User talk:Biosketch

→

Mairead Corrigan

On the Mairead Corrigan article, you edited a direct quote. Please see the Wikipedia manual of style for editing quotes: MOS:QUOTE. Generally, we do not fix the grammar of quotations. —Ute in DC (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I should have mentioned that the edit was made in order to correspond with the way the quote appears in the cited reference. The bad grammar was what alerted me to the discrepancy, but I did make sure to check what was in the original source. —Biosketch (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

For you

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thank you for the clean-up over the last several days. I especially appreciate the fixing of my hangover mistakes Cptnono (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I enjoyed reading and learning about the incident, glad to help.—Biosketch (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Vanunu

Thank you for your note. You are right and I was mistaken: Vanunu was born in Morocco and immigrated to Israel as a child. Hope the changes just made are OK. User:Emesz —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

Edit warring

Another editor has reported you for breeching the one revert per 24 hours (1/rr) rule that is in place in the Palestinian-Israel conflict topic area. I recommend that you do not continue to revert. I also recommend that you read up on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies. This 1/rr has been very useful in tempering the edit warring that has been common in the topic area.

I assume you were not aware of this unless you really were just thumbing your nose at the rules. Blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive so if you express on the edit warring report that the 1/rr issue is now clear and that you won't be violating again then you might be able to avoid a block. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Biosketch reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: ). Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The die is cast, bitch! (I'm only teasing you) I can show you more wikilinks to background sections in FAs related to events (wars, murders, protests, corporate buyouts, whatever), If you want to have fun with it I will end up winning. I will reluctantly crush you for the prize of one week off of the article if you want.

In all seriousness, nice stuff keeping up on the article. You really have been doing good work.Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, you'll be delighted to hear that during the month of April I'll be far away from WP for almost three weeks backpacking in Europe. You'll be free to fabricate all the misleading backgrounds you want and corrupt the factual integrity of otherwise credible and decently written articles on the altar of quality scale ratings. From now till then, though, you'll just have to deal with it.

That was just teasing you back, of course.... I've found your input to be invaluable, not to mention that you've saved me from getting into trouble a few times.—Biosketch (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Then the bet is invalid! Have fun traveling. Forget saving you from trouble since you seem to be getting a hang of things and contributing just fine.Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Biosketch. You have new messages at GoetheFromm's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your Strong Reaction

It seems that you have strong reaction towards the edits on Miral and Hind al-Husseini as well as Deir Yassin. I want to inform you that I am happy to collaborate with you any which way that I can on edits. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You've been Reported to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts

Hello, Biosketch. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Just want to let you know that I've reported certain elements of your conduct which I believe to be uncivil to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. GoetheFromm (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Santorini

Thanks for putting up some links on the talk page - I used those to significantly expand the article, and will shortly nominate it for a DYK, naming you as a co-expander, if you have no objection. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the acknowledgement.—Biosketch (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Biosketch. You have new messages at Swarm's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• and another Swarm ^X 00:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Biosketch. You have new messages at Jayen466's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dirar Abu Seesi

I just combined the two paragraphs that list the reasons why Abu Seesi was kidnapped. For the moment, I deleted your addition about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's comments on why he was kidnapped as not sourced. I know you are working on getting it sourced. When you do, could replace your sourced sentence with the last sentence (Israeli officials were insinuating that Abu Seesi was involved in weaponry for Hamas). Your comment is by the Israeli side, the other sentence just insinuated. Bgwhite (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, and I appreciate that you updated me. I edited it very soon after the interview and didn't include the Jerusalem Post source because their translation was flawed and the article had typos. By now, though, Netanyahu's comment is being referenced in numerous places, including a better JPost article: JPost, SFGate (AP), Monsters & Critics, etc. I'm kind of occupied with other things at the moment and won't be back at a computer tomorrow until evening. If no one's incorporated Netanyahu's comment by then, I'll restore the sentence with a solid ref, as I do think the comment (cryptic though it was) is noteworthy.—Biosketch (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria usage

FYI: WP:WESTBANK --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What is this in relation to?—Biosketch (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

After seeing this edit (which is absolutely right), I just wanted to make sure you are familiar with the policy. It's no way a warning or attempt to educate you, only a friendly suggestion to take a look at something you might find interesting/useful. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Copy: A reminder of the 1RR restriction

User:Ajnem, please consider that the frequency and nature of your edits at Itamar killings may constitute a violation of the 1RR restriction. While they appear to be in good faith, they are also symptomatic of WP:OWN. Without having warned you first, Administrators are unlikely to take action; so please review Wikipedia policy at WP:1RR and in particular keep in mind the following: An editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Take this message not as a personal insult but as constructive criticism and endeavor to be more careful in the future.—Biosketch (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Biosketch, don't know what you are referring to. Maybe you want to explain, what it is you object to? Ajnem (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The above from my talk page. Biosketch, please refrain from making accusations you cannot sustain (and from playing administrator). And not anwering my question is not comme il faut at all. In view of the fact that you are very new at Wikipedia (or are you?) I asume good faith for the time being, Ajnem (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I'll post the diffs about that at your Talk page presently. And the message wasn't intended to sound like a threat from an Admin or anything but rather, as indicated by the title, a reminder, in the event that you weren't aware of the restriction. As to whether or not I'm very new at Wikipedia, that depends of course on how one defines "very new" – but I wouldn't consider myself very new, no.—Biosketch (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No kidding? Ajnem (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to ask a question?—Biosketch (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not unless you want me to. Cheerio, Ajnem (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If there's something on your mind, spill it.—Biosketch (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk

Hello, Biosketch. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Chzz  ►  13:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Transclusion isn't as horrible as it sounds;

I just made a little test page, User:Biosketch/Test page, which contains "Test page la la la".

If I put, right here, {{User:Biosketch/Test page}}, it will show the contents of it;

Test page la la la

...and if that page changes, then it'll change here too.

You can think of transclusion as 'subroutines' - for adding common text on several pages. They can also do cleverer stuff, with conditional code - like "If I'm being transcluded on user page say THIS, otherwise say THAT". So, they're used for all kinds of things.

I hope that maybe unravels the mystery a little! Cheers,  Chzz  ►  13:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, since you've gone to the trouble of trying to explain it to me personally, I'll make more of an effort to understand what it's all about.—Biosketch (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think, possibly, the easiest way to get your head around it is this;

• There is a 'magic word' NUMBEROFARTICLES.
• I write {{subst:NUMBEROFARTICLES}} at the end of this sentence, it will record the number of articles when I hit save: 3,605,601
• But If I write, at the end of this sentence, {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}, it will show the number when this page was last looked at: 6,905,717

Hence, the second number will change regularly - but the first will never change.

The same applies to subst'ing and transcluding a page.

• At the time of my writing this, the page User:Chzz/transtest contains the word "sausage" (in green) - so, if I put {{subst:User:Chzz/transtest}} at the end of this sentence, it will put that content on this page, forever: Sausage
• But if I put {{User:Chzz/transtest}}, it could change - and in a few moments, I will edit and change that page: Elephants

I hope that helps! Cheers,  Chzz  ►  21:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it correct to say that curly brackets are used to substitute or transclude information? So if I understand correctly, the difference between substitution and transclusion is that the former is fixed whereas the latter is dynamic. The information stored at Template:! is the pipe symbol. Now, by using curly brackets without the subst prefix, it becomes a transclusion instruction: if someone changes the information stored at Template:! from, say, a pipe symbol to a semicolon, then anywhere that {{!}} is found, what will appear is a semicolon. But if {{subst:!}} is used, then it will continue to show the pipe even after the template is modified, provided the {{subst:!}} command was saved before the template was modified. (I'm still not at the level of understanding what happened at Talk:Geddy Lee, but did am I getting the rest right?)—Biosketch (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is absolutely correct.

And, templates can transclude other templates or pages.

On the talk page Talk:Geddy Lee, there are various templates. One is {{WPBiography}}, which makes the box that says, This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography.... It also transcludes a subpage - Talk:Geddy Lee/Comments, which it shows within a collapsed table, like this;

Comments:

edit · history · watch · purge Gershon Eliezer Weinrib has never been Geddy's legal name In this video, at timestamp 9:30 or so, Geddy states very clearly that "Gary Lee Weinrib" is the name on his birth certificate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMUaFy-bJSs Gershon Eliezer Weinrib was a cultural name, and is the source of his legal name. But it has never actually been his legal name at any point in his life. His legal name was "Gary" up until he himself had it legally changed to "Geddy". Ξxtreme Unction 19:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Before I edited the subpage (here), it contained a == Heading ==

The table of contents (TOC) always appears just before the first == heading == on a page.

Therefore, the TOC was being displayed inside that hidden ('collapsed') part of the page.  Chzz  ►  19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the lessons. I have another question about transclusion. If you go to File:Golan_Heights_Map.PNG, there's a section titled "File links" with a list of all the articles where the image appears. I can't edit the page to view the source code, but I'm guessing what generates that list is some kind of dynamic (transcluding) template not unlike the ones we've been talking about, only not one that's been made available for public use. Now, I'm interested in knowing when that list of articles changes, but watchlisting the page won't be of any help, because that template itself won't change when what's transcluded in it changes. Is there any way for me to subst (not transclude) what's in that section in my user space, so that I can have as a reference the list that's at File:Golan_Heights_Map.PNG as it appears right now? I could just copy-paste the list, I suppose, but...curiosity is gnawing at me.—Biosketch (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's not actually a transclusion thing; the "File usage" is generated automatically by the mediawiki software.

There's no easy way (that I know) to get a list in a wiki-code-format; you could copy/paste and add the [[ ]] things, I suppose. Or, if there were lots (e.g. 100+), it'd be worth asking someone with database access to get a list for you - [1].

But the easiest answer is, use the popups gadget - in My Preferences, under the 'Gadgets' tab, under "Browsing", there is Navigation popups, article previews and editing functions popup when hovering over links. If you 'checkbox' that...then whenever you hover your mouse over a file-link (such as this one: File:Golan Heights Map.PNG), you should see a list of pages using it.

That's probably the best way to keep an eye on what pages use a file, really; keep a list of the files you are interested in, and just hover your mouse over them to see which pages are using them.

You could list them using "lf" (which stands for "link file) to give links, e.g.

* {{lf|Golan Heights Map.PNG}}

Which will look like this;

• File:Golan Heights Map.PNG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

That gives you the 'links' link, showing what-links-here for the file.

Sorry though; I can't think of a way to actively monitor changes in which pages use a file. If that's what you really need, I suggest asking on the helpdesk, as others might know of some tools, or something. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  10:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Santorini (ship)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lucy Aharish

Thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mairead Corrigan

You are absolutely right Mairead Corrigan deserves a better class than start. My apologies for being way too quick. You have done a fabulous job on this remarkable lady. I have fixed it to a B class, which is the highest available without peer review. Thank you for bringing this to my attention to fix! --Tbennert (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize – on the contrary, I'm grateful to you for assessing the article in the first place. And I appreciate that you considered my comments and reevaluated the assessment.—Biosketch (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your edits, which I found today in random wandering... thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much.—Biosketch (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Golan Heights

Hello, Biosketch. You have new messages at Wgfinley's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Invitation to comment

Will take a look in a bit, as I'm a little busy at the moment, but the first two edits look like they happened one after the other? Consecutive reverts count as a single revert, just FYI. ← George ^talk 22:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No rush. It's way past my bedtime – not to mention that I basically vowed to myself to make only one batch of edits per day. But things are deteriorating in the I/P area, so there's a certain sense urgency to consider.—Biosketch (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Zenga Zenga!

Thanks for the heads up. If the story on Amir Benayoun develops more, I'll create an article on those songs/album. If not, I'll try to find the time to make a page for Amir himself. Much appreciated for the info. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Biosketch. You have new messages at AgadaUrbanit's talk page.
Message added 15:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi

Hi Biosketch, I saw your posts at AGK's talk page. Have you heard about my hacker ordeal? When I decided to end the game I played with the hacker, and to change my password, it was really hard for me to do so. It almost looked as somebody from the other site is preventing me from doing so. My gmail account went absolutely crazy. I am not sure if you're having the same issues. BTW there is button that is named "details" Look for the text:

Visit settings to save time with keyboard shortcuts! You are currently using 0 MB (0 %) of your 7588 MB. Last account activity: 1 hour ago at this IP (--------). Details

I replaced my IP with -------, but just by looking at this line you could see, if somebody with a different IP entered your account. Then click that "Detail" button, and it will give you the full report of the stupid and criminal hackers activities if your account was hacked. The hacker IP will be in the red color and in the first line/lines of the report. Please feel free to ask me more questions. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Also you can enter your account with two steps verification using your Cellphone

settings->accounts->Other Google Account settings->Using 2-step verification--Shrike (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for the suggestions.—Biosketch (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

naska day

Hi Bio, the reason why I deleted the video was becuase other videos linked to the video seemed to be one-sided analysis of the event (they all seemed to be anti-Israel side), but then I saw the company that did the video and then I thought it was no surprise given the russian gov't position on Israel and the gov't's ownership of the channel. Maybe you can find another video that talk about the event n link to the article?Festermunk (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There are indeed problems with RT as far as being a WP:RS for most things involving Israel. Norman Finkelstein is a recurring Mideast "expert" on their shows, for example. But in this case, since the video is only raw footage and doesn't have any voice-over editorializing or anything, it itself can't be considered a biased or unreliable source for how it's being used in the article. And about the links, well that's unfortunate. YouTube is inundated with videos from people and groups who've made it their life's mission to bash Israel. But that can't really be considered as an argument against the video itself.—Biosketch (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

B'Tselem

User:Biosketch, I think my edit summary was 100% clear on the subject. My edits conform to what both Haaretz and NRG say, without resorting to the sort of mealy-mouthed double-talk you wrote. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Biosketch. You have new messages at AgadaUrbanit's talk page.
Message added 10:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

This edit summary is absurd. The lone sentence I removed in the preceding edit was The kibbutz has an industrial aria which includes factories for producing stretch films and other plastic films. That sentence was cited to the website of a company that makes such films, meaning it was promotional spam not cited to a third party reliable source. To call that removal possible POV pushing/selective removal of content is absurd. Do not continue making such comments about me. Also, do not continue hounding my edits. If you continue to do so I may ask for administrative assistance in stopping you from tendentiously following me around. It has gone past annoying, considering the absurd accusations that accompany your hounding. nableezy - 02:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You're partly correct: I ought to have added something like "+expand" at the end of the edit summary, given that I added more content than what you had removed. But this has nothing to do with hounding. Editing one or two articles per week where you were the most recent editor is virtually unavoidable. I don't do it to provoke you and you shouldn't take it that way. I examined your edit, saw that you had removed sourced content, was able to find additional sources allowing me to restore your removal and expand the article some more, and that's what I did. If anything, you should be appreciative of my contribution to Niran. And by the way, you've followed me around plenty lately, so I wouldn't be so quick to be making accusations of hounding were I in your place.—Biosketch (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ive followed you around? Where? But the hounding is not the issue, the issue is the asinine accusation you directed at me while doing so. How exactly is the removal of a companies website, meaning not a third party reliable source, and the statement it was used for "possible POV pushing/selective removal of content"? How exactly do you justify making such an accusation? And why are you looking at my contributions anyway? nableezy - 03:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Where have you followed me around? User talk:Sean.hoyland, for one; Vittorio Arrigoni, another. And look what's happened there. The moment you contributed to those places, all hell broke loose. And then there's Chesdovi (talk · contribs)'s Talk page (diff). I know you commented there after my message at a related AN/I before he got sanctioned. I know because a short time after I used the expression "emphatically object," you used it at AE. Not that I care one bit that you borrow expressions from me, but I did pick up on it. And like I said elsewhere, you're free to edit articles I edit as long as it's to improve them. At User:Sean.hoyland's Talk page, your contribution was sarcastic and nonconstructive. At Vittorio Arrigoni, it was petty and nonpolicy-based. Now, without saying anything about you personally, I have been detecting a pattern in your edits. Consider your quarrel with No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs) yesterday. You removed a historical detail unfavorable to a certain political narrative. Then take your edit at Niran. You removed a mention of a factory on a settlement. All these things raise questions. They raise questions about whether this pattern can be considered NPOV. Do you see my reason for concern?—Biosketch (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? That is so very interesting. I "followed" you to an article that I had edited a good two months before you edited. Because to "follow" somebody means to show up before they come, right? And I "followed" you to a user talk page where I have the second most number of edits, and I "followed" you to discuss something that happened on my talk page. You have demonstrated the quality of your argument. Thank you for that. But to respond, again, to the substance of it. At one article I removed an unsourced statement. Wikipedia policy specifically allows for the removal of any statement without a reliable source supporting it. At Niran I removed promotional spam that was not cited to a reliable secondary source. If either of those edits raise questions it is how exactly does any sane person object to either of those edits. About the comment at Chesdovi's talk page, I made that without knowing that anybody had proposed it. I had not read the RFC, the ANIs or anything of the sort, I only saw what happened on his talk page as I have it watchlisted. I felt like giving him an easy solution that would answer the objections, however ill-considered they might be. I did not know you had made such a suggestion because I did, and do, not care about the topic enough to have read more than two words from any of the discussions. And I dont appear to have ever used the phrase "emphatically object" on AE, so I have no idea what you are talking about there. Regarding Arrigoni, I gave a policy based reason, and while you have demanded one from me you have not once offered one in support of your position. Some might be tempted to call such tactics "petty". But, once more, do not make such accusations in edit summaries. And do not continue to hound my contributions. While we may run into one another in articles where we share a common interest, you should not be following my contributions to repeatedly confront me at articles. If you end up at the same article I am editing organically then great, what is not great is repeatedly going through my contributions to do so. I should not have to deal with a collection of internet tough guys annoying me from one place to another. Unless of course you would like me to actually start going through your contributions and repeatedly inhibiting your editing. nableezy - 06:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Kids, stop it. Please. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Id be glad to, if I did not have to read some inane accusation about "POV pushing" for removing spam, followed by asinine accusations of hounding somebody to places I had already been. nableezy - 14:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Overreacting

Nableezy (talk · contribs), I'm going to say something about you personally now that's meant not as an attack but as a candid observation, and I sincerely hope you'll take some time to contemplate it with an open mind before responding. Simply put, you are overreacting. You are blowing two or three edits I made over the course of a week way out of proportion and making a giant mountain out of an incy wincy anthill. For whatever reason – I can only speculate as to where your hostility toward me is coming from – you appear to have turned me into your archnemesis here, when I never did anything remotely deserving of that role.

Early last month when Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) and I were involved in a dispute and you were still banned, you couldn't resist stirring the pot at his Talk page, in what can only be described as a deliberate and sustained effort to provoke me into losing my temper. I did not ask for your input there, yet you forced it upon me just the same. For two weeks that charade went on (and perhaps it has endured ever since, only each time in a different form). Again, no one invited you to offer your opinion – but you did anyway, and in a sarcastic and counterproductive manner effectively guaranteeing that nothing constructive would come out of the interaction but only machoistic cervine horn locking.

Then on 17 June you made a puzzling edit at Juliano Mer-Khamis, inserting Arabic letters into an image caption. Well, naturally I removed the Arabic letters – and not because I was stalking you but because I've had Juliano Mer-Khamis watchlisted ever since he was killed and I'd contributed to the article and to its associated Discussion page. Now, as I'm sure you, and many others, do sometimes, when a problematic edit is found at one article, it's not uncommon to examine the editor's contributions at other articles to see if it's an isolated problem or part of a general pattern of problematic editing. And if you still want to know at what point in the day I looked through your edit history on 22 June when I edited Tourism in Israel, I think it was while I was eating a bowl of cereal and milk for breakfast, as I had gone to sleep rather later than usual the night before and gotten out of bed late that morning. I saw that you had made an edit at an article that for obvious reasons I would want to examine more closely, and lo and behold I found that you had added an un- or mis-sourced claim to it. So what was I supposed to do? Take you to AE for it? No – I edited your edit. End of story.

But of course it was not the end of the story. No, the saga had to continue with you diagnosing me with a disease and calling me insanely obsessed with your edits. If that's not a wild overreaction, then please tell me what is. You diagnose me with a disease and accuse me of being insanely obsessed with your edits, basically because of one edit I made, and you think I'm the one with the problem?

Who has been stalking whom?

Ok meanwhile, ironically enough, you had already started editing pages after me. On 22 June, the day after I left Reenem (talk · contribs) a message on his Talk page, for example, you suddenly showed up there. Then on 1 July I edited Vittorio Arrigoni, and who should edit my edit? You again (and again), citing Wikipedia guidelines that weren't even relevant. Of course before either of these incidents there were all those mounds of crap at User:Sean.hoyland's page. And then, on 20 June, I left a message at AN/I involving Chesdovi (talk · contribs) using the expression "I emphatically object," and whaddyaknow, the very next day you say "I emphatically deny" at AE. Not only that but you go and leave a message at User:Chesdovi's Talk page, clearly related to the AN/I where I had commented, essentially suggesting the same thing I had suggested, which he even acknowledged in his reply to you.

So, what...all that's just coincidence? You still want to deny you track my edits and follow me to articles? But I've told you: I don't really care if you follow me around, as long as the edits you make are professional and well-intentioned and not spiteful. Maybe you're infatuated with me. I don't know. It doesn't matter to me as long as it stays constructive. Take Zero0000 (talk · contribs), for instance. Do you know that he's edited after me at three different articles recently in the space of a few days? So what? It doesn't bother me. His comments have been professional, his edits have for the most part been constructive, and our interactions have been mature and civilized, even though I'm disagreeing with him regarding his latest revert. Why then did you have to go ballistic after two minor edits I made?

Possible POV editing

Now, about this latest row at Niran. The night before I edited there, you made a controversial edit at another article and got into an altercation with No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs) over it. His criticism was actually very valid. You're an experienced editor in the topic area. You're expected to edit in an NPOV spirit and with a mind to improving articles. Your edit at Adora, however, was something an anon IP might try to pull. You have to understand that when you behave a certain way, the reactions of your colleagues will be commensurate with that behavior. Again, User:No More Mr Nice Guy was right in calling you out for your removal of the details of the terrorist attack. It's hard not to suspect you of POV editing in a case like that because the source for the claim you removed was easily obtainable through a Google search; and even if was pure laziness on your part, then why not tag it with Template:Cn? I'll tell you why presently, but to make my argument stronger I'll first address the other controversial edit you made that night.

At Niran you removed a detail concerning a factory on the settlement, citing spam concerns. That is not a persuasive concern. The text you removed was not promotional-sounding in the least. It did not say that P.V.Ran is one of the world's leading manufacturers of plastic food wrappings. Something like that could be considered spam. What you removed was a completely neutral and seven-word-long description of what the factory does, "producing stretch films and other plastic films." There is no spam there.

Now for the bottom line. First you removed the mention of Palestinian terrorists killing a five-year-old girl and a family on an Israeli settlement. Then you removed the mention of a factory that manufactures plastic products on another Israeli settlement. This is why my edit summary said "possible POV pushing/selective removal of content." You didn't remove other unsourced content at Niran. You surgically removed the mention of a factory that's a source of income for the settlers there. Again: first you remove the mention of a hideous terrorist attack carried out by Palestinian terrorists against Israeli settlers, and then you remove the mention of a factory that's a source of livelihood for Israeli settlers. That's enough of a reason to summarize my edit as "possible POV pushing/selective removal of content." It's arguably enough of a reason to have gone to AE again, but I reckon it's only a matter of time before that happens anyway and right now I haven't the patience for it.—Biosketch (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

@ElComandanteChe (talk · contribs), forgive me for saying so, but I resent the implication in your request (which I know was meant in earnest) that there's any kind of symmetry between Nableezy (talk · contribs)'s behavior and mine.—Biosketch (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Now you actually are getting on my nerves. You describe the removal of unsourced material as a "controversial edit", something that an "an anon IP might try to pull". WP:V specifies that any unsourced material may be removed by an editor. That is Wikipedia policy, and doing so is not "controversial". I use {{cn}} when there is some mundane detail that needs a source, this was not that. I removed a completely unsourced sentence. That is something we are supposed to do, that is, those of us not interested in seeing how many times we can include the word terrorist in a sentence (only 2 above, you need to try harder). At Niran, there was a companies website used as a source for the existence of the company and information on what they manufacture. That you think that is acceptable for a company to be advertised in such a way in an encyclopedia article is nice, but unimportant. Wikipedia has policies on what may be included in articles. All material must be cited to third party reliable sources. Our articles do not exist to advertise for private companies.

There was nothing wrong with including the Arabic script in the caption of the article, and many articles include foreign language script within them while giving a translation. I did not do anything there because dealing with you was not worth the irritation. But that edit does not entitle you to begin following my contributions to further whatever feud you think you have with me.

Ill deal with your "hounding" allegations now, because they are easily the most absurd ones I have seen in a long time, and it took me a bit to craft, lets go with, appropriate response. I am so very sorry for using the word emphatically after you did. I must never have used such a word in the past, I surely saw your post at ANI and decided to use it there. I mean, what are the chances that I have used the word emphatically in the past? I mean, that must be impossible, and of course never at AE. You think I followed you to Reenem's talk page? I have been dealing with that user over the same issue for some time now, your visit there had nothing to do with my message to the user. A brief look at the user's talk page should make any person who was interested in ensuring the veracity of their complaints see that such a charge is patently bogus. Much like everything else in the 8.5 kB above. But, about my diagnosis, given that you admit to hounding my contributions, doing so over breakfast, do you really question it? Again, the problem is not the hounding, I can deal with it, but I may be inclined to return the favor. The problem is the asinine accusation, that you repeat above, that the removal of a companies website as a "source" for an encyclopedia article is "POV-pushing". This was way too much time for me to get to the point here, so Ill do so now. WP:HOUND specifies that [i]f "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. If you continue hounding my edits with the apparent aim of annoying me I may seek such restrictions. You admit above that have, repeatedly, gone through my contributions to inhibit my work at separate articles. You do so on the most spurious of grounds, and make personal attacks such as "POV-pushing". Kindly stop doing so. I dont have a problem discussing the content of the articles, I do however have a problem dealing with people whose aim it is to annoy me. You are quickly demonstrating which of those things you are interested in doing. A commonly used phrase is "comment on the content, not the contributor". If you can do that with me, I will respond in kind, and we will not have problems. If however you cannot control the urge to follow me around and annoy me with such asinine accusations we will have problems. Which of those happens is up to you. I can be an exceedingly pleasant person, even with those that dislike my views. I can also be quite the asshole. Which one you see is really up to you. nableezy - 03:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

An edit is made controversial by virtue of there being controversy around it. You are an experienced editor, and your colleagues in the Project expect you to respect certain norms that are established praxis in the topic area. When you go around removing content – even unsourced content – from articles in a way that can be construed as being motivated by a particular agenda, it undermines the confidence your colleagues have in you and you should not be surprised that they monitor your edits from time to time. I don't expect you to be as diligent as I am at Talk:Jewish religious terrorism, but I'll cite that as an example. It's a controversial article and there's a high degree of probability that any edits I make there will be scrutinized as being potentially biased. The way I ensure that my behavior is not a function of whatever biases I have is by carefully relocating whatever unverified claims I find to the Discussion page. That way it's easy for the next guy to see what used to be in the article and a constructive process of further research can ensue. Is it so much to ask that you do something similar? Sure, if you wanna hide behind Wikipedia guidelines and policies to defend your conduct, then maybe you're right and I can't really criticize your behavior. Just know that I expect a higher standard from someone in your position.

You're claiming that I admit to hounding your contributions? Please show me where I ever made such an admission. You said yourself that hounding involves certain sinister motives of wanting to annoy another editor. If you think my edits were intended to annoy you, then you haven't understood anything from my last response to you. In fact, part of me wonders if this whole business of you accusing me of hounding you isn't in fact to intimidate me into never editing after you again so that you can continue to remove content you find unpleasant in certain articles. Well that ain't gonna work, we may as well be clear about that right now. There are plenty of articles I could have involved myself in if it were my intention to annoy you. I could have taken Cptnono (talk · contribs)'s place at Gaza War and picked up where he left off. Or at your AE against Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs). Or at a bunch of other articles where you've run into opposition. I don't fly that way, though. I'll edit where I think I have something meaningful to contribute, and I'll stay away from what's less important to me. You are quite simply not a consideration when it comes to where I choose to edit.—Biosketch (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If that last sentence is true than you have no reason to follow my edits. If not, well, we'll see what happens. Pins and needles Im on. nableezy - 05:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

<- Biosketch, I have something to say about "When you go around removing content – even unsourced content – from articles in a way that can be construed as being motivated by a particular agenda, it undermines the confidence your colleagues have in you and you should not be surprised that they monitor your edits from time to time." This is completely wrong. The topic area is covered by sanctions. It is essential that content is sourced and if it is not it can and should be removed as quickly as possible. I see both "pro-Israeli" and "pro-Palestinian" editors (if we can use those meaningless terms) removing unsourced content in what could be construed as being motivated by a particular agenda very often and it in no way undermines my confidence in their editing because they are doing what they are supposed to do. Imagined patterns and motivations don't matter, people/personalities don't matter if the edits are consistent with the rules. There is far too much focus on people here, it's unhealthy and obsessive, imagining what they are thinking and feeling, what drives them etc, when the only thing that matters is whether their edits are consistent with the set of rules and objectives of the project. I think you are being drawn into the destructive cult of personality that so many people, often toipic banned editors, try to foster here. It turns the place into a war zone. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You're of course entitled to your opinion on the matter, and I respect both you and your opinion; however, I regret you've once again chosen to defend the losing side of the argument. In this case it's WP:BOP and WP:PRESERVE that're crystal clear about Wikipedia policy in our context, and perhaps you would do well to review those policies and refresh your memory in relation to the question of how to deal with unsourced additions. To wit, while a user may "remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it," it "has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself." What you described in your comment applies strictly to WP:BLP articles, not to ordinary articles under WP:ARBPIA purview. Furthermore, if, as you say, you regularly encounter users systematically or surreptitiously "removing unsourced content in what could be construed as being motivated by a particular agenda," you are being remiss in not bringing them to the attention of the community or at least advising them strongly against such behavior. Indeed, WP:ARBPIA is unequivocal in its censure of editors who use articles as a platform for advocacy, for furthering outside conflicts, or to advance a political or ideological struggle.

Regarding your opposition to focusing on people, here too you're wrong, though I don't know of a policy that specifically addresses this aspect of your comment. Nature consists of patterns. Science exists because these patterns are meaningful and identifying them reveals profound insights into the workings of the universe. That's true for astronomy, for art, for psychology, for linguistics, for economics, and for political science, among other disciplines. To disregard patterns and approach the world as a collection of arbitrary isolated incidents is – you'll pardon me for being blunt – to shut one's eyes off from reality. Wikipedia editors are thinking and feeling agents, with drives and strengths and failings just like anyone else. To overlook basic human nature and deny or downplay that there is a pattern underlying an editor's contributions when that pattern is clearly there for all to see is to follow the ignorance-is-bliss path. And it has nothing to do with cult of personality. It has to do with a basic acknowledgement that behind the user accounts here are human beings and not subatomic particles in a Large Hadron Collider. I would argue that this is also the rationale behind the escalating severity approach at AE. Editors who cannot resist backsliding and repeating the same disruptive behavior they were sanctioned for in the past need to be dealt with more severely than editors in whose case an identifiable pattern is not yet established. And if the same editor goes from article to article selectively removing unsourced content in a manner indicative of a biased agenda, that too is a pattern that needs to be taken stock of and dealt with.

Finally, if you're such an enthusiastic proponent of deleting unsourced content from I/P articles, why haven't you done so at, say, Yachad or J Street?—Biosketch (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

@Nableezy (talk · contribs), if it makes you feel in better company, I also occasionally check where Soosim (talk · contribs), Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), Cptnono (talk · contribs), and ElComandanteChe (talk · contribs) have edited lately – sometimes in the morning while eating my cereal and milk, other times in the evening when I like to vegetate on the couch and unwind with my feet up and a drink.—Biosketch (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You know what, if thats the way you want it to go, fine. Im cool with that. Id rather not have it be the way you seem intent on making it, really, Id like to be more relaxed in life, but this works too. But before I bid you farewell, Id like to give you some links to peruse. Material is routinely removed as unsourced, even by the same editors who complain about such removals now. There is nothing wrong with such removals, and the proper response when you see that is to restore the material with a reliable source, not cry that some big bad monster is destroying the article. Ill see you around. nableezy - 04:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Um...I am not that editor, and that editor hasn't commented here, so how is that a rebuttal to what my comment was? And I already told you, if you want to hide behind the literal wording of the guidelines, then you're safe and I can't attack you for it – at least not until it reaches the level of an undeniable POV pattern. But the guidelines were formulated with a certain spirit in mind. The better editor is the one who actually tries to find sources for stuff that isn't sourced, not the one who goes around furtively removing inconvenient details from articles that aren't sourced but easily can be.—Biosketch (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You are not that editor but you raise his objection as proof that such a removal is "controversial". At the very least, try to be a bit more honest in your portrayal. If I had wanted to "furtively" remove the unsourced or poorly sourced sentence I would not have said in the edit summary "rm unsourced line" in one and "remove material not cited to third party source" in the other. See, my edit summaries are accurate representations of my edits. Not inaccurate, almost incoherent, attacks on others, as was the issue that initially brought me to the now dumbfounding decision that I made to come here and ask that you not make such accusations without basis. Ill take if you want to hide behind the literal wording of the guidelines to mean that if the policies of this website support my actions, which they do, so yes, I guess I am safe. nableezy - 04:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right that if it weren't for your good-faithed edit summaries, I wouldn't have picked up on the removal of content. To this day I haven't checked the other edits you made that night. That's to your credit. I do give people credit when they do something right, even if I loathe their guts. The third-person pronoun in my last comment wasn't meant to imply one as in "Nableezy (talk · contribs)" but rather one as in the unspecified sense. Which means maybe it does include him, but I'm not committed to that interpretation.—Biosketch (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How long did it take you to dig up all that stuff? And those were the best examples you could find? That's pretty funny. I do like how you included both stuff that could be considered pro-Israel and anti-Israel, in the topic area and out. Not to mention most were direct reverts of information just included in the article, per BRD. Can the same be said about your edits? Should I do a little digging? Have you ever removed unsourced material that you actually agreed with? I doubt it. Maybe I'll go look next time you're at AE. What do you think I'll find? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A few seconds, I only grabbed the diffs where you wrote "unsourced". And which of those diffs could possibly be called removals of "pro-Israel" material? Oh, by the way, BRD is not a policy or a guideline. WP:V is Wikipedia policy, which says any unsourced material may be removed. But Im done here, aint no point dealing with such hypocrisy. nableezy - 14:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You can wikilawyer as much as you like about BRD and V, we all know you removed a longstanding and easily verifiable historical fact because it put the Palestinians in a bad light and you thought nobody would notice your removal. Show me where in any of the edits you listed above I did anything even remotely approaching that. And please, you're the last person here who can talk about hypocrisy. Your editing reeks of it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The term "wikilawyer" is usually used by people who seek to twist essays into trumping guidelines, guidelines into trumping policies, or are generally displeased that the policies of the website do not back up their position. I have quoted, several times now, what a Wikipedia policy says may be done with unsourced material, that is, it may be removed. I removed a line on something that does not even belong in an article on a town (can you imagine details of each family murdered in Chicago being included in that article? Or details on each family murdered by Israelis, be it settlers of soldiers, in the occupied territories in each article on each village?) because it was unsourced. But, since you are sooo very opposed to hypocrisy, why did you remove this? Or this which I was able to find a source for in less than five seconds? Please, pray tell, why did you remove material that you dislike that was easily verifiable? And given that the reason provided in the edit summary is exactly the same as you say is some terrible crime, why are you engaged in such hypocrisy as to call my removal of unsourced material wrong? Unsourced material does not belong in an article. If you dont get that I cant help you. But you apparently do get that, as you have repeatedly done the same thing you claim is wrong for me to do. So the question is not why do you think unsourced material belongs, it is pretty obvious based on your actions that you dont, but rather why you think it is okay for unsourced material that, as you say, "put[s] the Palestinians in a bad light" should stay in articles? nableezy - 17:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the term "wikilawyer" is used when someone (like, say, you) tries to argue his action was technically correct (like removing longstanding, easily verifiable, historical facts) when it's obvious it was not proper editing (like when a topic area is under discretionary sanctions, the editor has a long history of battleground behavior and V saying good practice is to look for a source).

As for your diffs, are you really arguing this is not a good edit? Apropos hypocrisy, battleground, etc? The first part is hardly intelligible, and the second part is an unsourced editorial making statements in the neutral voice about what stuff "clearly means" and what "never" happens. Are you seriously arguing it should have remained in the article? The second diff, as is clearly stated in the edit summary is not only unsrouced, but even if it was sourced does not belong in the section it was put in. Moreover, it was a direct revert of a bold edit per BRD, not something that was in the article for months (which you often claim means it's there by consensus, again apropos hypocrisy). I am completely open to any uninvolved admin scrutinizing all of the diffs you provided above. None of them is comparable to what you did, and none of the information was restored as far as I can see.

Anyway, like I told you on my talk page, you go ahead and keep removing stuff like that and we'll see what happens. If you need to puff your chest and say you'll continue doing it but in fact you'll stop now, that's fine too. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we will. I sincerely hope that I happen across another similarly unsourced sentence as I go through the settlement articles to add the text on legality to them, and if I do the chances that this material is kept in the article is approximately 0. And Ill be real nice and leave an edit summary saying "rm unsourced", or something along those lines. And if you do exactly what you did the last time, that is justify the removal of reliably sourced material that has an explicit consensus to be included on the basis that unsourced material was removed and that your revert, while removing the sourced material, was only really a revert of the removal of unsourced material, then we will indeed see what happens. nableezy - 19:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed we will. In the meanwhile, and apropos hypocrisy again, I noticed you're rewriting the Raed Salah article, but didn't bother to change where it says "allegations" to "accusations", despite the fact you were claiming "accusations" is a more neutral term here (among other places) and despite the fact Salah was actually charged in court with some of these things. I'm sure you just didn't get around to doing it yet. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You "noticed"? How sweet. But since you are "noticing" these things, you may have noticed I have only begun working on that article. Would you like me to start "noticing" your edits? Because I dont mind doing so. I mean, it isnt like you or I made a deal to not do such things. Although, if you keep up with your current practice of only editing where you see me doing so there wont be much for me to notice. nableezy - 20:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have a deal, but in your typical wikilawyering fashion, you continued to pop up on talk pages of articles you never edited to give me your opinion of stuff rather than actually edit the articles. Are you really trying to pretend you don't look at people's contribs?

Anyways, I am not going to edit the Raed Salah article, so you can relax. I just find it intriguing that it took you just a bit over an hour to remove the word "alleged" from the Arrigoni page, yet on the Salah page you made several edits to a section titled "Allegations of Hate Speech and Antisemitism", including to the header itself, but you seem to have missed the use of a word you argued repeatedly is not neutral. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Im not pretending. Though I did just look, did I show up at Counterpunch? Or 1948 Arab–Israeli War, or 949 Armistice Agreements, or Haj Amin al-Husseini, or, well you get the point. We will occasionally end up in the same place, that is expected and not problematic. What is not expected and is problematic is for you to have, as apparently your only focus, articles that I edit. I do look at certain peoples contribs, the same people you look at, but for different reasons than you. I look at the contribs of a selection of editors that I particularly like, such as Tiamut. Where you look at those same editors contributions out of spite. Bit of a difference there. Or any other article you had been focusing on? But to the point. It would be hypocritical of me to go around changing accused to alleged. It is not however hypocritical of me to do nothing when I see alleged. I am not under any obligation to make every edit, even every edit that I agree with, and if you or anybody else changes the section in the Salah article to accused I wont revert it, I wouldnt even raise it on the talk page. And I may yet change it myself, once I spend some more time on the article. Im not under your command, and I dont plan on bowing to your dictates. If you think an edit is needed go make it. nableezy - 23:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So you are of the opinion that arguing a word is not neutral and immediately changing it when you think it casts doubt on claims you like, but not changing it (while editing the same sentence it appears in) when you want it to cast doubt on claims you don't like is not hypocrisy? Interesting.

I'm not dictating or commanding you. Seeing some intellectual honesty from you would be a nice change of pace, and pointing out where someone who keeps calling everyone he doesn't agree with "hypocrites" is being a hypocrite himself is always fun. So change it or not, that's up to you. I suspect you will, since you usually prefer your battle to be subtle and once this has been exposed it can be used against you next time you're in trouble. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No last word? How untypical of you. I'd just like to end this interesting discussion by pointing out that on the same Raed Salah article you added the label "Israeli" to a source critical of Salah but in a consecutive edit removed the label "anti-Israel" from a source supportive of Salah because you said it's "well poisoning". Good stuff. No hypocrisy whatsoever. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont really want to waste time with you, but to reply to your asinine accusation here. It is a BLP violation to call Jonathan Cook an "anti-Israel author". I would just love for you to restore that to the article. The source for the material on for the supposed hate speech says, and I quote, At the time, Israeli newspapers quoted him as saying .... Not just newspapers, but Israeli newspapers. But I did not add the qualifier to a "source critical of Salah", I added the description that the source cited used for the source of the quotes. So no, not hypocrisy, it is editing that is in line with the policies of this website. You should try it sometime. I had hoped my "last word" would be a list of diffs of an editor removing unsourced material, an editor who is calling me a hypocrite and complaining about the removal of unsourced material. That had a certain appeal in demonstrating the quality of the accusation and the character of the accuser. But alas, you felt obligated to make an even more ridiculous accusation. nableezy - 19:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If I had said it's never ok to remove unsourced material, maybe your diffs would prove something other than your intellectual dishonesty. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course. You words and actions provide ample evidence that you do not feel it is never ok; it is apparently not ok when, in your words, "it put the Palestinians in a bad light", but your actions appear to show that it is ok when it does not do that. Ill keep that in mind. Perhaps my "intellectual dishonesty" is also the cause of my removing a BLP violation from an article, which now forms the basis for further unfounded attacks by your oh so honest self. nableezy - 19:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice strawman. Nice selective quoting, too. Once again, no discernible intellectual dishonesty.

Intellectual dishonesty certainly had something to do with the fact you removed a label from something you support ("well poisoning" it was, apparently) yet had no problem adding an almost opposite label to something you don't support (it would seem that doesn't poison any wells). If you were or weren't technically within the rules is not really the issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, now a charge of "selective quoting" when you claim the cause of my removal of a BLP violation was "well poisoning". Since you are "noticing" these edits, would you care to quote the entire edit summary for the removal of the BLP violation? Here, Ill do it for you. It was rm nonsense well poisoning and BLP violation. So, for those of not interested in "games", the cause of the removal was that it was "nonsense well poisoning" and it was a "BLP violation". How very honest and not hypocritical for you to charge me with "selective quoting" in an edit in which you selectively quote me. Now, why did I add "Israeli", and is it "an almost opposite label" to "anti-Israel". The first question, why? Because the source says that it was specifically Israeli papers that reported this, not newspapers elsewhere. Next question, is "Israeli" the "an almost opposite label" of "anti-Israel". There is a very obvious answer to that question, but it requires a bit of intellectual honesty to give it. As you apparently are incapable of doing so, let me try. The "opposite" of "anti" is "pro". An "Israeli newspaper" can be "anti" or "pro". "Israeli" here is giving the location of publication, not a judgment of its editorial stance. So it is not true that I added this because it was about something that I "do not support", I added this because the source makes that distinction. And it is also not true that the label I added was "almost the opposite" of the label that I removed, in fact the two labels are not related to each other in any way. One gives the location of publication, and is supported by the cited source, and the other is a BLP violating subjective judgment of a living person. Any honest person can see the difference, but I understand that you will have trouble doing so. nableezy - 21:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering the last sentence of my post addressed the BLP issue, your pretending I only addressed one part of your edit summary is....? Contrast with the fact you selectively quoted one of the multiple reasons I gave you, ignored the rest and pretended that was my main argument.

So you're saying that the only reason you added "Israeli" is so the reader would know the location of the newspapers? Why is the location important? What difference does it make if it was Israeli newspapers or other newspapers? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Im sorry, I was not aware that you considered removing a BLP violation to be "gaming". That puts your comments into perspective, thanks for that. nableezy - 01:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't you get tired of erecting all these strawmen? It's pretty obvious you are unable to address the actual points made when you keep doing that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry, I was not aware that I had constructed a strawman. You wrote above Considering the last sentence of my post addressed the BLP issue. The sentence you referred to is If you were or weren't technically within the rules is not really the issue, with the link to WP:GAME. Those two thoughts combine to say that you believe that you addressed the BLP issue by saying it was an issue of whether I was "technically within the rules" and further said that the issue is "gaming" (by your wikilink). Do you know what a strawman is? It isnt using your words accurately to demonstrate the quality of your opinion. The "actual points made" where that you think my removing a BLP violation in one instance and accurately representing the cited source in another is somehow bad, or "gaming", or "dishonest". You can think that all you like, I dont plan on spending much more time on such an absurd idea. Off to find more unsourced material to remove, toodles. nableezy - 14:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

To quote Straw man - To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. That's exactly what you've been doing. See ya. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Giant wall of text with words arranged in strings that mean things and have a purpose

Biosketch, I don't normally invest much time talking to other editors because talking is overated, but I'm making an exception for you. Take it as a compliment because I think you are a good editor who is losing their way a bit.

I'm not defending a side here. There are no sides. It's not a battlefield. It's about resolving interpersonal conflicts that shouldn't be happening because they are irrelevant to the objectives of the project.

I'm aware of what it says in WP:V and WP:EDIT. I'm not a new editor and I've seen how they can be misused by editors to preserve substandard content they like or remove content they don't like. Such is life. Let's agree to disagree about how to interpret and implement policy with respect to unsourced information in a topic area covered by sanctions in a way that maximises compliance with the mandatory core policies of the project.

Regarding my being "remiss in not bringing people to the attention of the community or at least advising them strongly against such behavior", I'm not a fan of pursuing, badgering and purging people because I disagree with their interpretation of policy or because I see a pattern in their edits that may or may not represent something (and certainly not because of their opinions about the world). I reserve that for the worst offenders and my getting-people-blocked metric is near perfect, the one exception I can think of who had been causing disruption for weeks and weeks simply stopped editing after I reported them. I could elaborate on this point giving some examples of several editors who I think would certainly be blocked if I reported them based on a large but selective sampling of their edits. They are all what people call "pro-Israel" for reasons that are never quite clear. I'm not going to because, on balance, the evidence indicates that, although they are at times highly problematic and have difficulty complying with the sanctions, they do more good than harm contentwise as far as I can tell. I don't think that is how admins at AE would see it though. How I deal with people is my choice and from what I've observed, my methods do okay.

We could have a discussion about generating or identifying patterns, trying to interpret those patterns, and how foolhardy it is to not appreciate or understand the degree to which eyes are already shut off from what you describe as the "reality" (but actually just a model) those patterns are supposed to represent. It's somewhat off topic though.

You cite Yachad or J Street. This is where your patterns get you into trouble because built into them are all sorts of invalid assumptions about sampling a very large information space and editor actions within that space. There is a reason for everything but as is so often the case when dealing with people, you won't know unless you ask. Since you asked, there is nothing in Yachad that is unsourced or inaccurate. The problem there is quite the opposite. The content is sourced directly from their site and it is a series of small copyright violations. There's a reason for that. The article was written by Yachad. It's a problem, yes. Do I care ? Yes, not much though, it's not a priority for me. Do I care about the organization Yachad ? Not in the slightest. For interest, I saw the article by chance, the best way, because I use a tool that monitors various IRC feeds and saw an edit by an IP editor whose machine generated "reputation" metric was very low, so it caught my eye. I had know idea what or where this thing called Yachad was, and expected it to be a village somewhere. By the time I got there someone had reverted but from a quick look at the article it was clear that it needed work. I brought it into the topic area by tagging/categorizing it and did as much as I had time+interest to do. Others can fix it or perhaps I will one day, who knows. As for J-Street, an edit summary came up on my watchlist that said "Controversy: Changed description of Code Pink from "anti-Israel" to "anti-war" per WP:NPOV. To imply that being against the occupation is being anti-Israel (as the quite biases sources do) is not acceptable". I checked it and removed a BLP violation. I didn't even look at the rest of the article. So, for Yachad or J Street, these are simply 2 examples of the millions of things I haven't done in Wikipedia everyday since I signed up. You could have cited my recent edits at Hans Hofmann or Hinchinbrook Island as examples where I have left information unsourced. Far worse than that, if you are looking for inconsistency and policy violations, with Hinchinbrook Island, I actually added unsourced information (which I suppose is potentially contentious to the handful of people who care) because I happen to know it's true (=COI), the horror. I make no claims of consistency. A piece of advice someone gave me a very long time ago, "don't expect rationality". It has served me well for many years.

Bear in mind, and this might interest you, that my sampling of the I-P topic area (and some other problematic but less active topic areas) is deliberately randomized to a large extent. I do this in 3 main ways

• 1) by frequently amending my watchlist, adding and removing articles
• 2) by switching the hide minor edits option on and off on a randomish basis
• 3) by deliberately using the "Hide bot edits from the watchlist" option so that everytime there is a bot edit, the article does not appear in my watchlist, thus hiding all of the non-bot edits to the article that came before it since the last time it appeared on my watchlist. Those non-bot edits before the bot edit may be terrible policy violations by editors I personally regard as highly problematic or good edits, but I want the probability of my seeing them to be randomized by bot edits thereby randomizing and depersonalizing my sampling of edits.

If I'm working on a specific article over an extended period of time it's different. I read the entire article and check everyone's edits over the past x hours keeping a special eye on IP's.

As a general point, so you understand where I'm coming from, in the world of wiki, I'm not interesting in individuals (a very Western way of looking at things I might add) or ambiguous, non-deterministic, non-repeatable procedures based on wooly policies that say what might or could be "good practice" under certain poorly constrained data dependent conditions according to different people at different times...depending on what mood they're in etc. When it comes to delete or fix decisions, I'm much more interested in and favour edits that, as a matter of fact, measurably increase the degree to which an article complies with the core mandatory policies no matter whether that entails removal or addition of content. You'll note there that there is no mention of the nature of the content, which side of an imagined pro/anti something boundary it falls on because I don't know where that boundary is. I can only see what the content says and what the reliable sources say if anything. Do I go around removing unsourced content (assuming I had time to do such a thing) ? Not often, I tend to try to fix things if I have time or leave them be unless they are really bad but I will defend editors policy based right to do it. Did I say that I am "an enthusiastic" proponent of anything ? No, I said that I support it because it is consistent with policy as I see it. Again, you are modeling and talking about an editor, me in this case, as if they are a human being with feelings. Can you not simply accept that you know nothing about this "reality" you speak of with any degree of confidence that matters to Wikipedia and instead just focus on the content and what reliable sources say about the subjects of articles ? Focusing on what you can reliably know and can reliably verify, namely whether content complies with policy, and acting in accord with your interpretation of policy is simpler.You are focusing on editors and you're coming into conflict because you are focusing on editors. You are talking to them as if you understand this "reality" of "basic human nature" you refer to, as if you can reliably identify patterns and model people. You can't, you will get it wrong and it has and will continue to result in conflict. Regarding AE, people who get blocked there are often the editors who try to make a model of other editors, edit according to that model and consequently get into conflict with this thing they have modeled. Imagine what might happen if, when it comes to content, you just treated Nableezy as a Turing Award winning content generation and management machine rather than tried to model him as a person with all of the complexity that entails. He's given you a clue by saying ""comment on the content, not the contributor". If you can do that with me, I will respond in kind, and we will not have problems." Why not give it a try ? You have nothing to lose.

Please don't take anything I have said as a criticism. I'm just offering an alternative view. That's all. My aim is to present you with a different perspective that I think might help reduce conflict. Above all, remember that people are idiots, all of us, and give people a break. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), know that I have no problem with criticism per se. Criticism that's sincere and constructive is welcome, even if it's directed at me personally. It's when it serves ulterior motives like wanting to antagonize or aggravate me that I object to it and lose all respect for the critic. I regard you as an intelligent contributor – maybe slightly more foul-mouthed than I'd consider tasteful, but then I'm something of a prude when it comes to language – and I didn't find anything in your last message even mildly offensive. You're free to think I'm losing my way. I think the opposite is true: I have a much clearer picture of what's going on here now than I did several months ago.

A couple of points in your message, however, did strike me as somewhat naively misguided. If it's a problem for me to share with you what they are, you have only to say so and I'll delete them, or you can even do so yourself.

1. "I'm not defending a side here."

This has been a persistent position of yours for as long as I can remember. If one Googles site:wikipedia.org "sean.hoyland" "i don't care", 129 results appear as of this morning. Not all the instances that come up are of you, of course, but just the same, it's become a hackneyed mantra of yours and one that I personally am roll-eyes tired of hearing already. While it's true you may genuinely believe you are not defending a side, ultimately it is actions and not rhetoric that determine whether that's in fact true or not. And when it comes to actions...that's where there are problems. I don't fault you for taking sides, by the way. When it comes to human interactions, it's in our nature to feel closer to some than to others. I just wish the people who do take sides wouldn't deny it when it's plain for everyone else to see.

This incident is the third example I can think of where your decision to side with a particular editor has seriously undermined your claim to neutrality. The first was at Talk:Golan Heights back in May. By the time you involved yourself in that now-archived discussion, the tide was turning against Nableezy (talk · contribs) and another editor who's now banned from the topic area. I think this is a fair, objective assessment of the situation. Three exceedingly reliable sources had been cited as proof that the map User:Nableezy was trying to merge with the infobox could not be considered NPOV. Your first message in the discussion seemed therefore like a timely crutch extended to a limping marcher just so he could trudge along for a few miles more before finally collapsing. You did propose a truly NPOV alternative shortly thereafter (by which time Nableezy had managed to get himself banned), but that first comment has always stuck with me as peculiar, and I guess it was the first crack in your halo of impartiality.

The second incident was at your Talk page last month. The two times you chose to intervene in my dialog with Nableezy were on the latter's behalf, and both seemingly just when my interlocutor was effectively down for the count. I guess I can understand why you'd want to take his side that time, since that whole business did start out as a disagreement between you and me over what constitutes a personal attack. But it felt to me like you and Nableezy had signed a mutual defense pact, with each coming to the other's aid just at the moment when the other's vulnerabilities had been exposed and a decisive crush was imminent.

That makes this the third incident. I don't know the corresponding expression in English, but here we call people who shirk their duties and try to disappear into the crowd when they're called on for help "small heads." They don't do anything wrong in the formal sense; it's really that they don't do anything when everyone else around them is contributing that earns them that disparaging appellation. That is the case here. No guideline or policy was violated, I give you that. But is that really the point? Again, if this were an IP account or a new user, we'd simply revert them, and maybe leave them a message on their Talk page that their editing could be considered biased and nonconstructive and that they should try to find sources for content that isn't sourced in order to improve and expand articles and not whittle them down to bare stubs. But Nableezy's been a Wikipedia editor since 2008. He shouldn't need to be told that.

And the thing is, I doubt if Nableezy's case is at all improved by having you stick up for him. He does a pretty decent job defending himself. You, on the other hand, are made to look like the parent of a neighborhood bully (only speaking figuratively) standing in front of your son and taking the heat for him when all the other parents on the block're outside your house complaining about all the property your son's damaged.

2. "They are all what people call 'pro-Israel'"

Like many of the other observations here, that is of course a subjective analysis. And what does it mean to be pro-Israel? If someone supports Israel's right to exist, doesn't that make them "pro-Israel"? You've chosen to associate a group of editors among whom you've identified a pattern of problematic editing with a label that I accept as applying to me, so I'd like some clarification in that regard. And this has come up before. I doubt if any of the "pro-Israel" editors are actually anti-Palestinian. So what practical function does labeling anyone pro-Israel serve? If one were to want to make a case that an editor is anti- this or anti- the other, that would be more meaningful. And here's the kicker: I find that the majority of the disruptive editing in the I/P topic area comes not from the "pro-Israel" editors but from the anti-Israel ones – from editors whose raison d'etre for being on Wikipedia is to flood the Project with POV contributions that make Israel look like an aggressor and remove NPOV contributions that militate against that agenda.

Beyond that, you made plenty of valid points in your argument, which I'm not responding to simply because this reply is long enough as it is.—Biosketch (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The hell, Biosketch?[2] I was going to be miffed that you looked at my edits but if you are doing it while having a drink it doesn't hurt my feelings. Thanks again for your copyedit awhile back. If I could just find a free image I would go for GA on the article. Hope life is treating you well. Cptnono (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

One way or another, everything with you boils down to GA in the end, doesn't it. Actually, since those days when we'd back-and-forthed about it with Gatoclass (talk · contribs), I've become a strong proponent of including Background sections in my own new articles, which I guess you can take credit for. Anyway, what image exactly would be appropriate for that article? I doubt if one of the victim would pass muster. Maybe one of the square and location of the incident. And what's all the fuss about looking through people's edit history, unless they've something to hide? It's never bothered me.—Biosketch (talk) 09:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually think editors should look at each other's edit histories and was only teasing. I think editors who are continuously a problem should be watched. There is a difference between targeting an editor to harass them and checking in on an editor to make sure the project's standards are being met. But I recently got an interaction ban so maybe don't take my advice on volunteering to assist the project :) (if I would have been less of a jerk about it it would have been fine though so that means something). And just so there is no confusion on if the statement is in reference to anyone: It is in reference to several editors who I am not banned from responding to, mentioning, and yada yada yada.

I've done a few GAs. I have reviewed many. It is just a good benchmark to always aim for. I have three images in mind for that particular article but am still undecided. One of them has an ethical issue (the girl getting groped) on top of a FUR being required. I might toy with some other options sooner or later. A simple picture of the square would be useful so that is a good idea.Cptnono (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

RE:DYK for Invasion of Banu Qaynuqa

I have replied there; ALT1 is fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad you concur. There're also a few changes to the article itself I'd like to suggest. I'm about to leave the house now, though, so I'll only be able to get to them tomorrow. My apologies for the delay.—Biosketch (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I will assist with what I can, but I am just the nominator for that article; the author, Misconceptions2, may know a bit more. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Biosketch, is it possible that you could leave a tick at the nomination so people know it is okay? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Should be ok now.—Biosketch (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

An interesting report, but could this be added to an article?

Hi Biosketch, I found an interesting report that provides some statistics on patents, scientific research and other things between Israel and twenty two Arab countries, for example like this: "Israel registered 16,805 patents and 836 Arabs as a whole". The best part of it that this research was written by a Palestinian scientist, and it was published in quite a few Arabic RS. I believe wikipedia readers would be interested to read about this research, but I am a little bit busy in a real life, and have a few other things to do on wikipedia. So maybe you could think, if there's something that could be done with this report? Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ma hamatsav, Mbz1 (talk · contribs)? Thanks for the suggestion. A while back I was actually gonna propose collaborating on an article about Naama Shafir, but there was too much commotion going on around you that I was reluctant to involve myself with. Now the commotion appears to have settled, but in the meantime the list of articles demanding my attention has mutated out of control. Add to that the fact that I've started teaching a summer course for which no one ever prepared a curriculum before, and the reality is that I need to seriously reduce my Wikipedia mileage for a while.

Tell me, though, what's this business about "Green Flash" that has everyone swooning?—Biosketch (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Green flash is an optical phenomena of a setting, or rising sun or moon, or Venus. Once I saw a green flash over Fata Morgana (mirage) of the sun glitter. Jules Verne described seeing green flash as this:

"...it will be ' green,' but a most wonderful green, a green which no artist could ever obtain on his palette, a green which neither the varied tints of vegetation nor the shades of the most limpid sea could ever produce the like ! If there be green in Paradise, it cannot but be of this shade, which most surely is the true green of Hope !

the incomparable tint of liquid jade"

Brits like green flashes. Once I got email from a British newspaper. They asked for permission to publish my image for their story about green flash that was observed by hundreds of people. I did try to explain them that it probably was not a green flash (green flashes are too small to attract an attention of hundreds), but rather a meteor that exploded while entering the atmosphere, but it was no use. They did publish my image with their story. They sent me this newspaper, and it was sooo funny.

BTW have you seen my new article yet?

Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nahal Zin fuel leak

Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Biosketch. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Somepeople

Some people just wont admit that they are not beneficial for the impartiality of Wikipedia. I'm sure you've met some of these people recently. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mike Cahill (director)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Biosketch. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jewish religous terrorism

Please show me where I have used the word terror or terrorist in this wikipedia entry itself. I believe that I have not done so. I have simply added to a section that already exists. If you want to change the existing text then do not direct your remarks to me. If you want to discuss the need for extra references to show that the groups listed are widely regarded as terrorist then you should make that clear on the discussion page before you posit a revert. I am happy to join you in doing so, but you need to do that for all entries not just the ones that I have added. In short I am surprised by your need to point out WP:TERRORIST. to me. In particular you need to show just where I used the phrase terrorist organisation in the entry itself. I am not aware that I did so. If I have not done so then I would appreciate your acceptance of that being added to my talk page. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear you're happy to join me. I have nothing against you personally, but the edits to the article need to comply with WP:TERRORIST because the name of the article is "Jewish religious terrorism." If the article were named "Jewish religious militancy," I wouldn't be insisting on compliance with WP:TERRORIST. But because of the name of the article, the implication is that any individual or organization added to the article is terroristic, and that means WP:TERRORIST applies. If you don't think the organizations you added to the article meet the criteria for terrorist organizations, then remove them from the article. If you do think they meed the criteria, then establish it per WP:TERRORIST, especially with WP:INTEXT as required.—Biosketch (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ding-dong

YES! But I can't remember (my WP side of my brain is filled with all the many trolls and otherwise impossible to work with editors I have encountered over the years) can you remind me who this is? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This is what first came to mind. The thematic overlap is striking.—Biosketch (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Elinor Joseph

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks

Hello! "2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks" is merely our description of the event, not a formal or generally accepted name. In such cases, the MoS calls for us to word the lead in normal English, not to force the inclusion of the article's title (which carries no special significance).

Quoth MOS:BOLDTITLE: "If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface."

In this instance, as in most, forcing the article's title into the lead results in awkward redundancy:

The 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks were a series of attacks carried out by Palestinian militants on August 18, 2011 in southern Israel near the Egyptian border.

In a single sentence, we're stating that the "2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks" were attacks carried out in 2011 at an Israeli border.

The entirety of WP:SBE addresses this issue. In particular, see the "January 31, 2007 Boston bomb scare" example, for which it's explained that the practice "gives undue weight to the chosen title, implying that it is an official term, commonly-accepted name, or the only acceptable title, when it is actually just a description and the event or topic is given many different names in common usage."

Thank you! —David Levy 06:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

My inclination after reading your comment is to self-revert, since you appear to feel more strongly about this than I do. But regarding MOS:BOLDTITLE, it's talking about the main text and not about the lead. What the guideline is saying is that the title shouldn't be bolded after the lead. Do you interpret it differently?—Biosketch (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do.  :)

MOS:BOLDTITLE is part of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) page, which pertains specifically to the lead section. The lead section is part of the main text, not a separate entity. The quoted statement (under the heading "Format of the first sentence") is worded that way to avoid implying that a title absent from the lead should be included elsewhere in the main text to compensate or that it shouldn't be included in an infobox (not part of the main text) embedded within the lead section. —David Levy 07:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've partial-self-rved, even though I disagree in principle. The lead should draw the reader's attention to what the article's focus is. In this case the name agreed upon as the title for the article is a decent summary of its contents, wherefore highlighting it in the lead draws the reader in immediately.—Biosketch (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but the Manual of Style entry is based upon consensus to the contrary.

I appreciate the partial self-reversion, but for the reasons explained above, the wording itself is more problematic than the bolding. (The sentence really is quite awkwardly and redundantly structured, and it still implies that 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks "is an official term, commonly-accepted name, or the only acceptable title.")

Please see the note directly above the lead, which is standard text used in numerous articles with this title format. —David Levy 07:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Double account ?

Did you ever consider editing Wikipedia once by your account, and another as you IP? Any way, i thought you might need this;

1RR on all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES

All articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict are currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010. The current restrictions are:

• All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
  • Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty
  • Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
• After being warned, any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process may be blocked up to one year, topic-banned, further revert-restricted, or otherwise restricted from editing.
• Reports of editors violating any of these restrictions should be made to either the Arbitration enforcement or Edit warring noticeboards.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  20:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for your help in getting Royal Commission on Opium to DYK status. Yunshui (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Thanks for the interesting article.—Biosketch (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nom for Operation Eagle

Hi Biosketch, I have reviewed your nomination for Operation Eagle at Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Eagle and I have an issue with the references. Could you see my comments at the discussion page and comment there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Eagle

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your lovely comment. There's difference between emotions and irritation, same as the difference between Hebrews and Jews that you're mixing up.  Looks like a duck to me. Happy editing, and keep your advice :p ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Keep playing with your rubber ducky.—Biosketch (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Your kind comments

Cute, but this is a request that has nothing to do with my edits. If you feel my edits violate any policy, I absolutely encourage you to file a report about me. Until then, you might want to take it easy on your displays of battleground behavior. You don't win yourself points for digging up stale non-violation edits of mine in defense of an editor who is telling people to "fuck off" and who gets a kick of "yelling at Arabs". -asad (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

question

Out of curiosity, would you be willing to say what led you to this article? nableezy - 16:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Your name's not in that article's Revision history going back as far as 2009. What business do you have asking me about my edits at Narus?—Biosketch (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I didnt say my name was in that article's edit history. If you dont want to answer thats fine. I have an idea, but if you dont want to confirm it or correct me that is up to you. nableezy - 13:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, in a reply to Cptnono, you wrote: "One way or another, everything with you boils down to GA in the end, doesn't it. Actually, since those days when we'd back-and-forthed about it with Gatoclass (talk · contribs), I've become a strong proponent of including Background sections in my own new articles, which I guess you can take credit for." I'd be interested to read the discussion with Gatoclass, but I've failed to turn it up using simple Google searches. Could you maybe, if it happened on Wikipedia, point me in the right direction?     ←   ZScarpia   16:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's in the archives of Itamar attack.—Biosketch (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.     ←   ZScarpia   13:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Formula

Formula and Goldstein are one of the pillars of the Israeli IT sector. Thanks. --Shuki (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. There's still a lot more material out there waiting to be worked into the articles, but I'm shooting more for quantity than for quality at this stage, i.e. breadth rather than depth. Once the number of redlinks at Template:Israel NASDAQ has been reduced to a tolerable level, I'll start beefing up the more important articles on the list.—Biosketch (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nova Measuring Instruments

Hi. There was no need to notify me, but thank you. I deleted a previous article about the company that was copied and pasted from another website. Your article obviously is well-sourced, and not copied and pasted. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Egyptian Exchange.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Egyptian Exchange.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Silicom

Per your request on my talk page, I have moved the deleted article to User:Biosketch/Silicom for you to work on at your leisure. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Edit summaries such as this are personal attacks. They are also patently false, as evidenced by the very fact that you did not simply revert me but rather corrected the issue that the tag was placed to bring attention to. If you continue making such attacks I may request administrative assistance. Bye. nableezy - 16:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And when you compare the laughable accusation of "tag-bombing" for adding a single valid tag to an article with edits of your own (like oh this one or this one) you will find that not only was it a false accusation and a personal attack, but that it was also incredibly hypocritical. nableezy - 16:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A while ago, User:Nableezy, I made a conscious decision to endeavor as much as possible to avoid having any involvement with you, be it editing articles, interacting with you in Discussion pages, or leaving messages at your Talk page. I think I've communicated this to you before, or if I haven't then you probably know it anyway: I object to you. I object to what you represent; I object to the manner in which you conduct yourself in discussions with other editors; I object to the manner in which you edit this encyclopedia. You edit a decidedly narrow range of articles in a manner strongly suggesting advocacy for a political cause. Clearly you're able to fool some editors into perceiving you as a constructive contributor to this project, and there are of course those editors who openly sympathize with the cause I believe you to be here to promote, but I'm not buying. Like I said, though, if the two of us can't coexist without getting on each other's cases, then I'm fine being the nobler party and looking the other way when I see you making contributions I consider to by motivated by a political agenda. Under ordinary circumstances I'd be able to seek input from the Administrative community, but as you know my circumstances aren't ordinary when it comes to AE. What I'm left with, then, is a voluntary IBAN, and that's the approach I've adopted in your regard.

Now, for the most part this's been a rewarding approach. Instead of getting bogged down in cynical arguments with you, which invariably lead nowhere, I've been channeling what time and energy I have to devote to this project to creating articles, contributing to discussions where you're not involved, and so forth. Unfortunately, however, this strategy's only been partially successful. Less than a month ago, as I was editing a set of articles relating to Israeli companies and companies associated with Israel, you suddenly appeared here demanding to know why I edited Narus, in spite of the fact that you hadn't edited the article in two years and I don't know if you've ever even edited the article at all. A few weeks go by and you show up in a dialog of mine with User:RolandR, again after not having been involved in any goings-on at that page for an extended period of time. So it seems that try as I might to avoid running into you, you'll still find ways to run into me.

But that's ok. I don't think it's the behavior of a healthy individual, but it's not that unusual here and I can live with it. What I can't brook, though, is edits like this and this. These are cases where cleaning up after you is an obligation. The first of those two edits corrupted a boilerplate formula that not only has the backing of AE but specifically calls on you to abide by it or else obtain consensus for a modified version. The version you proposed in your edit disregarded consensus and violated an AE ruling that directly addressed you.

The second edit is a somewhat more complicated case. As anyone who's familiar with your edit history knows, with the exception of an occasional Egypt-related article, your edits are confined strictly to the I/P or A/I topic areas. It's therefore exceedingly puzzling to find you all of a sudden editing an article on a women's Israeli basketball league. We find the answer to that puzzle here, at User:Huldra's Talk page, where you confess the true impulse underlying your enlistment in Huldra's tag bombing campaign of Israel-related articles: "These people, who are known to do such things as call the villages of the natives that had been destroyed by European colonists hovels with no connection to any contributions to greater society or call the natives themselves illegal squatters or displaced Jordanians, still have not internalized the simple point that all material that is challeneged requires an in-line citation and that references are not the same thing as external links." Now we understand that because of your warped perception of Zionism as a European colonialist enterprise, of Jews as foreign colonizers in their ancestral patrimony, and of the descendants – in blood or in culture – of post-seventh-century Muslim-Arab invaders as historic Israel's indigenous inhabitants, you're justified in joining another user's tag bombing campaign at an article in whose quality you haven't the slightest interest and maybe just enjoy tagging to feel you've made your anti-Zionist edit for the day. Your participation in the said campaign makes you complicit, and it makes your edit disruptive. If I continue to identify an anti-Zionist agenda underlying your edits in a manner that makes them disruptive to this encyclopedia's reputation, I will go with the evidence to the appropriate Noticeboard. Meanwhile, though, considering that you and I appear to have in common a tendency to file Enforcement Requests that Admins are reluctant to act upon, and also considering that Arbitration Enforcement is supposed to be the last stage in the dispute resolution process, I'm perfectly willing, having been frank throughout this reply, to extend to you the courtesy of benefit of the doubt, in the hope that the issues I've brought to your attention won't recur henceforth.—Biosketch (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I cant say I care about what you object to, though I do have to admit that I find it hilarious that you think this is something that I am interested in. I dont object to you, not because I like you but rather because I dont think about you. You arent important enough to consider when I make any decision, be it get involved in something or stay out of it. But how very noble of you to determine that you are in fact the nobler party (I suppose nobility is measured on the same scale as hypocrisy, that would at least make sense).

I asked why you edited Narus for a reason. You declined to answer so I am left with my initial thoughts as to why you went to edit that article (that being you saw me discussing it). It didnt matter to me, but it has apparently gotten you all worked up. As for your problem with my participating at Talk:Anti-Zionism: I am not under any obligation to withdraw from discussions just because you take part in them. I watch that article and I saw an often troublesome user attempting to make claims about a source that was not supported by Wikipedia policy. (Going to my Biosketch voice, just for fun) I identified this as an agenda-driven attempt to remove, again, material on Jewish anti-Zionism, and I determined that I had an obligation to clean up after said troublesome editor to ensure that he was not able to continue with their disruptive actions. You claim that I am trying to run into you, but both diffs you brought of edits you cant tolerate occured in articles you had never edited. It is a self-evidently false statement, I would hazard a guess that it is intentionally false, that you try to avoid me as you actively are getting involved in articles in which you had no involvement with prior to my editing it. Contrast that with the claim of me trying to run into you by editing talk pages that I have edited from before you registered this account and you will find yet another example of dishonest hypocritical agenda-driven behavior by your good self.

You apparently did not understand my comment at Huldra's talkpage, and the idea that my tagging an unreferenced article on a basketball league is evidence of my "anti-Zionist agenda" is so off the wall that I struggle to adequetely describe the claim. Think whatever you liked about my so-called warped perception of Zionism, what you think does not matter. What does matter is your repeated use of edit-summaries to make hypocritical and dishonest attacks on others. I have already raised the issue of your dishonest edit-summaries. You can ignore this second warning if you like, but the third time wont be the charm. Any more garbage from you and it is straight to AE for me. You may not have noticed, but I dont have your poor record there. Try me if you insist, but Im done trying to get you to cease with your attacks on my own. If I need to ask for administrative assistance to do so, as I apparently cannot get you to agree to cease making such baseless and hypocritical attacks on my own, Ill do that. Bye. nableezy - 15:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You haven't asked for Administrative assistance, but one Admin has already volunteered to assist, and their input unequivocally acquits me of anything remotely approaching a personal attack against you. This isn't the first time you've overreacted and vacuously accused me of personally attacking you, wherefore I construe your repeated vacuous threats to bring enforcement against me as an ill-conceived attempt to intimidate me from doing the kind of cleanup after you that I described in my reply to you above. It's beyond me what benefit you've convinced yourself these messages on my Talk page will have to anyone, other than perhaps wasting more of my time, which some demented minds might find amusing. I'm well aware of your record at AE, particularly your tendency to file Requests that go to Archives because no Admin has any idea what to do with them. (Two examples that come to mind are this and this, though presumably there are plenty more.) I wonder if it in any way resembles your tendency to say "Bye" to people at the conclusion of every message, only to resume the discussion a short while after.—Biosketch (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really, and saying Amatulic's comments unequivocally acquits [you] of anything remotely approaching a personal attack against [me] makes me question if you understood anything written, here or on my talk page. What he wrote was that such edit summaries are not always personal attacks, and may not be meant that way and he asked that I give you the benefit of the doubt. However, as I explained to that admin, there is a pattern of behavior with you, a pattern that I can, and will, document the next time you make such a hypocritical and dishonest attack. My tendency to say "bye" can be explained by others, I have already done it once. Bye. nableezy - 16:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The key passage in the message User:Amatulic left on your Talk page is, "characterizing someone's edits as 'vandalism' or 'tag bombing' isn't quite the same as outright calling someone a vandal or a tag bomber." This distinction between critiquing the nature of an editor's edit and an editor's person has been explained to you before. Yet while you yourself routinely attribute all manners of pejorative characterizations to editors, e.g. "petty game of pretending" or "aggressive posturing," you somehow think that when other editors do so to you, then it's a personal attack. For future reference, then, critiquing a contributor's edit isn't equivalent to attacking a contributor. Just try to remember that for next time and we can avoid these vain confrontations.—Biosketch (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If you keep reading, and by the way thanks for confirming that you know how to read, you will see that the issue was not the use of "tag bombing". If you would like to avoid "vain confrontations" there is a very easy solution. Do not make attacks against me. There are users that can say whatever they like about me and I wont say boo (NMMNG comes to mind), but the ones that have in the past requested severe sanctions for others' incivility do not have receive that same benefit from me. But, one last question, why would pay any attention to what Amatulic wrote? Isnt he one of the people I have fool[ed] into perceiving [me] as a constructive contributor to this project? nableezy - 16:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Thanks for confirming that you know how to read"? I mean, if you're incapable of communicating with other editors like a mature civilized person, how does it make any sense for you to demand that other editors not critique your behavior? You've confirmed exactly what is it about your conduct that's objectionable and counterproductive to collaborative editing in a professional spirit. I may have something of an aristocratic pride that instinctively holds me back from responding to you on so uncouth a level as appears to be second nature in your interactions, but I don't see how you asking me not to call an edit of yours disruptive at the same time that you tell me "Thanks for confirming that you know how to read" is in any way consistent.—Biosketch (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

incapable of communicating with other editors like a mature civilized person?!?!?! I treat others how they treat me. If you would like to have a civil discussion with me it may be wise not to begin by saying I object to you. I object to what you represent and then to take a comment made completely out of context (the absurd use of the quotation on Huldra's page used as "proof" of my adding that tag because of an anti-Zionist agenda) and distort it to the point that the original meaning is unrecognizable in your use of it. I told you before that I can be an exceedingly pleasant person, even with those that dislike my views. I can also be quite the asshole. There have been a host of users who are undeniably "pro-Israel" that I have gotten along with very well. They arent the ones that seek out the types of confrontations that you seem intent on causing. The odd thing is, I dont actually have that bad of an opinion of you, and I think that if you were able to restrain yourself from some of the more bone-headed actions you repeatedly make we could actually work well together. It is completely up to you. Do you want to have a mature, civilized discussion? That would be lovely. You can start by rethinking your initial reply to my request that you not label the insertion of a perfect valid tag an act of disruption. You may be surprised what happens after that. I am more than willing to forget any past issues we may have had. Iff you are able to refrain from continuing to try doing whatever it is you think you are doing by making such jabs. Can you do that? nableezy - 17:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

OK now. Leave me out of this. I acquitted nobody. All I said, basically, was that Biosketch's choice of words in an edit summary was poor judgment, and Nableezy's interpretation of that as a personal attack seemed unwarranted. Yet here you two are, still arguing about it.

On the internet, whoever gets the last word in an argument loses. This seems really hard for most folks to comprehend, but if you think about it hard enough, you'll eventually understand (hint: the one getting the last word is talking to no one by that point). And I don't mind being the loser here, if you both decide to drop the discussion. You've each had your say. Neither of you will convince the other. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sands of Samar

Thanks from me and the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a discussion on ANI

About the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network closure. Probably the simplest thing to avoid more drama for drama's sake is for you to take this to WP:DRV. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was relisted by Sandstein. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for following up on that and for letting me know.—Biosketch (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

British jew

Hi please don't join in reverting - move to discussion - his father is an Irish catholic and he is a self declared atheist. - clearly there are notable full jews that are practicing the faith that would be much better in the infobox Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop reverting and move to discussion - you have never edited the article before today. - and you have never edited the talkpage - please move to discussion - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not clear at all. Your presumption that a Jew who believes in God and whose father is also Jewish is somehow "better" than an atheist Jew who only has a Jewish mother is primitive and absurd.—Biosketch (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

He is as much an Irish catholic as a jew - and he practices neither faith - if the infobox is for half and quarter jews who do not practice Judaism at all then we need to make that clear in the lede - and that needs discussion on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You've reverted the article four times, so I advise you to self-revert. Furthermore, religious practice isn't a prerequisite to membership in the Jewish nation, despite your antiquated views to the contrary. Nor does having only a Jewish mother make a person any less Jewish than a child born to parents who're both Jewish.—Biosketch (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If the article is about your position that needs to be clear in the lede and its not - the people here might have more non jewish grandparents than Jewish ones, and there is no assertion the the people in the infobox are followers of Judaism - all disclaimers for consideration on the talkpage. As in - note - more than half this persons relatives are not Jewish at all. - or - this person is more Irish than jewish. - Discussion is the way things work round here and you have not contributed to any of it. The infobox should include as much as possible notable jews. - the talkpage is the location for that. Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my position. We know his mother's Jewish and we have a reliable source where he identifies himself as a Jew. It's your position that's bizarre here.—Biosketch (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Photos

I have never used Flickr. I take my own photos or use photos from the commons. Next time I visit (at the moment I don't know when that will be) I will have a look.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

map question

Would you object to this as a standard pushpin map for Golan articles? nableezy - 03:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is no, I wouldn't object. The long answer is that while I can live with the map's flaws, if someone else were to raise objections, there are circumstances under which I may support them. It may therefore be beneficial to solicit a third opinion from an editor like User:AgadaUrbanit or User:Jiujitsuguy, to be safe.—Biosketch (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

How would you feel about File:Golan location map 2.PNG but with a modification so that the portion still occupied by Israel is striped with both colors? Sort of like this. nableezy - 00:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

My feeling would be that it's a misleading representation of the situation vis-a-vis the Golan, primarily because Israel is assigned the same color as Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan, who aren't claiming the Golan as their territory. The Morocco analogy doesn't quite work, as Morocco isn't engaged in a dispute with another state over sovereignty in the manner that Syria is with Israel. And lastly, the right side of the image doesn't correspond to what's on the left. On the other hand, File:Golan location map 2.PNG is of a higher resolution than File:Golan Heights Map.PNG, which is to its credit.—Biosketch (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thats why I would want to use that one. So what if Israel were some other color and the striping were between Israel's color and Syria's? But does Israel actually claim the Golan as being Israeli sovereign territory? I have looked, and while Israel does argue, at least internationally, that the West Bank is not occupied, I can't find them actually disputing that the Golan is occupied Syrian territory. Are you aware of sources, preferably not news reports, that give an Israeli argument for the status of the Golan? nableezy - 12:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of primary sources, but they don't in themselves help much because the political establishment and the military have tended to treat the territories differently; and there's the Supreme Court, where figures like Barak and Cheshin had their own strictly legal perspectives. What is the state's official position? That's something we'd need non-polemical secondary sources for, or in their absence editors would have to come to a consensus on the conclusions that can be drawn from the primary sources. My impression from the little I've dealt with these things is that the status of the territories as defined by Israel is something that's never been officially formulated on an intrastate level and different bodies consequently interpret what the situation is differently. Now, the above is particularly true of the West Bank, because Israel didn't originally plan on retaining the territory; but when it comes to the Golan, there there was a deliberate move, years after the territory had been acquired, to extend Israeli law over it. If I exceed the speed limit in the Golan, it's understood that an Israeli police man has the authority to issue me a ticket. But in the West Bank, while the body writing speeding tickets is also the police, it's not at all clear that they're authorized according to Israeli law to penalize me since, as I understand it, it's only the military that can exercise authority there. There was, I believe, once a case where the Supreme Court or some court revoked a traffic violation like having too many workers in a van or something because the driver argued that he was on the other side of the Green Line when he got pulled over. The courts wouldn't be able to make a ruling like that in the Golan, because it's understood from their perspective that the law there is the same as it is in Tel Aviv. This comment isn't going anywhere. I'll try to collect sources.—Biosketch (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand the difference between the civilian regime in the Golan and the military on in the West Bank, but I dont think that can be taken as a claim to title over the Golan. Israel brought the Golan under its civil law (that itself being a violation of GCIV Article 64, but thats another matter), but did not, as far as I can tell, claim that the territory was no longer Syrian or that it was no longer occupied territory. The usual Israeli argument for the West Bank not being "occupied territory" does not apply to the Golan, as it isnt disputed that Syria was a state party to the Geneva Conventions and had legal control over the Golan prior to 67, and try as I might I cannot find any argument over the Golan. Thank you for looking for sources, Ill do the same. nableezy - 13:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have access to HeinOnline there are the Sheleff, Leon and Maoz, Asher sources listed in the "Bibliography" section at Golan Heights, which don't appear to have been referenced anywhere in the article itself. Instead of neutral sources much of the section is politically-oriented opinion. I've only read the Sheleff source so far, as it's short. It's worth mentioning his position in the article and perhaps contrasting it with Maoz's analysis. Sheleff writes that the language of the Golan Heights Law isn't specific enough to determine what Israel's intent was in passing it. And the fact that Israel didn't try to pass it as a Basic Law is for him further evidence that the Golan wasn't formally annexed. He concedes that in a political sense the move amounted to annexation and that a ruling of Aharon Barak "has been interpreted as a judicial recognition of the act of annexation" (though he disagrees with the interpretation itself). In other ways, however, it doesn't meet the criteria for annexation, particularly in that Israel didn't bestow Israeli citizenship on the Golan's Druze citizens with the passing of the law. When I'm done with Maoz's article I'll update this some more.—Biosketch (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I do have access and I will take a look at those. I dont think there is any dispute that the Golan Law amounted to annexation, but that isnt the question Im looking for an answer to. I wonder if Israel actually disputes that the Golan is under belligerent occupation and if so with what basis. As far as citizenship, I was under the impression that citizenship had been offered to the remaining Druze inhabitants, but that it had been largely refused. But thanks for looking. nableezy - 17:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for reviewing my submission to DYK.

Best – Draco^E 17:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thank you for your interesting BLP contribution and for reviewing-improving my DYK submission.—Biosketch (talk)

The pleasure is mutual. I enjoy reading articles by editors who write well. It’s a rare treat on WP ;) And Dr. Shmuel Fledel sounds like a fascinating character. He certainly looks like the quintessential pilot. Did you ever dream of becoming a pilot? I was lucky enough, both as a child and as a young professional, to be allowed into the cockpit on various flights and watch the sun rise and set above the clouds that caress our planet. There’s nothing, nothing like it, and I will miss it for the rest of my days. Having said that, I’m glad you enjoyed my rewrite of the stub on Jesmyn Ward. Did you watch her read the first chapter of Where the Line Bleeds? [3] This gifted young lady has music and truth in her pen and in her voice. Speaking of music, you’d probably be just the right person to give some TLC to the mess that is the article on Minimal Compact. Next one is real! Best – Draco^E 02:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Minimal Compact is certainly a long article for just one source, but considering its noncontroversial nature it's not that unusual and can conceivably go on existing like that for a long time yet per WP:PRESERVE. And the writing itself is actually pretty decent. I don't imagine I'll get around to it anytime soon; as it is, there are already too many promises, to myself and to other editors, that I've fallen behind schedule on. I admit it was the photo of Jesmyn Ward that attracted me to your DYK nom more than anything else, but since working on the article I've been contemplating a translation of it into Hebrew for Wikipedia's Israeli audience.

As for piloting an aircraft, in the context where that question's been relevant in my life the idea of relying on a machine for mobility never really appealed to me unless it's to parachute out of. Although I can appreciate the excitement involved in something like breaking the sound barrier, I've always felt more comfortable on terra firma and find the experience of running, crouching and rolling on the ground thrilling in the extreme.—Biosketch (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Re MC, I was thinking more along the lines of adding more sources and expanding the article (look at this beauty: [4]). I was too much of a fan back in the day to go anywhere near it ;) A Hebrew version of the article on JW would be great. Maybe you’ll manage to get her picture on the main page. I’m considering writing an article on Salvage the Bones while the sources are still fresh in my memory, but work has a habit of getting in the way of all things WP whenever I'm on a roll. Cheers – Draco^E 23:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Rechelim

My Hebrew skills are too primitive to argue, but I'll note that the paper I cited (by two academics at Hebrew University) says "Rachelim is Hebrew for Rachels. Interestingly, Rachelim is the masculine form of the plural. Rachelot is the feminine form." I suspect there was some gender-ideology involved in choosing the name, as the paper also says that the women who founded the settlement wrote a manifesto that was noted for using the feminine plural throughout, "a powerful statement in Hebrew, which is a gender-sensitive language and in which the generic plural is masculine". Zero^talk 08:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Manual of Style Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style makes articles harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

In regards to your Infobox edit at Golan Heights. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. You've mistakenly identified a good-faithed edit by an editor in good standing as vandalism, presumably because you're a new and inexperienced user. I can't revert you on account of the discretionary sanctions the article is under, but I'll leave a notification on your Talk page to direct you to the rules governing the Arab/Israel topic area.—Biosketch (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

1RR Violation in Golan Heights

In regards to your revert at Golan Heights without posting on the talk page. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

AE report

You may want to reconsider the AE report. I dont think it is fair to call either diff 2 or 3 a "revert". The edits you claim he is reverting took place 6 and 10 months ago. Removing material can only be fairly called a revert if the user is aware of the edit that placed it in the article. nableezy - 00:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't waste your time explaining that. He/she knows already and just threw those in there to hound me. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

2 and 3 are reverts of content added/restored to the article after its initial creation and by different editors. That they're six and ten months old is potentially a mitigating factor for the Admins considering the Enforcement request, seeing as User:YehudaTelAviv64 only registered his account a month or so ago, but in every other sense they still qualify as reverts. You and I wouldn't unilaterally remove content from an article in the way that YehudaTelAviv64 has, and the same standard we apply to ourselves and expect others to apply to us should apply to all editors in the topic area.—Biosketch (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring in Golan Heights

Your revert without explaining on the talk page constitutes edit warring: "In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours and MUST explain the revert on the talk page. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks." YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

AE Complaint

I have closed this report with an admonition to the other party about the exhibited behavior. However, myself and another admin felt your inclusion of months old otherwise innocuous diffs borders on being bad faith at the worst and "stacking the deck" at least. Please confine diffs to recent behavior when making reports. While previous sanctions or admin actions can be mentioned we usually are usually familiar with those as well, be careful using them.

Thanks. --WGFinley (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for TAT Technologies

Another great contribution to Wikipedia - thanks Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Warning users

Hey there. I declined your request to semi-protect List of companies of Israel as there really isn't enough activity to justify it. I've warned the anon concerned about adding incorrect information to articles. If you're reverting vandalism (and this sort of behaviour counts as vandalism), you can use the templates here to do that. Specifically, in this case, {{subst:uw-error1}} and its escalations apply. If an editor continues to vandalise after a level 4 warning, you can report them at WP:AIV where an admin will consider blocking them.

Though do remember that we WP:Don't template the regulars.

You can also use a gadget like Twinkle to make reverting, warning and reporting to admins much easier.

Hope this helps and enjoy editing Wikipedia! --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For the collaboration evident at Golan Heights. un☯mi 10:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Bogucki and Order of Polonia Restituta

Hi, me neither. The fact is that there is the source of him being awarded it but no motives stated. Another fact is that he didn't receive it out of nothing. It's 99 per cent of probability that he got the award for his actions during World War II. Almost all of Polish Reigteous Among the Nations were also awarded the Polonia Restituta. Maybe we'll have cut that sentence short to "He was awarded the Order of Polonia Restituta", and that's it. Nienk (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was that I couldn't find a source for the part that says, "Bogucki was awarded the Order of Polonia Restituta." It could be that it's there in the article in one of the Polish sources – but as I don't know any Polish, I can't tell. If you could just direct me to the source where it says Bogucki was awarded the Order of Polinia Restituta, I think we'll be all set.—Biosketch (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood. The Polish source for that is the second of the external links. Nienk (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, found it. Google Translate gives, "He was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Order of the Rebirth of Polish, Prime Minister's Award for his rewiową." So that's fine. I'll convert the external link into an inline citation.—Biosketch (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, when would it appear on the main page? Nienk (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's hard to say – anywhere between a couple of days and a couple of weeks, usually, once the review process is complete, which hopefully will be tomorrow.—Biosketch (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, for source 7 I found this http://www.soho.pl/index2.html?strona=artysta&podstrona=mp3&a=717&m=8278&akcja=szczegoly, while as for the information on his wife, we either trust the investigation carried out by the author of the page, or remove it, not found anywhere else, neither in Polish nor English.

While I found this for the Theatre of imagination http://www.jadro.netii.net/Nauka_Andrzej_Boguckimost.jsp. You tell me anything else. Nienk (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Islamic terrorism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Compugen (Israeli company)

EncycloPetey (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 08:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Globes vs. TheMarker

Hi Biosketch! I believe Calcalist is the biggest financial news website in Israel, but between the sites that participated in the survey, both TheMarker and Globes are correct—they're just using selective statistics. TheMarker had the most visit on a monthly basis, while Globes leads on a daily basis. How this is possible is unclear, but it is implied that the monthly figure counted unique hits, while the daily figure counted overall hits (this explains how a site with an average of 100,000+ daily hits, can have only ~550,000 monthly hits). I think we should present the factual statistics without commenting on them, but finding a tech website that presents the same stats would also be helpful, as it would probably explain more about the technical aspects of the survey. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Any idea how one might spell גמיוז in English? It used to be that any time I'd visit Globes or TheMarker, a window'd pop up and the גמיוז logo would be there in English – but ironically now that I want that window, it's not appearing for me. I've also tried searching for פיליפ פייזניסקי in English, as he's mentioned as a senior exec in the company, but haven't had any luck there either.—Biosketch (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, just tried adding "Poland" to my searches and found it.—Biosketch (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And here's a Calcalist article acknowledging that they didn't participate in the survey but at the same time claiming they were found to have more visitors to their site than Globes and TheMarker combined. Strange.—Biosketch (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in this:

http://www.calcalist.co.il/marketing/articles/0,7340,L-3559018,00.html

—Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting, but it's no longer clear how any of the Globes-TheMarker-Calcalist articles can be meaningfully updated given that each of them has an RS establishing that it's the #1 financial website in Israel. They each use a different parameter as the metric for their popularity, but at the same time the parameters are basically all equally valid per our policies. So I'm just not gonna add anything to any of the articles, to avoid misleading readers into drawing the wrong conclusions.—Biosketch (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar

Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar has been nominated for merging with Template:Criticism of religion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Talkback

Hello, Biosketch. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Year's wishes

	For the thoughtful concern
	Wishing you and yours a happy, prosperous and enriching New Year with gratitude for the thoughtful comments about unnecessary turbulence, that helped put things into better perspective. Much admiration. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Have a happy, peaceful and prosperous 2012.—Biosketch (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem Conventions

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) 19:02, 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)

Gilat Satellite Networks

Hello, I read your article about Gilat and my impression was that there is much more information to include there. For example, you didn't mention all of Gilat's products, such as its Defense modems, Antenna system, BUCS etc. Also you didn't specify which markets Gilat supports - Commercial VSAT technology, Defense & Homeland Security and Managed services in the USA, Peru and Colombia. And why isn't there a logo? I thought maybe you will be interested if I sent you some information and you will update the article. Thanks!

--GilatSatNet (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

For your attention

Hi, I'd like to draw your attention to my comments here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brewcrewer) and, in particular, to my requests at the end. BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't really give you a frank reply without exceeding the bounds of WP:AGF, which beyond being a formal guideline here is also a norm I genuinely identify with. I guess the most I can do is direct you to WP:CLEANSTART and hope that you will carefully and honestly consider what's written there.—Biosketch (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've decided to seek advice here:

Having received some advice on the issue I am simply going to ignore accusations made against me. If you have some evidence, then you can file a report. If not, and you choose not to engage with me because you think I'm a puppet, I won't be too bothered. I had initially worried that it would be impossible to form a working consensus on any issue if the four of you didn't engage but I now find that silence is not an argument so consensus can certainly go forward without your contributions. BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's regrettable that this is the path you've chosen. I'll be filing the report shortly.—Biosketch (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to having the opportunity to respond but you do know that reports require evidence don't you? BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of a way to answer that question without waxing sarcastic, which is a style I prefer to avoid. Meanwhile, you're distracting me so I'll thank you to let me finish my work without interruption.—Biosketch (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bio. BHB emailed me a ton of stuff supposedly proofing his innocence, or at least his non-Unominess. I'm trying to cross-check it and will finish in several hours. Can I ask you to postpone the SPI submission until I'm done? -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ

Biosketch - in order to get this all behind us, if there are any other editors you think I may be a puppet of, please list them and I'll see whether I can find some documents to put your mind at ease. In the last 15 months I've made 50-60 international plane journeys so there should be a good chance that I can mail Che booking confirmations and/or boarding passes if I can identify cross-overs between their editing and my time in the air. On another note, having looked over some of Unomi's edits I do understand your suspicions. His writing style is indeed similar to mine and he also apparently has an interest in philosophy (albeit philosophy of religion, which is not really my thing). This, combined with the fact that plenty of admins seem to share your incredulity that I can really be a newb have led me to conclude that your view of me was not as unreasonable as I first thought. But I'm sure that if we work together on this we'll be able to clear things up. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Bio, FYI. BHB, the best way to clear thing up is to run the SPI, and the best course for you right now is to stay away from this drama, except when a formal SPI is submitted. I'm not in position to investigate or rule anything, that's what checkusers do at WP:SPI. -- ElComandanteChe^ταλκ 19:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 12:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Israeli related articles nominated for deletion

Hi Yan. The user aprock has placed many AfDs on various random Israeli related articles (he mostly states that they need to be deleted because the subject matter is not notable or because there are not enough sources). Please help me save and improve the following articles:

• Reuven Shefer
• Givat Beit HaKerem
• Eyal Kitzis
• Mishmar HaShlosha
• Ze'ev Segal
• Secular coercion
• Religious coercion

TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Biosketch. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please explain

I failed to understand the rationale you mentioned in the editsummary for removing this image. Could you explain it again,please. Debresser (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the image description at Commons doesn't identify the figure in the photo as an "Arab Jew" but rather as an Arabian Jew. Displaying the image at the Arab Jews article is misleading, as readers will infer that the figure in the photo is an "Arab Jew," which no RS has established him to be.

When I get around to it, I'll submit a proposal to merge Arab Jews with Mizrahi Jews. The latter article is inherently NPOV, whereas "Arab Jew" is a designation used by only a small minority of RSes. That makes Arab Jews a POV fork, since it and Mizrahi Jews are discussing overlapping communities, with Arab Jews doing so from basically a fringe POV while Mizrahi Jews is universally accepted and uncontroversial.—Biosketch (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference between an Arab Jew and an Arabic Jew? That is what I don't understand. Debresser (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as an Arabic person? As an adjective, most dictionaries now define "Arabic" in terms of the language, not the people. Strictly speaking, there are Arabic-speaking people and Arab people, but not Arabic people. The question to ask is, What's the difference between an Arabian Jew and an "Arab Jew"? The answer is that an Arabian Jew is a Jew from or of Arabia, while an "Arab Jew" is a Jew who identifies himself or is otherwise reliably identified as belonging to the Arab ethnos. In the case of the Yemenite Jew in that photo, all we have is an indication that he's Arabian – there's no indication that he's association with the Arab ethnos.—Biosketch (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant, is there a difference between an Arab Jew and an Arabian Jew? Debresser (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Masad

The uploaded image is bigger than it's supposed to be, making it pixelated? ;)

Anyway, if you're implying that it's probably not the correct coat of arms, then I have to agree. Please feel free to remove it from the page, but it would be good form to leave a comment on the talk page if you do that. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You have a message...

You have a message in the Gilat Satellite Networks talk section. Thanks! NettaLi (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

list of Israeli companies

Since you've worked on company articles, you might want to comment here --Shuki (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, I'm aware of what's happening there. I'll contribute what insights I can early next week, but for now it's important to realize that at least in the case of Perrigo there are too many RSes that consider the company Israeli to remove it from the list without a more thorough discussion.—Biosketch (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited HaAh HaGadol 4, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ariel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Michigan Israel Business Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Bloomfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Just to thank you for your contribution to the article Kinneret Savitsky Ottawahitech (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man. The contributions you make throughout Wikipedia are likewise much appreciated.—Biosketch (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. When you recently edited Caesarstone Sdot-Yam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baird (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Nescio vos

Regarding this comment, WP:UNDUE is a motif I've discerned in his edits as well, but the more troubling aspect of his contributions in my opinion is their WP:RECENTISM and WP:OFFTOPIC. In any event, if he doesn't reply to you or you're not satisfied with his response, it would perhaps be prudent to consider initiating a WP:RFC/U.—Biosketch (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, please feel free to do that - he's ignoring the note and continuing to edit in this fashion. Also please monitor his edits. I looked at a few of them, but it's a pretty big task to go through them all since he does a different article almost every day.Avaya1 (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Biosketch. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

hey

you probably didn't noticed but the case was closed so it better to revert yourself--Shrike (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Admin who closed it's welcome to revert my edit if he feels it's necessary. I started typing the comment before the close and had no way of knowing it had been closed by the time I was done. If it gets left in there for posterity, it's not a big deal either.—Biosketch (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Advice for a new user

Hey could you provide an advice for a new user user:DionysosElysees--Shrike (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Israeli Barnstar of National Merit
		This might come a little late, but I hereby award you the Israeli Barnstar of National Merit for your extensive contributions to articles related to Israeli companies. Keep up the good work! Ynhockey (Talk) 08:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

		The Business and Economics Barnstar
		I'd like to join in as well by appreciating a contribution to business articles on WP. Shuki (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the acknowledgment. For whatever reason, the State of Israel's profoundly influential role in the spheres of science, technology and commercial innovation is vastly underrepresented on Wikipedia, and I've been endeavoring to channel my resources toward addressing this discrepancy and reducing its unfortunate presence.—Biosketch (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

phillip frost

You just made an addition to the article about Phillip Frost. That's good. You provided citations. That's good. The citations you added are not in the same style as the prior citations. That's bad. The rules of Wikipedia say that you should endeavor to follow the style you find in the article. I will fix your citations. -- GroveGuy (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I see what you mean. It had looked to me yesterday as though the citation style was sloppy and not deliberate, an impression reinforced by the presence of wikilinked section headings throughout the article, which MOS generally advises against. Thanks for pointing out and correcting my oversight, and thanks also for the spelling correction at Protalix.—Biosketch (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I will fix the wikilinking of section headings. -- GroveGuy (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Biosketch. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I am away over the weekend so may not be able to.82.132.248.42 (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is no – in any case, certainly not directly. Mostly see my comment two sections up. The answer to your second question is lukewarm at best but again no. It's not realistic to expect me to address your third point given that I have no idea to whom I'm talking.—Biosketch (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Still, not in the manner that you describe.—Biosketch (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Response

In response to this[5] the matter is being addressed. That's all I can say for now--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledged.—Biosketch (talk)

Yemenite Children Affair (Israel) and Uzi Meshulam

Hi Biosketch. I know you have a lot of knowledge on this two subjects. Please help me improve these important articles as much as you can. Thanks. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a lot of knowledge really – more a degree of personal sympathy for where Meshulam was coming from. It's too complicated and emotional a topic for me to tackle at present, which is why my own draft never managed to get off the ground. You're correct that the articles are important, though; when the right frame of mind settles over me I'll look at them more closely and try to suggest improvements.—Biosketch (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand. In such instances I myself always prefer to write a shorter article which is in a state that justifies keeping it in Wikipedia, even when this task is especially hard for me to complete - and I do that simply because I believe that even the most modest contribution of an individual would sooner or later encourage the masses to read, improve, and to significantly expand those specific articles, especially if they cover articles with subjects important as this one is. Usually the masses help improve and expand articles such as this after a relatively short time - only thanks to the audacity of the first user whom dared to write the article in it's initial state. In any case, all your contributions to these articles are welcome. P.S - are you Yemenite? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a better name to the article Yemenite Children Affair (Israel) by any chance? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's all the same to you I'd prefer to keep personal information of that nature private. Otherwise, though, "Yemenite children affair" sounds like the succinctest and most natural name for the article.—Biosketch (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

See also section

I've reverted your additions of Jewish Heart for Africa to the "See also" section to four articles. In each case, it is far off topic and looks to promote the organization. Please review WP:SEEALSO and WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Biosketch. You have new messages at Al Ameer son's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thanks for all your hard work and contributions to the site ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 10:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks User:Andyzweb.—Biosketch (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Characteristics of the wars of Israel

Hi Biosketch. I decided to contact you because I know you have a lot of knowledge on this subject which might contribute greatly to the discussion I recently opened. Please do express your opinion in the following discussion. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GE Monogram with Tagline.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:GE Monogram with Tagline.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

2010 Israeli helicopter disaster in Romania

Hi Biosketch,

Yet again, I decided to contact you because I know you have a lot of knowledge on this subject - I need your help in improving and expanding this article which is currently in my sandbox. The article was previously deleted twice for various reasons (which in my opinion never really justified its completed deletion) - As far as I remember, in the first time it was deleted because the article was in poor shape and not sourced properly, therefore the claims that it should be deleted due to WP:NOTNEWS became the primary basis for its eventual deletion. The second time around (about half a year ago) it almost survived the AfD but eventually it was decided that the article would be deleted ALTHOUGH the article was considerably expanded and improved while the AfD took place, and therefore in my opinion the eventual majority vote (the result was very close to a no consensus) did not fully reflect the expanded and improved version of the article. Either way, one of the most important comments which were made by the participants of the last AfD, which in my opinion must be taken into account, was that the article was not suitable for an encyclopedia because it was only covered in sources published during or immediately after the event, without further analysis or discussion - I am convinced that at this point in time we would be capable (especially if the editors whom know Hebrew and are knowledgeable about this specific topic would join forces on this one) to provide sufficient resources that cover the event over a long period of time and provide further analysis or discussion.

Please help me fix the main issues raised in last AfD and further expand the article so that there would be justification to keep it in the main namespace in Wikipedia.

Thanks in advance,

TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this still going on?—Biosketch (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Hanajira

Hi there. In your review of Template:Did you know nominations/Hanajira, you stated that a QPQ was missing. Now the QPQ is done, would you please go back and finished the review? Thank you, Mentoz86 (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Hanajira --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Lone Tree Brewery

Please take a look at talk:Lone Tree Brewery and consider my suggestions. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the assessment and the suggestions. I've added Lone Tree to the Beer in Israel article. It would make sense to add a section about kosher beer there and what happens over the Passover holiday and after shemita, and maybe that's something I'll do in the future (using material from here, e.g.), but higher on my list of priorities right now would be to create more articles for some of the other prominent Israeli breweries like Dancing Camel and the one in the Golan. We'll see what happens, though.—Biosketch (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beer in Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AACI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Jerusalem Development Authority, Biosketch!

Wikipedia editor Moonriddengirl just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Looks good. :)

To reply, leave a comment on Moonriddengirl's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Occupied Palestine listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Occupied Palestine. Since you had some involvement with the Occupied Palestine redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem

Hi, I would appreciate it if you'll add your opinion here: Talk:Jerusalem#Better wording#We are running out of bits. --MeUser42 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Racism in Israel section

Hi, I am enquiring about the location of the Neutrality Dispute regarding the "Racism in Sports" section of this page. The tag requests that the tag is not removed until the dispute has been resolved, but does not provide the location of the dispute. I looked on the Talk page and could find nothing; however, I will also comment on this issue there.--Soulparadox (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Brands

Hello, Biosketch. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Query

Did you ever get a response to [6]? I have my own theories... Dixy flyer (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Your input

As former participant of discussion regarding "Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian people" template at Template_talk:Palestinian nationalism#Proposed_merger, you may be interested in participating in discussion over its rename at Template_talk:Palestinian_National_Authority_and_the_Palestinian_people#Requested move.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox oil spill

Hi, Biosketch. I posted a question at Template talk:Infobox oil spill concerning usage of the infobox field |casualties=. As an editor of that infobox's documentation your contribution is appreciated. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem marathon

Nice job on the new article! I am puzzled by one point, though, which may need clarification or correction: why the "main" marathon race? Are there others taking place at the marathon distance? (If there are shorter events involved, then by definition, of course, they are not marathons.) Very best, Hertz1888 (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There are indeed other fun run races of varying lengths that go on the same day. I'm not clear as to the semantics of whether a half-marathon race is a subclass of the full 42k race, i.e. a kind of marathon, or if it shouldn't be considered a marathon at all. Feel free to edit the article as your experience suggests.—Biosketch (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. The usage used to be looser, but now the term marathon generally connotes 42k events. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Your restoration of denigrating personal commentary

You did Brewcrewer no service by your reinstatement of his denigrating personal remarks about me. They are off-topic for article talk, and they violate Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor, as I stated in the edit summary for the edit you reverted to reinstate them. Further, the matter was already under discussion on his talk ( a discussion I also linked to in my edit summary ), and from that discussion you would have known that there's a possibility the dispute could end up at AE. Please revert yourself; I was attempting to resolve this with Brewcrewer, and your reinstatement just ratchets up the potential for unnecessary dramah. --OhioStandard (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)