User talk:Shuki/Archive5

Maimonides

I'm pretty sure Maimonides, Avrohom Elyashiv, and Shlomo Amar practiced Judaism. You know, the whole rabbi thing. Parthian Scribe 09:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

totally redundant cat. --Shuki (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate sources for claims

In several recent changes you made you used inappropriate sources. For instance, to show that Yediot Aharonot is "Pro-Livni" (which was probably IMHO the most reasonable statement of them) you bring something that Uzi Mahnaimi wrote in passing in the times (which was started as "Observers speculated"). This is not appropriate source for the claim. For such a claim you should bring either explicit endorsement in the editorial of the paper or evaluations by media critics. You did similar things (only with worse sources) in trying to show that Meretz is "far left" and for Moshe Feiglin to "show" that his action are civil disobedience. Please stop and debate in each talk page the merits of the claim you are trying to insert. Mashkin (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:2009 IDF T-Shirt controversy, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Cerejota (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that is weird. That information was certainly not there when I made the edit. --Shuki (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

3rr

I suggest that in order not to be close to violating Wikipedia:Three-revert rule (you have reverted three times) you will return the page to the version without the claim. Mashkin (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think that it is you who have to be careful not to rv this time. I have a feeling that someone will do the work for you, right?

Your problem is that you don't even want to compromise. Your POV blinds you into not accepting legitimate edits on this article and others. No article is owned by any editor no matter how much they think they are an expert on the subject. If another editor adds sourced information, especially from various WP:RS, you can't merely delete it because you choose. In this case, if you insist on proving that Meretz is not a far-left party and that the sources I've brought are plainly wrong, then you must bring sourced evidence to prove otherwise. Instead of contributing, you choose to delete others. --Shuki (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Meretz is widely considered to be on the far-left of the political spectrum. Kadima would be center-left, Labor left, and noone would dispute that Meretz is farther left then Kadima or Labor. Do these perceptions need to be documented? Or are they common knowledge? If they need to be documented, how would we go about doing that? Hickorybark (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Linkspam and the Mechinat Rabin page

In your edit summary to Mechinat Rabin in which you removed external links to news articles in the electronic media, you used the term "linkspam". I would suppose this [derogatory, pejorative term refers to links deemed superfluous, but would you kindly explain to me how this relates to Wikipedia editing policy? I was the one who created the page and included those links as Further reading (not references), and did not know that they're invalid as your removal seems to indicate. The references I used to create the page are websites and duly cited. Since in the past I've noted editors remove page content according to their personal interpretations and judgment regardless of WP policy, I need to where this edit stands, on what grounds. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

When editing WP, we have to think about the long-term future of the article. If you must link to other news articles, I suggest you add part of this information into the body of the article and reference to that. As it is, extensive weight has been given to this one subject in the article and it has virtually nothing to do with the school. Claim to fame is the actions of two students? Please read WP:ONEEVENT. On top of that, a wikinews article has been created. Your further reading should be moved to there. --Shuki (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; these aspects of editing are new to me. Your "two students" query (based only on a later reference, appended from a single article?) fails to take into account the level and extent of those involved in this story as it developed over the course of a month,as I hoped would be clear from the initial content of the page: a graduates' meeting at which combat in Gaza was discussed, the program director (himself an IDF reserves officer) who has educated hundreds of IDF soldiers and officers during the past decade, two high-ranking officers responsible for the IDF and education, broad news coverage on a controversial aspect of the problematic Gaza conflict that involved thousands of soldiers and touched upon their families' and Israeli society's concerns. I still find the term "linkspam" objectionable and insulting, difficult to reconcile with acknowledgement on the deleting editor's part of the good faith efforts I made, as might have been but wasn'ty evinced by an explanation on the article's Talk page or my own. Hence my approach to you here.-- Deborahjay (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the term WP:LINKSPAM is derogatory at all and stand by my use of the term. I would understand that having someone edit your writing might be offensive, but I just want to clean up the article. Frankly, I don't identify with the school but it does not mean I don't care about the quality of the article. IMO, the main body should also be chopped up. Currently, it reads like an informational pamphlet with non-notable information like the part of about dormitory conditions. Frankly, most might say that the school itself is non-notable and ONEEVENT. Maybe we should take this to the Israel project page? Personally, I tend to want to see short articles on educational institutions. --Shuki (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I read the WP:LINKSPAM description and it seems quite clearly limited to external links that are essentially promotional material. The external links in Mechinat Rabin are to media reports about the controversy instance, and are simply many. Your "standing by [your] use of the term" doesn't indicate suitable reading comprehension on your part for someone who's going to "correct" other editors. The article needs restructuring, which I would welcome as it isn't my strong point. As in general I'm an inclusionist and have a great deal of professional experience writing about Israel for overseas audiences, that's usually the guideline along which I provide content. As for the links to news material, I think (and will note this on the Talk page) that these should be winnowed to include only those dealing with the Mechinah itself. That's about it for now; hope I've made my position clearer. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole issue seems to have been blown out of proportion entirely given that it was a non story. The NPOV in me sees this two week one event issue removed from the article entirely, the POV in me says keep it up because it shows an example of a kooky thing that happened there and how the head of the school went out of his way to blacken the image of the army and Israel. --Shuki (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is a revealing testament to your personal judgment that evidently underlies your edits as well as your understanding of what's relevant to Israeli society (an issue of interest to the English-language readership as demonstrated by the amount of media coverage devoted to it daily, not so?). You call "Nonstory" an issue with major headlines and a broad-ranging series of followup articles in both the Israeli and international press (still in progress; watch the weekend papers). The matter of Purity of Arms and the IDF code of conduct are crucial fundamentals of Israeli society directly affecting innumerable people on all sides of the conflict. This particular flareup started with the Rabin Mechinah but its influence is not restricted to that program. As for your interpretation of Danny Zamir's motives, it's just that—and I can assure you that the opposite (as he avers) is just as likely or even more true than your personal (and clearly antipathetic) opinion: why not believe and report that he acted out of intense concern for the wellbeing of IDF soldiers? I and others will do further edits to rectify the proportions of this incident on the page as it relates to the topic. The page is a work in progress. -- Deborahjay (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

DJ, there is no doubt that everyone has POV. On top of that, FWIW, you even admitted that you also have WP:COI on the Rabin article. Given that, it should not prevent both of us from making the article better, accurate, and NPOV (do you know what that means)? If you have read my part of the discussion, then I already stated some issues with regard to that. It soothes my heart that Danny Zamir's motives are pure but that is not even alluded to in the article either way. IMO, the Cast Lead section is an embarrassment to the school. There might be an attempt to explain the event as an attempt to expose, or rather, improve code of conduct, but nonetheless, at this point, the tempest in a teapot is that Zamir's students testified even though the information was heresay and he ran to the media to publicize this. As for page being a work in progress; every page is a work in progress. If you really want to work on it, put up a 'contruction' template for a few hours, but don't expect other editors to wait a few days while Mashkin blanks material he deems unfit for the article. --Shuki (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Abusive Behavior

your behavior is abusive and not appropriate for Wikipedia. You are trying to insert various things to the Sasson Report and to the Meretz. Given that there is opposition to those changes, you have to discuss them in the talk page. Instead you repeatedly make the changes to the article itself. Needless to say, you can't declare unilaterally that the discussion is over. Please stop or I will have to complain about your behavior. Mashkin (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mashkin, who's being abusive? Please quote the WP policies where it states that I need to justify each edit I make that you oppose. Before you complain, I suggest that you read up on editing WP first. One of the cardinal policies of WP is that you don't own the articles. Please read up on policies. --Shuki (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply read the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and see how things should work. In all the discussion or attempted discussions you keep making claims and assertions that are wildly besides the point. Mashkin (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad Faith Edit

Your edit in Avidgor Lieberman [1] is clearly bad faith as you say " Mashkin, like you claim, first discuss on talk page)" There was an extensive discussion on the talk page how to phrase the Kach membership and this is the agreement. You are clearly admitting that you are reverting just to get back at what you precieve as my stuboorn edits in other pages. This is a bad fath edit. Mashkin (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusing me of bad faith is actually contrary to WP:AGF. I'm sorry that you assume that you are right all the time. You know, many good admins also started off with your aggressive attitude but learned how to settle disputes in a good way. I wish you luck. --Shuki (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Assume Good Faith" policy is precisely why your behavior is so egregious. This is the underlying assumption of the operation of Wikipedia and you are abusing it by operating in bad faith and advertising this fact by saying that your edit is just to annoy me. Mashkin (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting words in my mouth? Pathetic. --Shuki (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

tshirt article

Hi Shuki, I am a bit concerned about your edit to the 2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair where you added a POV template. Based on the edit summary it looks as though this was instigated by another user putting it on another article. I am not accusing you of anything, just a bit of friendly advice. Editing in this area will inevitably lead to confrontations with other users, some of them can get quite nasty and long-lived. It is best to try to approach each article on its own. If you feel that there is a POV issue with the article in question then by all means re-add the POV template. But at least go to the talk page to list your concerns. The template had originally been added because some felt the title was inaccurate and the article did not include the perspective of the soldiers. Both those concerns have been resolved and now others who had supported the tag no longer feel it is necessary. If you still feel it is necessary could you please let us know what concerns you have with it? Peace and happiness, Nableezy (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I don't see clear consensus to close the issue of the template. You thought you were being bold, I disagree with your action. --Shuki (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That is fine, and absolutely feel free to revert me, I will not re-revert. But could you please post your concerns on the neutrality to the talk page as the ones that have been brought up have been dealt with. Thanks, Nableezy (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your concern. I've been dealing with two uncooperative editors over the past two weeks or so, and it is refreshing to see that mutual discussion still exists on WP. --Shuki (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I have had the unfortunate experience of trying to engage in dialogue with those who refuse as well. And thank you for responding in kind. Peace, Nableezy (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

could you please let us know on the talk page what specifically is a neutrality issue with the article? I believe all viewpoints are covered (the press reaction, the IDF, the individual soldiers, even the t-shirt manufacturers response) and I fail to see what is a neutrality concern with the article. thanks, Nableezy (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fox News conspiracy site theory

'accusation like that needs WP:RS, not a conspiracy site theory', Shuki

Since when is Fox news a conspiracy site?

'Fox News has learned that some American terrorist investigators fear certain suspects in the Sept. 11 attacks may have managed to stay ahead of them'

http://web.archive.org/web/20011215001716/www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,40684,00.html emacsuser (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

These were allegations from 2002. There is a reason why articles about people and organizations don't list all instances of some accusation/allegation that never goes anywhere. --Shuki (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess a Wikipedia article on why such allegations never go anywhere would be most appropriate ;)

It was an FBI search of the husband’s workplace that discovered in his possession what Waller and Rodriguez called “a list of the FBI’s most sensitive telephone numbers, including the Bureau’s ‘black’ lines that FBI counterintelligence used to keep track of the suspected Israeli spy operation.” In the words of the Insight investigators, “the hunted were tracking the hunters.”

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/062000/0006006.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emacsuser (talk • contribs) 11:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeremiah 22:30

If you believe that the Messiah comes from the line of David then how do you deal with the blood curse in Jeremiah 22:30? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.157.60 (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

alledged 3RR Violation

I have reported your 3RR violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Mashkin (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Shuki. In the 3RR discussion, one editor claims that you show systematic bias regarding Israeli political articles. You may wish to add your own comment in that thread. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Replied on the that page. --Shuki (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring in Amnon Yitzhak

I have asked that you be blocked for your edit warring in Amnon Yitzhak. Mashkin (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is certainly clear that A) you have dictatorial characteristics and would rather shut up opposing voices rather than deal with the issue maturely, B) still have not accepted the idea of what WP is about (collaboration and cooperation) C) still make unjustified allegations and D) make a farce out of WP procedures. Instead of learning from my mistake of misunderstanding 3RR which actually means 4RR, you went and whined like a baby in an attempt to shut me up. --Shuki (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates of settlements

Hi Shuki! You appear to be very interested in settlements, so I am requesting your help. Category:Israel articles missing geocoordinate data has about a dozen settlements which are very new and not marked on any map, and therefore I cannot find them. Can you please have a look and add coordinates where relevant? If you are unsure how to do this, please provide me with Google Maps links for the settlements (right-click + 'center map here', then click 'Link'), and I will do the rest. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be a problem. I picked these out for a first batch. Hopefully on Sat nite.

Burnt House http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=israel&ie=UTF8&ll=31.77548,35.233101&spn=0.007087,0.009656&t=h&z=17

Hof Aza Regional Council http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=israel&ie=UTF8&ll=31.354975,34.274554&spn=0.007119,0.009656&t=h&z=17

Ma'ale Rehav'am Maybe - http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=israel&ie=UTF8&ll=31.646879,35.258067&spn=0.014193,0.019312&t=h&z=16

Migron, Mateh Binyamin http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=israel&ie=UTF8&ll=31.889838,35.271392&spn=0.028312,0.038624&t=h&z=15

Shomron Regional Council http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=israel&ie=UTF8&ll=32.111123,35.117927&spn=0.007061,0.009656&t=h&z=17

The Temple Institute http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=israel&ie=UTF8&ll=31.77548,35.233101&spn=0.007087,0.009656&t=h&z=17

Timnath-heres http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=israel&ie=UTF8&ll=32.119519,35.157183&spn=0.00706,0.009656&t=h&z=17

Shabbat shalom Yan. --Shuki (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The others I was not sure about and the Peace Now map is a bit vague. --Shuki (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have added the coordinates you provided. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank yet again, and of course I added the coordinates you provided. Some I didn't add this time, because just like you, I'm not 100% sure of the details (like the Lod Airport Massacre), and we don't want to provide incorrect information. It's enough of a pain that about 10% of the Israel-related coordinates curretly on Wiki are already wrong. If you find out for sure about this and the Dizengoff Center bombing, please tell me. Thanks again, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

colourinthemeaning

this user comes to every page of a neighborhood of jerusalem and changes the lead sentence. is there anything you can do to contribut from your past history. thank you. [2] 216.165.95.70 (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in Shin Bet

Please stop reinserting patently inappropriate material. You have never bothered to say why this material which deals with an individual case which was not detained in any meaningful way is so notable so as to appear in he article. Does the FBI article contain details of every (notable) individual that was denied entry to the US? Given that you have not expressed such reasons one has to conclude that your goal is to e disruptive. Please stop! Mashkin (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That is your POV. Finkelstein was detained at the airport when denied entry. The same section deals with two other 'controversial detentions'. If you have a problem with the section, then say it instead of singling out Finklestein who I assume you admire. By deleting material [on any page], you show your continued lack of respect of other editors, your shallow POV (to either protect or harm certain subjects) and unwillingness to compromise and collaborate which is a goal of WP. --Shuki (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Maccabiah bridge collapse

I notice that you added an "excessive links" banner to the article. This article is on my "to do" list and I will get started on it within a couple of weeks or so. Rest assured, I plan to use most, if not all of those links. I usually list all of my references in an article first, before I start expanding it, so that others can jump in and help if they want to as well as setting out all of the sources for myself as well. I hope to nominate the article for FA when completed and appreciate your interest in the article. Cla68 (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I commend you for improving this article and others. But I find it quite disturbing that you think that you can use an article as a sandbox until you get around to working on it. I was intending to wait a month after my template edit and delete that section. You can always get them back from the history page. --Shuki (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Shai Dromi

Hi Shuki! Thanks for creating the article. I believe it should be titled Shai Dromi law (or the official name of this law, whatever that is), and in the 'background' section it should say everything there is to say about the Dromi incident. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi.

I enabled email but I do not know how to send one. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Israel Prize recipients

Having spent a great deal of time in recent months on expanding and completing the List of Israel Prize recipients, I am extremely grateful for your corrections of the names of several of the recipients, especially as these name are now consistent with dedicated articles on such recipients. However would you please note that as each name appears at least twice (in both the chronological and alphabetical list), any amendment should be made in both places. As regards your deletion of the sub-heading in 2008 for the three "Israeli women's organizations, in announcing and awarding the Prize reference was specifically made to "Israeli women's organization" and on the official website of the Israel Prize (http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/PrasIsrael/Tashsah/Nashim/CvNashim.htm), the recipients are treated collectively. Accordingly I believe that in this (probably unique) case, a sub-heading would appear to be appropriate and I have reinstated the same. Davshul (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Incredible effort. The list did seem awkward and long. It should be turned into a table which could be sorted. --Shuki (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it up, Shuki

I agree this is a minor issue however it is wrong to claim that Haaretz is more influential then other major newspapers. If you look at the reference ( look also in discussion section with Malik) it is very clear. I am new to Wikipedia so I am sure I don't know yet how everything works here but facts are facts and manipulation of the facts is wrong even if not a major issue. If you see my user page some people are trying to scare me instead of welcoming a new guy. This is wrong to my opinion.The purpose of this enterprise supposed to be stating facts not pushing ones agenda. Thanks again for your time--Rm125 (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to proove that Haaretz is more influential than others, but relative to its readership numbers, definitely. Snotty rich people have more influence than the majority of the citzens. Frankly, I'm under the impression that it is the best quality newspaper in Israel besides its radical secular liberal pro-enemy platform. My impression is that Yediot and Channel 2 are more influential (also unfortunately because of their tabloid like reporting). Link title

Good observation.Of course Haaretz is influential, no question.But it is related to its relative readership not conpared to other newspapers, exactly as you say. I don;t like Maariv and Yediot anymore. They used to be better in the past. Here the point is not a quality of its culture ot health section but political influence. This is the issue that matters in our discussion .One thing is to say that this newspaper has quality reporting, sports, culture, food section etc., and THIS makes it influential. Another matter to claim that this nespaper is influencial BECAUSE of its political convictions.

Thanks Shuku as you can see it took me a week in Wikipedia business to get myself in hot water...this guy Malik makes me sweat on another forum_ J Street but I am having fun.. All the Best --Rm125 (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Shuki, I need your advice.Unfortunately I got involved in so called "edit war" with Malik Shabazz on Haaretz page.This guy has some kind of fixation on all things Jewish and tries to eraze my stuff no matter what. His pattern is the same. He just erazes and gives me a link to WP rules. Any logical attempts to discuss are brutally regected as well as a basic common sense. What's the way out? Can give me an advice. Thanks and all the best --Rm125 (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Haaretz revert

Did you look at those sources? Or the issue with relevance to Haaretz itself? nableezy - 21:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please give me more than three seconds to reply on the talk. --Shuki (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

sure. nableezy - 21:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

region in infobox

Hi Shuki, I see that you are adding infoboxes to a number of settlement pages. That is great, but there is one problem. You have in the infoboxes that the settlements are in the region of "Samaria". Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) specifically says that we cannot say without qualification that something is in Judea or Samaria without qualification, so would you mind either changing it to say Northern West Bank, West Bank, or just removing the region? Thanks, nableezy - 15:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, there is a very big problem with that. I visited the West Bank page perhaps my first time, and I'm stunned at how rather POV it is as if one could just move the name of the page to Palestine instead and add the Palestinian flag (as was attempted this week). The map is pure Palestinian, the lead sentence assumes that the West Bank is Palestinian, there is no history of the settlements, only general reference to them. NPOV on WP - I need to accept that the lead of each settlement article needs to state that the village is in the West Bank, but making any more associations to the West Bank as it is portrayed on WP, is misleading and untrue. That article needs a lot of NPOV improvements. --Shuki (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhhhh, the West Bank is in the Palestinian territories, I dont know what you would want to do about that. That said, you are certainly free to edit that article. But the point is you cannot say that a place is in "Samaria" in Wikipedia's narrative voice, which is what you do in those infoboxes. They cannot say that they are in "Samaria". If you dont want it to say that it is in "West Bank" in the infobox remove the field on region. nableezy - 22:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't West Bank supposed to be a NPOV term for that area? I'm sure you will agree with me that there is not going to be a country called 'West Bank'. You seem to confirm that it is a POV term interchangeable with Palestinian Territories. Instead of trying to assure me that WB is a general term, you are distancing me. --Shuki (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to assure you that "West Bank" is a "general term". It is not interchangeable with "Palestinian territories", but the region known as the West Bank is in the Palestinian territories. Much like the area known as the Galilee is in Israel. What I am trying to assure you of is that you cannot say that an area is "in Samaria". This dispute was already subject to an arbitration case that, as one of the remedies, mandated that naming guidelines be drafted and put into effect. Those naming guidelines are quite clear on this issue and I am hoping you can help find an acceptable way of dealing with this. Do you have a problem with removing the field "region" in the infoboxes you added? nableezy - 22:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you willing to fix the problems here or should I do it and if I do remove "Samaria" as region will you revert that? nableezy - 17:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's cool, I'll get to that in the next few hours. You have to relax, many of us have jobs and families and it is not fair to demand instant action from anyone, especially since we are on different time zones. It's probably cuz I used one template on most articles. --Shuki (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

All good, and I wasn't demanding "instant action", just your replies above left me a bit concerned. (I have a job too, just one that makes me sit in front of 4 monitors all day so I tend to forget others have more limitations on their availability.) Thanks, and as always with you, glad we were able to discuss this calmly. nableezy - 17:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Thank you, that's very kind of you. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring in Ma'ale Adumim

Hi Shuki, as you may know edit warring and disruptive editing are not allowed on Wikipedia. Your repeated reverting of good-faith edits made to the Ma'ale Adumim article commenting on its illegality under international law appears to violate the aforementioned Wikipedia principles, and continuing it may lead to restrictions of your editing privileges. Please see the RfC here for discussion on the issue. --Dailycare (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to scare me with this wheeny warning? Do you even know what an edit war is? It is clearly you who have declared an 'edit war' against three experienced editors, despite an open RfC. --Shuki (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

coordinate conversion

regarding this edit, when converting from a decimal to degree minute second notation for coordinates you cant just take the decimal and make the first 2 digits the minutes and the last 2 the seconds. The way to convert the number is as follows. The original is x.yyyy. The degree is x. Next multiply yyyy by 60, the result being zz.xxx. The minutes is zz. Finally multiply xxx by 60 and the result is the seconds (the entire number, not just the integer). If you are interested read more here. nableezy - 17:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you see something specific? I know I have a problem with Beit Horon that I'm working on now, but the others seemed quite accurate. --Shuki (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you converted 31.8767 N 35.1287 E to 31°87′67″N 35°12′87″E. Look at the position of the pushpin in the diff, it is off the map. When I adjusted it to what the original said (I have no idea if it is accurate) here to 31°52′36.12″N 35°7′43.32″E it displays what seems like the proper location. nableezy - 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Modern technology. The tool converts a Google maps link into a pushpin map/coords format. Have fun! :D —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. To tell you guys the truth, I was just copying the coords already in the article into the infobox. Occasionally, it was in the other format. --Shuki (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Difficulty to place tags because of vandalism

Shuki sorry to bother you but I need advice.I place tags in order to get an opinion. I just wanted to change from Media to politics and get the tag closer since nobody will read it so far away. The problem is Malik and Nablezy are sabotage and vandalize it. They even treatened to teport and ban me. I can not find a reason for that. They try to take advantage of me because I am new here. I need an advice how to place this tag so I can attract other opinions. Thanks for your time, --Rm125 (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please email me? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Click on the link to the left of this page. Thanks. --Shuki (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

what is vandalism

Do not call other good faith edits vandalism. You are trying to keep your set of articles in a walled garden, but guess what: Wikipedia policies apply to those articles as well. It is well established that we do not use honorifics in articles and your insistence on keeping a double standard for whatever reason is not in line with policies. But the main reason for this note is to tell you not to call other users edits vandalism when they are not. nableezy - 20:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not GF, you are gaming and also 3RR in the past two days. The main discussion is here. --Shuki (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not gaming, and that is the discussion for whether or not to use the title. For your accusation of vandalism I did not see the need to raise that in a more public forum. There have been multiple times where you have accused me of things without evidence and without retraction, first the disgusting accusation of "dehumanizing Jews", which has been repeated, then the false accusation (also known as a lie) of misleading users at the Haaretz talk page, and now this. Please do not continue with such baseless attacks. nableezy - 21:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if your intention is to specifically stonewall and filibuster editors until they get tired of discussing issues with you or if that is just your regular attitude. WP is not fun with your editing behaviour which centres on deleting as opposed to contributing. I really do not mind editing with people with opposite opinions and in the past, Nableezy, my record will show, with I think only you and the mysterious Mashkin as an exception, the proper solutions could always be found. You have very few edits showing an improving contribution, and many, many minor copyedits which suit your POV. That's fine, but very unfortunate. Someone with so much energy should be creating new articles and improving existing stubs and others. --Shuki (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You do realize I have the most edits at Gaza War and most of those are not minor copyedits right? You do realize that you and I used to get along fine until you started saying some nonsense about using the most common description of a place is "dehumanizing Jews" and accusing me of such right? You do realize that your latest accusation directed at me on the Moddin Illit page is also nonsense right? You do realize that it not fun to have to deal with people who spout off accusation of antisemitism like it is nothing right? You do realize that your POV shows very easily in your edits, from being opposed to using the words West Bank and doing everything you can to make it so they do not appear, to using extreme fringe ideas like Modiin Illit or any of the other settlements are in Israel as the infoboxes used to say. You really need to look in the mirror before you accuse others of editing in a POV manner and you really need to carefully examine whether the various accusations you have hurled at me are in any way accurate. But I cant make you do that so Ill stop typing now. nableezy - 21:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe I asked you to stay away from my talk page unless you were willing to apologize for the various personal attacks you have directed at me at various places. Please respect that. If you are willing to apologize for effectively calling me a racist and antisemite then by all means consider your notes welcome on my talk page. If not then dont. nableezy - 19:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that you think you make the rules around here but you really don't. I was going to give you that (notforum) tip on the Yom Yerushalyim page, but that page is not for that purpose so I came to your page. I will continue to come to your page to discourse with you since on common issues that is the right place. Your email is not accessible from WP and even if your email was activated, I probably would not use it. If you can't remain civil on your talk page (and elsewhere), I don't want your foul language getting into my inbox. And I have nothing to apologize for because I did not call you a racist or anti-semite. --Shuki (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You multiple times accused me of engaging in "dehumanization of Jews". You effectively called me an antisemite. I have nothing else to say other than any further edits made to my talk page will be summarily removed, sight unseen. That is unless you are willing to retract that statement. nableezy - 21:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh that. Was I commenting on you or your edits? A)Didn't call you an anti-semite. B) Comments of such nature were made on the Israeli settlement pages in which you strive to deprecate the human nature of the locality and instead make every effort to stress a potentially derogatory inert label instead. You fail the NPOV test on that, IMO, nothing about anti-semitism. --Shuki (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Davidi_SpeakToHim.jpeg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Davidi_SpeakToHim.jpeg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)