User talk:Shuki

Note to posters: Let's try to keep two-way conversations readable. If you post to my talk page, I will just reply here. If I posted recently to another talk page, including your talk page, then that means I have it on my watchlist and will just read responses there. I may also refactor discussions to your talk page for the same reason. Thanks. Shuki

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Shuki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  And Shalom! IZAK 08:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Archives
Archive1 Archive2 Archive3 Archive4 Archive5 Archive6

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements

Shalom, what should we do? I started to be interested when a group of editors tried to delete the word Golan (see the incorrect statement section in the Talk page) from the Israel article, some of us engaged in a polite discussion but we were just bogged down by these determined individuals pushing for their agenda (although we just want to contribute to articles, right? not to be over busied in lengthy unpleasant disputes), and I noticed that the word Golan had been again deleted by SD, and I found out that the same was going on in the Tourism in Israel article, and today while I had decided to investigate if there is something in the wp rules to protect against an organized group I discovered that they had beaten me with that action (which was not even advertised)... One of their arguments in the talks is that a tiny minority shouldn't 'rule', well sure if they bring in the flood of the Moslems and pro Palestinians guys there is no doubt of the outcome. I'm still new here and inexperienced, they try to tire us but I don't want to give up, thanks,Hope&Act3! (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

AE

WP:AE#Shuki. nableezy - 00:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take note of the message I left here: It is acceptable to critically engage the statements and opinions of others if a professional tone is employed; "bogus argument", however, is already too confrontational in my opinion. But it is certainly not acceptable to attack people themselves by claiming that they "lie". Please do not do this again, or you may be made subject to discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  09:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You should have noted that it was Nableezy claiming about 'bogus arguments', not me. --Shuki (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Immanuel Beit Yaakov article

Here. I tried to find the original evidence in Hebrew of a Channel 2 expose on the incident that blew this up in the first place, but I don't know Hebrew. Also, I'm not familiar with the full progress of events, so the article looks muddled. The article needs help (as the controversy is gradually developing into an influential series of events), so if you know anyone in Israel who is familiar with the case and knows both Hebrew and English, this article could use their input. Shalom and thanks, --Toussaint (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC) PS: You might want to archive your older talk page's posts, at least to make it more readable for newer messages. You could try {{archive talk collapsible}} --Toussaint (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

re [1]

Hey Shuki, Is there written policy regarding cats and super cats? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:CAT --Shuki (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for something that addressing labeling articles with both a category and its super category. I can't seem to see anything address this particular issue on WP:CAT. Do you? Can you point to it? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Try here as well Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. Perhaps start a discussion. I took part unofficially there in my early days with organizing and cleaning up parent cats and subcats. Just seems common sense to not have that redundancy, and was not tolerated. W/R specifically to the settlement articles, I think that sorting them based on religious observance was a way to clean the main cat and adding additional information at the same time. In this case, your edit and DailyCare's unfortunate kneejerk reaction instead of joining the discussion, means that Ariel is in two directly related settlement cats. --Shuki (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no general policy that I know of, but WP:MILMOS#SPECIFIC and the section immediately following are what I tend to go with. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Andrensath - Yes WP:MILMOS#SPECIFIC is exactly what I was looking for. It speaks to the issue very clearly.

@Shuki - I find myself overruled by policy. I withdraw my initial objection. NickCT (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Organ donation in Israel

Comment on the talkpage. 21:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that you have been doing a fair amount of reverting of my work. Please read Help:Reverting - especially "reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism) is considered disruptive when done to excess, and can even lead to the reverter being blocked from editing."

A more appropriate approach when faced with editing you don't agree with, is to open a discussion first. We'll deal with the Organ donation in Israel situation first, and you can explain to me why you feel that an article which is about organ transplants should be called Organ donation, and then look at the other articles where you disagree with the edits. We'll forget about the reverting, and concentrate on the issues themselves; though please do bear in mind in future that reverting is an inappropriate action unless dealing with obvious vandalism. SilkTork *^YES! 22:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you have a notice about keeping discussion in one place. I don't tend to watch people's talkpages. If you wish to leave me a message, my talkpage is the best place. What I tend to do to keep conversations together is to cut and paste the original notice and my response. Though if we are to stick with the issues, then the talkpages of the articles are the best places to hold these discussions, starting at Talk:Organ donation in Israel. SilkTork *^YES! 22:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

First, a reasonable (and certainly experienced) editor would admit that they were bold and graciously accept that someone has challenged their editing, not go and try to educate others about how to challenge their edits. The most appropriate approach would have been to start a discussion in the first place. Second, I will AGF your notice to disrespect my talk-page request. --Shuki (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, if you object to edits solely because of a lack of an official "prior permission" discussion, then why didn't you start a discussion? I see that you've reverted what I think is a perfectly reasonable merge of several short articles into Organ donation. Your edit summary gave no reason for your opposition beyond an anti-WP:BOLD complaint. Which of the several affected pages would you like to start the discussion on? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

' Palestinian territories '

I'm trying to write a neutral article on tourism in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip both today and historically using reliable sources. I'd hoped to be able to write the article without disputes about politics; silly me. The "Palestinian territories" are the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Israelis settlements in those areas are in the Palestinian territories, even if they're not governed by the Palestinian authorities. An article on tourism to the West Bank and Gaza would be whitewashed if it didn't mention tourism to Israeli settlements, just as an article about tourism in Israel would be whitewashed if it didn't mention tourism to settlements in the occupied territories. It'd be good if you'd help expand the article, there's lots more sources out there. Fences&Windows 00:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Thanks for fixing that note about the pollution, I slipped up there. Fences&Windows 00:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling all of the WB and Gaza Palestinian territories is a POV viewpoint. Negotiations are underway, there is no final status, there are Area A, B, and C, C clearly not Palestinian territory, and please don't claim objectiveness if you object to that. --Shuki (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ive given you multiple sources that make clear that Area C is occupied Palestinian territory. You have yet to provide a single source that says otherwise. nableezy - 00:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, so what? The vast majority of sources do not say this, you have merely managed to find those that do, and there is no shortage of them. Your argument is not convincing and based on OR and presenting GHITS. You will not find too many sources saying explicitly that Area C is not occupied. And if we did, they would be challenged as RS. Do you want me me to find articles that do not equate area c with Palestinian territory? All they say is Area C with nothing about occupation. --Shuki (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

When quality sources specifically say that Area C is occupied Palestinian territory it is not, by definition, OR to say that that Area C is occupied Palestinian territory. And where you are getting "GHITS" in this discussion is beyond me. And the what in your initial question is that if you cannot present a source that disputes the quality sources I have provided you then your position, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it meaningless. I can find a ton of sources saying "Area C" is occupied. Here is a small collection, not including the ones already provided to you:

• Isaac, Jad; Rizik, Majed (30 November 2002), "The Viability of the Palestinian State and Israel's Settlement Policy", Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture, 9 (4), Middle East Publications: p. 76 {{citation}}: |page= has extra text (help) - The interim agreement divided Palestinian land into areas A, B and C
• Shah, Samira (Fall 1997), "On the Road to Apartheid: The Bypass Network in the West Bank", Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Columbia University - While Oslo II transfers a limited amount of authority over the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Israel to the Palestinian Council, it does not remove Israel from its position as occupier of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Oslo II divides the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C which respectively constitute approximately 3%, 24%, and 73% of the West Bank. The agreement transfers "all civil powers and duties" in Areas A and B to the Palestinian Council during the first phase of redeployment. In addition, Oslo II transfers police powers from the Israeli military to the Palestinian Authority in Area A. Since Israel retains the responsibility for the security of settlers and Israelis in all areas of the West Bank, it does not abdicate full authority over Area A. In Area B, Israel still maintains police and security responsibilities. Israel retains its full civil, police, and security authority over Area C.
• Dajani, Omar (Fall, 1997), "Stalled Between Seasons: The International Legal Status of Palestine During the Interim Period", Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (26), Denver University {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) - Area C encompasses the vast majority of the OPT

Many more can be provided. You have yet to provide a single source that say that Area C is not Palestinian territory. So when you say that it is not you are the one engaged in OR as there are no sources backing such a statement. nableezy - 17:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You do know that RS can be POV as well, right? The three sources you brought might be RS, but they are still POV. RS does not mean 'objective'. There's no point in bringing you one source that says that the West Bank is not occupied Palestinian Territory, (there are many many) because you don't care anyways, and I know, that nothing I say will convince you otherwise. And it is very OR to claim 'most of the sources' and stuff like that. --Shuki (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is a point. Bring some sources that say Area C is not Palestinian territory and I'll take your argument seriously, if they are of comparable quality to the sources I have provided (peer-reviewed, published by academic presses). And I have not said "most of the sources", what I have said is that I have provided sources when you have provided nothing but your own personal view. nableezy - 21:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hah, anything counter-Nableezy is hasbara anyway. You like arguing more than you like contributing real information. Compare my edit history to yours. Most of my edits are on articles, most of yours are on talk pages. --Shuki (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of my edits are on talk pages because certain users refuse to accept what high quality sources say and instead demand that their own personal viewpoints be presented as gospel truth to the exclusion of that the sources actually say, so I have to spend a great deal of my time dealing with such nonsense (sort of like right now). I provide sources, you provide unsourced opinion. I have given you a number of sources that flat out say that Area C is Palestinian territory, you have yet to provide a single one that refutes that. Guess what? On Wikipedia, sources trump personal opinions and feelings. nableezy - 21:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Nine Days

Hi Shuki: Since this is now the time, would it be possible for you to review and add or in any way improve The Nine Days article. Please find more sources as well. Thanks in advance. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

sorry

I accidentally hit the rollback button, didn't mean to revert after your revert. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we just edit like reasonable people? I'm sick and tired about the battlefront, and it is because I do have faith in editors that I believe that most are reasonable people who do want to see progress. Not to be condescending to you, but at least I see that you are a contributor on other pages and subjects and do want to add value to WP, as opposed to another editor who is an admittedly negative person. Supporting a position does not mean degrading the other side, but promoting one's side. --Shuki (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

AE

WP:AE#Shuki nableezy - 19:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

'Why I Am Not Here Anymore' section on WT:Israel

Is there a reason you reinserted it? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Who gave you the right to remove it? --Shuki (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA ("Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.") and WP:SOAP. The initial edit was solely propaganda for the Israeli government's POV, and has no place in Wikipedia. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 22:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Your motives really are suspect. Twice removing information? What does SOAP have to do with this? A discussion page is for discussion. On talk pages, we are all allowed to freely voice our POV, and do not need to source it. The original post was fine. --Shuki (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A) *What* information? B) How are my motives suspect? C) No, the original post was not fine, it was solely propaganda, and a violation of WP:CIVIL, to boot. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 23:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone is continually deleting stuff from a talk page, than it seems they have something to hide. I find the best way to reduce the visibility of something is to ignore it. Making an edit to a page draws attention, blanking is exceptional, and is like waving a red flag ('over here') What is wrong with Eric's original post? He was not accusing anyone specific of antisemitism, and FWIW, I think it exists here in various forms. People coming to WP do not leave their prejudice at login. The talk pages on wikiprojects and userpages are pretty much 'free' zones up to a certain point specified in WP guidelines. --Shuki (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that there may well be anti-semitism on wikipedia, and that prejudices aren't left at login (I've made that mistake myself). That said, I find blanket, generalised accusations of anything suspect, especially when the accuser fails to provide citations and links to a ridiculously biased and far-right site (namely the link to frontpage.org, in this instance). --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 00:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

frontpage is far-right? I don't know. As long as it is not promoting hate, I'm not aware of a policy that says we cannot call attention to any site, even non-RS. This is not articlespace where it is not tolerated. --Shuki (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering the "help us stop Obama's radical transformation of America" ad prominently displayed on every page, and this quote from the bio on the site's runner "His Art of Political War (2000) was described by White House political strategist Karl Rove as “the perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield.” Unholy Alliance (2004) was a prophetic work pioneering the view that the Islamo Fascists are working hand in glove with the secular left. In 1988, Horowitz created the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) — renamed by its board of directors the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC) in July 2006 — to institutionalize his campaigns against the Left and its anti-Americanism", I don't think we can describe it as anything but a far-right site that promotes hatred. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 00:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I still don't get it. I could post a link here to a book by radical anti-Zionist Neve Gordon, and we could talk all day about it. I would not use that to source anything to an article. Too POV, not RS. --Shuki (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I think frontpage.org is so badly POV that we shouldn't link it at all, not even on talk pages. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 04:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrensath, that's your POV.RS101 (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban notification

Pursuant to Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, you are topic-banned until 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries. Violation of the topic ban shall result in a block of appropriate duration and the topic-ban being reset to run for five weeks from the end of the block. Appeal of this sanction may be made to me, to WP:AE, or to ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:BAN

All edits made by a banned user may be summarily removed per WP:BAN. I did not even do that, but if you would rather I just completely remove the edits made by a sock of a banned account I would be glad to do so. WP:BAN also specific that editing on behalf of banned editors, such as what you just did, is not allowed under policy. Bye. nableezy - 21:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not accurate at all, AGF my friend. Kindly show where this 'enforcement' is advised to be carried out retroactively. --Shuki (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Here. Also the subsection thereof, 'Enforcement by reverting'. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am going to pretend that you really did not see where it says that all edits made by a banned user may be removed, but if you do reinsert the comments by the sock of a banned editor I will not delude myself any longer and instead will ask that the appropriate administrative action is taken. nableezy - 22:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, keep in mind that WP:BAN also says "Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content". So if you feel comfortable taking responsibility for the content, there doesn't seem to be a problem reinstating edits, despite what some people might try to bully you into thinking. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, I hope that you will take a look at wikibias.com, documenting political bias on Wikipedia since 2010. Submissions welcome. Particularly in the area of bias against Israel, we believe that it is useful to document and record the political bias that can appear on Wikipedia, and the efforts by anti-Israel activists to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool.

Submissions welcomed. Discretion guaranteed.CaptainStarbucks (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Frivolous topic ban vio report

FYI, User_talk:Stifle#Topic_ban_vio nableezy - 22:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a Nableezy threat to go to AE again. Ya think dat da man would approve of my removing some POV from da article dat counters his. I've lost count of your frivolous accusations, and frankly, your score at AE really sucks lately seeing as how you get yourself topic banned in two consecutive reports there. Like shooting hoops at your own basket. --Shuki (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not made report at AE since the one that resulted in both of us receiving the same topic ban. But please, continue saying things that are easily proven false. It makes this much more enjoyable. We'll see what happens here. Bye. nableezy - 22:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. One AE and one edit war accusation. Let's keep track, so I don't make that mistake in the future. --Shuki (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Location of kettle report	Against who	Outcome imposed on the accuser
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement	User:Shuki	Nableezy topic-banned until 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring	User:AgadaUrbanit	Nableezy is topic-banned from 08:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC) from Gaza War, and all related articles, discussions, and other content, for six weeks.
User talk:Stifle	User:Shuki	Shuki (talk · contribs) and Nableezy (talk · contribs) are banned from reporting each other for alleged violations of the topic ban imposed by me on them on 27th July last, for the duration of the topic ban. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any report anywhere on Wikipedia, and includes attempts to solicit other users to report the other's violation. Violating this ban will result in a block of appropriate length. This sanction may be appealed to me, to WP:AE, or to ArbCom.

If you want to keep track perhaps you should include you being topic banned in the first report listed and Agada being banned for 3 months in the second one listed. Oh, and one last point. I wouldnt have even reported this if you had refrained from, again, calling me a liar. Next time that happens Ill just report that. Bye. nableezy - 19:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not the point. Pay attention, it's not that complicated. The issue is how reckless you are, perhaps even WP suicidal, that you jump to report attack, seemingly to carry out justice on other editors assuming they will get punished when you yourself are not the angel yourself and get smacked down as well at the same time. Although I was accused of it in the AE you filed against me, it is actually YOU who have no problem taking others down with you. WP is not a nice hobby for you, it is a battleground to wage electronic intifada. You do not want to contribute here, you're here for the jihad. And yes you make false claims occasionally like claiming that certain media are not RS, when they are. Keep it up, I can extend the table anytime. --Shuki (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, I may need to open another one for this user accusing me of "waging jihad" and other such nonsense. nableezy - 14:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you are a big boy and you can make your own decisions. The expected outcome of another one of your dumb 'pot calling the kettle black' reports is probably going to be an interaction ban for both of us, and seeing as how I have edited many more articles than you on your beloved Israel, you'll have to stay away from me more than I worry about you. Mabrouk. --Shuki (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont think I have ever said anything to you on the level of "waging jihad" or being "wiki suicidal" (an inference to suicide bombers no doubt). But we'll see. I think I'll just wait for the next time you are unable to contain your urge to call me a liar for saying things that are demonstrably true. Given the warning you received for such language that should be a relatively easy AE request to process. Of course, you could make it so that does not happen by resisting the urge to call Arabs who write things you dont like "liars". I know it may be difficult, but you should really give it a shot. nableezy - 18:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

C'mon, another 'I know you are but what am I' reply??? Anyway, you do not have to say it explicity, but everyone knows that your instances of Jihad battleground actions far outnumber the number of times when you've been a civil and pleasant collegue. FWIW, I should not have to tell you that lead in that article does not centre on violence, but that is probably lost on you - true jihad starts with oneself. The suicide reference is your continued filing of AE, ANI, and 3RR reports given that you are also 'taken down' (how many times do I have to explain that to you?) I do not mind saying that anyone claiming Arutz7 is 'demonstratably not reliable' is a liar until they can get a community consensus on the proper noticeboard. And I would strike that insinuation for accusing me a racism against Arabs ASAP. There is absolutely no example of this in any of my 10 000 edits. --Shuki (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats nice. I dont plan on taking lessons on Islam from you and your earlier comment about Jihad was clearly not about "inner Jihad". You can pretend otherwise now, but you would be (oh, whats that word for when somebody isnt telling the truth, I forget). As far as striking comments, I wouldnt hold my breath if I were you. To begin with, I didnt insinuate you are a racist, whereas you have made that insinuation against me a number of times, albeit in a veiled way. What I said was you should resist the urge to call Arabs, eg me, who write things you do not like, eg Arutz Sheva is an unreliable source, liars. You have done exactly that, multiple times in fact, and were told not to say such things. I dont really care about what you mind saying or dont mind saying, but I can promise you that the next time you call me a liar I will not just shrug it off. I think our conversation has run its course, and as it is my custom it is time to bid you farewell. Bye. nableezy - 21:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop lying. I have never insinuated anything about Arabs on WP. Go take it to any forum and prove that I have ever insinuated the racist claims you are making against me. Obviously you care very m,uch what I think about you, otherwise you would not be on my talk page so much. --Shuki (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur. That's a lie. He said nothing about Arabs. I hope I won't get reported for calling Arabs liars now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, you can call me a liar here on your own talk page as much as you like, I dont really care. As to whether or not this is a "lie", it clearly is not. You have said, multiple times, that an Arab (me) who has said things you dont like (A7 is an unreliable pretend news source, or Israeli settlements are *gasp* Israeli settlements) has lied. I did not say you said this because I am an Arab or because you are racist (though I have some views on that). If you cannot understand the plain English that was used I cant do much to help other than to say you should consider getting hooked on phonics. nableezy - 21:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hee Hee, you little rascal, trying to bait me with another one of your classic weenie Nableezy - "I know you are but what am I arguments."? Oh, you seem to care very much what I think because you come back here so often wanting more. --Shuki (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban vio

Hello Stifle. Shuki made this edit to an article on a "place in Israel". That is a clear cut violation of the Shuki's topic ban. Would you rather I report this to AE or will you enforce the topic ban? nableezy - 22:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well this is sort of weenie I think all will agree. RVV is not a violation of the topic ban. Nableezy, add a knotch to the list of your frivoulous accusations. I think Nableezy should be warned for this hounding of me and waste of your time. --Shuki (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to reinforce how Nableezy likes bring on judgement to himself, now that I'm looking - making edits to a location in violation of his topic ban here. Stifle, should I file an AE? --Shuki (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Stifle/Archive_0810a#topic_ban_exemption nableezy - 23:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No violations in either case.

The intention behind a topic ban is so that users are encouraged to direct their productive efforts to articles which are further away from the locus of disputes. It is not so that other affected editors should be combing people's edits in order to say "GOTCHA!! I'M TELLING TEACHER ON YOU!!!!11" Therefore:

• Pursuant to the discretionary sanctions remedy of WP:ARBPIA,
• Believing that other measures are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project,
• Shuki (talk · contribs) and Nableezy (talk · contribs) are banned from reporting each other for alleged violations of the topic ban imposed by me on them on 27th July last, for the duration of the topic ban. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any report anywhere on Wikipedia, and includes attempts to solicit other users to report the other's violation. Violating this ban will result in a block of appropriate length. This sanction may be appealed to me, to WP:AE, or to ArbCom.

Seriously guys, knock it off. Wikipedia is not primary school. The next step will be an interaction ban. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

PS I note your request to reply on my talk page, but am replying here to avoid any suggestion that you have not been properly informed of the ban. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Shuki. I agree that reverting vandalism in a topic are you are banned from is not appropriate since it causes frustrations and drama like this. However, there has been a precedent to include a mention of vandalism in decisions, for editors to ignore it,[2][3] and for admins at the enforcement page to ignore it.[4] I also recall other cases were reverting vandalism was given a pass but Nableezy's was obviously the first to jump out. I recommend that you do not continue to revert vandalism in the topic area just to temper the bickering and to not cross an lines. I'm under the impression that you are not banned from the talk page. That might be the best place to start. You can even shoot a message to me or someone else if it is obvious vandalism (unless it is determined that that is meat puppetry). You could also open up something at the arbitration enforcement requests for clarification if you simply can't not revert vandalism. In regards to Nableez's request, I would consider ignoring it since Stifle appears to be running out of patience and you shouldn't put yourself in a situation like that.Cptnono (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just sad that Nableezy is so quick to pounce, and I was reverting something that was against his POV too. --Shuki (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The attempts to discredit INN

Hi, I have seen your comment here [5] regarding (those propagandists) trying to discredit Israel National News as a RS. Thank you for pointing out that it is in fact a political driven agenda to discredit a particular site which is no less of a news site as any other, to say the least.

Acceptance and reliability

Endorsement

The National Review has highly recommended Israel National News as an objective source for news, an alternative to the predominantly biased left media in Israel.

Human Rights Watch

High credibility for Israel National News can also be found in such organizations like: The Human Rights Watch which quotes it in an official published book

Books

It's widely cited in books, even John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt in their notorious book, highly critical of Israel, have quoted IsraelNationalNews.com.

Media

Among media outlets quoting Israel National News, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Washington Times and Foxnews.

RS101 (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Block notices

Any particular reason why you're removing block notices from the pages of blocked users? Black Kite (t) (c) 15:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Because the 'closing admin' himself changed the block to one year per the arbcom. --Shuki (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

sorry, WP:ARBPIA. Please see current discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Shuki (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Editwarring by N.

Any particular reason why administrators allow so many editwarring by nableezy?RS101 (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mariam (ship)

I saw your work on Mariam (ship), I hope that you will help me edit an article on the ship Avrazya, which would make an interesting DKY.AMuseo (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't edited that page. You might want to develop the Avrazya page using similar outline to MV Francop --Shuki (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Beit Hagai

Before I re-edit, please let me know why my sources were insufficient. That way, I will be able to post extra sources. Jieriomka (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to claim that Beit Haggai is illegal, you will have to find a source explicitly saying so and why (built on Palestinian private land? Violating Israeli building codes? No Israeli building permits or government approval? etc...) --Shuki (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I posted sources as to why all settlements are considered illegal by international standards (to which Israel adheres to). I will re-word my edit, and I trust you will be honest. Jieriomka (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please find sources that specifically say that Beit Haggai is illegal and why (unsafe buildings, built on private land, built without proper building permits, built with permits but not according to plan, etc...). If you cannot do that, you might be involving WP in a legal problem for claiming something that is not true. --Shuki (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Anout A7

You are right, yet the more-then-once-pushing-for-editwar: Nableezy has removed it even after any claims of RS was removed.RS101 (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thx

lol shuki thanks for the welcome ah sheli, i think there is at least a few others who also are pretty interested. shana tova LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletions

I have posted this to the page of the closing administrator.

• I believe that your deletion close of these three articles was incorrect, perhaps because this is a region that you do not follow closely. You are doubtless aware that there are ongoing peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The incident that you deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting is having a material impact on these talks, in particular, because pressure from settlers in the West Bank has caused the government of Israel to lift the ban on construction in West Bank settlements [6], [7], but also it is widely understood that Hamas launched the attacks in a deliberate effort to derail the peace talks [8], [9]. there are dozens more article like these. Citing an incident with this kind of impact as a news story of merely temporary interest is incorrect.

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting also continues to be in the news. [10], and, significantly, to be cited [11] as an obstacle (or s a reason for obstructing)[12] the peace process. As above, I can cite many recent article similar to these.

My objection to your deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba is that the title under which the article was deleted was, if I recall correctly, a move from a previous title that, like the article, treated the August rocket attacks as the most recent in a series of rocket attacks that jointly target (and cause destruction in) Aquaba, Jordan, and Eilat, Israel. This is not a trivail topic and, unfortunately, not a transient topic as there have been a seris of such attacks in recent years.

I would also like to second User:Shuki's argument. Single terror attacks, even failed ones, in Europe and the United States are routinely deemed worthy of Wikipedia articles. You bring WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to bear. I would argue, rather, that many articles on single incidents over many years have created a defacto Wikipedia standard whereby single incidents of terrorism, even failed terror attacks and incidents, merit articles. 2004 financial buildings plot, Wood Green ricin plot, Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack, 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot, Qantas Flight 1737. there are many more such Wikipedia articles on individual incidents in which no one was killed, or which were plots that never were carried out. Wikipedia standards ought to be consistent. Rather than selectively delete terror incidents in Israel, I argue that we ought to accept articles about incidents of terrorism worldwide. How, after all, can we possibly argue that the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt is WP notable, while the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting, and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting are not?AMuseo (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Shuki (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

These three deletions are now being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 13.AMuseo (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

AN3

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Shuki_reported_by_Nableezy.28Result:_.29. nableezy - 19:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing restriction

Due to the ongoing dispute, I'm restricting you to 1RR/day until December 31 for all article which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. PhilKnight (talk)