User talk:Bolter21

Hamula vs family

The المخامرة is a hamula consisting of four families, I think it is wrong to address them just as a family and not by the common term hamula (or Khamula). The hamula allegedly came from s Jewish tribe and was arabized during the arab conquest.

I think the correct spelling should be kh and not k (like with Khartoum (الخرطوم al-Kharṭūm ) and not hartum)37.19.119.42 (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best name is either clan or extended family, as no one have yet to make an article about Hamulas and I don't expect the avarage reader to know what's a hamula. And from what I"ve seen, it's usually written with an 'h'.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a small portion about the subject, but hamula is not extended family nor its a clan it is something in between ( example and another ) 37.19.116.84 (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

There seems to be some leniency for reverts on fast moving articles, but you've gone far past that point. I cannot edit that article for 24hours or I would be blocked and the same was true for you awhile ago, can you please undo your last revert? Sepsis II (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What had I reverted exactly?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second time you reverted my work today, where you rewrote my edit. There is no doubt that it is a revert, GHcool tried arguing otherwise last week and he got blocked after I let him know and gave him time to fix his error. Sepsis II (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So editing a recent expansion is a revert?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a revert is up for debate. The people who harp on the details of it are generally assholes though. That's why I've never filed an RR violation report even though I've encountered many.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit my talk page;

I only care to comment on content at specific articles. Sepsis II (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spesis II: Then please don't comment to me again in any page. I don't know how long I've seen you here, maybe two months or maybe more, but I don't remember a time when you made a comment that actuallly helped the discussion and I remember several times when your comments did the opposite. Maybe I/P is not for you. Lacking the temper of Debresser, I dont think it's worth spending time asking admins to check your behavior. I genuinely tried to be nice and reasonable but that doesn't seem to work.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 01:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Musheirifa Musmus Salim, Ma'ale Iron Zalafa, Ma'ale Iron

Hello! Your submission of Musheirifa Musmus Salim, Ma'ale Iron Zalafa, Ma'ale Iron at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Musmus

On 22 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Musmus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Salem (pictured), Musmus, Zalafa, and Musheirifa are four of the Arab villages making up the Israel local council of Ma'ale Iron? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Musmus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Salem, Ma'ale Iron

On 22 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Salem, Ma'ale Iron, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Salem (pictured), Musmus, Zalafa, and Musheirifa are four of the Arab villages making up the Israel local council of Ma'ale Iron? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Salem, Ma'ale Iron), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Zalafa

On 22 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zalafa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Salem (pictured), Musmus, Zalafa, and Musheirifa are four of the Arab villages making up the Israel local council of Ma'ale Iron? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Zalafa), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 23 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the List of ongoing armed conflicts page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Ein as-Sahala

Hello! Your submission of Ein as-Sahala at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Stepped up visits" on I-P conflict 2015-present

Hi, I'm curious as to how your description for reverting my edit actually matches my edit of the original page. The wording "stepped-up visits by religious Jews" doesn't really get to the core of what's going on all that clearly - as per your description or the Temple Mount entry restrictions page I hyperlinked to, Jews are allowed to visit the Temple Mount, so it doesn't really clarify matters to describe the behaviour as "stepped-up visits". What the organisations listed on the restrictions page were and are trying to do is to visit the Temple Mount to pray. I thought my wording was good for introducing the restrictions page for those who wanted to know more about the status quo, but if you can think of a better wording, please suggest it. The current one is an inadequate description. TrickyH (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I"ll be completely honest with you, I slep four hours (and awake for over 12) and right now working on a larger edit, so I am not too concentrated. Anyway, I think that sentence in the article was a bit ambigues and your edit made it even more ambigues. Muslims does not oppose Jews praying in the temple, they oppose Jews entering the temple. This is not a conflict about the laws but a religious friction in a shithole somewhere in wonderland (Israelstine), so as far as it seems, writing that this is about the "restrictions" changes the context of the sentence and make it ambigues, at least to me, since as far as I remember, most of the fanatics who usually go to the temple mount and stone policemen don't really care about the restrictions and just want the kafirs out of their holy shrine.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the edit summery I meant to say that the fanactis "don't give a fuck" about the restrictions but I guess you understood that.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess this is a demonstration of the effects of fatigue! What you're saying isn't quite right for me. Asides from lumping these two protest groups under the umbrellas of all Muslims, if you read the sources supporting the argument, you can notice that these protests aren't directed against tourists, regardless of religion (a fact I observed myself in November). So the current wording is, as I've said, inadequate.

Reading from the first reference: "A small group of religious Jews have for years sought to pray at the site" ... "the Temple Institute, a group based in Israel that calls for reinstating the third Jewish temple and organizes tours of the Temple Mount." So (as is reflected elsewhere in this article, and the one about restrictions), the clashes aren't between "Muslims" hating "kafirs", but the religious groups who, on the Muslim side, aim to defend the compound, and on the Jewish, have a goal of prayer and rebuilding the Temple at the site. The "restriction" page goes into a lot of this and mentions all the groups that are involved, so I thought it would be best to link it at that point and kick the debate along down there.

If we can't come up with a better wording between us, I think it's about the point to take this to the talk page.TrickyH (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Muslims do(es) not oppose Jews praying in the temple, they oppose Jews entering the temple.'

Actually 'they' do oppose prayer, not in the temple, whose precise location is unknown. Historically, they opposed prayer at the Western Wall in the Mandate - aggravated by the spread of posters in Jerusalem showing Herzl standing over the whole mount, which suggested to them that behind pressures to change the Ottoman status quo regarding the Herodian wall, there was a larger plan. The sensible arrangements worked out after 1867, with halakhic backing - only a high priest should pray there, are being challenged. All of these mounting pressures by Yehuda Glick et al., apart from the attempts to bomb the mosques, have to be read against the strong Muslim awareness of the past. This is all irrational, but their thesis is, give an inch, and they take an arm. No one stops anyone in silent prayer, Christian or Jew: on my last visit, one waqf guard thought that my behavior was suspicious - I split (as usual) from the group and stood at a distance quietly observing things. He approached me, and asked me, not if I was praying, but whether I had can of beer in my pocket (it was water).Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside, but if one likes to look out for curiosities, examine the shoes of the religious who visit the site. If they are leather, they are disobeying one of the three conditions that are obligatory before a Jew 'ascends'.Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cmon Nish,you know meant "they don't only oppose the praying, the oppose entrance". Anyway I think I'll drop out and let you de whatever you want. Your edit seemed wierd so I reverted it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't drop out, son. Try to get a few more hours of sleep, unless you're partying, before editing. Some edits require months to get right, and the best thing when you see something problematical, is to make a note of it, and whenever you find info on it, note it down until you are confident the change will stick. I've several hundreds of these on important articles (I saw on some article the other days that Muslim persecution of Christian pilgrims 'instigated' the Crusades, which is pure folly and WP:OR. I've left it there, and even forgotten exactly on what page. I'll get round to it.) I just wanted to point out that collective nouns 'Muslims'/'Jews', whoever, never have sense when a general attitude or behavior is associated with them. It's true that Dayan's intelligent edict in 1976 was officially opposed by many Muslims there, but any Jew or kaffir like myself can exercise the right to enter and admire the place, and when I've spoken about it to Muslim friends, in Palestine or elsewhere they don't feel outrage. To the contrary.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because facts matter, I want to point out that it is decidely untrue to state, as Nishdani does here, that "any Jew or kaffir... can exercise the right to enter and admire the place". Entrance is, in fact, tightly restricted, especially for Jews. Prayer, of course, is forbidden to non-Muslims. But, more to the point, there is no "right" for non-Muslims to enter Al Aqsa or the Dome of the Rock - in fact, non-Muslims are prevented form getting close to the Dome of the Rock. Period. Not on religious grounds - 20 years ago non-Muslims freely entered the Dome of the Rock. This is not comparable to the inner precincts of certain Hindu temples, which have been off-limits to non Brahmins from time immemorial. There is no traditional prohibition, traditionally non-Muslims were permitted ot enter these buildings, an, of course, to ascent to the Mount. The restrictions on the visits of non-Muslims are a recent political move. Non-Muslim ascent to the platform is currently permitted, but Nishdan's "right to enter" the Dome or Al-Aqsa (the magnificent buildings that you go ot the Jerusalem to see) exists only in his own mind.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. I said right of ingress onto the Haram al-Sharif. The waqf does not control the ethnicity of visitors. Your ethnicity is not controlled at the gates except if you are a suspected Palestinian, and that is done exclusively by Israeli 'security' officers. And it is quite just that non Muslims are forbidden to enter sacred Muslim structures. It's theirs, no one else's. You are dead wrong that traditional prohibitions did not exist before recent times. Down at least to 1822, when Robert Richardson was allowed to after curing the local Ottoman dignitary of his eye complaint, no European had seen the Haram. And every religion dictates, on its property, what the rules are. You can't get into the Kōtaijingű (皇大神宮) at Ise, and no one should complain. The Talmud Avodah Zara 17a forbids Jews to enter a Christian church. I don't know of any such ruling re visiting mosques, but since the rule in visiting synagogues is that one must respect its usages,(and not recite the Pater Noster) there, the same goes the other way round. Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ein as-Sahla

On 5 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ein as-Sahla, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ein as-Sahla was established as a daughter village of Barta'a in the 19th century? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ein as-Sahla), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mishma ha-Emek error

Hi, Mishma ha-Emek was not close to Ghuwayr Abu Shusha. That is quite some distance away at 197/251. Mishma ha-Emek was at 164/224. See this map for the surroundings ca. 1940. The nearby Arab village was Al-Ghubayya al-Tahta. I'll leave it for you to fix since I can't see your source. Cheers. Zero^talk 07:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thnaks! It was actually Abu Shusha, Haifa and not Ghuwayr Abu Shusha.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed your unhelpful rambling on a talk page

That's really all that needs to be said. I'm sure there's an article on TOI or Aretz 7 that could use your un-insightful, unproductive, myopic, rambling apologia for the illegally occupying army then the talk page for a Wikipedia article. 70.27.162.84 (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]