User talk:Frederico1234

Welcome!

Hello, Frederico1234, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Razorflame (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Israel

I am going to revert your change to the content that the anti-semitic attack was made. Let other read it and read my respond, otherwise my respond makes no sense. And we have nothing to hide, and should not be sterial just to keep the Ass-Holes setecfied. It is on the talk page not on the article. I been working with User:Gwen Gale on humus and we keep the insults on the talk page, and eventially peace comes around! Igor Berger (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

i'm rather surprised by your revert. i'd prefer to have the section deleted altogether. is there no limit to the craziness you can post on these talk pages?Frederico1234 (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like it to be educational to people with hatred of Israel and Jews. Did you see the video? Igor Berger (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:NOT#censored Igor Berger (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

i saw the video. it was not educational but a dishonest piece of propaganda (eg. it linked jimmy carter to neo-nazis in a true guilt-by-association style). what you are doing is fighting garbage with garbage. and i relly don't see the purpose of keeping a title that is both offensive to jews AND says nothing about the content of the section. i'd advice you to either delete the section or atleast rename the section title into a less offensive one. following common sense is better than trying to interpret wikipedia policies. Frederico1234 (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, it does seem POV on my side, so let's delete the whole section. And the video, although it does have some good parts, some are not, and it is propogandish like! Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks a lot for your cooperation. much appreciated. i wish you a nice weekend and the best of luck in the future. regards, Frederico1234 (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about commensense, not POV. If more people would work together, there would be no wars. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits on History of Israel

You have made a series of edits (and then reversions) that are contrary to various Wikipedia policies. I read all of your edit summaries. They don't excuse the fact that you are violating policies with your editing. Citations are not only needed for controversial statements (and for the record, the statement in question IS controversial anyway). Editors do not get to decide to delete certain sourced facts because they feel they are "minor" and not important enough to mention. It is sourced and relevant information. I strongly suggest that you review some of the core Wikipedia policies before continuing to edit, otherwise you face the possibility of facing blocks for disruptive editing. I also suggest you stop this edit war before you breach 3RR. Breein1007 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for wrongfully accusing you of not reading my comments. That was out of line. I'll consider your comments in the weekend when I have more time. Cheers. Frederico1234 (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The best way forward from here, I believe, is to address each edit one by one.

• The following sentence in The War of Independence: The civil war phase was changed by me:

Initially the Arabs had the advantage as the British maintained an embargo on Palestine's seas preventing the Jews from importing arms or manpower, while Arab states could supply local Arabs who also occupied more strategic areas—and outnumbered the Jews by approximately two to one.

where a source is provided for the fact that of the total population of the Mandate there were twice as many arabs as jews. I changed the sentence to this:

Initially the Arabs had the advantage as the British maintained an embargo on Palestine's seas preventing the Jews from importing arms or manpower, while Arab states could supply local Arabs who also occupied more strategic areas.

You reverted this here and here, stating that "deletion summary does not change the fact that this is sourced and fully appropriate". In my view, and as stated in the comment, the total population is not relevant in context of war. The fact that a source of the population figure is provided does not change that. Please explain why you think it is "fully appropriate". --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly relevant to note the population difference. If the population of one side is twice that of the other, it is likely that the army of that side will be much larger than the others as well. We can't include that in the article, because it is WP:OR, but we can certainly include the population and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Breein1007 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Following that line of reasoning, it would be much more reasonable to mention total manpower instead of total population, as total population also includes children, women and elderly. In "Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" Charles D. Smith (professor in history at University of Arizona) on page 200 writes "The Jewish community had a slight manpower advantage over Palestinians among males in the twenty to forty-four age group". I suggest we replace the current erroneous text with this one. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't raise any objections, so I'll go ahead with the change. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• The UN figure for the number of Arab refugees. Here I must admit I may have been mistaken. In neither of the books I have the figure 711,000 is mentioned. While the figure itself can be found here, the source is a primary source which should be avoided. The figure I found in secondary sources was the earlier 726,000 figure. If you don't object, I will change the figure to that and add the reference. --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you provide an appropriate source, then please do go ahead. Breein1007 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I'll do that. Thanks. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• This revert. I maintain that the level of detail here is excessive. The article is already too long at 121 kilobytes. I believe it has to be made smaller. See WP:TOOLONG. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing three words in the name of WP:TOOLONG is pretty ridiculous, so I'll suggest that you give up on that point. Breein1007 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Point dropped. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• The total number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands. Diff of revert here. I suggest moving this figure into the next section, "Ben Gurion and mass immigration". If this figure should be in the article, which I dispute, then that's the proper place for it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I maintain that it makes more sense to the reader to see the figure contrasted with the Arab refugees. Even though it is not perfectly chronological, it is much easier for the reader to understand than to separate the two. Breein1007 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Why should the figures be contrasted with each other in the first place? I see no reason for doing so, except from a pro-Isreali propaganda point-of-view, which is I'm quite sure is forbidden by Wikipedia policies. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, so when it comes to contrasting numbers that paint Israel in a better light, it's pro-"Isreal" propaganda, but when it comes to contrasting numbers that make Israel look bad, such as including charts showing casualty figures in conflicts where more Palestinians are killed than Israelis, it's perfectly fine? Give it up dude, this isn't even worth discussing. Breein1007 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

But then again, what is the reason for contrasting the numbers with each other? My point was that if the reason is to show Israel in a better light, then that is an invalid reason. I hope you agree with that. --Frederico1234 (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're reading into my reasons and assuming that I'm editing with the intention of painting Israel in a good light. This is a dangerous attitude to take, because it makes it difficult to make objective edits yourself if you assume you are "countering" a POV-warrior. On the contrary, I am trying to make the article more objective and simply present facts in a properly organized fashion so that readers can draw their own conclusions. In terms of this issue, it simply makes sense to include the Jewish refugee numbers next to the Arab refugee numbers. Organizationally, that is an obvious way to sort the information. Put related figures together so that readers can get an understanding of the big picture. Breein1007 (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My apology for failing to assume good faith. Regarding the issue at hands, I don't think we'll come to an agreement here. I say we drop the issue. Thanks for taking the time. Cheers. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

BLP

In case you didn't know, WP:BLP applies on every page of this project, including edit summaries. Calling a living person (who happens to be a professor at a major university) a "propagandist" is a serious violation of this policy, and could get you blocked. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

He is a propagandist. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but you may not write that in the encyclopedia. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll stop saying that then. Thanks for the notice. But still, Gottheil is not a historian and his "work" has received no recognition among historians. His claims has been discredited. He's not a reliable source.

He's an economist, and an award winning author of economic textbooks. You can't remove material published by him just because you don't like him. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove it because I don't like him. I removed it because he's not a reliable source. This isn't about economics. It's about history. His accomplishments in economics are simply irrelevant here. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a scholarly article, using fundamental economic principles to make an argument. He is quite competent to make that argument, which is highly relevant. Anyway, what you and I think is relevant does not matter - it was published in a reliable source, he is qualified to make that argument, it really ends right there. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not a scholarly article. It's an article designed to look as a scholarly article. Again, he just does not have the qualifications as a historian (or demographer). --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's what the mission statement says for Middle East Forum, where Gottheils "sholarly" article was published: "the Middle East Forum, a think tank [...] promotes American interests in the Middle East [...] working for Palestinian acceptance of Israel". Does that sound like a strictly academic organisation without bias or agenda? I think not. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

you're confusing a potentially biased source with an unreliable source. It's not the same thing, and unreliability does not follow from having an agenda. You are removing the comments of an award winning academic, published in a reliable source, which we don't do here. Take it to the reliable sources noticeboard, or the article's talk page, to gain consensus, instead of deleting and edit warring. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I'll do that. I just have to read up on this noticeboard stuff first. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Six Day War/ "Preemptive"

Good call Frederico - I changed the title as suggested. Thanks.Phersu (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel and Lebanon

Please take your dispute to Talk:Israel. Further reverts may result in your being blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for the notice. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian Exodus

Dear Frederico, i apologize if my response was taken as bullying - it was not my intention. This is not our first discussion, and i assume we could make fruitful discussions now and in the future. I've changed the bold text after your request for italic (the quotations). Regards.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's fine. Thanks! --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

recent changes

• recent changes to my sandbox, see this. • Ling.Nut 05:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just noticed your comments on the talk page of my sandbox. I feel like JRHammond and I are negotiating the sale of a house! See my sandbox for latest version. I must be the seller and he the buyer, 'cause I keep asking for more & he for less.... Tks. • Ling.Nut 09:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Your extreme invalid POV regarding RS as "non reliable"

Oh boy! If you are trying to discredit JVL then How much crediblity -- do you think-- your POV holds? Now let's see what RS say, Shall we?

What does the PBS say?

The Jewish Americans . Resources | PBS A division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, the Jewish Virtual Library is a comprehensive online Jewish encyclopedia, covering everything...

More from PBS relying on information from JVL. [2]

You might also want to say that the CNN, BBC, CBS news, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Foxnews, are all not RS since they rely on JVL... In other words none is in your POV.

From wiki:

The Jewish Virtual Library has been cited by CNN, New York Times, BBC, CBS News, Fox News, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Business Week, and Bloomberg,[3] among others. It is listed as reference by academic libraries at Pennsylvania State University, Michigan State University, University of Washington, King's College, London, and the University of Delaware.

JVL received awards from Britannica Internet Guide Selection, USA Today Hot Site, and the Best of the Jewish Web from the Jewish Agency for Israel, the Academic Excellence Award from Study Web and others.

JVL is mainstream not at all 'right wing.' Incidently, Is there any right wing Israeli news source that in your "pov" is RS? Can you cite one for me.

Good luck on wikipedia and welcome. but please refrain from dictating your own POV on wikipedia.RS101 (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I was not referring to jewishvirtuallibrary in general, but the "Myths and Facts" part of it. "Myths and Facts" is highly unreliable. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

LGBT politicians

Hi. Just to say thanks for these edits. That whole article is the biggest BLP mess I think I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP mess indeed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Deir Yassin

Just let the IP fuss. Choose your battles, in this case, it won;t make a difference. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment/mediation

Frederico1234, you've always been a fair and impartial commenter and mediator, in my view. I'm having a dispute, once again, involving WGFinley, where he is again issuing veiled threats to ban me from yet another article, on the alleged grounds that I'm refusing to consider others' arguments. I've proposed an edit that NoMoreMisterNiceGuy and WGFinley are objecting to on the basis that I've violated WP:SYNTH. I maintain that the statements I've proposed adding to the article are completely factually accurate, and that their accuracy can be verified from the sources given. I maintain that the latter is absolutely incontrovertible. I've avoided even paraphrasing and instead quoted directly from the source at length after having revised my proposed edit numerous times in an effort to satisfy the stated objections. Yet every time I revise in an attempt to change the wording they identify as problematic, they simply repeat their objections that I'm "synthing". I keep asking them questions to clarify their objections and explain in what way the sources don't verifiably state what I say they state, and in what way they think I have "synthed" by drawing any conclusions, making my own analysis, etc., and they have refused for the most part to answer my questions. They just keep repeating "synth", "synth", "synth" over and over without any actual argument as to why this is so. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take the time to review my proposed edit, their objections, and my replies, and comment with your view so as to help resolve the dispute. If you agree I've violated WP:SYNTH, perhaps you could explain to me how this is so, so that I can resolve the issue. I feel confident, however, that you will find this not to be the case. Please take a few moments to review the matter here:[4]. Thank you. JRHammond (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Unfortunately, I must decline your request as I haven't got the time to look into the matter. Please accept my apology. --Frederico1234 (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories

Hi. I've attempted to systematize the discussion on the scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories with regard to racism by Israeli settlers and soldiers at Talk:Racism in the Palestinian territories#Proposed resolutions. This debate does not concern whether such racism exists, merely whether it is an appropriate part of the article. Issues of WP:POLICY are currently being discussed. You've previously addressed the issue. Please contribute your opinion.--Carwil (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

IP editing

Hello Frederico. Have you ever edited a computer programming article using an IP, perhaps inadvertently? Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes post when logged out, so it's possible. I only (infrequently nowadays) edit programming articles related to the C language. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supreme Deliciousness for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Do I need to do anything? --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Merging of page into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Dear Frederico, considering our fruitful cooperation on the Timeline page, i would like you to express your opinion in the discussion whether to merge Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thank you!Greyshark09 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Frederico

There are content rules in Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Verifiability) and if you violate the rules, they will block you. Editors are not allowed to write statements with no reference to reliable sources, especially when there are reliable sources that contradict these statements. I have already given references for sources supporting my statements but you did not do so.
I know there is a wide consensus in among Egyptians that the 1973 war was a victory for the Egyptian army and a defeat for the Israeli army. However, this is due to a propaganda campaign made by the Egyptian regime for one purpose:
Ensuring the good reputation of the Egyptian army which is sworn to protect Egypt's secular constitution, and thus, reducing the public support for the Ichwan. Megaidler (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Megaidler! Thank you for visiting my talk page.

What particular edit of mine do you found questionable? --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Frederico, I read you wrong. You're an okay chap and I want to apologize if I ever did anything on wikipedia that caused you offense.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

:) Thanks for the kind words. Cheers! --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

There's a move request discussion going on at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority#Requested move, with which you were previously involved. I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new discussion. Nightw 08:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian people - Palestinian leadership Ties with Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers during World War II

the section is an important part of Palestinian history.

the purpose of wikipedia is to spread relevant knowledge  , not fiction and political propaganda.

palestinian leadership ties and collaboration with nazi germany in world w2 are essential part of palestinian history. without it's impossible to really understand what happened in 1948 war, and after.

I put this section in the "history" section of the article. and I don't think there is more appropriate venue. you wrote about reaching a consensus on talk page. but i don't know with whom and how, since i'm new here. so , i'm going to revert the article again. please reach a consensus before reverting beck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs) 06:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Palaestina and Palaestina Prima/Secunda

I would like to draw your attention to the "Palestine" article, which largely is encopassing the Palestine geographical region. Currently if we try to search Palaestina province of the Byzantine Empire we reach Palestine geography article, and same with Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda. Considering the independent nature of article "British Manadate for Palestine", which is a similar political entity to "Byzantine province of Palaestina" i think the latter deserves an article of its own. What do you think?Greyshark09 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea! Go for it! --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RM alert

The move request at Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority was closed, so we're now taking suggestions for an alternative. As you were involved in the previous discussion, I'd be grateful if you could contribute to the new one. Please lodge your support for a proposal, or make one of your own. Night w2 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Racism in the Palestinian territories

Hi. I just wanted to leave you a note about your recent reversion. Using automated tools such as Popups or Twinkle is seen by some editors as a suggestion that their edits are vandalism. When reverting non-vandalism, especially contentious edits, you might want to avoid the use of automated tools. Just a suggestion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll avoid that in the future. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

93.91.196.117 et al

See User_talk:Tnxman307#Sockpuppet. It's a Ledenierhomme sockpuppet. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Good job hunting down those pesky socks! --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion in regard to 2005 Ahwazi unrest

Since we had some good cooperation in the Israeli-Palestinian articles, i would also ask your valueable opinion on the 2005 Ahwazi unrest article (created by myself), which is highly disputed by some editors. Though probably not directly related to your interests, i would appreciate your opinion here - [5].Greyshark09 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My apology, but I'm afraid I'l have to respectfully decline your kind request, as I've got no degree of expertise on the subject whatsoever (Ahwaz, is that in Bulgaria? ;)). --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahwaz is in Iran, with the article speaking of Arab minority protests in Iran. Since the situation in Khuzestan province has some similarities to Arab minority in Israel, i thought you might have an opinion on this issue. Thanks anyway. Greyshark09 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bulgaria thing was just a silly joke.

I did some googling and found this report from the US state department: link. It doesn't seem to be used in the article. Search for "Ahwaz"; you should find some info on the event there. I hope that could be of some value for you. Cheers. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

An interesting link, i will use some of the info, thanx!Greyshark09 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Did you not realize that I am reverting all the speedy deletion tags or do you not care?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Why are you doing that? It's a sock of a banned uset. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Because in my opinion, and in the opinion of any non-wikilawyer, this encyclopedia is better off with the content than without the content. Deleting all these articles is pure disruption.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales disagrees: "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". The creators of the speedy deletion criteria disagrees, or they wouldn't have created the CS5 rule.

Way unanalogous. We are dealing with true information not false information. The SD criteria was created similar to any other SD criteria --when any non-creator disagrees the SD fails.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the majority of the articles were substantially edited by other editors making them illegible under the given SD criteria. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You removed the SD notice regardless of whether anyone besides the sock had edited them or not. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You first added the SD noticed regardless of whether anyone besides the sock had edited them or not. Thus your SD tagging did not have creditability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I admit that. I got lazy and did not check the edit histories. My wrong.

If I had limited myself to only those articles where the banned user was the sole author, would you still have reverted? --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand now why the banned users won't accept the WP:OFFER: they have no incentive to do so as all their work will be kept anyway. If cought, just create another account and continue editing as nothing happened. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the OFFER will not remove the topic ban. Secondly, it still sucks getting caught and blocked every few weeks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It won't suck for the banned user as his new account won't be blocked. It's just continuing editing as if nothing happened. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of Palestine

I do not know what grounds you have to say that Gotthiel is an unreliable source. The other main source Justin McCarthy has been shown on several incidents to be extremely biased:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_McCarthy_%28American_historian%29

He's a former member of the Turkish Peace Corps and is funded by the Institute of Turkish Studies, a main proponent in the denial of the Armenian Genocide.

--APKeaton (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2011 (EST)

Gottheil is not an expert in the field. He's an economist. He's also a propagandist. This makes him highly unreliable.

McCarthy on the other hand is a professional demographer. This makes him an expert. --Frederico1234 (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotthiel's article focuses largely on the historical economics and how they may have influenced demographics. He is most certainly qualified to make judgement on that issue. Furthermore, McCarthy has been shown on numerous occassions to misquote his sources. He has several complaints of bias against him by other scholars. If McCarthy work is deemed reliable, then so should Gotthiel's response. Gotthiel is no more a propagandist than McCarthy.

--APKeaton (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2011 (EST)

Further research into Gotthiel shows he is employed by the University of Illinois and his research is focussed on the economics of the middle east. He is most certainly qualified to weigh in on whether economic development by Jews resulted in an increase in movements in the labour force.

http://www.economics.illinois.edu/people/fgotthei/

The University of Illinois is considered one of the leading research universties in the USA and a "public Ivy". Your dismissal of Gotthiel as a "propagandist" is libelous.

McCarthy is employed by the Univeristy of Kentucky, a far less well regarded school.

--APKeaton (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2011 (EST)

You have been reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Frederico1234

Please consider yourself notified. Broccolo (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This complaint has been closed with a warning to you. It will be logged in the case at WP:ARBPIA. You are warned against any further violation of the WP:1RR restriction and warned not to assume bad faith about groups of editors in the I-P articles. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

— EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Merging

• Frederico, i'm relisting the proposal, after it got "lost".

Please express your opinion over the relisted suggestion to merge the article Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both articles are substantially the same and shouldn't exist in separate. You can participate in the discussion here Talk:Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#Merging with Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was closed with an outcome of merge, you are welcome to assist the merger procedure. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Belated thanks for barnstar

Hi Federico. I should have said many thanks a while ago. My only excuse is that I am a bit embarrassed and not sure if I deserve it. But I'm not going to refuse it either. Glad someone felt the work was some use. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

your revert on uss liberty page

What you reverted was not a forum link but a good reference.Please pay attention in the future.--Shrike (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I interpreted your edit summary the wrong way. My apology. --Frederico1234 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem

Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Azzam Pasha quote AfD

I have suggested on the AfD regarding the Azzam Pasha quote that the article be merged with Azzam Pasha and have already moved most of the material to that article. Please note your opinion on a suggested merge at the AfD.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Frederico, this was admirable on your part. On the other hand, I was dismayed to see that you changed colors back in July.—Biosketch (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not add that user box in order to mislead anyone. But since that seems to be what you think, I removed it. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What? No, that's not what I meant. I was commenting that I was a little disappointed to see you conform.—Biosketch (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Stupid me:) --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

And sorry for my betrayal of the Red Pact! --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for your kind words! Appreciated. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge of Mandate Palestine

Frederico, you have participated in the discussion, though no clear opinion on your behalf was expressed, would you like to take a stand on the issue here?Greyshark09 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm still a little bit torn between the two options. I do plan to make a stand though. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Gilabrand sockpuppetry

Hello Frederico, Foo Bar Buzz Netz is claimed to be a sock of NoCal100 and another guy. Both are male. But Foo Bar Buzz Netz is a female per her own comments... Both have the same problems on the article related on the I-P conflict and both focus much on the grammar of other editors. Gilabrand was trapped to use socks during her block. Given the little number of female users, the 'duck test' is rather conclusive. 91.180.110.219 (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Gilabrand is an old account not currently subject to topic-bans. Why sock? --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For you efforts also I noticed that you a good editor even though we disagree on many issues. Shrike (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Appreciated *slurp*.

Re Chesdovi's appeal

I'll reopen it and see what happens; it would be supremely helpful if you could copy his new statement over, as it's very hard to cut and paste on my iPhone. I'll take care of it now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Statement copied. --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Barkan

Hi Frederico. Hope you are doing well. Regarding Barkan, Much of the Judean mountain range is located within Israel proper and even if it wasn't, we need to stick with what the source actually says and not what we think it should say. Please take these comments in a constructive manner as I do believe that you are a valuable contributor and I have nothing but the utmost respect for your sense of fairness and keen insight. Best regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words as well as your constructive criticism!

Looking at the source, it seems that mention of "Judean mountains" is no longer present. Perhaps the company has moved away from the Barkan Industrial Park in the West Bank? I'll open a discussion at the talk page. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. The source says Jerusalem mountains not Judean mountains. I have made the correction. Thank you for pointing that out. Best regards,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

IPCOLL

Hi Frederico. Hope you are doing well. I saw your vote to oppose the proposal. Naturally, I have nothing but the utmost respect for your opinions as I believe that they are sincere and stem from a desire to improve content rather than advocate for a political position. However, would you be inclined to accept a position whereby the boilerplate text, rather than being removed in its entirety, is modified to something along the lines of Soosim's suggestion? I just wanted to know whether there's some flexibility in your position.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and again thanks for the kind words! Regarding Soosims proposal, I think it's fine to include it in addition to the current wording, but not substitute it as that would mean that the illegality issue is removed. So I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, though I look forward to cooperate with you on other issues. Happy editing! --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough Frederico. Let me throw one out there and move several steps closer to your position. How would you feel about the following language as a substitute to the current boilerplate language? Palestinians and their supporters within the international community view settlements as illegal though Israel draws a distinction between those communities it has officially sanctioned and outposts that settlers built without permission. How does that strike you? Before you answer please bear in mind that a substantial part of the community wishes to see all boilerplate language removed. But in the interest of moving forward and in the interest of bridging the gap, I was wondering if this formulation is something that you could live with.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: no. Long answer: "Palestinians and their supporters within the international community" make it sound as it is just some parts of the international community which hold the settlements to be illegal (under international law). In reality, it's pretty much Israel vs. the rest of the world, so that phrasing would be misleading. --Frederico1234 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The United States has not adopted that position. Is the United States not part of the international community? Moreover, you have to understand that the majority seem to favor removal of the mandatory text in its entirety on policy considerations. However, a compromise might be reached whereby some text that both sides can swallow, remains. Does that not seem logical to you?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You may have a point about the US. But the point still stands: A very clear majority of the international community rejects the legitimacy of the settlements. I don't think reaching a compromise is realistic as the the sides are too far apart. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. What about this text? Much of the international community view settlements as illegal though Israel draws a distinction between those communities it has officially sanctioned and outposts that settlers built without permission. Is that something you'd find acceptable as a compromise?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

JJG, if you can source this, that may be fair to add, international community, at the notable exception of the United States, view the settlements as illegal but I am nore sure that the US stated the contrary...

By the way such a discussion should not take place on a single user page but on a page dedicated to the topic and that is followed by more users. 87.66.161.203 (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with "Much of the international community". But "under international law" should not be omitted. That Israel view some settlements as illegal under Israeli law (i.e. the "outposts") is less relevant for non-outpost settlements, so that part of the proposed sentence does not belong here. --Frederico1234 (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Lebanon in '48 war

Hi,

it seems you are aware of the issue that they didn't participate to the war. I provided the source (Morris) and quoted it in the talk:page of 1948 Arab-Israeli war article but I have some difficulties in modifying the caption of the article (where it is listed among the invading armies). Could you please come and give your mind and eventually other sources ? I have also some concerns about the flags for the volunteers. This should be discussed in the talk pages. 81.247.97.117 (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)