User talk:HG1

• Currently quite busy, email me if necessary. I try to check Wikipedia periodically. Please assume that I do not use Wikipedia on Friday evenings and Saturday. Thanks.

Welcome to HG's talk page. You are invited to comment here or simply say hello.
Please don't delete old comments, though you can strikeout your own text and add to it.
It's best to keep comments in order, leaving me to re-arrange or archive.
Please sign & date your entry by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic here. Thanks!

Bookmarks

• ‎Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-03 Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture
• ‎Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-03 Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture
• Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture

Welcome! Hello, HG1, 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! IZAK 07:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Bruchim Habaim

Hello HG, welcome to Wikipedia. You may want to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. Feel free to call on me. IZAK 07:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! :)

Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear HG! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, my friend! Love, Phaedriel - 19:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC) While I don't recall us ever interacting, the fact that you've taken the time to dedicate me your kind words is very special in my eyes, dear HG. From this day on, let me tell you you'll always be welcome to visit me, and I'll make sure to visit you often... that's what friends do! :) xxx, Sharon

Allegations of Chinese apartheid

Hi HG,

Thanks for the friendly heads up. I posted my thoughts on the issue in the AfD page.

Thanks again,

--xDanielx^Talk 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I added my (rather confused) comments to your proposal. :) I did as you suggested and changed "Keep" to "Keep and rename." --xDanielx^Talk 04:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I think you deserve one of these for your very amicable behavior. :-) xDanielxTalk 08:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I like this kind of appreciation. HG | Talk

Hi HG,

I think your efforts to find compromise were very good. On the Chinese apartheid AfD, I guess there were just too many users involved in the heated debate to notice a small voice suggesting compromise, but it seems to be working out on the Israeli apartheid article. I still think it's best to settle naming disputes on the talk page, since they tend to make AfDs messy and ambiguous (e.g., I voted "keep and rename" - if my naming proposal doesn't get consensus but "keep" might, should my vote count towards "keep"? "Delete"? Neither?). But I guess the advantage is that it draws in lots of attention so that a more accurate consensus can be taken.

Best,

xDanielx^Talk 16:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem

I respect you greatly. --Ideogram 03:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I thought you were going to bed? For God's sake, don't lose sleep over this. --Ideogram 04:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

workshop

What a work ! Good job !
I will see what I can do. If I understand English good but my writing is not very good.
Regards,Alithien 09:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my contribution is near from zero...

Would you mind adding a pov-tag in the article Allegations of apartheid

I added one twice justifying me in the talk page but it was reverted without discussion and I would not want to start an edit war about that.

Thank you, Alithien 14:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

La positive attitude

Do you know there has been a famous joke about that in France 5-6 years ago. A famous singer wrote a song named "positive attitude" and at a meeting the French Prime Minister asked to population to adopt this "positive attitude" so that the country move forward.
In political matters, there is no positive attitude ;-)
I cannot deal with the content of Israeli apartheid. I don't know enough about that. I just say it will not be a neutral work with the current choices.
But if you want to involve your own "positive attitude" as mediators in Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus or the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, you are welcome. That is I think what lacks to them so that contributors can move forward with these subjects.
Kind Regards, Alithien 14:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Shanah tovah

Thanks for your good offices once again. I'm going to be off wiki for a couple of days too, and will be be so mild, so cool, so cucumber-ish, you're going to miss the old G-Dett.--G-Dett 01:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Impressed

I am impressed by the good work you are doing at the allegations of apartheid and the way you have managed to navigate the perilous waters of this dispute. If at any time you would be interested in serving the community as an admin, please let me know and I will be glad to nominate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would co-nominate. I think a co-nomination of this sort would say a great deal. Not many can, to borrow Jossi's apt phrase, navigate these waters.--G-Dett 20:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be fantastic, G-Dett. HG: your call. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't participate, as a rule, in RFA's. If the two of you co-nominate, I will [participate in the RFA and support you]. Jd2718 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the above comment (in brackets). Given that I do not normally participate in RfAs, I do not think a nomination from me would be appropriate. But when Jossi and G-Dett, two intelligent editors who edit from strongly opposed viewpoints indicate that they believe you are a good nominee, and the little interaction I've had with you seems to support that, well, that would be enough to draw me to the RfA. Jd2718 23:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, per Jossi's suggestion, I've asked for an Editor review. HG | Talk 04:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable actuary

We are not amused. -- Avi 02:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the accountants are absolutely giddy. }:-> HG | Talk 02:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate every word of it, you conservative lardy

Just trying to keep up my rep as a hellion.

I've read your post twice, once this morning and once again this afternoon. I really have to congratulate you for thinking this through so thoroughly. I expected to find it acceptable, compromise-worthy, etc., but actually it was better than that; and your insights made me think of much of this in a different way. I do have some minor (I do mean minor) caveats and need to think through a couple of things. Can I have til tomorrow to post a fuller response?

I am sorry if my insistence on this has seemed out of proportion, and will concede that some measure of my chest-beating is a reaction to what I see as obstinacy, strawman arguments, and so on. But the real reason is that I see the lead as crucial in this case to the narrative that follows. Even something so seemingly small as referring to "findings" for one part of a report and "allegations" for another is a problem, because this is the overture, as it were, to a core narrative problem that I look forward to addressing together – i.e., with you, Eleland, Tewfik, et al. Regarding consistency, as I know this has been an issue. Consistency does not mean that we present all findings of a given source as equally true and valid; it means that we apply the same editorial and evaluative principles to each. It is fine, for example, to say that this or that aspect of Holley's statement is contested by sources X and Y, and not say that about the other part (if this distinction is indeed borne out by RSs). But it's not OK to cite Holley authoritatively and as a stand-in for Amnesty for one claim, and then dismiss another Holley claim (the next sentence from the exact same statement) as a "soundbyte quote in a news article" and ask what that "proves," pointing out moreover that he's not himself an HR organization. Be well, and thanks again for your good offices.--G-Dett 23:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Golly, thanks, you've buttered me up. I look forward to reading more from you tomorrow (or whenever). Be well HG | Talk 00:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

First installment here.--G-Dett 14:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Gender and Judaism

You did all that? I'm seriously impressed. Egfrank 03:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. HG | Talk 12:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethics and halakhah

Great work so far!

A while back User:Shirahadasha suggested that I write up something on Reform Halakhah because the Halakhah article has no sub-article for it. I think you have a much better background than I for that topic. (I've noticed that you have a long term interest in applied halakha and ethics). When things get a bit more substantial I wonder if you'd consider splitting that section off so it can be linked to both articles?

Kol tuv, Egfrank 01:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Palestinian right of return

HG, I know that you often help to informally settle disputes on IPConflict related pages. I wonder if you might take a gander at this one. Recently there's been a conflict over whether the page should talk about "Palestinian refugees" or "Palestinian refugees and their descendants," drawing a distinction between "real" refugees and others. My understanding of the sources is that they almost never do this, and indeed many academic sources specifically state that Palestinian refugees include those born outside of the country. Maybe you could help us have a more productive discussion based on the sources. <eleland/talkedits> 17:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, I'm honored that you contacted me. In looking at the Talk page, though, it appears that you haven't quite succeeded yet in drawing the "descendants" proponents into much of a substantive discussion. Absent such a discussion, do you really think I'd be of much help? If it remains an edit war with IPs who do not deal with the substantive q's, then semi-protection of the page might be more helpful. Meanwhile, I do see that 'descendents' appears quite a few times in the article. Do you disagree with all of these instances? Thanks. Best wishes, HG | Talk 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's entirely appropriate to note, once, that the definition of "Palestinian refugees" includes descendants, and that some (partisan) sources call this an exceptional or special definition of who is a refugee. However, the article should use this definition of "Palestinian refugee", since it is widely accepted, rather than constantly referring to "refugees and their descendants" which is contrary to normal practice. It's kind of an academic question, though, as long as the IP's won't talk about it. Your suggestion of seeking semi-protection is probably a good one. Thanks. <eleland/talkedits> 22:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Feasibility

Your subheading certainly describes the comments of Shirahadasha and others. Wouldyou like me to change the heading of the whole section to follow your wording? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on my page is helpful and I appreciate it. I also note that you changed your section to a subsection, which makes sense. i just want to factor this section (everything below the call for a vote) in a way that encourages dialogue - so that people read recent comments, not just those in the bottom-most section, and we have a meaningful discussion. Do you have more ideas about how better to accomplish this? Maybe there is a way to refactor the comments into numbered sections focusing on different issues/questions? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks! I wonder whether you have any suggestions about how to refactor/number comments above by Mperel, Shirahadasha, and Jayrav. Again, the point would be to facilitate discussion and an exchange of views. Can you see a better way to organize the material (JMperel commented directly in that section, but I copied earlier remarks by Shirahadasha and Jayrav and pasted them here because they seemed relevant, maybe I could have done a better job ... Slrubenstein | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 22:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks!! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Q:Retaining Talk and History after an AfD deletion

If content from an article is being retained, we need to retain the history of that content in order to comply with the GFDL. If the article is being split into two new articles, I'd suggest keeping the existing talk page where it is, but link to it from the talk pages of the new articles (to provide an historical record of previous discussions). You should also not delete the old article but replace it with a dab, so that the old article's editing history - and therefore the history of the content that's gone into the new article(s) - is retained. That would satisfy the GDFL requirements. Hope that helps! -- ChrisO (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Chaim Rapoport, Joel B. Wolowelsky are both published, prominent left-wing Orthodox rabbis, who are innovators in the field of Orthodox Jewish thought. Each has published two or more books. While it's true that Wikipedia doesn't have pages for far more notable figures in Reform Judaism, I don't understand why an Encyclopedia which has room for bit actors on Star Trek doesn't have room for conteporary rabbis.

Are you looking for "proof" of notability? I would argue that at this point, the Jewish community's media is so ineffective that you can't rely on them to point out what's notable, any more than you can rely on the mass media to indicate which parts of Klingon culture are notable. There is a reason that the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Judaica were definitive statements on many topics.

I write as someone who relies on Wikipedia and has accordingly begun writing articles where Wikipedia is lacking -- but who has enough other commitments that I'm not going to be an insider or editor.

Yudel (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Yudel, thanks for your note. Not sure if one would call it proof, but we do need some reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Or, we need to verify whatever statements in the article that do establish their significance. Rabbi Wolowelsky does have the advantage of having published often, but that in itself isn't usually considered significant. The key indicator tends to be published work (esp. in the press or scholarly literature) about the author (i.e., biographical) or at least their writings/activities. (Personally, I'm sympathetic to your comparative point about bit actors, but so it goes....)

You mention the JE and EJ. The 2007 EJ does not list either person. Some left-wing innovators (your description) are at least mentioned in EJ, e.g. Saul Berman. I would guess that at least R. Wolowelsky seems plausibly notable, but it would help to have 2ry sources about him. thanks again for your note. HG | Talk 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas, the world of contemporary Jewish thought -- unlike, say, the world of MMORPGs -- is all but devoid of secondary periodical literature. (Yes, this is a particular pet peeve.) Does that mean contemporary Jewish thought isn't notable?

Demanding secondary references puts Wikipedia in a parasitic position. When someone publishes a book on Modern Orthodoxy 1980-2020, should someone go back and add entries for all the thinkers under discussion? I think it would be more helpful to have stub articles in place (yes, with appropriate sourcing) so that when there is a secondary reference to a thinker as "ground-breaking" or "shockingly derivative," a Wikipedia editor will have some place to put it. Yudel (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:BIO. The MO world does offer awards, honors and leadership positions (e.g., top echelon at YU), and there are probably untapped 2ry sources. Meanwhile, it's wouldn't be good for Wikipedia to put in stubs for everybody who might become notable. Meanwhile, whether Avi Weiss is "shockingly derivative" (love that!) or merely groundbreaking, he does get noticed in the press. Maybe you should search the Forward (etc) for references to R. Wolowelsky.... Kol tuv, HG | Talk 13:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

New arbcom proceeding

Hi HG. Have you seen the notice below? There is a new ArbCom proceeding! it has been posted at several user talk pages. let me know what you think. it does not relate to any one specific article, apprarently. I already posted a reply there. thanks.

== Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict ==

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

end of message. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

hi. hope you like my general comments on the process itself so far. feel free to write to me anyt time with thoughts or comments. what do you think of things so far? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't be sure, Steve, but the ArbCom members may have enough input already to make a decision on whether to take the case. So what's our role now? I think it is in our interest to keep things as calm as possible, limit the drama. To do this, our best course of action is to not agitate the waters, don't spill a lot of ink over it, don't create lots of side conversations, because any extraneous chatter can add to the drama, esp for folks who tend to get pulled in that direction. So, we need to be models of restraint, to demonstrate patience and measured disinterest. Off-line, I suppose we could try to think of some creative steps that ArbCom might adopt. Meanwhile, let's turn our minds to other directions. For instance, how might you follow up your success with Category:Jewish political status? What gaps might be filled in? Have you thought about improving Jewish Emancipation? (It doesn't even mention Wissenschaft des Judentums.) Perhaps we could ratchet such an article up a class? Best regards, HG | Talk 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. i appreciate all your valuable input and ideas. I also appreciate you giving some ideas on a possible role, as many people here, including me, have an extremely high opinion of your approach to editing and how one stays fair and balanced. however, i never claimed at to be neutral or to be necessarily a mediating figure. So I don't feel any great need to practice restraint or brevity, other than how one normally would based on common sense, in the way you suggest.

Re that category, i haven't really thought about it at all since then. i may think about it from time to time, should the need arise, but right now I don't have any plans to do so. thanks very much for your helpful input anyway. thanks. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The case is located at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 Israeli-Palestinian conflict‎, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. I felt like it was time to open a mediation case, since in spite of all the contention, dissent and new proceedings curently going on, as well as edit-protections on several entries, there are actually very few active mediation efforts for any articles right now. so this is a step in hopefully a right direction. by the way, did you know that a single MedCab case can cover a few articles at once? so this seems like possibly an appropriate way to go. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

brief note.

Hahahahaha. please have that editor brought before the tribunal. :-) see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

thoughts at arbcom page

it is extremely great to see your input at the ArbCom case. i have now laid out some ideas on how this can proceed, all of which is in line with most of what i;'ve previously expressed. I laid it out with the hope of providing a genuinely helpful way forward. your thoguths and insight would be extremely welcome. please feel; free to comment, whether there, or at my talk page, or anywhere else. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(from ArbCom) Good point. From that standpoint, we should focus on halting the insinuations, etc., and we should assume the good faith of combative editors. Still, I suppose that, by virtue of editing WP, all editors are implicitly agreeing to abide by the COI guidelines. Might it be helpful for a principle to specify the COI expectations as it applies to this case? HG | Talk 19:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User:HG - I think that's an excellent idea. We're locked into Common Law ways of thinking, an "impartial judge" and parties putting evidence/arguments to them. That may not be the best way. There could be real advantages in having a more inquisatorial system (Roman Law), with our lords and masters demanding answers to questions. (It appears we've abandoned this Anglo-model anyway, since ArbCom members can and do reject having people as parties on particular cases).

I think we should know if there are people editing with what could be gaping Conflict of Interest. It strikes me as quite improper not to know where people might be coming from.

For myself, I have zero CoI in the I-P conflict. I was strongly pro-Israel in school in 1967. Later, I twice tried to get on a sponsored trip to Israel as a result of neighbours who painted living on a kibbutz in horrendous terms (?!) but was rejected each time. However, I've also spent some time in a Muslim society (I don't particularly care for it). As a member of a minority myself, I'm fundamentally sympathetic to both "sides". PR^talk 19:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship discussion at ArbCom

Seen here:

Proposed. To the best of my knowledge, this remedy would apply to PR (currently subject to required mentoring) and to Jaakobou (pursuant to the last clause). I believe that part of the problem with PR's mentoring experience is due to the lack of clearly-articulated parameters from the community. With more clarity from ArbCom, perhaps Required Mentoring will be a viable remedy. Suggestions and friendly amendments welcome. Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I declare a CoI in this discussion - but I can tell you my mentoring worked extremely well until it was cynically sabotaged. eg[1] Meanwhile, I'd hoped that Jaakobou's new mentor would act as a conduit for communications with him, but I'm not sure it's working.[2] PR^talk 20:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at Arbcomm

Hi HG. I'm a little offended by your comment at the Arbcomm. First off, we have a pretty decent editing relationship and I'm surprised that you filed a 3RR report, mentioning my name without even informing me. Second of all, you will notice that you cite me making exactly one revert and yet you conclude from this one revert that I am "tag-team edit-warring". I think that's a rather unfair conclusion to make and it assumes bad faith. Arab citizens of Israel is on my watchlist and it's an article to which I have made a significant number of edits. When editors refuse to respond to talk comments and go ahead and add text that is WP:UNDUE anyway, I think it's my right to remove it. You should know that I did make two reverts, but you ignore these comments I made on the talk page this one in September explaining why the material Zeq was inserting was WP:UNDUEand this one after I reverted his edit [3] repeating what the problem was the text. I don't consider this evidence of my being a "combative editor". I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge the talk comments I made and the fact that Zeq chose not to respond to them and insert the text anyway (which you will also note has since been removed, since it is WP:UNDUE.) Tiamut 13:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG. My problem is not so much your characterization of the edits are as "edit-warring", since they could be considered as such (some people consider more than one revert edit-warring). It's more the idea that I was "tag-team" edit-warring, which implies a level of collusion between RolandR and I that is not substantiated by the diffs or any other evidence. I think if you review my response at the Arbcomm page, you might better understand why I feel that description is both inaccurate and unfair.

On a personal note, I'm still really rather shocked that you (of all people) would file a 3RR report for those events (when neither I, nor anyone else violated 3RR) and not inform me. You have in the past refused to help me seek sanctions against other editors, saying your focus is more on conflict resolution over content, rather than focusing on behavioural sanctions. So I'm going to ask again (nicely), since you didn't answer me the first time: what was so offensive about my behaviour that you abandoned that personal principle, filed a 3RR report, didn't notify me, and then went to post about it at Arbcomm? Tiamut 18:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings again. Well, your point about collusion is interesting. I'm not sure "tag team" implies collusion, e.g., behind the scenes planning. Oh, would it be better for me to explain this at the ArbCom? Regarding our personal relations: About 9hrs after your last comment in a section entitled reverts, I did inform everyone on the article Talk page. Last October, I didn't think I was abandoning my principles. Last October, I saw an increasing level of unhelpful dispute-by-reverting. To try to move things back to substantive discussion, I tried some 3RR and page protection requests at Jenin, Arab citizens, AoIA, etc. I think my requests had some positive effects. Indeed, I'd be inclined to do this kind of thing more often, except that I found it time-consuming and unpleasant. As you say, I far prefer resolution than sanctions; nevertheless, I support misconduct sanctions (and pretty much all WP policies) and simply have felt that I'd rather others take the lead in their implementation. Anyway, I'm sorry that my 3RR request last October offended you. I hope this is responsive and thanks for raising this with me. HG | Talk 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG. I'm sorry I missed that comment by you on the talk page. I checked my contribs to see what happened there, and it looks like I was away between October 19 and November 3 (my last edit being eight hours before your notice on the talk page. I guess I didn't see your message there or anywhere else. I shouldn't have been bitching about that in the first place. So please forgive me. I agree fully with your statements about the unhelpful dispute by reverting dynamic. Indeed, my own break from editing right at the time was a way of pulling back from the back-and-forth to get some perspective. Thanks for acknowledging that I might have been offended by the 3RR report. You have been, as usual, very responsive. Tiamut 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Splendid, sounds like we're back on track. Thanks. Regards, HG | Talk 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Working Group, your ArbCom suggestion

You said here-> To enable ArbCom to evaluate the disputed topic area, ArbCom endorses the development of better mechanisms to monitor and measure disputes in articles covered by this arbitration.

Draft idea (1a). ArbCom asks uninvolved parties to set up a working group to observe user conduct related to the articles covered by this arbitration. This working group will exercise no new authorities. This working group may promote dispute resolution or recommend remedies through existing channels. The working group is asked to report its observations to ArbCom periodically. ArbCom will aim to provide an ArbCom member as a liaison or member of the working group.

Draft idea (1b). ArbCom endorses the development of a page (in Wikipedia mainspace) that tracks and tabulates data on the level, intensity, and character of disputes covered by this arbitration. For instance, this tracking page might identify articles by protection level, dispute resolution efforts, 3RRs and blocks, revert levels, etc. The page may be dynamically generated, in part, while allowing input by observers.

While your thinking is excellent, I fear you are opening the door for outside funding of (effectively) policy-making bodies. I can't see this working from volunteers - and I see no need for it.

Only if, for instance, regular, named academics with no known strong opinions in this area could be recruited would such a board work. And I cannot see that happening - especially with the number of poisonous accusations coming, I'm afraid to say it, overwhelmingly from pro-Israeli sources.

I'm not saying anything at the ArbCom Working page, but I really think you should float this dangerous idea somewhere much more prominent. PR^talk 10:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I'll take the compliment about my thinking. My proposal doesn't refer to outsiders, only work by admins/users who aren't engaged in the quotidian POV battles within the topic area. Thanks, PR. Take care, HG | Talk 19:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Idea for Talmud articles

Hi HG: I am reposting the following request from User Sh76us (talk · contribs) on my user talk page for wider notification: <snip> Centralized discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Idea for Talmud articles. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Izak. Saw it; liked your category; hope it leads to new articles. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 13:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion and Abortion

Let's do take it to the talk page. My main concern in this section is unconscious editorializing.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Battleground statistics

You ask that I show how BLP, libel and abuse issues have been addressed through "Noticeboards and the like". This is difficult, as in many of the articles I added, the attacks were made by one-off accounts, which were blocked immediately, and the abuse was self-evident, so there was no need to refer this to any form of intervention. I will remove the comments for now, but would appreciate guidance on how rto address these concerns, since this affects a great many pages; I plan to add several more. RolandR (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide an example/diff of a block for a self-evident case? Otherwise, maybe you could raise the question (how to document, how to raise these concerns) on the page's Talk? thanks. HG | Talk 15:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message

I replied on my talk page. Do you also check your mail? I sent some to you yesterday. It's not urgent; I just don't want it to get lost in cyberspace. — Sebastian 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Article discussions

Hi. Please see Talk:Palestinian people. This seem to me to be getting excessive, unwarranted and irrational. I suggest we find some consensus version, and end this nit-picking discussion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I'm glad to listen to your frustrations. But please don't put such stuff on the Talk page. It doesn't help to knock the process, or the people who are proceeding in a way that bugs you. Better just reason with them, from where they are, or give them alternatives that they might find persuasive. Anyway, what makes you think there is an agreed upon compromise? I gather that there are still holdouts, right? Thanks. HG | Talk 05:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration

Greetings Fayssal. Maybe it's your fault ;-) but we've gone ahead and started something for Isr-Pales modeled on the Sri Lanka project you'd mentioned at ArbCom. Would you be willing to join us and sign on? Here the shortcut, WP:IPCOLL. Even if only as an observer and occasional advisor, it would be a vote of confidence or moral support. Also, we'd welcome you suggestions on how to advance something like the Sri Lanka agreement you mentioned. Thanks for your encouragement, be well, HG | Talk 16:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks HG. Being a member (observer/advisor status) would be fine but prefer it to be effective after closing the case. I'll consider that part of my priorities. Yeah, i like the shortcut :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

contact

That is a pity I forgot to add an email adress...
This is now done. Regards, Alithien (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

new community idea

good to see you. thanks for your comments. by the way, I just created the following page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Community lounge‎ feel free to comment anytime of course. I will keep you posted. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I fell down our (stone) stairs this morning and landed on my elbow. My arm is in a sling and it's very painful right now, but I'm hoping it's just bruised nerve. Tiamut^talk 13:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I know somebody who had a minor fraction in the elbow. Did you get an x-ray? Amateurly yours, HG | Talk 13:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No Xray yet. I hate hospitals. Prefer to wait and see if the pain goes away, keeping it in a sling for now so it doesn't get worse (in case it is fractured). Thanks for caring though. Tiamut^talk 14:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

wow. I hope you feel better. I really suggest you get it x-rayed though. the best way to avoid a hospital is by dealing with it fully now, in my humble opinion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I-P collaboration discussions

Hi. Just posted at the I-P collaboration poage. below is a copy of my comment. feel free to reply here or there, if you wish. <snipped by HG>--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, thanks. Unless it's crucial, you generally don't need to msg me when you post on a Talk page where I am already involved. Thanks. Have a good day! HG | Talk 15:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Institutional bias

Can I ask you to consider 'hosting' a page demonstrating apparent "institutional bias" in articles? And/or lending your support and advice to me doing it?

As an example of what happens, I would like people to compare the treatment we give Ayaan Hirsi Ali with what we give Israel Shahak. These two people have either turned on the religion they were brought up in (Islam and Judasim respectively) or lashed out at extremism within those religions. You'd really never guess that Hirsi Ali has repeatedly confessed to lying about her own past and/or her relation with Muslims (and cannot get on with her neighbours, having apparently been hounded out of Holland and, now perhaps the US), while Shahak was a Holocaust Survivor, Israeli soldier and Professor of Chemistry in Israel. PR^talk 15:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that equivalency in WP is not a helpful angle. Nor do I think it's helpful to argue about WP's biases, except through the WP:CSB which deals w/other stuff. Just calmly ask for the best encyclopedic treatment of both articles. HG | Talk 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved editor as regards the articles on Hirsi Ali and Shahak. From my lofty position of near total disdain for religion-based articles, it is very evident that one or both articles is hugely POV. However, I have zero interest in trying to fix them. (If you want me to suggest the way forward, I'd be inclined to think that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is OK in it's current lovey-dovey form except for the extremely lurid quotes about Islam - and it's the Israel Shahak article that needs extensive revision for POV).

What use are my observations? Well, it's valuable to know what "neutral" editors consider to be below the usual standard of the project. I was asking for your advice, not suggesting such articles go on the IPCOLL page, where they clearly wouldn't belong. PR^talk 15:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Greetings HG! Just want to stop by and thank you for copyediting and clarifications in the Mosque of Omar (Bethlehem) article. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, replied at your Talk about the DYK. Cheers back at you.... HG | Talk 21:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)r

I-P battleground stats

PR -- I'm bringing this to your Talk because I already tried on the project Talk page, but you don't seem to have responded to my point. You say: "I'm now complaining that I'm linked to the mentorship of Jaakobou." PR, how does (that project page discuss Jaakobou's mentorship? It doesn't, so what is there to compalain about? I don't get it. Pls reply to my talk, concisely. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Project page implies that Jaakobou is under some form of punitive mentorship that might inhibit him from deviating from the principles of the project. I'm not convinced that that is the case, in particular, I have 3 significant questions for him, concerning his abiding by policy. I've presented these questions to him via his mentor, who appears to think it is not her business. PR^talk 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How does the Project page imply he has a punitive mentorship? What wording do you see that implies that? pls quote it here. thanks. HG | Talk 20:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I misread what the project page says, seeing two editors under "involuntary mentorship", I took it that Jaakobou was one of them. However, that's not the case, his alleged "mentorship" isn't mentioned atall. PS - am I the only editor around who admits occasionally making mistakes and proceeds to apologize for them? Is such behavior a character defect, proving something wrong with me? PR^talk 11:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No. See same page and here, too for the proper wording. ;-> Yours truly, HG | Talk 15:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC) PS So pls note your mistake on the page (and strikeout as needed), thanks!

Battle of Jenin

Your edit at Battle of Jenin actually looks better in context than I gave it credit for.

However, I still have a problem with "Subsequent investigations found no evidence " (of a massacre) - which was part of the statement you said you'd only modify to our general agreement. The published testimony definitely claims there was at least one small "up-against-the-wall" type massacre. It's described by Amnesty, and the Independent newspaper cites it to the Red Cross and HRW observers. It is thought we know the names of two of the Israeli soldiers who carried out this killing, and the IDF has never carried out (or published, anyway) any form of investigation. (That's on top of the other 9 very well-referenced incidents I feel sure belong in this article). I really think we have to re-visit this incident and the entire article. PR^talk 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Thanks for giving us credit.
2. Aren't you answering a question (about where you see Jaakobou's mentorship implied) with a question (Jenin)? Isn't that very Talmudic of you? But you will answer my question first, or else agree to drop the whole complaint, right?
3. Sure, I'm like to see us revisit the massacre question at Jenin, and much else there to, at the right moment. Meanwhile, you already have your hand in one mess at Saeb E., so why don't you and Jaakobou try to resolve that first? Please work with Ryan and Durova and try to straighten it out. Given the recent ArbCom pronouncements, it's fair to say that the community wants to see these kind of contentious pages settled down -- and not spread elsewhere. PR, will you do it? Thanks. HG | Talk 21:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've answered the questions you had for me? I'm not going back to Saeb Erekat, I'm leaving it as a monument to WP:OWN and time-wasting by a master. 8 editors bludgeoned into acceptance of ridiculous UNDUE, as documented here. It's clearly not going to stop, see this today. See this if you still think there's a shred of justification for what he's doing. PR^talk 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good diplomacy

Your statement here was very well worded! To be honest, when I read it, I felt sad, too, because it reminded me of how I often have to curb my own enthusiasm. But it is necessary if one wants to achieve certain goals. I'm eagerly looking forward to the moment when IPCOLL will resolve the first I-P conflict! You guys are really making a difference! — Sebastian 06:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mosque of Omar

On 21 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mosque of Omar, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

......Mabruk! Thank you for all your constructive efforts for the article. Great Job! --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:SeferShomerShabbat.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:SeferShomerShabbat.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Used PD-100, though it's also public domain because prior to 1923. Thanks. HG | Talk 07:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Shomer Shabbat

Hi HG: Shavua Tov! great work with the Shomer Shabbat article. You have breathed life into a good new article. IZAK (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi HG: I see that you have quite a lengthy talk page already. Usually if its over 30-50 k then the rest should be filed so that your talk page does not get cluttered up. For your convenience I have inserted talk page archive red links at the top of this page, feel free to use them if you like. Just copy and cut and from this pa, click on the archive page and paste it to that archive page. If you need help and I can help, let me know. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I have an archive box lower down. Feel free to move it up or I can try. And archive my various "love letters"! HG | Talk 14:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And Izak, thanks for your kind words about the Shomer Shabbat, it's good to get noticed after I work on something. Do you think the DYK request will work? HG | Talk 14:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I didn't see that you have the archive box, so I removed what I put in. And as you see below, the DYK request worked. Congratulations. IZAK (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: WP:IPCOLL

HI HG, you said: Hi. Thanks for joining WP:IPCOLL and for your active participation already. Did you want to vote on an article for collaboration? (I added your Semite idea to the options, fyi.) Meanwhile, I'd like to archive or move your long thread. Or better yet, how about if you or I move the first paragraph to the Members statements above and the rest archive or to the Lounge? Thanks. Pls let me know soon. HG | Talk 14:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to pass on voting at this time, the ones selected are good to the extent I am aware, but none really strike my fancy. I will take a look at what is in #4, tho. I tend to be somewhat of a loner, tho I might learn more of the techno/format side in collaboration than I have not had time to learn. I need some time to see whare I currently stand. I will, however take a look at what I suggested and see what a can of worms it is from my end. I already know what it might be for some others in particular. If I can get somewhere I will bring it up again; am not going to do anything on it until I do. I am only thinking the root noun, not the generational changes, tho they do make me steam. But then, I did come to IPCOLL to coll, not maul. I did see that you'd added it and also comments before struck, thanks for that but I am a big boy. I would appreciate if you could move my 1st para up to statements and archive the rest, it might calm things. I did run across one article recently that might be a good one to consider for IPCOLL, I was unaware of the term, 1948 Palestine War. To me it is a neologism for 48 A-I war, but restricted to limited civil war aspects between UN vote to partition Nov'47 and May15'48. It seems to be being pushed by the I-side, but I noted some P-side refs to it also. Lounge? where is that? thanks CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Tss tss tss.

CasualObserver'48. You analysis of the situation is biased by your "knowledge" about the topic. You should focus on the sources and nothing else. But no problem to discuss this deeper and the time needed. This is indeed not an easy topic. Ceedjee (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

HG,

In reply to your message. The analysis of "the projet members" of Jakobou attitude in dealing with content issues is not fair. We are in front of the limit of WP:AGF. If that is not understand by this project, don't even start your "attempts". Ceedjee (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, if you had said this I would have been able to reply. This is more clear. Yes, I can certainly see why you've reached your AGF limit. But you need to give others a chance to reach or assess their own, right? As you can see from Durova's comment on the article Talk, at least in my read, she seems quite amenable to the possibility you raise, but wants other eyes. Anyway, my suggestion was that a few of us trouble to figure out if you're right about Jaakobou, and otherwise we all pitch in to improve the article. Do you see why I would go about it this way? Thanks. HG | Talk 12:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Marshall Sklare Award

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Marshall Sklare Award, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://cmjsweb.feldmach.brandeis.edu/assj/sklareawardpast.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

replied to Coren. HG | Talk 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Shomer Shabbat, was selected for DYK!

On January 28, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shomer Shabbat, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Shaw Report in a large variety of articles

<snip text copy from elsewhere, diff ok>

Looks well-informed and tolerably referenced to me (though I'm very surprised by the comments on the Shaw Report and the Mandatory Commission, and will have to examine these more carefully). Given the terrible state of many of the articles on this and allied subjects, I would sincerely hope we see more scholars and scholarship in TalkPages and articles. PR^talk 14:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:KosherLamp.gif

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:KosherLamp.gif. 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. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Question submitted. Of course, I welcome any readers here to submit a free image of such a product! Thanks. HG | Talk 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My great-aunt

Actually, she was my great-aunt (my mom's aunt). And she used to wear a white headdress with tiny coloured embroidered flowers around the trim. But in all seriousness, that edit wasn't based on her experience alone of course, the text itself describes the headwear of Samartians and other religious groups, so I thought the change was appropriate. Tiamut^talk 12:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, no problem, though I appreciate the response. Any old family photos to upload? Or Samaritans, Druze or other folks not among the already terrific image display? Thanks. HG | Talk 12:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

IPCOLL stats

Yes, I have only noted protects in the past year. Some of them were protected frequently earlier, but I have not taken this into account. I will try to break these down. I also intended to add Steven Plaut, but noticed that you had already done so. RolandR (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

IPCOLL scope

Hi. thanks for all your help at the IPCOLL page. I think i just need some basic information here, which is why I'd rather ask you right here at your talk page. what exactly is the potential role in IPCOLL for addressing actual specific issues which are in dispute? I thought that one of the main points ws to find new ways to address specific issues more constructively? Am i wrong on this? please let me know. Also, if you could, could you please reply at my talk page? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. i just created a new opage at IPCOLL. Hope you like. it. please feel free to let me know any thoughts or comments. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. i just wanted to make sure that you found the page I created to be basically ok? If not, I'm open to discussion on it, or I can even withdraw it entirely, if you want. please feel free to let me know. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Problematic comments

Hi HG,
I think there is a big problem indeed. And what I have written is completely and absolutely not acceptable.
I assume it must have upset you. That is what was expected because now you can understand what is the frustration we feel having received equivalent attacks during 2 years long, to which was added wikistalking, days of bad faith pilpul for the use of one word and discussions and discussions for nothing.
Frankly, you can thank me to be kind because the other solution was to engage you in a polite long term discussion hammering and hammering you for a detail. Eg, you deleted this comment. Why ? You should not have done. Could you explain ? But why not this or that etc.
I hope you have understood, now, how inacceptable was your own behaviour from our point of view.
Nevertheless, now that it worked (and let me tell you your really lack patience !) I will completely refrain to comment your action. And we will see what can be done.
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I must go but please, don't hesitate to delete all the comments from me you consider problematic. That is acceptable from my point of view.

I don't remember you deleted a comment of mine recently. But it doesn't matter.

Please, fell free to delete or revert *any* of my comment, edit or whatever on the whole wp:en that you consider problematic, inappropriated, uncivil or disturbing whoever and whatever is concerned.

But, please, let me tell you that you are really too kind for this job. You should have asked my ban for what I wrote to you. 8h. With such a comment as "whether you cool down, whether it will be 16".

I really hope your technique will be successful and that Nishidani will not leave. Accessory, let's see the articles improve.

Shavoua Tov, Ceedjee (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

...you are really too kind for this job. And the pay is too low. Anyway, thanks, see you 'round the bend. HG | Talk 05:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Scope of Palestinian costumes

If the sources that discuss Palestinian costume mention that worn by Jews, of course it should be mentioned. I don't recall seeing anything about it specifically though. Do you have any such sources in mind?

I'm sure Arab Jews wore costume similar to that of the Arab Christians and Muslims. But there were lots of non-Arab Jews too (as described in the article on Arab Jews, the sub-section on Palestine). I think if we stick to sources that mention Palestinian costume as it related to Jews in Palestine, we are fine. I don't think we should dig up sources on what Jews in Palestine wore in general and add it to this article though, since its scope is narrowly defined to "Palestinian costume", more specifically, traditional costume. If such an article is eventually written (on what Jews in Palestine wore for traditional dress), we can link to it from this one and take it from there.

Is that okay with you? Tiamut^talk 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Not sure I entirely see a difference between Palestinian costumes of Jews and what (traditional?) Jews wore in Palestine, but ok. Anyway, you might find this old Jewish Encyclopedia article interesting (search for "Palest"). Ciao, HG | Talk 05:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

tagging Israeli-Palestinian conflict sanctions

(copy) Greetings. Glad to see you helping with sanctions.

However, I wanted to talk to you about the Israel-Palestine sanctions. These apply to a broad swath of articles, by no means not just the article you recently tagged Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It may be confusing because the article name is similar to the topic area name used by ArbCom.

In the Talk page to the case, there has been discussion of whether to tag individual articles. Perhaps you should discuss the question of tagging there? Thanks very much, (pls reply to my Talk), HG | Talk 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not fair for editors to not be notified that a specific article must be edited differently than other articles, so I marked articles which seemed to have no other notifications. The ArbCom is arbitrary enough that I didn't try to hunt down all articles which might be relevant (I wouldn't have thought of British Isles but a sanction was applied there), but my actions don't affect what others will decide. I also didn't try to identify the specific type of sanction, as the phrasing differs rulings, but others will improve my edits. You say there was discussion of notification but I didn't see any hint of article notification methods in Wikipedia talk:General sanctions. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's where there's discussion about why tagging individual articles isn't needed. I suppose you could ask the Israel and Palestine WikiProjects to post a notice. But does it make sense to tag 150+ articles? (You could leave an explanatory note at the Sanctions page.) See also the list of articles WP:IPCOLL/BATTLE analyzed here. If by any chance you want to help monitor and "pacify" this topic area, we'd welcome uninvolved parties to this WikiProject, thanks! HG | Talk 18:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There are other tags which are on thousands of articles, and I'm not concerned with the number of articles which ArbCom has chosen to drop a blanket over. I'm not trying to hunt down any more articles, and I don't see any more definition of which those are. Others who figure out the sanctioned areas can mark them to warn other editors. I edit so widely that I don't appreciate having such unmarked traps; I don't want my forthcoming garden and geological history edits to wander through unmarked minefields. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Charles Liebman

On 31 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Liebman, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 23:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 1 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pete Rouse, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Working group

Not yet, but soon! :-) Kirill 04:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Parshah articles

Thanks, HG, for your kind words on the parshah articles. I would welcome any general suggestions for bringing articles up to GA level. Thanks again. -- Dauster (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the concrete suggestions. I'll work away at addressing them for a bit. I think you're right that additional content would be useful. And thus I would not be inclined to invite in disinterested folks to edit just for style just now. Thanks again. -- Dauster (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Links

• [4] - [5] - [6] no discussion here. Just threat and no answer to my comments.
• [7] - [8] - [9] and finally : [10]
• [11]

(please refer to the date for the chronology) Ceedjee (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Postage stamp article

My reasoned reply is here. Sorry but I cannot support this inaccurate title; and there is no such place. ww2censor (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to delete whole offending section

So won't start brouhaha with Monday morning readers. Then I'll raise WP:Game issue elsewhere. Since being able to say ANYTHING in arbitration and then those groups getting created to solve the problem, I was under the delusion one could be overly frank about the whole thing - spank!!! Carol Moore 02:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Problematic new Christian/Jewish template

Hi HG: Please see the discussions at Template talk:Books of the Bible concerning the new troubled and troubling {{Books of the Bible}} template. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Award

I hereby award this falafel sandwich for good work related to Israel-Palestine collaboration and reconciliation. It's kosher and halal. <eleland/talkedits> 04:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

and may you enjoy your well-deserved lunch, bon apetite. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you guys are swell! Warms my heart and yummy... HG | Talk 03:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Israeli stamps

Hi HG: I have tried to use Israeli stamps over the years to illustrate issues and personalities, but I have not done so lately. Originally there was no opposition to it, but in the last year or two, as new guidleines have been drawn up, even past postings have been removed. I think the source you cite should be better publicised wherever the rules for such things are mentioned, such as at Wikipedia:Public domain Category:Public domain stamp images, Category:Fair use stamp images as examples. It would help to create a template for Israeli stamps like the {{PD-stamp}}, {{Stamp rationale}}, {{Non-free stamp}} templates as examaples and as would apply to Israel. Just some ideas. IZAK (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Israel stamp collecting cover Takhtiv.jpg

 Done Thank you for uploading Image:Israel stamp collecting cover Takhtiv.jpg. However <snip> STBotI (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added the fair use copyright tag, thanks. HG | Talk 03:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian people

Hi HG and thanks for your message. I know the edit was on the bold side but I did already make a comment on the talk page about this section and a sensible editor, though disagreeing with one of my points, said that s/he believed the section could be cut down. So I was just cutting out stuff that I thought was obviously irrelevant. Can we see if any disagreement emerges on the talk page? I'm not happy with the section as it stands, as it is cobbled together from many different articles, most of which do not have Palestinians as their main focus. But it will take some time to consider each source carefully in order to judge whether it can contribute anything to the encyclopedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't think it was particularly controversial. I'll leave a message on the talk page as you say. In the meantime, did you have any problem with the deletion? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

problematic user

Hi, I hope you don´t mind that I ask, but I just wondered; do you have any idea about what to to with a user making contributions like this? Do you think he is "savable" as constructive contributor to the project? I confess I have my doubths, and will rather try something simpler and easier, say, climbing Mt. Everest, or taking a walk to the South Pole ;-D Regards, Huldra (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; I wonder if I shouldn´t take it to WP:AE at once he starts up again. Perhaps I shouldn´t admit this, but I am most of all amused by him(!) He is horribly disruptive, though. Anyway, thanks again for you reply, Regards, Huldra (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well he started up again, and I was just in the process of making a report for WP:AE (on 1948 Palestinian exodus the following reverts: 17.34 [12] 17:33 [13] 17.32: [14] 17:29:[15] 14:50 [16] and a similar pattern at Palestinian immigration (Israel)‎) ....but when I started the report I noticed his user-page was no longer red....as he had already been indef.blocked! <a great sigh of relief> Regards, Huldra (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I see, it was probably this report [17] which did it,(for future reference) Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In Fair Palestine

So i looked at old revisions of the page and i put the AfD tag back up just like it was.jo (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG. My email is inaccessible again for some reason or another. (Technology is so fickle.) I'll check out your comments at the other talk page. Tiamut^talk 09:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey HG. I'll check it again tonight (or should I say this morning - it's 3 am here :) I sent an email from my husband's account to the provider, so I'm hoping it's all cleared up now. Anyway, thanks for checking in. Tiamut^talk 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'll try to hit the sack now. Just about impossible for me to sleep these days. It comes and goes in cycles. This is a no-sleep cycle. Hopefully, hibernation won't be far off. Happy editing! Tiamut^talk 01:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HolyLand Austrian Post 1899 envelope stamp.jpg

 Done Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:HolyLand Austrian Post 1899 envelope stamp.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, done that. HG | Talk 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

DYk for Israel/Palestine stamps

You weren't listed as a notify-ee for the other article, but you are for this one ...

On 11 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Postage stamps and postal history of Israel and Palestine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! Good work! --Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice job... not a subject I'd normally find myself reading about. Thanks for your hard work :) --gren グレン 07:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. HG | Talk 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, here you go ...

On 10 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Postage stamps and postal history of Israel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority stamps article

Bring that up when you submit the hook, if any. I think we might be lenient. Work fast (I'm sure you can); the meter's running. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, and for your work on DYK in general. HG | Talk 17:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Who gets credit

It's often a matter of whose name is next to the nomination and anyone else they choose to mention. Some editors (admins need not be the ones choosing the hooks for the next update, although in practice we are since the actual update, as well as protecting the picture, can only be done by admins) may look in the history and decide who else to credit (I don't; this whole task is very time-consuming). If you keep track of how many DYKs you've contributed to (as I do), I have no objection to you claiming this one since IIRC the two articles were sort of split before the hooks were submitted. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to , but...

I just started a new article and I'm pretty taken with it right now. I'll try to add some stuff if I have some time to spare. Thanks for asking though and congrats on the DYK. Tiamut^talk 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, (blush) I thought it was about time there was an article on Palestinian archaeology. A google book search showed it to be a notable term and when a search here at Wikipedia turned up nothing by the Archaeology of Israel article, I though I'd give it a go. I'm terrible, aren't I? Anyway, happy editing to you too. Tiamut^talk 19:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh no! Say it ain't so, HG! You don't like Finkelstein? I just love the guy. He's arrogant at times to be sure, but such a humanist in his approach to the issues. However, I will not reinsert him as a source in that article, as long as you don't take him out of the other article. After five days, we can discuss it more if you want, or we can just let sleeping dogs lie. Speaking of which, it's 6:30am. I'm about to make some coffee having decided not to sleep at all anymore and just keep going and going and going until my batteries die. I'll raise an Arabic coffe cup to you, my friend. Insomniatically yours, Tiamut^talk 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind wishes HG. But there's no need for worry, my Circadian cycle has been seriously off in the winter for years now. Spring is just around the corner, right? I do wish I had access to a regular supply of good English-language crossword puzzles. The Arabic crossword puzzles I could never get into. Most of those here deal with entertainment figures, and writing down Haifa Wehbe or the names of other immodest figurines of the new Westernized Arabic culture doesn't really do it for me. (Coming from a self-professed lover of English-language crossword puzzles, I must sound like such a hypocrite! :) Anyway, coffee it is and indeed a toast will be raised to you. Tiamut^talk 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PNA minister Kamel Hassounah at UPU.jpg

 DoneThank you for uploading Image:PNA minister Kamel Hassounah at UPU.jpg. <snip>

done. HG | Talk 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Khalidi Palestinian identity.gif)

 Done <snip>Thanks for uploading .... However, it is currently orphaned BetacommandBot (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks BetacommandBot for the nudge about the images. HG | Talk 02:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

old covers and such

Austrian post only keeps copyright for 70 years. While it's conceivable that a 19th-century postcard photograph could still be under copyright (the photographer would have had to have retained copyright and be rather young), the "business side" of such an old postcard is safely PD. BTW, I was just noticing Category:Stamps of Israel. For non-free images, we generally want to put them in dedicated categories not mixed in with articles and such, so images of stamps should go in something like Category:Non-free Israeli stamp images. I'm not at all clear on whether they have to be here or can go in commons:Category:Stamps of Israel; I'm doubtful of the reasoning over there, but don't know enough about Israeli copyright law to argue it. Stan (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of your questions in this regard are answered on the commons, like here and the copyright issues are here, but you should also look at the copyright templates here. Hope that helps. (btw, I reply where I post so I am watching this page) ww2censor (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks very much. I've seen both those links (and commented myself on the first) but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer yet. Indeed, the licensing link doesn't show the new (2006) Israeli copyright law. (3rd link didn't work?) I checked Hebrew wikipedia and wrote to a wikipedian friend there. So the question seems unsettled to me. HG | Talk 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, try this link now which leads you to this page where the Israeli stamp copyright seems quite clear to me. 17:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC) ww2censor (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience but you'll see that I already commented on that page. The copyright discussion only refers to stamps, not envelopes. Plus, now I'm trying to figure out the artwork design for the 1948 first day cover. I hope you'll like this new article -- and that I'm trying to learn about citations, as I hope you'll appreciate, though I still need help. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright on artwork for an unissued stamp would be hard to determine I think, because it would depend on the terms of the artist's contract with the postal authority - does ownership pass over as part of doing the "work for hire", or only upon completion? The careful thing would be to take the longer of author's copyright and government's copyright. Non-government-issued cachets on envelopes would of course be copyright the cachet maker; cachet and stamps are pretty much the only copyrightable material on a cover, anything else would be {{PD-ineligible}}. If a cover is PD, then any copy you find around the net is fair game to upload here (and in practice, I don't think that, say, auction houses are going to complain about the free publicity of being mentioned as the source of an image). Stan (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, gentlefolks, check out the fabulous image (imo) at Otte Wallish. Have your lawyer call my lawyer... HG | Talk 18:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases, all stamp design is done on commission for the postal authority and is therefore, like most commercial work, the property of the commissioner, so the copyright will be that entity. Official postal stationery had the same copyright and licensing as their stamps. ww2censor (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be property of the postal commissioner in this case, when its been sold at auction? HG | Talk 19:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Who knows? Ask the auction house. ww2censor (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A request

I can't keep up with your suggestions for renames at Syro-Palestinian archaeology and frankly find the constant new ideas to be more disruptive than helpful. I'm sorry to say that, but that's how I feel. I would deeply appreciate it if you would just step back a bit and let the article breathe under its current new title for a while. It's a legitimate article, reliably sourced to experts, and far better sourced than either Archaeology of Israel or Biblical archaeology. If anything, those articles would benefit from some attention.

I realize that your intentions are good. But I find the obsession with my new article (only two days old now) to be undue, especially considering the state of the others. Given too that a complete article cannot be written overnight, I'd appreciate the space to develop it using the reliable sources I have been and more, confined to "Syro-Palestinian" and "Palestinian" for now. Please consider this request as a genuine plea for understanding. With deep and abiding respect. Tiamut^talk 18:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do tend to get a bit obsessive at times on wikipedia. Hopefully, I'm not the only one and folks will be empathetic or forgiving with me. I'll hold off further responses for now. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It's not that I don't appreciate your enthusiasm or your highlighting of incredibly useful sources or potnetial directions. I'm just a little overwhelmed and a bit frsutrated, particularly by Canadian Monkey's disappearance from the scene (which means, I think, that the DYK is DOA). And it was indeed a sleepless night that churned that article out, so I guess my nerves are just a little frayed. Much appreciated. Tiamut^talk 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

article note

Hi. Just want to let you know, i made some edits to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. just want to ask, what do you think? see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for the note. I'm not so inclined to evaluate the substantive content there (esp since the changes look significant), I'm mainly focused on editorial process. What buy-in do you have from the (so-called) "pro-Palestinian" side of editors? Thanks. HG | Talk 19:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, but I seem to be intact. :-) It appears they may generally seem to grant me a bit of leeway. I think we're in good shape in that regard. I don't know if I'm the only pro-Israel editor so privileged, but I'd like to think that it reflects somewhat on some of my past efforts. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Israel first coins 1948 25 mils.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Israel first coins 1948 25 mils.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale <snip> -->BetacommandBot (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt, BetacommandBot! HG | Talk 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Postage stamps and postal history of the Palestinian National Authority

On 14 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Postage stamps and postal history of the Palestinian National Authority, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much BorgQueen for your work on DYK etc., HG | Talk 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Phoenician gene

Please see what I wrote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenician gene. I find it as a personal affront; thanks. Itzse (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We can discuss more on Sunday. But for now, I don't think it's proper to remove the deletion tag, so it makes you look quite in the wrong. Plus, at first glance, this kind of argument is deprecated and may give mar'it ayin of WP:POINT -- "if this source isn't good enough for this article; then it would seem to me that it shouldn't be good enough for the Canaan article" so I wouldn't go in that direction. Chill out for a day or so ;-) and we can talk later, kol tuv, HG | Talk 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

HG; maybe I shouldn't have gone as far as removing the tag; it probably wasn't necessary; but improper? I do think that my arguments were in the right direction; and still remains unanswered. I'll leave it at that. Itzse (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: pout

You spelled "wryly" right. Anyway, thanks for the encouragement. I'm not sure I feel encouraged overall, though. Since the recent ArbCom ruling (until yesterday) I've felt a personal obligation towards circumspection and treading softly; yet I'm increasingly feeling that some other editors got the opposite message. When it takes multiple reversions and talk postings just to acknowledge that the West Bank is not part of Israel I wonder how we're ever going to write a neutral article about something that's genuinely controversial. Personally, browsing Israel-Palestine pages, I come across enormous volumes of material that needs to be rewritten or removed entirely, but I refrain because I know well that it would take a major effort and probably lead to RfC's, ANI threads, and the like. More than once I've thought of just retiring this account and starting a new one, free of the I-P insanity. Believe it or not, Israel-Palestine is not my primary interest on Wikipedia, even though it soaks up the majority of my edits. It's just that a change which would have taken one edit on any other topic takes about fifty edits on an I-P page, most of them completely superfluous. You can't do the simplest thing without reversions, argumentation, incivility, and (in all probability) being called an antisemitic terrorist. Think of all the time wasted on Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid et al.

Well, anyway, I'll probably stay here. It is, after all, childish to complain about edit wars on the Intertubes when it's all about a very real war which kills very real people. It's just that I had high hopes for the collaboration project, they're being pretty conclusively dashed, and it's disheartening to say the least. <eleland/talkedits> 03:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources and notability added

Hi HG: Shavua Tov: I have spent some time improving the two articles currently up for deletion. The Adas Israel Congregation and Adath Jeshurun Congregation articles, now renamed Adas Israel Congregation (Duluth) and Adath Jeshurun Congregation (Minnetonka) to differentiate them from other similar sounding congregations elsewhere, are now a full articles. They meet all criteria for such articles. I also wish to point out that this is proof of what can and should be done to improve stubs. Merely because someone has started a stub does not mean that the article of a place/person/event are "not notable" since not all people have the time and capability of working to improve such articles. There is no statute of limitations on how long a stub deemed to be significant can exist and it is certainly no reason to invoke reasons to eliminate them, otherwise why do we have stubs in the first place? It is requested that the nominations be withdrawn! Please look into this. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, replied by you. HG | Talk 14:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Messing around

Perhaps it could wait until after today, since it's going to featured as a DYK in a the next couple of hours. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 14:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I aim to please when I annoy (or vice versa). HG | Talk 14:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As the DYK has come and gone, I am now ready to tackle the larger subjects you raised at Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Your input on how to restructure the article so as to improve it and bettter define its relationship to other existing articles (or new ones that might be farmed out of it) is welcome and appreciated. Perhaps we can get it to good article status, or even, dare I dream, featured article status, through our collaborative efforts. Tiamut^talk 13:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey HG. I think it's preferable to conduct the discussion on the article talk page. Perhaps I haven't been making mnself sufficiently clear: I have no problem with articulating how the Archaeology of Israel is related to Syro-Palestinian archaeology. I simply want to ensure that we use reliable, expert sources as the basis for our definitions. I would prefer that they make explicit the areas of temporal and geographical overlap, as well as the distinctions. I don't think we will have trouble finding such sources. Indeed there are a few already cited in the article. More challenging however, is determining how to discuss the study of Syria, given that specialists in that area do not use the term "Syro-Palestinian" (which might explain why "Palestinian" and "Syro-Palestinian" have come to be used as synonyms) and the fact that we have yet to find a source that explains what term they do in fact use. I've replied to your last comment on the talk page about the issue and am waiting for your reply there. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 14:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Otte Wallish, was selected for DYK!

On February 17, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Otte Wallish, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Geneivat Da'at

You cited the Encyclopedia Talmudit, which in turn cites a midrash. Could you add to the page where the Midrash is? I hadn't heard of it; this sounds like a late Midrash, like Yalkut Shimoni. JFW | T@lk 08:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the ET is an encyclopedia. Could you therefore expand on the ruling that GD is permissible for the sake of honouring someone? Surely there is a thin line between this and flattery (which is definitely forbidden). JFW | T@lk 08:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an early midrash -- the Mekhilta. I'll cite the honoring exception sources and learn it inside later. HG | Talk 05:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up with creator of Minnesota synagogues stubs

Hi HG: You may be interested to know that I have contacted User Grika (talk · contribs) who was the editor who originally created all the stub articles about synagogues in Minnesota that have now become the focal point of much debate, and he, as creator of the stubs has neither responded, participated nor defended himself in any discussions AFAIK. Please see User talk:Grika#Requesting your attention. Feel free to add your comments. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

requests

Hi. i need your help at Talk:Israeli settlement. An editor there has engaged in various slightly uncivil comments. it is someone who should know better. the article is also currently protected, due to some insistence on adding a one-sided quote. You will see more from my exchange there. Appreciate your help (at the bottom of the page). Feel free to comment there, or at my talk page, whatever you prefer. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I see that you have experience in moderation and I was wondering if you could help here [[18]]. El_C is currently running things except that I don't understand what it is he/she wants to happen. Maybe you could advise him or clarify to me if I'm misunderstanding him or even act as the moderator? Thanks --Robertert (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Ok, I will look there. However, I don't think El C has volunteered to moderate, or nec needs to do so. ElC is trying to stop a revert-heavy edit dispute ranging over multiple pages. You all need to either come to consensus or otherwise stop edit-warring on those pages; a centralized discussion is a plausible mechanism. I'll try to make some suggestions about how you might proceed, though I'm also not volunteering to moderate (if only because of my current time constraints). Thanks again, best wishes, HG | Talk 11:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary comment

HG, this edit summary is not helpful IMHO. I'm not being uncivil by pointing out that Canadian Monkey's conclusions are WP:OR. While my comments to him have been a little cold, I have been restraining myself given his continued deletion of sourced material without engaging in the requested requisite discussion beforehand. If you notice, despite his having appended material that I find to be wholly irrelevant to the article, I have not deleted it outright. Instead, I placed it on the talk page for discussion first. I'm trying to be fair and follow the rules of engagement that I request from others, despite his not doing the same. When you make comments that place both of our comments or editing styles on the same level, I find that to be (as I've expressed to you in the past) unhelpful, since it encourages the editor engaging in inappropriate behaviour, by giving the impression that nothing is wrong with what they are doing. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 13:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What I wrote is this: "before this gets more uncivil, pls define the question." I didn't mean to suggest that either of you have been uncivil, merely that I feel tension and that you're both pretty testy (or "cold" as you say above), and I am encouraging you to figure out a way to deal with this before it gets more tense. Also: Not sure where this fits with civility, but you do tend to come on unnecessarily strong and unequivocal at times, Tiamut. Heavy-handed. For instance, in that thread you said: "You are making a logical deduction that is prohibited by WP:OR." The guy might be wrong, but he's hardly violating OR and -- even if it were an OR concern, aren't there less aggressive ways to say so? Would you talk to Huldra that way? Are you trying to understand C-M's point? (I think C-M's concern is that "Golan Heights" might be misunderstood to mean former Syrian territory.)

Recently, an editor deleted source material from an article I started and hope(d) to get to DYK. See Talk:Geneivat da'at for how I've handled it so far. Yes, I find it frustrating. Maybe I've responded uncivilly, I hope not. But I don't think it would help to blame him for "deletion of sourced material" as if that isn't allowed. Just because an edit is sourced, doesn't mean it belongs in the article. It might be off-topic, unnecessarily pov, undue or simply not the best text for the article. So, I've tried to reinsert and improve my material, but I recognize that there's nothing inviolable about sourced material per se.

Yes, I do recognize that you are making a terrific and commendable effort to discuss disputes/concerns on the Talk page. I hope other folks will follow your model. Be well, HG | Talk 14:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

HG, with respect, it is WP:OR for him to claim that because an Israeli source says that an archaeological dig was conducted by Israelis at the site in 1966, that that constitutes clear evidence that the area was not part of Syrian territory. Maybe the date is a typo? Maybe the Tel Dan site spans both sides of the border? Maybe the Israelis got permission from the Syrians to conduct the dig? While these are speculations, it is just as speculatory to assume that the area hit by Hezbollah rockets was not Syrian territory, when the source he provided says quite clearly Tel Dan in is the Golan Heights and the other sources he provided say nothing about who it belonged to before 1967.

You are right in pointing out that I wouldn't talk to Huldra that way. But Huldra hasn't come to two separate articles that I have been working on to repeatedly delete sourced information I have added. Neither has Huldra ignored my requests to discuss things on the talk page first. In other words, Huldra and I have established a very collegial editing relationship based on real collaboration. C-M has done nothing of the sort. And while civility is required, warmth is not. I am under no obligation to exhibit warmth to someone who repeatedly deletes things I add, fails to discuss, and when he does is uncivil in the process.[19] I am under an obligation to maintain civility, which I have. But I also do not have to continue to WP:AGF when I am met with bad faith actions. Did you see this edit [20]? He just removed the Golan Heights altogether without even responding to my comments (or your) in that section. Is that an example of good faith editing? I don't think so. Tiamut^talk 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, a logical reading of a published source is generally not OR. Nor is it OR to assume that a published date is correct! (!!) You are really stretching it with your own suspicions/questions above, like maybe the source got it wrong. C'mon now. Did you read Golan Heights on the 1920s transfer of Tel Dan? Sure, Wikipedia isn't technically an RS, and footnotes 30-32 could be wrong, but that's hardly grounds to call this OR.

I'll look at the editing itself later. Right now, I need to walk away because I'm frustrated and would rather enjoy my Wikipedia editing. HG | Talk 17:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry HG, but now I'm offended, and particularly by what I just read between the lines of your last comment. So I guess Wikipedia will get a break from both of us this evening. Good night. Tiamut^talk 18:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG. My email is working now. But I have to say, I'm not really into having offline communication on Wiki subjects. I only maintain it here so as to allow for private correspondance with people who want to discuss off Wiki issues (like setting up a film viewing for My Fair Palestine in Nazareth for example). This is a basic operational principle of mine. IMHO, there's nothing regarding Wiki stuff that can't be said online. I hope you understand. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 12:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Adam_Moodley_book.jpg

 Done Thanks for uploading Image:Adam_Moodley_book.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image. Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, elaborated on the rationale, consistent with our policies. HG | Talk 21:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

geneivat da'at

On 21 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article geneivat da'at, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Syro-Palestinian archaeology

I've gotten a bit bold and made a number of changes there as represented in this edit. It's provoked by the new material I found while researching for the working page you set up. I just want you to know that I'm still committed to that discussion. If you find the changes inappropriate since they touch on what we're discussing, you can revert and I'll wait until the issue is settled between us. I wasn't clear as to whether you thought we should stop editing those sections while discussing. I hope that's not the case, since I wouldn't want to stop trying to improve the clarity of those issues on the article page as well, if we can. Anyway, if I've overstepped the bounds, let me know. Tiamut^talk 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't really understand this comment, just saw it now, and have made a number of changes since. Could you just take out what you feel was inappropriate to add or revert to the version you think it should be at? Because I've made a number changes. Also, am I to understand that we are not to edit the article while we are discussing at the working page at all? Pretty much anything that is going to be added is covered by the discussion. Are we are editing hiatus from the article until we're done? Because I'm not sure I'm up for that, given that it might be a couple of weeks. Generally, when I find new things, I get excited and like to add them to the article while I'm still excited about it. So can you be more explicit about the editing restrictions you are proposing? Tiamut^talk 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, people might think "editing restrictions" is a conduct issue, so readers beware. Anyway, shouldn't I answer on the article Talk. Yeah, I'll do that... HG | Talk 20:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I've been waiting for you to add something further to the discussion page you set up at Talk:Syro-Palestinian archaeology/Terms and scope. Since I added material and posed a question to you there about ten days ago, you have not responded. Is the discussion over, or are you simply too busy to be involved for now? Your feedback would be appreciated. Tiamut^talk 11:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've collected some sources but haven't had time to put it up. Yes, I'm very busy now and may not get to this until hopefully Wednesday. I'm really sorry, though I think the article version isn't disadvantageous to you. Ok? thanks. HG | Talk 16:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's okay, I understand. Waiting has put a chill on my editing there since after your concerns regarding a holding off on changes to the sections under discussion (which pretty much frame the direction and shape the article will take overall) I haven't been able to work on improving the article further in any serious fashion. So when you do get back to editing here, I'd appreciate it if you gave the discussion "top priority". :) I hope you're doing well and like Jd below that your busy-ness is of a good kind. Tiamut^talk 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, still very busy in RL. I did one little entry and ans'd yr question. Be well, email me if need be, HG | Talk 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with food?

Hi, we edited a bit, several months ago, and I made some comments at your workshop.

I was wondering if you could do me a favor? I stepped into a brushfire at zaatar and thought I had put it out. Perhaps I am guilty of thinking myself too clever. I put Palestine and Israel together at the beginning of the list. I dropped as much controversial stuff as possible. And where one side had wanted to banish Israel from the article, and the other wanted Israel to be more-mentioned than any other country, I kept a bit of well-sourced stuff about Israel protecting the plant from over-harvesting, and included a Foreign Ministry quote about za'atar being a cultural borrowing that has become very popular. The pro-Palestinian IP disappeared. Some of the pro-Israeli editors seemed content. But several are angry about the cultural borrowing aspect. Can you take a peak over there, and let me know if you think I am wrong? I'd value your opinion. Jd2718 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course I remember you. But I'm currently too busy in non-wiki life this week to deal with this in a timely manner. I'm sorry. You might briefly raise the question and elicit input at WP:IPCOLL. Maybe you'd join the project, too? Thanks. HG | Talk 16:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will! And I hope that that is 'good busy.' Jd2718 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 'good busy' but quite busy nonetheless. Take care and don't choke on the zaatar, HG | Talk 21:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

IPColl question

Recent disputes list (Copied from WP:IPCOLL)

New. Added a new table -- for disputes in the last 30 days. These would be the priorities, presumably, for our Project to address. (See discussion in thread above.) For now, we'll try Steve's idea of giving a brief description of the dispute. (If that gets too disputed itself, we'll lose the column.)

• Please add hotspot articles to the table. (Article data should also be put in the annual report, for period covered.)
• This table will probably be moved to the main WikiProject page for better visibility, ok?

Thanks to all. Constructive comments and suggestions most welcome! HG | Talk 20:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. could you please help me? Sorry, not sure i know how to use this. where do we tabulate new and ongoing page protections? Whre would the date of each be indicated? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve. Look at WP:IPCOLL/BATTLE#Recent disputes in articles. Maybe you could add new/ongoing disputes there, eg Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This table has a column for page protections and "Focus of dispute" to give a brief description, as we had discussed some time ago. How does that sound? If this "Recent disputes" table seems useful, maybe it can/should be moved to the main IPCOLL project page. Take care, HG | Talk 16:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that table, but it appears items are supposed to be removed from there after 30 days. I also saw the table for annual monitoring up to Jan 31, 2008. Is there another such table, for items which are subsequent to January 31, 2008? In other words, is there a separate annual monitoring table for items beginning Feb. 1, 2008? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Steve, good pt. Pls do us a favor and see if you can figure this out. Maybe create a separate annual monitoring table, as you suggest? Sounds reasonable to me. (I'm busy and can't deal with this right now, sorry.) Be well, HG | Talk 17:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, thanks. will try to do so at some point. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, HG.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

1948 issue

Hello HG,
Could you please tell me where these archives have been saved ? I cannot find them and the issue surfaces again :)
Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. Sorry I've been so busy in RL. The archive for that thread is here in Archive 1. Is that what you're looking for? Be well! HG | Talk 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

British Mandate Stamp

Hi HG; On the Postal history of Palestine article, I need your help to try to keep it neutral. As I've seen that you corresponded with another editor there and are considered neutral; so I would like to ask you to please see our discussion there. If you think that arbitration is the way to go; then please tell me how to request one. Thanks. Itzse (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Itzse. Thanks for your note. I'd like to think that my posture is considered neutral, generally. In this particular case, I happened to depart from my usual modus operandi because I've been heavily involved in creating and editing the philatelic articles dealing with the Holy Land (aka other names). I guess I was naive thinking that stamp collecting (which I love) wouldn't be problematic. As a result, I'm not sure that my colleagues there perceive me as neutral. For this reason alone, I'm not sure I can help out in a useful manner. In any case, I'm too busy in RL to get involved in the caption dispute.

Personally, I'd recommend against trying to move to arbitration over the caption (which I wrote originally, I think). In the big scheme of things (even within the fish pond of Wikipedia), it's just not worth draining our attention. If you all are having trouble staying civil and reasonable, then try WQA.

Also, I strongly recommend that you try your utmost to be respectful and AGF to Ww2censor and Bleddynedans. They're both very knowledgeable philatelists, the latter more of an expert on this specific topic. Like all human beings, they have a point of view but I don't see them as inflexible or pushing their view(s) in an unreasonable way. As you might imagine, since you know me pretty well, I think some of your rhetoric (e.g., Judenrein) unnecessarily dramatizes and escalates the dispute.

Good luck, Itzse. I was recently reading about the principle of "Seek first to understand, then to be understood." It'd be great to see that spirit spread around. Do you think there's a tannaitic equivalent? Kol tuv, HG | Talk 03:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG; nothing comes to mind at the moment as a one liner; but this concept is well known. This is the reason why the Halachah is like Hillel and not Shamai, because Shamai's quality was sharpness (no nonsense - and when the Messiah comes the Halachah will be like Shammai) but Hillel's quality is "humility" which enables someone to try to understand a question. Where as Shamai would show him the door ("make himself understood" as in the famous story of the Ger; al regel achas), Hillel was able to boil it down to simpleness ("seek to understand" where the Ger is coming from). Other Gedolai Yisroel who were known for their extreme humility, are the Remah (1530-1573), the Chafetz Chaim (1835-1933) and Reb Moshe; and therefore they have all merited to be the Halacha Psukah.

That doesn't mean that sharpness is wrong. The Chidah (1720-1798) writes that "I've heard from the elders, that the Maharshal (1517-1575) (cousin of the Remah, and known for his extreme sharpness who couldn't tolerate idiocy) is extremely deep, and most rebuttals from the Maharshah on the Maharshal aren't rebuttals if you would delve deeper".

Ani Hakaten don't consider myself extremely sharp nor extremely tolerant, rather middle of the road; but here on Wikipedia in order to be taken into consideration and not trampled upon, I have found that when making a point it needs to be razor sharp to drive it home.

I respect you preferring not to get involved, and I would agree with you on the right approach; but in this particular case I've encountered an aggressive editor, who starts out in his first edit lecturing me to "contribute to the talk page" instead of the article. How would you deal in my place? If your answer is letting him have his way; so then please tell me when should I put my foot down and when I should let everyone get away with their prejudice?

As you know; I have long given up on WP; and I do not know why psychologically I keep on coming back; maybe I have a slight addiction to it. Either way; if WP would really upset me and make me leave; it would do me a big favor and help me concentrate on the scholarly projects I'm involved with, instead of this unappreciated nonsense. Itzse (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, I'll have to think if I can find a statement about listening skills. (And I don't mean listening to the hakhamim, there's plenty of that but that's within a defined subordinate role. The humility is on the right track.)

For me, I've made the most progress with aggressive editors by being repeatedly and uncharacteristically as gentle and as patient as I can. At a minimum, it models proper behavior and reinforces my own RL work on my midot. As you may have noticed, I'm still quite persistent when I think there's a serious issue at hand. Eventually, most aggressive editors will appreciate being treated with soft-spoken respect and they will respond by either articulating their best arguments more carefully or by figuring out a way to save face and let the dispute slide. That's my sense. Meanwhile, Itzse, if you don't mind my saying so, you might want to figure out why you keep coming back to a project, a process, that bothers you. Eyzehu gibor, ha-kovesh et yitzro. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 10:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Ok, sorry about that. I just thought that since you'd raised an objection to the word in another article's title that I could draw this to your attention. Strongbrow (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. In terms of the article name, 'allegations' is both a known problem (i.e., discussed in our guidelines) and a known work-around for POV disputes. In terms of WP:CANVASS, I suppose one question would be whether you contacted only those people who you believe shared your objection to the word, or did you contact everybody who you believe had an interest one way or another. In any case, it's nice to meet you and I wish you well in your efforts here. HG | Talk 20:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

Shavuot celebrates Moses receiving the Ten Commandments. What's This? Shalom aleichem sports fans, and welcome to the first of what I hope will be a monthly newsletter with the need-to-know information about our fair WikiProject. If you have any questions or comments, or would like to recommend a story for the newsletter, click here to leave a message on the Newsletter Coordinator's talk page. In the News WikiProject Good Articles is doing sweeps over all our current good articles to ensure they still meet criteria. For more information and how you can help, check out WikiProject Good Articles Sweeps. GA status for the article Jew has been put on hold pending a few minor revisions. A list of things that need to be done to return this top importance article to its proper status can be found here. Jerusalem is a Featured Article Candidate! Go forth, my people, and !vote! To Do One new Judaism-related article was created this month, the long requested Hebrew Punctuation. Thanks to Epson291 for creating it. Remember, folks, there are over forty standing requests for Judaism articles, so whenever you get the opportunity make sure to go create a few. In the right column you will see a listing of our most popular articles. All of these articles got 170,000+ page hits in the past month, and they should be on everyone's watchlist so we can keep them vandalism-free. Spread the word! No, not the Word... (well, you can do that too) I'm talking about inviting knowledgeable users to join the project. You can proclaim your undying love of WikiProject Judaism in methods mild to wild, check the project template page and member list for examples. We also now have a flashy advertisement, to use it add {{Wikipedia ads|ad=148}} to your userpage. Quick Stats On the date of publish, we had... 275 Project Members 6152 articles 2341 of which are Stubs 15 of which are Good 8 of which are Featured New Members Benignuman Bernstein2291 Shevashalosh Yudel Most Popular Articles By page hits. Source. Israel The Holocaust Judaism Ten Commandments Ark of the Covenant Wikipedia ads file info – #148

This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Shituf

HG, it wasn't my idea to move the discussion into the Judaism project. It's just obvious that Tim and I aren't going to agree, so I wanted to do a RfC. That seemed like the appropriate thing to do in such a case. You're more experienced here than I am: was I wrong?

Tim expressed the view that discussions in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Shituf_Page and [[21]] needed to precede any RfC. I don't think that's right, but he went ahead and posted them anyway. I only responded because I didn't think his misstatements of fact should go unanswered.

Educate me, please. I'm faced with an editor whose Christian background leads him to insert Christian polemics into an article on a Jewish technical term. No amount of arguing with him will convince him to stop. What steps should I take? Is an RfC wrong? What's the appropriate course of action here? -LisaLiel (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I've replied at the WPP Judaism link above. Good luck. HG | Talk 04:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim has reneged on the consensus we reached. I'm going to be taking this case to mediation or arbitration now. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Spread the word

There is a discussion about getting more people involved in Philately on Wikipedia. Join the discussion and share your thoughts here. ww2censor (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin, revisitted.

Just a heads up, we have a new player on the talk page and things seem to be spiralling into a web of OR and SYNTH. Can you please come back and facilitate again? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. That's very kind of you to ask me. Glancing at the Talk page, it does look like the conversation would benefit from some facilitation or stronger input from parties outside the dispute. While I can't do this myself, I will put at note up at WP:IPCOLL. Thanks again for asking me. Best wishes, HG | Talk 21:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

P'tcha

A highly original barnstar for HG in recognition of his willingness to tackle the sticky subject of p'tcha. As Hillel said: in places where there is noone [willing to step up to the task], make an effort to be someone. JFW / t@lk 14:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)