User talk:Robert Ham

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Robert Ham, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem as Israel's capital[edit]

I have replied at Talk:Knesset#Jerusalem as capital (the earlier discussion was a total mess). Number 5 7 14:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent edit summaries in the article Knesset did not accurately describe your edit. Changes to the content of articles should be accurately described in the edit summary. Number 5 7 13:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was it inaccurate? Robert Ham 14:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed it was reverting vandalism, when in fact it is a NPOV issue. Number 5 7 08:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was an anonymous edit, of a controversial issue, in contradiction to concensus on the talk page. I took that to be vanadlism. The most damning thing being the anonymity. Was I wrong? Robert Ham 08:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there was no consensus for using West Jerusalem (you took my comments the wrong way) and secondly, you were wrong, it was still a misleading edit summary. Coming from an IP address does not damn an edit - there are many quality editors on wikipedia who use IP addresses rather than get an account. Number 5 7 08:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I acknowledge that damning an edit because of using an IP could be a little hasty. Perhaps I was over-zealous in my damning.

Regarding the consensus, I though we had one. There was a discussion of the issue, a solution was highlighted and implemented and no further discussion or objections ensued. That seems like a consensus to me, but that's just me; I'm a relative newbie on Wikipedia. What form does a consensus usually take? Robert Ham 10:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite weary of the battles raging over numerous Israel/Palestinian related issues and I only get involved when there is a clear breach of fact (such as editors claiming that saying Gaza is not part of Israel is POV!), so with the Knesset thing being quite vague I couldn't be bothered to go on. From my supposedly "pro-Palestine" viewpoint (something I am regularly accused of based on the issue mentioned above) the Knesset is in Jerusalem and Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Even if it is West Jerusalem, unlike Berlin (East Berlin and West Berlin), I don't believe the city was ever referred to in that way, even when it was split (1949-1967). Number 5 7 10:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you have your views on the "Jerusalem"/"West Jerusalem" issue. I don't wish to debate that here. What I was much more concerned about is the issue of what constitutes a consensus and what form it takes when one is arrived at. What's the different between a talk page with no consensus, and a talk page with consensus? Robert Ham 11:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think you need more than two editors, but I guess it is a compromise on wording, or a completely new way of saying something so that no-one objects. Number 5 7 11:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start this again. The part of Jerusalem which the Knesset is in is indisputably part of Israel. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So make the page reflect that, and not some wish that Jerusalem is wholly Israeli Robert Ham 08:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the first sentence of Jerusalem. If one article can state that, so can another. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of Jerusalem is also WP:POV. In fact, a lot of that page is WP:POV due to WP:BIAS. Right now, the issue is the description on the Knesset page, not the Jerusalem page. Robert Ham 08:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All talks with Peter Cohen and Timeshifter above[edit]

on the page, extended talk on this and the other categories. Amoruso 06:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unindenting[edit]

On Talk:Jerusalem, you have unindented your response to Tewfik. This is not necessary and makes the structure of the page erratic and messy, causing a lack of clarity and opening the door to confusion. Please don't do this. Robert Ham 09:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied your above comment from my talk page. There are many talk pages where the habit is to alternate indented and unindented as a method of threading a discussion. I guess it depends on what one is used to. But I went ahead just now and indented my last response to Tewfik.

I use a large font. So at some point I have to unindent or the thread gets squeezed into a narrow column that takes too long to scroll through to read. This may not occur when using a smaller font than I use. Or it occurs after more indentation. My unindentation of my second-to-last response to Tewfik was necessary for me for this reason.

Please reply here. I will watchlist this page. This will keep this thread in one place.--Timeshifter 18:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Alternating" indenting is only useful when there are two people communicating. By definition, a talk page involves communication between more than two people.

If indentation gets to the point where you can't read things clearly, that in itself is an indication that you should start a new section. When you unindent and start from the beginning of the line, this is what you are effectively doing. Next time, if you feel the need, might I suggest you create a new section properly? Robert Ham 14:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There would be dozens more sections, and it would be very confusing. It would create more problems than it would solve. But I get your point, and I will unindent less often. The unindentation is not confusing once you get used to it. Not to be flippant, but I have been on wikipedia a couple years, and I have many more edits than you on talk pages, and unindentation is very common on talk pages. --Timeshifter 22:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion would exist if they weren't separated out. If you have a section where instead of unindenting you create new sections, and as a result of this, many more sections are created, this is a good thing. If a section is that big and contains that much discussion, breaking it into separate issues would clarify them and help communication.

Regarding the common practice on Wikipedia, there are many things which are common practice and shouldn't be. Just because they have been done in the past and continue to be done in the present, doesn't mean they should be done in the future. Robert Ham 11:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is room for much improvement at wikipedia. :) More sections are a good thing, I agree. But oftentimes even in short sections there is a point reached where indentation is untenable. At that point people either completely unindent, or they alternate between levels of indentation. Note the current discussion at Talk:Jerusalem. For example; the discussion between you and Tewfik where you two alternate between levels of indentation. There is no perfect solution when several people are involved. --Timeshifter 16:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem maps[edit]

I have been compiling some external links to Jerusalem maps here: *Positions_on_Jerusalem#Jerusalem_maps

Michele Renouf[edit]

Hey. Just wanted to apologize for accidentally accusing you of 3RR. I didn't get much sleep the night before, so when I saw the string of reverts, I didn't read the dates on them as well as I should have, and just thought that they had been done back and forth over a few minutes, as I've seen happen around here all too many times. I need to pay attention more (and start sleeping more than 4 hours a night..) Anyway, sorry again. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S'cool Robert Ham (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William T. Still[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article William T. Still, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of William T. Still. Haemo (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Patrick S. J. Carmack[edit]

An editor has nominated Patrick S. J. Carmack, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick S. J. Carmack and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Bill Still[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bill Still, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bill Still is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bill Still, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

renewal of the money masters debate[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know I'm trying to drum up some support again for inclusion of the money masters, I dont know if you're still using wikipedia at all anymore, I know I certainly wont be contributing anymore if they don't even have the honesty to include a phenomena that has grown to the proportions that the money masters movie has. It's certainly only second to "money as debt" these days. and has been huge on youtube and google video for several years now. I hope you dont feel offended by me contacting you here. Anyway I'll just provide the link to the current ongoing debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_25
- Sincerely Nunamiut (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relating to your question ([1])[edit]

Dear Robert, let me put it this way, in order to be perfectly clear. Ernst Zundel is a big fan of Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler was a big fan of killing Jews (his act of doing so was later called the Holocaust). Michèle Renouf is a big fan of Ernst Zundel because, not in spite of, him being a big fan of Adolf Hitler. Ernst Zundel is such a big fan of Adolf Hitler that he authored a book "The Hitler we loved and why". And he's such a big fan of the Holocaust and the denial of it in the same time (sounds crazy, I know - it *is* crazy) that he has been sentenced to prison in Germany, of all places, for gross incitement to racial hatred, among other things. The same things are true for another man called Horst Mahler. Love for Hitler, hatred for Jews, support from Renouf, prison. And for another man, Fredrick Toeben. And for David Irving too. Same same but never different. Cheers. --Insert coins (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just rabid, superficial nonsense. Your arguments are ridiculous. Robert Ham (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nexus (magazine)[edit]

The article Nexus (magazine) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. Deb (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]