[Category:Synagogues]]

Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards,-- Stepheng3 ( talk) 20:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. -- Stepheng3 ( talk) 03:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Don't worry about it - you've done the right thing. Speedying might take a little while, as I've found that long about this time of day things tagged for speedying end up staying around for a little while, regardless. But you've done everything that needs to be done. I don't think it'll be problematic. -- User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I wanted to tell you again that I am avidly reading the synagogue articles you are writing. Hope you don't mind that I fix typos and use the "ref name" syntax here and there. What do you think of this article that I started: User:DVD R W/Cymbalista? You can edit it or add more information if you want before I move it to main space - please do. Kind regards, DVD 23:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! I'll move the article into article space since you complimented it. I agree re: contemporary Synagogues. We can always start Category:Contemporary Synagogues. DVD 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Not at all. I was just looking at material online about the play and thought that Wikipedia ought to have an article and you had done the donkey work. It's late so I'm packing up but I'll try and make the format of footnotes uniform when they are citing articles.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 23:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm a bit busy now between work and this, but I can look at it soon, I hope. -- Avi ( talk) 07:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Category:Architecturally notable contemporary synagogues, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Cgingold ( talk) 22:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This user User talk:Blakeblakeblake12345 has been adding articles on synagogues. I thought you might be interested. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 23:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This might interest you also. Moshe Shalit. Cheers. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Would you mind having a look at the problem of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party's Nazi history and swastika flag being systematically deleted/vandalized? This removes an important aspect of neutrality from the article. References from many reliable sources are provided. See its talk page. The edits are being done by users with IP addresses from very similar domains. Thanks, Histopher Critchens ( talk) 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for adding that and putting in the source! I'm hoping to take that article to FA eventually, and that's the first significant factual contribution by someone else. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Happy Purim! from Chesdovi

Thanks for your note. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the post on my talk page. I've now posted this [5]. You're welcome to join that project though I don't believe I have officially added myself as a member. The project rose out of a particularly heated dispute which went to Arbcom as an attempt to bring together people with different POVs who were nevertheless committed to a collaborative approach. It's worth reading the main page if you intend to join.

I don't feel that well placed to produce the article I suggest myself. As for the addition you suggest to the existing article, I wonder whether there is a source other than Muir that says something similar. Citing her alone is hardly going to help with cerftain complaints.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 20:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Are you sure about the slogan? As far as I know, Habonim's motto has always been Aleh u'vneh (Arise and build). In fact, that's the title of the history of the American movement [6]. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 04:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Are you planning on creating a disambiguation page at Ohel Jakob synagogue? Agathoclea ( talk) 23:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

No I was not planning on any as I don't know what articles are needed. Reason I brought it up was your pagemove to a disambiguated title. That is normally only done when there is more than one possible subject using that name. The only possible exception I can see is if a more unlikely candidate has an article and the article that should be there is not written yet ie Ohel Jakob synagogue (book) while Ohel Jakob synagogue isn't written yet. By all means create redirects in the form you want. Agathoclea ( talk) 23:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks I like what you've done and it's made the article much more robust and well categorized. I'm really not an expert, so I can't critique it, but it appears to be good work. In addition, it is pretty well-sourced, so this is a strong start to an article. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your note; I've taken a stab at it: Beth Shalom. Regarding Oheb Shalom, perhaps Ohaveth Sholum Congregation should be included as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Look I'm not going to try an include the Mashalha source again, but I'm frankly getting tired of the intimidation tactics on my talk page. I didn't violate the 3rr on this page. So stop lieing about me on my talk page. I felt that all the work Fatima put in deserved to be defended and no one objected to it until jaygj came along and deleted it. I've decided it isn't worth getting into another edit war on this article, but don't push me because I might decide to revert it back again just out of spite if the intimidation tactics continue on my talk page. annoynmous 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Violating the 3RR means you did it more than 3 times in a 24 hour period so stop lieing about me on my talk page. You are the one making threats. I have agreed to give up the edit in the article so this tone is rude and unfounded. annoynmous 01:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The only stuff I reverted was redundant sources that were already cited in the article and one google book link where the relevant page number was omitted.

It seems to me that you should change your user name to revision-historicist because thats what your doing now. I was arguing for tags, I let you keep every edit you made except for the ones mentioned above.

Excuse me when editors lie and say I violated the 3RR rule when I didn't I get mad. I also get mad when instead of making arguments on the talk page for the article, cetain editors with the help of biased administrators use bully tactics to shut someone up even when there based on false claims.

I've agreed to not add back the section so let me decide what I put on my own talk page thank you very much. annoynmous 02:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm just curious why you moved the article Valley Beth Shalom to Valley Beth Shalom (Encino, California)? Is there another Valley Beth Shalom that it needs to be disambiguated? Or is there an equally major synagogue of the same name that would trump a "for other uses" on the Valley Beth Shalom page. If not we should keep it where it was as it just gets to be cumbersome. Valley2 city^‽ 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

That makes sense. However I'm a little concerned about what sort of precidence it might create for articles that many more things will have locations attached to the titles. Unless there needs to be a disambiguation, I think it is sufficient for there to be the location in the first sentence of the article. As for Valley Beth Shalom, with 1,800 families and its over-reaching cultural influence I think merit a name without the necessity for a location attached to it. I also don't think there are any other locations that share the same name, at least those that would be notable enough for a WP article. I therefore am going to move it back, always with the future possibility, if needed, to be disambiguated, or as I mentioned above "this article is about the synagogue in Encino, California, for other..." Valley2 city^‽ 00:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You're welcome, and thank you for the assistance with the article. I felt a bit out of my league on that one, especially since I don't speak the language, but the subject seems very interesting and very deserving of an article here. Thanks again! Vulture19 ( talk) 22:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The article reads as if you would like to be (grin). I'm not prepared to restore as it stands, although I don't doubt your good faith. It needs some basic bio and career details to offset the hagiography. I'll put the text here soon so you can work on it. jimfbleak ( talk) 13:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I've expressed my concerns, but you have the text so there is nothing to prevent you from recreating exactly as before at any time. If you do so, in the light of your comments I won't redelete in the short term, but that doesn't mean that no one else will. jimfbleak ( talk) 05:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Kate Baldwin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. R3ap3R.inc ( talk) 00:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

My pleasure! I dislike when the hasty speedy taggers place incorrect tags on well-sourced, well-written articles. Cunard ( talk) 02:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I have proposed merge with Maccabean Revolt. Your comments, please. Marshall46 ( talk) 19:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. Are you sure that "of Chicago" is part of their name? — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Historicist! Do you have this book? If so, I believe we should have a great collaboration on the Jaffa–Jerusalem article. I am going through the book slowly, and stopped at p. 26 for now, but there appears to be a lot of new information there which did not appear in The Railways of Palestine and Israel by Paul Cotterell. Please let me know. Thanks, Ynhockey ^{( Talk)} 13:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, hope i didn't cause an edit conflict just now. I saw your edit to the lower Manhattan NRHP list-article, and visited Stanton Street Synagogue to add an NRHP infobox. Seems you are editing it too, so i won't further now. Perhaps you can add the photo to article, that appears in thumbnail at the NRHP list.

About names in the NRHP list, the intention there is to show the NRHP program names for sites, so I set up a redirect from Stanton Street Shul and also put a pipelink in to show "Stanton Street Shul" in the NRHP list-article. Also that should stay as the title of the NRHP infobox in the article, as it is the NRHP name for the site. Thanks for making the connection to the NRHP list-article! Keep up the good work in developing it further. :) doncram ( talk) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your help! Could you please help me here too? -- Mbz1 ( talk) 04:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I recently did about four NRHP-listed Orthodox synagogues from the rural Catskills, in eastern Sullivan County, New York:

• Hebrew Congregation of Mountaindale Synagogue
• Ohave Shalom Synagogue
• South Fallsburg Hebrew Association Synagogue
• Anshei Glen Wild Synagogue

Don't know if you've got anything in your books you can add to them. Just letting you know if you do. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, the people who write those things are occasionally known to make errors, but usually I have to trust them. And maybe they take the sukkah outside during Sukkot ... you know, why rebuild it every year? Perhaps I'll have to pay a visit during that time of year. Not being Jewish myself, when is it next? I might be able to pass by during that time. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday May 17th, Columbia University area Last: 03/29/2009 This box: view •  talk •

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 21:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Curious as to your move of Richard Stirling (cricketer) - as there is no other Wikipedia article under the name of Richard Stirling, I was wondering if you knew of any other Richard Stirlings which are missing articles? The only other name I can find on Wikipedia is Richard Sterling.

All the best. Bobo . 19:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Aha, problem solved, while I was writing that, you set up a new article! Should we change Richard Stirling into a disambiguation page? Bobo . 19:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Done. I've included a link on the disambiguation page to Richard Sterling, too. Bobo . 19:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm not sure that this play merits an article in its own right. It's life and encyclopaedic interest seems to be secondary to Seven Jewish Children. From googling, I can only find it receiving coverage in community press. By community I mean either Jewish or North London. If it gets a review or coverage in one of the nationals or one of the four big London papers (meaning the Standard, the Metro (London edition), London Light or the London Paper), I think it will have passed the threshold.

I agree that it is appropriate to mention the play in the SJC article and that the author's other work probably means that he merits an article in his own right. It's just the SOC article I'm uncomfortable with.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 20:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the reply. I believe my thinking is in line with this essay Wikipedia:News articles. Not a policy, I know, but I think it reflects the spirit of the policy. Will there be stuff written in five years time that mentions SJC? I think so. SJO? Only in the context of material on SJC.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 14:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. I replied at Talk:Congregation Shearith Israel (disambiguation). — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 20:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I think I got it. -  CobaltBlueTony™  _talk 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Josephus

Hi Historicist. Can you take a look on the Judaism discussion page? I am proposing a submission about Josephs descendants according to Major Jewish Literature. I mentioned only famous Jewish authors as reliable sources but two individuals are not happy with informations that they didnt know in the first place. Can you give me a hand there? Regards -- Chris Cohen ( talk) 02:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC) reply

References

Historicist, thank you for your excellent edits to the articles on Michael Oren, Six Days of War, and Power, Faith and Fantasy. Could you please clean up the references you added? I apologize if I have not give you ample time to do so. I know how annoying that tedious stuff can me. Thanks! ShamWow ( talk) 01:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

This is a major book that undoubtedly deserves an article. In fact, it had one until someone inexplicably (and unjustly, without an RFD) expunged the page. I have no idea how well that article was written. Can someone tell me how to retrieve it? {{helpme}}Historicist (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there.

I've moved this over to your own talk page, easier to deal with here.

Firstly, please have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (books), the guideline on these things.

Secondly, I will try my best to get a copy of the old article put into your userspace - where you could work on improving it (if you think you can get enough reliable sources to satisfy the above)

I'll put more here soon.  Chzz   ►  01:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Historicist, I couldn't find an admin online to do it, so I will ask below, with this;

{{ adminhelp}} Per the above, is there an older version of the page Just and Unjust Wars please, and if so - and appropriate - please userfy it for this user. Thanks,  Chzz   ►  04:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The deletion was not inexplicable, nor unjust. We delete articles for all manner of reasons, including because they are attack pages, copyright violations, fail to assert importance in certain cases, have no content, are blatant advertising, and so on. The reason is usually set forth in the deletion log. The naked fact that a page is deleted is not a reflection on the worthiness of the subject to have an article but based on the actual reason it was deleted. In this case, the article was not an article at all. Rather, a user created the title not even as a reference to this book, but simply as an alternate name for just war (as a redirect to that title), and then asked that it be speedy deleted under CSD G7 for the very reason that he realized a book existed and it would be better to exist as a red link (an uncreated title), thus leaving it open for creation. All that is to say, the deleted title had no content on this book whatever.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 05:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, fair enough. Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. Historicist, good luck making an article; let me know if I can help further.  Chzz   ►  18:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Apropos of nothing, but, well, this reminded me of one of my fave little poems, and I wanted to share.

The rain it raineth on the just And also on the unjust fella; But chiefly on the just, because The unjust steals the just's umbrella. - Lord Bowen

 Chzz   ►  01:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Delightful poem. thanks for the chuckle. Historicist ( talk) 01:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I created the disambiguation pages and added hatnotes to assist readers in navigating among the articles. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 21:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Historicist, I've added the 1837 event to the Historical earthquakes list. Regarding naming, most earthquakes are named using 'Year' 'Place' 'earthquake', although there are no hard and fast rules for this. As to how to name events such as the 1202 earthquake, I've tended to go for the place (or country) where the epicenter (if recognised) or area of greatest damage is located, in this case southwestern Syria (the Sbeinati et al. paper on Syrian earthquakes [7], has a map of the main area of damage from Ambraseys & Melville 1985). Although it clearly caused damage elsewhere and was unusually widely felt, I would rather be more specific where information exists.

I would be very happy to collaborate with you on earthquake articles, I'll look at the three that you listed and see what I can add. Cheers Mikenorton ( talk) 21:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I have nominated Jonathan Rosenblatt, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Rosenblatt. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ccwaters ( talk) 15:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Bongo matic 21:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure why you chose to make your response in the AfD what amounted to a lecture/nearly personal attack on me, but I don't think you wp:agf'd. I have nominated only a handful of article for deletion in the past couple of years. Whether you meant it to sound like a lecture or not, it came across as one and I feel it was uncalled for and not very well grounded, considering the relatively few articles I have nominated for deletion. Niteshift36 ( talk) 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for totally ignoring what I asked you. I am addressing your comments towards me, where you painted me as some rabid deletionist who nominates dozens of articles a week for deletion. You also when off on a lecture about how my actions (which you grossly overstated) drive editors away. That did not belong in the AfD discussion. To address what you put on my talk page: 1) Having a fan write and article doesn't make him notable. We have notability guidelines that I believe the man fails. The AfD discussion is there for a reason, to disuss whether or not he meets those guidelines, not how it makes the author feel. 2) Arguing about me being "dissmissive" and "arrogant" (which smells like a personal attack) by doing the same things (starting with "sigh" and making claims about how I just AfD without thought) isn't very compelling, nor is trying to sound like you are being reasonable ("please take a deep breath") while being dismissive. 3) Telling me how "ignorant" I am because I don't find the Boston Phoenix to be all that relevant isn't exactly Socratic debate, now is it? Niteshift36 ( talk) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Please take a deep breath, re-read your nomination, consider that articles have been written about this man in real newspapers stating that people in New Hampshire love him and that the first page of a google search reveals not only several such articles but the fact that he has a fan club on facebook. I know nothing about him beyond what I have learned in the last hour, and very little about TV weathermen. But please consider how your comments must sound (arrogant and dismissive in my opinion) to what I presume to be a fan of this weatherman writing up someone he believes to be notable. And your comparison is way off. The Boston Phoenix is not comparable to a high school newspaper. Historicist ( talk) 23:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

You had two AFD's up today. Both on pages that appeared plausibly notable, albeit not well-sourced. I jumped to conclusions. Historicist ( talk) 23:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Yes, I AfD'd a couple in the past day or so. In fact, I've nominated a few others (an article about chanin smoking and about an airline mishap) in the past couple of days too. But again, had you looked, you'd have seen 10-15 nominations in the past 2 years. Hardly a large number. At the same time, I got invited to join the Rescue Squad because I opposed deletion of other articles. I try to be fair and I try to look at each piece on it's own merits. Maybe you didn't notice, but I withdrew the other AfD a little while ago. I decided to give the benefit of the doubt to the subject. Niteshift36 ( talk) 23:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply
• Like I said, I do try to be objective on my AfD activity. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the other reporter because he does seem to write for some pretty notable papers and is fairly prolific in terms of number of article. Since there aren't any clear standards for journalists, I decided to error to the side of leaving it. Niteshift36 ( talk) 00:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Since you're so prodigiously working on these articles, I suggest further developing this article: Kevin James (terrorist). What really needs to be created is an article relating to the bombing plot, which among other things, including target some synagogues in the LA/Beverly Hills area. Keep up the good work. ShamWow ( talk) 01:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Nice going with the 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot article. Unfortunately, I can't find the exact name of the synagogues. Perhaps it's listed somewhere in the court files, but I would expect people in the Los Angeles Jewish community to know.

I would also check out these two good articles: [8] (external link at bottom page) and [9] ShamWow ( talk) 13:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Other cases, that may or may not be notable: "Randall Todd Royer, an American-born convert to Islam, was convicted in 2004 for his role in leading the so-called "Virginia jihad network," a group of Islamic radicals training for attacks on the U.S. Royer and another conspirator had trained in Pakistan in 1999 and 2000 with the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is believed responsible for the 2008 attacks that killed nearly 200 people in Mumbai. Royer was one of four American converts to Islam arrested in connection with the Virginia plot.

James Ujaama, who was born James Ernest Thompson in Denver, tried to establish a terrorist training camp in Oregon in the late 1990s, an idea he developed with his spiritual mentor, a radical imam based in London. Ujama converted to Islam and changed his name in the 1980s, according to the Associated Press." [10] ShamWow ( talk) 15:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The new Islam related terrorism section in the U.S. terrorism article is fine but there are some duplicates. They need to be integrated, merged or whatever you see fit. I understand you might have it "in the works" and just have not had time. Edkollin ( talk) 20:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there I was reviewing your article and wanted to know if there is anything that makes this church notable? I was going to tag with speedy delete but saw your template so I wanted to ask before I do anything. thanks Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Works for me, sorry to bug. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 14:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply

• Beth Hamedrash Hagadol (Manhattan, New York)
• Beth Israel Congregation (Jackson, Mississippi)
• Beth Israel Congregation (Washington, Pennsylvania)
• Beth Israel Synagogue (Asheville, North Carolina)
• Beth Israel Synagogue (Halifax, Nova Scotia)
• Beth Israel Synagogue (Roanoke, Virginia)
• B'nai Abraham Synagogue, Brenham
• B'nai Israel Synagogue (Baltimore, Maryland)
• B'nai Israel Synagogue (Toledo, Ohio)
• Brodsky Synagogue
• Congregation Beth Elohim (Brooklyn, New York)
• Congregation Beth Israel (Austin, Texas)
• Congregation Beth Israel (Charlottesville, Virginia)
• Congregation Beth Israel (Honesdale, Pennsylvania)
• Congregation Beth Israel (Milwaukee, Wisconsin)
• Congregation Beth Israel (North Adams, Massachusetts)
• Congregation Beth Israel (San Diego, California)
• Congregation Beth Israel (West Hartford, Connecticut)
• Congregation Beth Israel Abraham Voliner
• Congregation Beth Israel West Side Jewish Center
• Congregation Beth Israel-Judea
• Congregation Beth Jacob (Galveston, Texas)
• Ohel Ya'akov Synagogue (Zikhron Ya'aqov, Israel)
• Park Synagogue
• Temple Beth El (Detroit, Michigan)
• Temple Beth Israel (Jackson, Michigan)
• Temple Beth Israel (Macon, Georgia)
• Temple Beth Israel (Niagara Falls, New York)
• Temple Beth Israel (Plattsburgh, New York)
• Temple Beth Israel (Sharon, Pennsylvania)
• Temple Beth Israel (York, Pennsylvania)
• West London Synagogue

These synagogues can be placed in Category:19th-century synagogues and do not seem to be there yet. -- Carlaude ^talk 08:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I have AWB; I can take care of this for you this evening so you don't have to do it manually. -- User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 19:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

On the contrary - thank you. By the way, would you mind e-mailing me at the link in my profile? -- User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 19:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Done. -- User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 01:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I have nominated United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Stifle ( talk) 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting had been placed in two Islam-related categories. So I checked the edit history, and found this edit. I know you're a serious editor, so I have to believe this was simply a bizarre mistake on your part. Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 10:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

PS - I think Category:Islam-related violence in the United States probably should be renamed in some fashion, as it is rather ambiguous. My first thought was that it was meant for attacks directed at Muslims or Islamic sites. Needless to say, that's not at all how it's being used. Cgingold ( talk) 10:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Just to be clear, I don't have a real problem with the category itself. The problem, as I said, is that the name you gave it is quite ambiguous, since it can easily be construed as referring to Muslims as victims rather than as perpetrators. That distinction is what needs to be clarified. Cgingold ( talk) 13:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

What about "Category:Violence in the United States perpetrated by Muslims"? I don't like that because it's too broad. How about this: "Category:Politically motivated attacks in the United States perpetrated by Muslims"? Think that would work? I'm with Cgingold: the idea of the category is fine, but the title's a bit unclear as it stands now. -- User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 13:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

"perpetrated by Muslims" is very problematic. A Muslim could pick up a pistol and rob a gas station just because he's a crook. This category has to be limited ot crimes inspired by teh political, nationalistic, or religious ideologies associated with the Islamic/Arab cultures. Historicist ( talk) 13:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hence the "Politically motivated attacks" bit. That excludes most robberies and the like. "Religiously motivated attacks..." gets at the same issue, but I don't like it as much; the distinction between a political problem and a religious issue should be delineated. -- User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 13:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

"Category:Ideologically motivated attacks in the United States perpetrated by Muslims"? Historicist ( talk) 14:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

YES. That sidesteps the loaded words on both sides of the argument quite neatly. Shall we take it to the categories-for-discussion page? -- User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

OK - we don't necessarily need the discussion, if it's not going to be controversial. But categories aren't like articles - you can't move them. What we'll have to do is create the new category, then transfer all the articles from the old one into the new one. If you don't mind waiting until tonight I can do it when I get home; AWB is great for stuff like that. -- User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

My pleasure - anything I can do to help. Speaking of which...do you use AWB? If you ever want mass-recategorization done, or a mass adding of new categories, just let me know and I can take care of it. Saves a lot of manual stuff. -- User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Sure - I'll do that tonight as well. -- User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 15:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I was trolling through my watchlist and saw all of your recent work on Riverdale, Bronx. I had edited the article way back when and created a category of people from Riverdale, which was posted for deletion along with Category:People from Greenwich Village, New York. The same group of people pushed for deletion of both, but the Greenwich Village category was kept and the Riverdale one deleted. This was one of my first rude introductions to the rude world of CfD, only convincing me that people who have little to contribute to Wikipedia will decide to turn themselves into big shots by passing judgment on articles and categories, few of which meet their discerning sense of deletion. In the Riverdale article, I saw your addition of the RJC's Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt, a clearly notable individual and an article with more than a dozen sources that is now up for deletion, and for which I proudly voted to keep. A visit to your talk page turned up your recent article for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting, which I also have a hard time believing justified deletion. I'm glad to see that you've put your nose to the Wikipedia grindstone and have started building and improving interesting articles thoroughly documented with reliable and verifiable sources. It's been a long time since we crossed paths and I'm glad to see the progress since you first started. Keep it up and don't allow the deletionists to get you down. Alansohn ( talk) 14:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Confused as to what you would like me to possibly do. I believe the category could possibly benefit from a more specific title but I'm not sure if editors would accept "Islamic Terrorism in the United States" as a subcategory of "Islamic Terrorism." I believe it would be more accurate to use the word terrorism though. ShamWow ( talk) 20:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

"Terrorism" is an awfully loaded word, though, and I think we'd have some trouble if we decided to use it. I agree - I think it's the most accurate word. But we have to tread a fine line between accuracy and using loaded words. -- User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

OK - I'll do it tonight, then. -- User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry - I ended up being out later than I intended, and I didn't get to it until tonight. It's done now. -- User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 02:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 17:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The new page Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League was put up to counter the problem, shared by such groups as the ADL and Human Rights Watch, of aggressive ctitics overwhelming the page. This is a routine solution on Wikipedia. Historicist ( talk) 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I believe there may be a typo in the message you left on Supreme Deliciousness' talk page. -- Nsaum75 ( talk) 04:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

One to go. Shouldn't "now welcome" be "not welcome"? Hertz1888 ( talk) 13:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I notice you’ve put an image of an equestrian statue in the art section of this page. I don’t know if you noticed there’s a bit of an edit spat over images at the moment; do you have an opinion on the subject?
Also, it’s in the art section, which already has a picture of the Balboa Park statue, but it's next to the paragraph about literature (and which mentions the Mocedades de Rodrigo, specifically); Do you think its worth swapping for an image of that document? Swanny18 ( talk) 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

On June 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen ( talk) 20:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Shalom and thank you for your advice. I will try as best as possible to follow them. I may very well come back to you for help and more advice. All the best. -- Boatduty177177 ( talk) 22:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Shalom khaverim! As you may have heared, I was unfairly blocked for some time. Someone falsely accused me of being sockpuppet. I think I will take a long vacation. I really don't like this place as much as I used to. It's unfair to see anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish users gangging up on people like this. Anyway, it was nice meeting you. Maybe we will talk again in better circumstances. All the best to you. -- Boatduty177177 ( talk) 20:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Nableezy ( talk) 23:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

1 more Nableezy ( talk) 00:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

1 more Nableezy ( talk) 03:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

1 more Nableezy ( talk) 03:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, I don't know whether you are clsoely following the deletion thread but, in case you are not doing so, I've made suggestions in the discussion. [11]-- Peter cohen ( talk) 16:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi thought you might want to take a look at Talk:David Oppenheimer#Synagogues. Skookum1 ( talk) 16:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm a big fan of the new Koren Sacks Siddur. Glad you created the wiki page--not something I am good at doing. In fact, I created the entry for Elyahu Koren, but first spelled his name Eliyahu, then was told it was Elyahu (so I changed it), and now I'm told it really is Eliyahu and want to go back to that spelling. Can you help? Also, it seems i've not sufficiently done things in wiki style and all my be deleted. Would appreciate your help. Thanks. sheryl.abbey@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheryl Abbey ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. I noticed your proposal at Category talk:Beaux Art synagogues, and was about to complete it, but I'm unsure about one thing. Do you want it renamed to Category:Beaux Arts synagogues or Category:Beaux-Arts synagogues? The difference is concerning the usage of a hyphen between Beaux and Arts. I await your response. Regards, The Earwig ( Talk | Contribs) 03:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

a lil confused, were your responses here intended to be their own view or an endorsement of Gatoclass's? If it was the former could you section it off as the others are, if it is the latter would you mind combing it into one comment and placing that as a numbered endorsement of Gatoclass's view? Thanks, Nableezy ( talk) 19:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Question for you on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^{talk| contribs} 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

On June 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Emanu-El (Victoria, British Columbia), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 08:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I nominated Montefiore Synagogue at DYK and created an interesting hook. Let me know what you think. Keep up the great work! Alansohn ( talk) 01:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The article is currently legible for DYK? Are you planning on nominating. PS a good hook that springs to mind would be that it's the oldest Ashkenzi (I can't spell, sorry) Synagogue in the Enligh speaking world. Jolly Ω Janner 20:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I searched for photos on both Geograph British Isles and Flickr, but I didn't find any (well, none with the appropriate licenses). I shall now nominate it for DYK... Jolly Ω Janner 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Historicist, I saw that you were discussing with John Nagle a possible move for the article. I recently put the article up for deletion, and John has already commented. I thought I'd tell you about it in case you hadn't noticed. Cheers, Jalapenos do exist ( talk) 23:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply

and your rants about others is civil? kindly refrain from posting to my talk page, i have no use for hypocritical advice. Nableezy ( talk) 03:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I've thought about expanding the human rights sections Military of Nepal, Military of Pakistan, and Military of Morocco following your post at the AFD. Do you have any ideas? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 03:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Forgive me if I have doubts about how long the information would stay up. I wonder about beginning an article on United Nations Peacekeeping troops, which would include successes, failures, and abuse of civilian populations. Historicist ( talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Is there not already an article on peacekeepers? I like that idea. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 19:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm actually interested in that too; a long time ago I did some research on the war between east and west pakistan and find it particularly interesting. Pakistan is in denial of that part of their history. Fuzbaby ( talk) 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Once you leave Western Europe (you don't have to go far, Poland will do) you will find that most articles on the history and politics of every nation are either the merest PR copy, or history as it is written by an active nationalist movement. Certainly the history of Pakistan needs editing. This makes it a nation like almost all the other nations. I have a couple of times attempted to edit aspects of national history in sundry parts of the world when I happened to have material on my desk for other reasons. I find that even when material is well-sourced and accurate, it gets expunged rapidly if it is also unflattering to the notions of an active nationalist movement. Do go ahead, it is work that Wikipedia desperately needs Did you see the recent article in the New York Times, mostly on edit wars over Scientology, but citing national history as an area where Wikipedia is conspicuously biased and laughably inaccurate. It is probably the area of Wikipedia that most desperately needs attention. So, while the work may not be yours to complete, I do hope that you will undertake some part of it. Historicist ( talk) 15:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for adding to Middle Street Synagogue, Brighton and starting Brighton Regency Synagogue. I have a number of extra sources so I will try to expand the latter from tomorrow. As I'm local, I can go and take a picture if the Flickr ones aren't able to be released under suitable licences. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 20:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply

A better pic of the Sassoon Mausoleum should be possible; it's on a corner site, which makes life easier. I should be able to get down there in a couple of weeks or so. Sadly Middle Street Synagogue is now closed for the foreseeable future: it is completely encased in scaffolding and can't be seen at all. I'm lucky I got the external shot when I did! If I see any announcements about reopening, I'll see if they're doing interior tours (they have occasionally in the past, especially during the Brighton Festival). Totally agree about Brighton's architecture; here are some of the best examples. I'm preparing a similar list of Grade II* listed buildings as well; many of those are Regency-era. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 22:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply

On July 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sassoon Mausoleum, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen ( talk) 20:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello! Your submission of Plymouth Synagogue at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! can dle • wicke 19:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey,

You seemed to like my new page. I have a peer review and a Good Article nomination, both active. I wonder if you might find time to express your thoughts in one (or both) of them. I guess if you have feedback, that would belong in the peer review, and if you think its already pretty good and want to support it, that would belong in the GA review. Direct edits are obviously welcome as well.

Thanks!

Some links to save you time:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt/archive1 (the peer review)
• Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt (the article)
• Talk:Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt (you can find the GA nomination here)

TachyonJack ( talk) 19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply

On July 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cheltenham Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply

On July 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Merthyr Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 08:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

On July 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bloomingdale Insane Asylum, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ  ^talk/ _contribs 08:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

On July 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sandys Row Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky ( talk) 20:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Historicist! I have noticed that you have been starting new articles on WikiProject Israel. Please announce them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel/New articles so that others may notice them. Thanks, Ynhockey ^{( Talk)} 21:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

On July 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Montefiore Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass ( talk) 01:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 02:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Nice work there! Just a quick note to say that you should use {{ cite web}} for referencing the entries. The template looks a bit complicated but you can get it down to four fields at minimum - url, title, publisher, accessdate. See the example on the ref I added for the building being listed. Mjroots ( talk) 05:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Not sure if you remember but a week or so ago we had a brief discussion about creating an article on UN peacekeeper abuses. Here was the info you posted:

UN peacekeepers have been accused of child rape, sexual abuse or soliciting prostitutes during various peacekeeping missions, starting in 2003, in Congo, ^[1] Haiti, ^{[2] [3]} Liberia, ^[4] Sudan, ^[5] Burundi and Côte d'Ivoire. ^[6]

Would you be willing to collaborate in a sandbox? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 09:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on New Repertory Theatre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Nuttah ( talk) 18:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC) reply

While your edit here was warranted, your explanation was off. The IP address restored stuff that did not belong in the article. You removed it, but provided an explanation that contradicted your intention. Thanks anyway. -- GHcool ( talk) 23:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, when you use a ref multiple times it is better to use a named reference. Instead of repeating the ref multiple times you can do the following:
<ref>Israel's American Detractors - Back Again, by Michael Lewis, Middle East Quarterly, November 1997 [http://www.meforum.org/372/israels-american-detractors-back-again]</ref>
will become
<ref name="lewis">Israel's American Detractors - Back Again, by Michael Lewis, Middle East Quarterly, November 1997 [http://www.meforum.org/372/israels-american-detractors-back-again]</ref>
On each following instance of using that ref you then only need to include the name like so:
<ref name="lewis" /> (mind that you close the ref when calling it, it does not need a separate </ref>)
Doing this makes it much easier to edit the page. nableezy - 20:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello again, you do not have to name and define it every time, just the first time. After that just use <ref name"blah" /> with nothing else. Using the same name multiple times causes a ref error. nableezy - 22:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply

nableezy - 23:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply

1 more nableezy - 23:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply

1 more. nableezy - 23:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply

This is to inform you that I have reported your recent lobby-related actions at the ANI notice board. I see these as non-neutral, OR and SYNTH. I also see it as classic disruption, although I have only used that term here, so far. Regards, CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 04:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Please do not unilaterally move pages to names that others may dispute, at least bring up the idea on the talk page prior to moving the article. If the move is at all contested it needs to go through the process at WP:RM and have an uninvolved editor close the discussion. nableezy - 03:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I have nominated Anti-Israel lobby in the United States, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Israel lobby in the United States. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. nableezy - 03:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 03:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I was asked by an admin to alert you to this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Revert_move_of_Jewish_lobby.2C_done_without_discussion.3F CarolMooreDC ( talk) 04:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

On July 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Plymouth Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen ( talk) 04:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Is there a reason why you are not arguing to keep the article you created? LoverOfTheRussianQueen ( talk) 23:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

On July 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salomons Museum, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator ( talk) 23:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello! Your submission of Anti-Israel lobby in the United States at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist ( talk) 09:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I've looked through the pictures I took in the Brunswick estate in April and have found one that shows the cupola very clearly. Will upload over the weekend; I think I've got some sources with some info as well, to expand the article. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 23:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply

On July 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lod Mosaic Archaeological Center, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen ( talk) 05:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

On July 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roof-top synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie S93 ^{Only You Can Prevent Drama} 18:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Have you withdrawn from the fray?

I am continuing work on the article in my userspace, hoping that when some of the dust settles we can revive it. I have a question for you about American Friends of the Middle East. Their webpage does not present them as a lobbying organization. Any references to lobbying efforts by the AFME in the New York Times peter out around 1960; in the last couple of years, they do not appear at all.

Are they still active? Are they still lobbying? -- Ravpapa ( talk) 07:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply

As you would have seen had you simply followed the link, they changed their name but still exist. Moreover, the citation in the article dates to 2001 and describes them as "active" under the original name. The New York Times does not write about every lobbying organization every year. Historicist ( talk) 15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

FYI in case you don't read talk per my tag of "History" section: As I brought up at Talk:Anti-Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Stict_guidelines_for_including_individuals.2Fgroups_per_WP:BLP_and_WP:Libel, a books.google search showed neither of the sources on Committee for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land included the phrase "anti-Israel," not to mention "anti-ISrael lobby," so they are not relevant and the whole history section will be deleted. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 23:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

On July 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tzippori Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen ( talk) 12:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello! Your submission of Way to Heaven (play) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Art LaPella ( talk) 06:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for your positive criticism, I have rephrased the sentence and I hope it is not ambiguous anymore. If you have any other questions, please contact me again - when writing about a subject one is familiar with, one sometimes looses track on how the actual narrative is perceived by third parties. Your feedback is very much appreciated. Regards Skäpperöd ( talk) 13:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

And thank you very much for the c/e. Skäpperöd ( talk) 14:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello! Your submission of GreenSun Energy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist ( talk) 09:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Please check again. Thanks, Dabomb87 ( talk) 20:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. Your DYK suggestion needs a citation. Please see the DYK page. Thank you. - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Good to go. Thanks for your prompt reply. - SusanLesch ( talk) 22:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC) reply

On August 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Daniel Patrick Boyd, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen ( talk) 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply

(You wrote)
I did a little clean-up of some issues in English usage in this article. Please check the part about the Allied soldiers buried in the cemetery, it was unclear. I attempted to clarify, but which to be sure that what I wrote was accurate. Nice article. Historicist ( talk) 21:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for the touch-ups. I had fun working on it. The bit about the Allied soldiers looks better now. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

On August 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Committee for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royal broil 14:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You were involved in a discussion on the lead image of this article a while ago. There is a proposal for this here Your comments would be appreciated. Swanny18 ( talk) 21:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

On August 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Way to Heaven (play), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 02:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Lindo lamp at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

On August 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shaarey Zedek, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 08:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Óbuda Synagogue at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist ( talk) 11:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I thought it is an interesting fact that even synagogues were not spared, despite WWI was not that severe (especially compared to WWII). Such decisions "on whether or not to add" are usually up to the author. I myself would mention it, also in the articles on the other involved buildings (if they exist), to show that it was a phenomenon, not just unlucky one. Materialscientist ( talk) 12:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello! Your submission of Reflections on the Revolution In Europe at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dylan 620 ( contribs, logs) ^{help us!} 01:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I have nominated Holsworthy Barracks terror plot, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holsworthy Barracks terror plot. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. \ Backslash Forwardslash / { talk} 07:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply

On August 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Óbuda Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for sending me that afd. I believe we should work on Daniel Patrick Boyd. I think it should be under something more like 2009 North Carolina Jihad Cell. Best. ShamWow ( talk) 03:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Ok, good to know about that a page exists for the Raleigh group. I wonder if the Daniel Patrick Boyd article should be merged with the Raleigh group page. The Boyd article is much lengthier than the Raleigh page. ShamWow ( talk) 15:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply

There's already a discussion of this at AN/I. Please don't ad POV tags, as you do here, [12] [13] simply because you have not prevailed on a BLP issue. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 19:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on False Moshe Ya'alon quotation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. nableezy - 19:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 19:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you have an email address? Wikifan12345 ( talk) 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Just so you know, you don't need to post your email address publically. In your preferences it can be enabled, and then you can email users from the "tool box section" that is located on the lower left of your screen. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 20:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

On August 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Cartoons that Shook the World, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Ed  (Talk • Contribs) 21:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC) reply

On August 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Duke Riley, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 11:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Great article. Why don't you see if there's anything worth adding from Israeli–Palestinian history denial. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 22:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Are you aware that you remain under a topic ban from articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict? As you've written Denial of the Temple in Jerusalem, it's a clear violation of your topic ban, in particular the "History" section. I'm going to ask you to a) stop editing there, and b) respect the terms of your topic ban. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time, but next time you may be blocked. Again, if you feel the topic ban was inappropriate, I would invite you to ask for review at WP:AE, but testing the limits and seriousness of the ban through breaching experiments like this one is not the way to go. MastCell  ^Talk 23:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Mast, Is it by any chance possible that you chill with the ban? There was no specific consensus for the ban and it came on the heels of sockpuppetry allegations, something that is not really related edit-warring (which is the point of these types of bans). Historict has not edit-warred since his block ended. Wikipedia is not better off without impeccably sourced pic-laden articles like Denial of the Temple in Jerusalem, an article now up for DYK. It makes far more sense to impose 1rr restriction then a topic ban. What do you think? -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Not sockpuppetry allegations, proven sockpuppetry used to edit war in what a consensus of users found to be a BLP violation. There is no consensus required for an ARBPIA topic ban and if you or Historicist wish to appeal the ban WP:AE is thataway. nableezy - 04:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Nab: Please be more constructive on Wikipedia. No offense, but I think you should focus a little less on reverting all over the place and a little less on obsessing over getting editors banned. I can only speak for myself, but I would never argue for banishment of any editor who has far more DYK's then myself. Again, no offense intended. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Im sorry, I have a problem with users who edit war in BLP violating material that defames those whose views they dislike. Which incidentally is the exact behavior that led me to loose any respect for you I once had. So, no offense taken. nableezy - 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) @Brewcrewer: You are an admin, so you can't possibly be serious when you say that the sockpuppetry "allegations" have nothing to do with edit-warring. The sock was used to edit-war and circumvent 3RR. The sockpuppetry, as you well know, was confirmed by checkuser. I am actually willing to consider 1RR as reasonable, but I'm disturbed enough by your inappropriate enabling and excuse-making that I'm having second thoughts. If you can't at least bring yourself to admit that Historicist's behavior leading to the block - recidivist edit-warring and abusive, confirmed, sockpuppetry - was inappropriate, then I don't see how I can take your advocacy here seriously. I'll reiterate what I said previously: at this point, I think that the ban is a valid application of the discretionary sanctions, and completely in line with both their spirit and letter. As far as I'm concerned, the ban stands for now, and I will enforce it by block if needed. I'm willing to consider alternate proposals, as long as their proposers don't seem completely divorced from reality. Alternately, I'm willing for Historicist to submit this ban for review at WP:AE - the prescribed appeal process, IIRC - and I'll happily abide by whatever consensus emerged from uninvolved input there. MastCell  ^Talk 04:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not an admin, thank god, but that's irrelevant. The lawyer within me gets the better of me and I always add "alleged" to everything. I'm not really disagreeing with the results of the CU. Besides a CU was not needed because the sockpuppetry was so obvious. It actually almost looked like he didn't know the rules of sockpuppetry (prolific article creators aren't really involved in wiki-politic policies). In any case I struck "allegations." I hope we can go forward from here in a positive manner that is advantageous to Wikipedia overall. That is, that Historict agree to a 1rr restriction, but that he be allowed to get back to his prolific article creations. Best, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not convinced that familiarity with "wiki-politics" is essential to recognizing that it's wrong to circumvent a 3RR block with sockpuppets. I'd like to hear from Historicist. MastCell  ^Talk 05:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

True that. And hearing from Historicist would be constructive at this point. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

These edits [14] [15] [16] are arguably topic ban violations as well, and this one is a much clearer violation. It looks as if nearly every edit since the block expired has been on the topic of IP relations. Edit warring was the tip of the iceberg. Speaking as a frequent target of accusations from this editor, there has been a general tendentiousness on talk pages and metapages regarding the IP conflict. When considering how many breaks to give a difficult editor who has clearly operated in bad faith, please consider the effect on the many editors whose efforts and goodwill are severely tested by this. Wikidemon ( talk) 17:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• While I admit that I failed to read the fine print and did not realize that the ban on editing on the politics of the Middle East was permanent, I would like to point out that temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70. The earliest dating for the Palestinian people, by the political activist and Palestinian nationalist historian Rashid Khalidi in the standard work on the topic his Palestinian Identity, is sometime in the early twentieth century. I fail to see how writing on ancient archaeology or ancient history can be interpreted as writing on the Arab-Israeli conflict. We all have to accept facts as facts. There was a temple. There were ancient Jewish kingdom. The Arab conquest happened. By the modern era the majority of the population was Arabic-speaking Muslims. How we deal with the situation now is politics and does relate to the conflict. But ancient history is, thank heaven, still fact-based and ought ot be a topic separate from the conflict. Wikipedia, by the by, could use a lot more articles on topics in pseudo-history. A student using wikipedia would, for example, come away with the idea that the idea that Zheng He sailed to the Americas is supported by evidence and historical opinion Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, and that the king of morocco is a descendant of the prophet and that Morocco is a constitutional monarchy - rather like Britain. I really think that too many editors spend their time attacking editors whose politics they dislike, and too little improving the encyclopedia. Historicist ( talk) 01:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Historicist: You may by 100% right, but I don't think that will get us anywhere. Your prolific Ancient Israel/Modern Israel article creations are obviously extremely valuable to Wikipedia, but its edit-warring and other wiki-violations (like that earlier ban evasion) that concern other editors. From what I'm picking up here, if there are assurances that wiki-violations are a thing of the past and a promise not to edit-war (like agreeing to a 1rr), all this debate about what's under the ban and what isn't under the ban won't be necessary. Best, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I would happily agree to a 1rr limit. Historicist ( talk) 17:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• statement Although I only discovered DKY this summer, (I know that people had put some of my earlier articles up, but I only recently noticed that there was a nomination process) I have created hundreds of articles, most of which would have qualified for DKY since I first began. For some examples see: Rundbogenstil, Friedrich Weinbrenner, my series on historic earhquakes in the middle east including Galilee earthquake of 1837, Wooden synagogues and Oldest synagogues in the world, which settled the previous ceaseless, silly claims on the page Synagogue. I often do major renovations of articles that have lacked editing. See Riverdale, Bronx, and synagogue for examples. Most of my edits, however, consist of tidbits of info and minor cleanups. You can see my IP address, and, therefore, where I work. I keep Wikipedia open on my desktop and - as a way of avoiding the labor I am paid to perform - often add information that I have on hand.

I freely admit to losing my temper on certain topics. If you think that this is an hanging offense, so be it. It would save me a lot of time that I should probably be using elsewhere in the first place.

I continue to maintain, however, that national conflicts are the worst pages on Wikipedia. Not as high profile as the biographies that were recently put under supervision. But far more damaging in their impact. And a large part fo the trouble is the aggressive, partisan editing of editors who approach the subject without reliable evidence and make it impossible to edit reliable articles. I first met the aggressively contentious editors who I tangled with this month while spending three-months attempting to insert a well-documented fact into the page Rashid Khalidi. The information did ultimately get in. But when I see similar material (Poland is rife with it) I sigh and leave the page. Life is short. Wikipedia desperately needs professional editors for all pages on national history and contending national narratives. And I don't mean only Poland and the Middle East. the page on France is risible, starting with its absurd assertions about Roman provinces. If there were world enough and time... Historicist ( talk) 20:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I tend to agree with you that there are many areas of Wikipedia which sorely need attention. You are currently able to edit at will on pages about Riverdale, French history, historical earthquakes, and architecture. You can even write about pseudohistory, broadly defined, with only a few exceptions. I have no reason to doubt that your contributions in these areas are quite valuable. The concern with Denial of the Temple in Jerusalem should be obvious. You are welcome to write about the history of the Temple, its destruction, and so forth. But the "Denial" article focused largely on modern-day Palestinian and Israeli leaders, and dealt directly with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. My first preference would be for you to focus on some of the areas in which you profess interest and which are unrelated to the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think this would be best for the encyclopedia and, probably, for your enjoyment of it. As a second choice, if you feel strongly, I would be fine with lifting the topic ban and replacing it with 1RR, with the understanding that any further sockpuppetry would result in a lengthy and probably indefinite block. I'll leave the decision up to you. MastCell  ^Talk 23:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I would prefer lifting the topic ban and replacing it with 1RR, with no further sockpuppetry . Historicist ( talk) 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply

OK. I'll log the change to 1RR at the ArbCom case log. For clarity's sake, the restriction is that >1 revert (as defined in WP:3RR) in 24 hours would be a violation. The restriction applies to articles and pages touching on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, broadly defined. If you have a question as to whether it applies to a certain page, and you're considering going over 1RR, then probably best to ask ahead of time about the scope. If you'd rather not ask me, you can post to WP:AE for other input. MastCell  ^Talk 05:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! cmadler ( talk) 16:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey, Nice little article you created. I copy edited it a bit and made some WP:MOS changes. If you disagree with either of them, feel free to revert. Best, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply

In case you're interested, this is a list of all the articles you created. Best, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The official (?) website of the synagogue states that "A small stairway leads to a hall with a ritual fountain. There is a marble plaque above it, commemorating its donation by the De Benedetti brothers in 1797" ( [17]. The articles says " A date of 5557 (1797) (...) on a staircase may refer to the date of the synagogue's construction, or of a renovation. (...)". It is not necessarily a contradiction but could be a nice complement to the article. As I am not a specialist in this topic, I don't what to alter the article without a stronger reference. What do you think? Alberto Fernandez Fernandez ( talk) 17:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

And if I may offer my two cents about this DYK: I would add a bit more to the hook to give it more context. How about adding that it took place in the 1300's, that its in Italy, that all the synagogues were turned into churches, or a combination of these added tidbits. Best, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I once saw you listed at the top of a register of individuals with >25 DKY's. Can you point me to that list/page? Historicist ( talk) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Check out WP:DYKLIST. There are two lists: the one on top lists created/expanded and nominations, while the bottom lists created/expanded only. I think all yours fit in the created/expanded category. If you've made it to 25, I will be happy yo offer my congrats for your great DYK (Did You Know?) articles. Alansohn ( talk) 00:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello! Your submission of Temple Denial at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! cmadler ( talk) 13:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC) reply

May I please appeal to you to use more discretion in your references to the two recent academic articles on the subject of "anti-semitism and anti-Israel beliefs"? These articles are valid sources for Wikipedia, but it is not appropriate to use them as definitive statements of authority on a subject as complicated as "new anti-Semitism". They certainly aren't appropriate for articles on Human Rights Watch or "Progressive Jewish Thought and the 'New Anti-Semitism'".

(You will note, btw, that I have not removed these articles from the New antisemitism page.) CJCurrie ( talk) 23:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• A fine example of wikipedia no-nothingism. Two well-designed academic studies establishing not only that there a link between anti-Semiticm and anti-Israel activism, (the studies show that people with anti-Israel opinions, people who would never utter an anti-Semitic word and who deny being at all anti-Semitic, harbor deeply anti-Semitic attitudes,) and that anti-Israel rhetoric leads to anti-Semitic attitudes and incidents. I attempted to add a sentence, (differently tailored sentences) to four or five articles that contain lengthy sections on the argument over whether there is a link between anti-Smeitism and anti-Israel rhetoric. CJCurrie followed me around and removed the sentences from all but one article. Some people cannot bear to see actual evidence that contradicts their dealy-held beliefs. The pity is that so many of them edit Wikipedia. Historicist ( talk) 23:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I did not use them as "definitive statements" of any kind. the articles referenced contain long sections on the arguments for and against the idea of a link. Even the one mention that CJCurrie did not remove, ws moved to the very bottom of an interminable laundry list of opinions arguing for or against the link. As I said, some people cannot stand seeing their eliefs contradicted by evidence, adn the stornger the evidence, the stronger the compulsion to edit it out. Historicist ( talk) 23:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. I responded to your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 02:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I see the fight you got going on Criticism of HRW. Hilarious. That guy Sean Hoyland accuses you of not assuming good faith but he is the one consistently attacking you as a POV warrior who has no respect for the rules. It's a tough article but I'll see if I can do anything. And if you need to add criticism, bypass that page and place it right on those individual's pages. Keep up the fight. ShamWow ( talk) 04:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I haven't offered any opinion. I'm looking through the archives of RS/N now to see what they say. — Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs) 22:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

On September 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Denial of the Temple in Jerusalem, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Fadi Kiblawi, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fadi Kiblawi. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. *** Crotalus *** 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Repeatedly calling others bullies and lauding people who you think "stand up to the bullies" is a violation of both WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE. If you do not wish to see your topic ban reinstated, as I am considering asking for, I would advise you to not continue saying these things. nableezy - 23:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Or, you might contemplate your own behavior. Historicist ( talk) 23:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I do, but I dont plan on asking for me to topic banned. If you think you have a case for that feel free, I am just telling you it is not in your interest to continue saying these things. It just makes for another point in a request for you to be topic banned (it makes it real easy on admins when they see personal attacks and battleground mentality). Feel free to ignore my advice, but it is in your best interest if you follow it. Matter of fact, I dont even know why I am telling you this. nableezy - 23:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The reference to the mere rhetoric blog keeps being removed. I get that a blog might not count as a reliable source in general, but in this case it seems only helpful to include the link since that is where the story broke and the news sources cite it anyway. But I have little experience editing controversial articles, especially regarding living persons, so my sense on this may be incorrect. But in this case, it is not as if the MR post makes allegations beyond what appears in the various news articles, so including it isn't about providing evidence, but rather about how the story broke-- in other words, the MR blog is not a reliable source in itself, but rather a noteworthy part of the story itself. What do you think? I have posted to the talk page. PStrait ( talk) 23:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply

On September 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scolanova Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 12:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

On September 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cherasco Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 12:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of St. Anne's Church, Trani at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Grsz ¹¹ 21:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

so if its in the articles section and hasd a publishing date it was a published article? Slatersteven ( talk) 22:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the clarrification. Slatersteven ( talk) 22:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thats an OR advantage, and as such not admisable. Slatersteven ( talk) 22:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

No, it's really not. It's just how newspapers signal that a piece is an opinion column, not a news article.

Can you proved some sources pleae? Slatersteven ( talk) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The by the definition of wikis rules this is WP:COS & and WP:OR. Slatersteven ( talk) 22:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Don't bite the newcomer and assume good faith. Thanks, -- 69.208.131.94 ( talk) 22:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

You are not a newcomer, you are an experienced editor and somebody's sockpuppet. Historicist ( talk) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Me or Histor? Slatersteven ( talk) 22:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)LOL cross post there. Slatersteven ( talk) 22:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Um, I actually have a history editing this article and just choose not to register with a user name, sorry that is so upsetting.-- 69.208.131.94 ( talk) 22:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Joe Stork as you wrote it was appallingly one sided and little more then a piece of character assassination with little or no back ground details, just attacks on him [ [18]]. Its not as if the information was hard to come by, there is a nice biography of himk on HRW's own web site. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I have. The point is you should have created a balanced page to start with, not just a reapeat of the accusation that are already on Wikipedia. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

On September 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St. Anne's Church, Trani, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 19:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I opened a thread at WP:AE on your recent actions, you can see this here. nableezy - 20:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

This is to let you know, per discussion at WP:AE, that the topic ban you were previously under has now been re-imposed. To make sure you are familiar with the terms, you are banned indefinitely from editing any Wikipedia page related to Israeli-Palestinian issues, broadly construed. [19]. Any violations of this topic ban will be met with escalating blocks. SirFozzie ( talk) 22:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

This topic ban is a bad decision. DVD 23:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

On September 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marc Garlasco, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈  Chamal  ^talk ¤ 13:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

On September 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stern House, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈  Chamal  ^{Avast, landlubber!} ¤ 09:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply

On September 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Migdal Synagogue, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen ( talk) 04:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thought this would interest you: [20]

Very nice. How could I doubt you? ShamWow ( talk) 00:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC) reply

This is to inform you that you have been blocked for 72 hours for these edits to New antisemitism, [21], and [22], as they are a violation of your topic ban. [23]. SirFozzie ( talk) 16:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Shahawar Matin Siraj ShamWow ( talk) 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Could you please see my question at Talk:Bikur Cholim Machzikay Hadath#Oldest synagogue?? Thanks - Jmabel | Talk 05:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I came across this article and thought it might be of interest to you. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Brockton murders, Fadi Kiblawi. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to the relevant discussion pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brockton murders for Brockton murders, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fadi Kiblawi (2nd nomination) for Fadi Kiblawi. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Congratulations for reaching the milestone of 25 DYK article creations and expansions. Good work! Binksternet ( talk) 19:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello Historicist! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 943 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{ unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Andrés Reséndez - Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Ballard C. Campbell - Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 12:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Agudas Achim Synagogue, in Livingston Manor, New York. Currently up for DYK. Anything you can add from your sources, go ahead. Daniel Case ( talk) 22:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is National revival. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National revival. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Kol Ami of Frederick. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kol Ami of Frederick. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I have nominated Anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RolandR ( talk) 08:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Historicist: This may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. Thanks, IZAK ( talk) 06:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, 8 Blacks prayer hall, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/8 Blacks prayer hall. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Misarxist ( talk) 11:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tel Dan , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sreifa ( talk) 10:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• This block falls under the ArbCom discretionary sanctions for Israeli-Palestinian articles. MastCell  ^Talk 00:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Islam-related violence in the United States, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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.    Cs32en  Talk to me  06:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC) reply

The article Peace Warriors has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No suggestion of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DreamGuy ( talk) 05:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Lincolnwood Jewish Congregation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TM 15:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lincolnwood Jewish Congregation 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/Lincolnwood Jewish Congregation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. TM 16:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Melvin Spector 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/Robert Melvin Spector until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC) reply

The article Temple Oheb Shalom (Baltimore, Maryland) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No claims to notability or independent sources about the topic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TM 02:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article North Shore Congregation Israel 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/North Shore Congregation Israel until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Onel5969 ( talk) 17:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The article Temple Beth Emunah (Brockton, Massachusetts) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No claim to notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TM 00:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jacob J. Schacter 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/Jacob J. Schacter until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Rusf10 ( talk) 03:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Stirling 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/Richard Stirling 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. Tacyarg ( talk) 18:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article African-American lobby in foreign policy 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/African-American lobby in foreign policy 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. -Crossroads- ( talk) 00:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Category:Holocaust plays has been nominated for renaming. 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark Raider 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/Mark Raider 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. Boleyn ( talk) 12:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Category:Plays about The Holocaust has been nominated for renaming. 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply

The article Association for Israel Studies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacking secondary sources to demonstrate sufficient notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply