User talk:Chesdovi

Recent edits re Golan Heights

Hi, I see that you have recently edited to remove large swaths of text from the Golan Heights article, and removed the Golan Heights category from articles such as Rujm el-Hiri even though the Rujm el-Hiri article seems to establish the connection to Golan Heights. I think it is best that you self revert your 1 edit 10kb removal on Golan Heights and make smaller edits that are easier to discuss, I would also welcome an explanation of why Rujm el-Hiri should not bear the Golan Heights category. Thanks, Unomi (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that the Golan Heights category is redundant to Prehistoric sites on the Golan Heights. I still think it best to split up the edits on the Golan Heights article. Best, Unomi (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed material after posted Quneitra needs compacting yesterday. Rujm el-Hiri is categorised under Category:Prehistoric sites on the Golan Heights and Category:Former populated places on the Golan Heights, both sub-cats of Category:Golan Heights. Chesdovi (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic IP following me around, reverting my edits and typing "ugly bitch" in hebrew in edit summary's. Thank you.  Frank  |  talk  16:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

NPA

Please make sure to avoid personal attacks. What I presume to be your IP address has already been blocked for 1 week. Given that you first added the material here, and then as an IP the same material was added back here (with an attacking comment), and the high correlation of articles you and User:Supreme Deliciousness both edit, I am applying WP:DUCK in explicitly warning you against NPA here. If this is merely a coincidence, please accept my apology, but WP:DUCK points pretty strongly to this conclusion, as does a review of the talk page history of, for example, Talk:Golan Heights.  Frank  |  talk  17:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, it might be helpful if you tried to steer clear of direct conflict with User:Supreme Deliciousness, however difficult it may be for one (or both) of you. Nothing good will come of disputes which turn personal, and some of the messages and edit summaries I've seen point in that direction.  Frank  |  talk  17:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That IP is not me. Me and SD do manage to get along without attacks. I for one never would use such language. I never have done so, even as a teen, and am sure that I never will. Bad language including nasty remarks are something I personally abhor. (Something quite unique I think!) B-) Chesdovi (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great. The WP:DUCK test does sometimes fail, and indeed SD didn't seem to think you and the IP were related either. No need for me to look for trouble where there's none; the IP was blocked for the comment and I guess that's that. Best regards!  Frank  |  talk  12:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Golan Heights lead

		The Geography Barnstar
		For expanding the lead of the Golan Heights article with much needed and not purely political information after so many others shied away from the taskCptnono (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikibias.com

fyi Wikibias.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palisadespkwy (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you will take a look at the wikibias website.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockvilleMD (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sandur, Kurdistan

Hello! Your submission of Sandur, Kurdistan at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Thelmadatter (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Racism article

Hello Chesdovi, you reinserted a number of unreliable sources with the edit summary of "structuring". Some of the specific sources you reinserted were this self-published website, this WND piece, this random website. Was this intentional? nableezy - 14:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Jpost and Nytimes sources on Palestinian racist cartoons and the "this is not RS campaign"

Chesdovi, thank you very much for your contributions.

In reference to what nableezy wrote...

What's wrong with WND site? who's decided it's not reliable? incidently, that particular article is even cited in the 'arabnews' source (which was) just added. Is 'arabnews' not RS by nableezy all of a sudden?

From New York Times

racist cartoons. A Palestinian newspaper, Al Qud, depicted Ms. Rice as pregnant with an armed monkey, and a caption that read, “Rice speaks about the birth of a new Middle East.”

New York Times Rice’s Hurdles on Middle East Begin at Home, by Helena Cooper, August 10, 2006 [1]

In reference to what you just said there, the research by Dr. Susan is widely noted: Reflections on Arab-led slavery of Africans, by K. K. Prah, 2005, p. 198 [2], Tinabantu: Centre for Advanced Studies of African Society, 2002, p. 17 [3]

His attempts in discrediting very reliable sources is noted, as he removed the portion I added on (Israel National News of its wide acceptance and credibilty, stating that it is being widly quoted in books and cited by mainstream media including The Guardian, Washington Post and others, if it's reliable as news and facts source by mainstream RS, it should be fine to all) Thank you.RS101 (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Block

My apologies on the block mistake, your edit earlier today was not a revert, please keep the 1RR rule in force on the page in mind. --WGFinley (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Friendliness

Hi Chesdovi,

I'd suggest that you refrain from directly insulting other editors as that tends to lead to temporary or permanent bans. Feel free to disagree with me ... I'm happy to have a conversation or to be proven wrong, but talking about someone's "crude little mind" is quite insulting and does not meet the wikipedia standards for WP:Civility. Personally I don't really care what anyone calls me, but other editors are less forgiving are are likely to report you to an admin. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I for one really do not appreciate having to decode two-letter acronyms used in place of profanities or having to read talk page posts littered with lewd references. Sorry. Chesdovi (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well apologies for the acronym then. It was not directed at you but rather at the particular argument that many groups have made regarding the out-of-date medicine. I also wasn't suggesting that you were the one making the argument, since it looked like you were just passing along information you heard. It's something I know quite a bit about ... and while out-of-date medicine is certainly not preferred, it can be extremely useful. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether directed at me or not, I find crude references uncalled for. You must be a teenager, who are unfortunately prone to think and talk crudely. Hopefully, during your maturing years, you will learn to appreciate the quality of refinement in speech. Chesdovi (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia

I have nominated Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robofish (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia, about my work on the article. It is much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jobar

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jobar Synagogue

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Jobar

hey, im not sure what you mean exactly with the transaltion for it... the Arabic Word for it is Pronounced Jobar, and is spelled in Arabic Letters, as follows "جوبر", yet it is usually referred to as Hay Jobar, حي جوبر , which means, jobar district... i hope i was helpfull Arab League User (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Those that push the section about "settlements" (or shall we say disputed territories) have no beef, it does not belong in the Racism in Palestine page.RolesRoice (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Menarsha synagogue attack

Hello! Your submission of Menarsha synagogue attack at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Ishtar456 (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Anti-spam check. Do NOT fill this in!

Shalom al-Yisrael Synagogue

Hi - I think that you erroneously changed the name of the "Shalom Al Yisrael Synagogue" to "Shalom al-Yisrael Synagogue". "Al Yisrael" is not the eqivalent of "Al-Aksa" (e.g.). In Hebrew, "al" means "on" or "over", and is a separate word. In Arabic, "al-" is "the", part of the referenced word (not separate). I think the correct page name should be "Shalom Al Yisrael Synagogue".
I won't even bring up the merger proposal that I have, here... --Sreifa (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sandur, Kurdistan

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Menarsha synagogue attack

-- Cirt (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joseph's Tomb

The article Joseph's Tomb you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Joseph's Tomb for things which need to be addressed. Nothing too serious, but the WP:Lead needs a bit of work before I can award the article GA status. Pyrotec (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Western Wall Interfaith Service - deletion

Chesdovi, I just checked your user page and I'm blown away by the contributions you've made and the knowledge that you have.... I see that you have deleted the sub-section on the interfaith service held at the Western Wall in honor of the Sixth Fleet, and hope you agree it was not overly chutzpadik of me to restore it on a temporary basis, just asking for other editors to help make a group decision. For reasons I outline on that page's discussion page, I do think it was historically significant. However, as I mention on that page, I am not neutral in terms of this event, because I was involved. Therefore, I'll just ask that others make the decision as a larger group decision. However, I hope you know that my request in no way shows a lack of respect for your many significant contributions to wikipedia!!! NearTheZoo (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Note placement in the Western Wall

Thanks for your opinion; I value it. Do you prefer moving the material out of Kvitel and into this article because kvitel is not a common English term? Fair enough. Also, do you think I could rename this article Placing notes in the Western Wall, because the way it's titled, I thought it was talking about where the notes were placed. Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Judaism and bus stops

The article Judaism and bus stops has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a meaningful intersection of topics

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Soap— 22:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Judaism and bus stops

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Judaism and bus stops, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. It's a funny joke though.Marokwitz (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Judaism and bus stops - misleadingt edit summary

You did not 'Undid revision 389090261 by Dougweller ' - why does your edit summary say you did? I removed text cited to an email archive, you may have restored the text, but you changed the sources. Please don't leave edit summaries like that, whether they are done manually or not. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! Understand totally. Sorry for the mislead. Chesdovi (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Judaism and bus stops for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Judaism and bus stops, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TFOWR 12:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude

As amusing and as much as i agree with your point I am actually surprised no one has blocked you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess other people do not view it that way. Or maybe they have more undersatnding? Who knows. Chesdovi (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look at WP:POINT. Interesting. Does this fall under WP:NOTPOINTY? Besides, the subject possibly has redeeming factors, as stated at AFD. Chesdovi (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude I agree with your with you Judaism and Violence is a violation of WP:SYTH. I love the [[Judaism and Bus Stops] but its pointy as hell. I am just surprised that no one has given a Block for being so pointy. Its a sitution where I dont know if i should give a barnstar to you or TroutThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

No, Bad languauge is much worse. (Who adsded this?) Chesdovi (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Wailing wall.JPG

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

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Ancient synagogue (Eshtemoa)

Hello! Your submission of Ancient synagogue (Eshtemoa) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Damascus

Let me give you a clear warning: if you continue to revert without responding to attempts that have been made to discuss the issue, your account will have to be blocked from editing. This will happen regardless of the number of reverts that fall within a 24 hour period. You must discuss the issue rather than just keep reverting! Looie496 (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I've mentioned you here. [4].Bali ultimate (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass changes at Israeli settlement articles

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

WP:ARBPIA notification

You are hereby notified of and subject to the discretionary sanctions in the Palestine-Israel Arbitration committee case previously decided in 2008. Please read the notice below closely and stop editing in a disruptive manner in these articles. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.

Settlements

Could you please provide a good reason why you inserted a nonsensical phrase like "The settlement was built with good intentions by Israel" and removing that the settlement is illegal while immediately before that adding, without a source, to the articles on places in Northern Cyprus that "It is occupied by Turkey and is considered an illegal settlement by the international community."? I am dying to see what possible reasoning could lead one person to make both of those edits. nableezy - 06:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

And I should note, I reverted the edits to the articles on the Cyprus localities. If you can provide sources for your assertions great, but until then you cant edit in such a way. Im tempted to revert the Golan articles, but Ill wait for the explanation. nableezy - 06:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Please revert all the edits you made to the illegal settlements in NC using these sources easily found on GB:

"The Turkish government decided to rely for its demographic base not so much on Turkish Cypriots, but rather on heavy and illegal colonization by tens of thousands of Anatolian Turks, in addition to the large Turkish military force occupying the north, much of which would ultimately settle there. As a result of the settlement policies, many Turkish Cypriots eventually decided to leave Cyprus. This illegal settlement, whose intention was to alter the demographic reality of northern Cyprus and drive out the Greeks who had remained, was for a time denied by the Turkish government and, in particular, by the us State Department in the person of its special Cyprus negotiator, Nelson Ledsky."[5]

"Turkish forces are present in Northern Cyprus, which is home to some 146000 illegal settlers (illegal because Northern Cyprus is internationally held to be under Turkish occupation). These settlers, from the Turkish mainland, outnumber the 89000 Turkish Cypriots. In defiance of international law, one-third of the settlers have been "naturalized.""[6]

Thanks so much Nab. Ask SD if she wants to give you a hand. I know I can count on you both. Chesdovi (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your first source is published by "greekworks.com" and the second one by a children's book publisher. Thanks but no thanks. You havent answered my question as to why you removed what was sourced in the Golan articles and replaced it with nonsense while you were adding similar, but unsourced, information to the Northern Cyprus articles. nableezy - 13:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, you are making it very difficult for me to not ask for a block or topic ban with your actions at the Rachel's Tomb article. nableezy - 13:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear, dear. What children today are being indoctrinated with! Results of a more comprehensive search:

The situation in the northern part of Cyprus has been made deliberately worse by the illegal settlement of many thousands of mainland Turks, in itself a clear contravention of the Geneva Conventions.[7] (Official journal of the European Communities: Debates of the European Parliament, Issue 4; Issue 486) (Not sure if "debates" constitute RS.)

"The homes and properties of the Greek Cypriots[…] continued to be the object of de-facto expropriation and illegal possession and exploitation contrary to Article 1 of the First Protocol and the general principles of International Law. These continuing violations have been intensified through the increased and systematic settlement of settlers from Turkey, with the encouragement and assistance of Turkey, against the will of the lawful Government of Cyprus”. Council of Europe Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights, Volume 39; Volume 1996. Chapter 2 – Case-law of the Commission: Texts of selected decisions: Application No. 25781/94: Cyprus v. Turkey. Decision of 28 June 1996 on the admissibility of the application. 4(d). BRILL 1998. ISBN: 9041105530.

If you can find more sources, by all means include them. Now please proceed to add it back. I have asked SD to assit you. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you have yet again refused to answer my question. Thats ok, Ill ask again once I address your comments. The settlement of Turks in Northern Cyprus does indeed violate the Geneva Conventions, however, only those localities that were established for those people can be called "illegal". A village in Northern Cyprus that has been continuously inhabited from before the Turkish occupation of the territory is not a "settlement" and is not "illegal". The settling of Turks in occupied territory is illegal under international law, your sources support that. But here, as with the Rachel's Tomb article, you misrepresent the source. The source does not say the villages are illegal, it says the settlers are. Now, back to my question. How is it that you can justify removing a aourced line from the Golan articles on the illegality of Israeli settlements there but at the same time add an unsourced line about the supposed illegality of localities in Northern Cyprus. Id like to understand how one person can do both of these things in good faith. nableezy - 15:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OR. And with regards to your question, I have answered at the Incidents page. Chesdovi (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OR???? What is OR is your taking a line saying the Turkey settling its civilians is illegal to say that X village is an illegal settlement. You havent given a source that says that or anything close to that. You have finally answered my question though, it is not possible to make both of those edits in good faith. As you have demonstrated that you are not editing in good faith Ill adjust how I deal with your actions. Bye. nableezy - 15:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You are not being rational. It is your own OR that states illegality only applies to newly constructed settlements after an occupation began. This is inconsistent with examples in other parts of the world. Chesdovi (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My source for illegal settlements: The homes and properties of Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyprus are the continued object of de-facto expropriation and illegal possession and exploitation. Synonymous with: The homes and properties of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank are the continued object of de-facto expropriation and illegal possession and exploitation. If this citation does not support that the villages occupied by Turkey in NC are not illegal settlements, what does? Over to you Nab. Chesdovi (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You can pretend that your sources are "equivalent" but anybody who reads them can easily see that you are making things up and clearly editing in bad faith. But the reason I am writing this comment is to inform you that you have been reported to the edit-warring noticeboard. See here. nableezy - 16:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The homes and properties of Greek Cypriots in Northern Cyprus are the continued object of de-facto expropriation and illegal possession and exploitation, that means they, the settlements and villages inhabited by the Turks, are invalid, or illegal. Hence, illegal settlements. Why should I have to re-add all the info?Chesdovi (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Joseph's Tomb links

I have noticed that several links in the Joseph's Tomb article are no longer working. Dead links can become a problem if someone raises this issue. The dead links are: 35 MKs want Joseph's Tomb reopened, Israel to ask PA to repair Joseph's Tomb and Site of Joseph's Tomb vandalized

If you have a page number for the print version of the article, that would be preferable. Otherwise an archived version may need to be used. Dead links are an increasing problem with news sources. You can check the current status of the links in the article using this tool. • Astynax ^talk 07:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing restriction

Due to an ongoing dispute, you are restricted to 1RR for the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, until the end of January. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What does 1RR mean. Only 1 revert? Chesdovi (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 1 revert per day. PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Per the ArbCom Israeli-Palestinian discretionary sanctions of which you were notified yesterday, I have blocked your account for one month for massively disruptive and tendentious editing. Looie496 (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can someone explain to me why Prunesqualer receives a 24hr block and a rather limited 14-day article ban[8] while Chesdovi receives a 1-month block and a broad 3-month 1R restriction on the entire Arab-Israeli topic area and both involve the same type of infraction. I am at a loss to explain the lack of consistency? Can another admin review the facts of both cases? Perhaps I missed something?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• For the sake of consitency and transparency Chesdovi's sanction should be similar to Prunesqualer as they both involve similar infractions.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• The only difference between the two is that Chesdovi had one prior block and that occurred way back in 2006[9].--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The first point is that consistency is a secondary consideration. Containing disruption is the most important thing, and we won't allow the editing environment to fall apart merely to be consistent. The second point is that if you look at the contribs of the two editors, you will see a big difference. Whatever Prunesqualer was doing was on a much smaller scale -- his last 50 contribs go back into July. Chesdovi's last 50 contribs are from October 21. Looie496 (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright fine. But he already received a 1R from PhilKnight for the entire topic area until January. That is a significant restriction and serves as sufficient warning. The guy had only one prior block and that occurred four years ago! Jeesh what more do you want from the guy?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The WP:ANI and WP:AN3 threads concerned different problems. It's hardly the fault of the admins that he went over 3RR on an article and engaged in widespread disruption at the same time. PhilKnight (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi speaks up

I am afraid Uncle G is mistaken again. That I decide to add information about the illegality of Turkish settlements was indeed prompted by thoughts relating to Rachel’s Tomb. Yet it is easy to construe it as a barrage of disruptive edits to make a point. You will see however, from my edits preceding the North Cyprus (NC) changes that I had not been discussing the legality of any Israeli settlements. Rachel’s tomb is not a settlement, neither is Acre. There was no recent “original dispute”. As I am more often than not editing I-P articles, any changes regarding other geographical locations should not be viewed as automatically linked to edits made in I-P articles. Yes, they are often influenced by them, but not made necessarily because of them. That’s why I have created a number of articles on separation barriers around the word and other nation’s settlement schemes (although the one about Turkey was deleted). Should I not have done, for by doing so, it would be construed as making a disruptive point?!
I take umbrage at UG’s comment that my 39 edits to NC pages was an intentional ploy. I added information to all the settlements beginning with A. I had not counted how many GH settlements there were. Nor how many WB settlements there were. That SD subsequently edited the GH settlements which also numbered 39 (I have not checked the numbers myself) is a coincidence. It does not “speak volumes”. So please take that back.
That Nab reverted all my edits relating to NC without leaving me a message or tagging instead shows that he was not interested in improving the article. Ask him why he behaved this way. (I concur in retrospect that a source be needed, but I was thinking more along the lines of Neo: “the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus since 1974 is a world-known fact and needs no documentation”.) Neo, the uninvolved user, subsequently reverted Nab only for SD to come to Nabs assistance (surprise, surprise) by re-reverting. This surely incriminates these two editors, who I feel caused disruption by twice removing mention of illegality in NC settlements. That a discussion has subsequently taken place about the status of NC settlements is not linked to any I-P dispute as UG would have it. There is no indication that the two are sinisterly linked. What is “abundantly clear” to UG, is not to me. That’s just the way it turned out. If Nab and SD have a major problem with me and Neo adding stuff over at NC, so be it. It is possible to have two discussions about similar topics simultaneously. In fact, it is more effective to discuss both at the same time.
Was it okay for me to replace “Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights are regarded as illegal by the international community” with “The settlement is considered an obstacle to social development and economic progress by the international community, who also regard its existence as unlawful, although Israel disputes this.”? I hope so. How then can further later edits to GH which modified the wording to “The settlement was built with good intentions by Israel, who brushed aside the adverse legal opinion of the international community” be considered disruptive? Is it because the magic word “illegal” or “unlawful” is missing. The modified formulation is supported by the two sources given by SD. Maybe it was the weasel words “good intentions” which were a problem. I am not sure. Indications of various editors seem to call this “utter nonsense” or OR. But is it? It is effectively saying Israel went ahead, believing it had the right to construct settlements although it knew it was a move not supported by the IC. I did not add “The settlements was built with the consent of the IC” or words to a that effect. All accusations regarding this matter are false. And they are not disruptive any more than SD adding it to the 39 pages in the first place. That’s why I have a problem with Looie stating that I have caused a “huge” amount of disruption. Is it really huge? I am within my rights to add information to 39 pages en-masse. Looie then has the audacity to states that I have “shown no willingness to cease the disruptive behavior”, when it is quite clear that as soon as Nab raised the issue with me, I removed, in an act of compromise, what he considered unacceptable from all the relevant GH pages. (And this was before I had noticed an incident report about the matter.) Looie should have also noticed that having found sufficient sources backing the NC issue, I did not go right ahead any re-add. There seems to be a climate of impetuosity on the part of Admins who will issue warning and blocks in haste without giving time to await responses and consider all facts. Indeed, one only need hold as an example the glaring error of Georgewilliamherbert who contended I had edited after the 1RR was imposed. Do Admins enjoying flouting their power under the guise of not being “capable of micromanaging the editing process”? They should learn to manage the blocking process first.
With regards to the violation of the 3RR, I also dispute conclusions made by other editors. (I did not have sufficient time to respond and gave hurried and incomprehensive responses). I am sure that careful examination of the edits will reveal that there were signs of compromise in most and they were not outright reverts.
I am sorry for causing disruption, but that would be to all the disruption and time used in discussing the alleged disruption I deny I am guilty of. If other editors view it differently that is their choice. But I doubt they have gone through all the edits by all those involved and heard both side of this issue. I do not ask to be unblocked as the stain has already been made. It was becoming too much of an addiction anyway. Enjoy the month without me. Chesdovi (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this as I see it. This affair started with Nableezy filing a number of complaints against you. It was clear that those complaints were legitimate. In fact, those "good faith" statements were very problematic, because they were clearly an attempt to inject a point of view into the articles. Other edits showed the same sort of POV editing. But assessing the range of the problem is very difficult because of the sheer volume of your edits. It isn't realistically possible to even look over all your edits to judge how many are problematic. So how do we handle this? There are basically two possibilities: either you know when you are making controversial edits, or you don't. If you don't, then I don't think you should be editing in this area. If you do, then I ask that when you make edits you think might be controversial, you start by making one or two, and make a serious effort to ensure consensus before extending them to other articles. This affair has already cost hours of work for me, and substantial amounts for other admins. The top priority, as far as I am concerned, is to deal with it in such a way that it won't flare up again in the near future and cause more hours of work. There are only a few admins involved in this area and a lot is going on -- we have no choice but to find ways of dealing with things that don't require knowing every aspect of every dispute. That means that sometimes the solutions are going to be crude. So here is the bottom line. If you think you can find a way to deal with disputes by trying to solve them quietly instead of battling obstinately until they get thrown into the admin domain, I am willing to lift the block I imposed. Do you think that would be possible? Of course you can't be held responsible for the behavior of other editors, but in my experience it is usually possible to tell who is trying to be cooperative and who is not. Looie496 (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I get why you are [removed slang], Chesdovi. Nableezy has received 11 10 sanctions (is that right? At least one was reduced after tons of screaming see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Log of blocks and bans) and numerous blocks (with only one that exceeded 72 hrs since it was a legal threat) yet you are the one who received a month. You should be [removed slang]. However, you did [removed slang]. The best thing for you to do right now is to clearly and concisely admit where you made a mistake. Precedent in the topic area says you do not deserve such a lengthy block. But it is time for this [removed quasiobscenity] to stop and you are doing great if you are looking to make an example of yourself. You have done some good work and have reason (and some back up) to return early. Just make sure you admit to your mistake and don't do it again. Ask for some leanency and learn from it. And I am not trying to preach. I am lucky with some of the stuff I pulled a year ago to not be bounced out for an extended period.Cptnono (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, please do not use bad language when conversing with me. I think you know I find it obnoxious and do not appreciate having to stumble across such drivel. I have dissociated myself form "Bali" for this reason. Please grow up. It is not cool to use such low speech. I have been taught that certain words are rude and offensive and not to be used. It should not be that hard to control oneself in this area of speech. To use such talk really lowers the tone here. I hope it is not too much to ask. You are correct regarding Nab. He is all too familiar with this kind of stuff. I have never had to be so involved in having to defend myself in such circumstances with such frequency as Nab has had to. Nab is much more experienced at playing the game here.
And Looie, for me this started when an editor noticed my mass edits to GH pages. Had she noticed SD previous mass edits, would it of also sparked a report? If my edits at NC are to been seen as disruptive, then SD's actions to GH articles and subsequent changes at the NC pages should also be termed disruptive. Your advice about adding one or two edits first to test the water also apply to SD, Nab, Neo and Pol. We all carried out mass-edits. If there are too many edits for you to figure it all our: Halt! Wait for my explanation. Since this began had I caused any further "problems"? Anyways I am not annoyed with you. I respect that you acted in what you believed was correct. But urge you to be a little more patient in future. You noted that I hadn’t responded. I was not near a computer. The discussion was taking place without my input and a verdict was reached, even thought I had not responded or carried out any more editing. That's what I find annoying. If Nab is so familiar with all the protocol here, he should not have reverted while discussion was taking place at talk. In my memory I have not violated this 3RR and did not comprehend the consequence of Nabs note to me: “Self-revert.”

While Looie says it was difficult to assess the problem because of the sheer volume of my edits, if she means the 3RR violation, that should not have been to difficult to go through the various edits and see that it was not such a simple matter, as is shown below. There may have been mass editing, but they all included the same information and only involved 2 areas, so it should have been easier to assess. What is difficult is creating a timeline of event with all involved editors, which would have been made available in due course before rash decisions are made. Especially since I acknowledged Phil’s 1RR.

Time	Edit	Map	Location	Notes
03:53, 3 October 2010 Chesdovi	Adding infobox		n/a	I added a map showing Israel.
22:42, 12 October 2010 SD	[10]		n/a	Changed to West Bank
23:39, 12 October 2010 Chesdovi	[11]		Jerusalem	Kept WB map, but gave location as J, I.
22:49, 14 October 2010 Termswagon2	[12]		Jerusalem	Uninvolved user.
23:56, 14 October 2010 Nableezy	[13]		Jerusalem	Changes map to WB, but leaves location.
15:39, 20 October 2010 SD	[14]		West Bank	Start of edit war: Changes location so no reference to Israel is given. 1st time no Israel shown
17:11, 20 October 2010 Chesdovi	[15]		Jerusalem (de-facto)	I keep WB map again, but add reference to J, I, with compromise de-facto
17:51, 20 October 2010 Nableezy	[16]		West bank	Removes any reference to Israel. 2nd time no Israel shown
18:03, 20 October 2010 Chesdovi	[17]		Jerusalem, West bank (de-facto)	I keep WB map again, re-add reference to Israel de-facto with further compromise by adding West Bank as location.
18:37, 20 October 2010 Nableezy	[18]		Internationally recognized as within the Palestinian territories in the West Bank De-facto annexed by Israel	Compromise attempt.
22:24, 20 October 2010 Chesdovi	[19]		Jerusalem, (de-facto)	Upon further thought, change all to Israel with de-facto. 1st time no WB shown.
03:55, 21 October 2010 Nableezy	[20]		Bethlehem, West Bank	Keeps Israel map but removes J, I. Does not revert to "earlier compromise".
11:08, 21 October 2010 Chesdovi	[21]		Jerusalem, (de-facto)	2nd time no WB shown.
16:55, 21 October 2010 Nableezy	[22]		Bethlehem, West Bank	Keeps Israel map but removes J, I. Does not revert to "earlier compromise" for a 2nd time.

But I do not seek an unblock. Wiki has been taking over my life of late and the block will help me work on myself to ensure that I do not spend hours on end in front of a computer screen, but find more healthy, fulfilling and rewarding pursuits to engage in. If I succeed, you will be to thank. (Not Nab, I hasten to add.) Chesdovi (talk)

If somebody else makes mass edits to articles that inject POV into them, the right approach, if the editor can't be persuaded to behave properly, is to file a complaint, not to inject an opposite POV into all those articles. I think people have been reluctant to do that because of the weak responses they have been getting from admins. My aim in getting into this is to give strong enough responses to keep problems from recurring. In any case, I think we have been making some progress, and if you feel a wish to get back into Wiki before the block expires, feel free to reopen the discussion. Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The question is why does only one person get the strong response here when the other guy mass edited articles as well, first adding information with an improper source (I mentioned this on AN/I) then following Chesdovi around reverting his edits?

Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for a zero-tolerance approach for the IP topic. I think this should be announced through ArbCom and then implemented. Taking the first random guy and without warning hitting him with a ban completely out of proportion to what is normally given, particularly someone with an almost clean record, isn't the way to do it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Who did mass edits with an improper source? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Looie: I did not actually "inject an opposite POV into all those articles". In all of the GH articles, I actually provided balance. To half of the approx. 40 pages with SD’s POV addition ("Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights are regarded as illegal by the international community") I added: “The settlement is considered an obstacle to social development and economic progress by the international community, who also regard its existence as unlawful, although Israel disputes this.”? How more NPOV can you get? After making these changes to around 20 pages, I tried an even softer tone: “The settlement was built with good intentions by Israel, who brushed aside the adverse legal opinion of the international community”. In both formulations, both sides stance is vouched for. The problem Nab and SD seem to have it that the incriminating word “illegal” is missing. SD was the one who added a one sided POV by not adding the words "although Israel disputes this", (Notice how SD is of the opinion that Israel’s position regarding its own settlements is of no concern and doesn't deserve mention is such articles. Indeed, to do so would be an unnecessary step and unbalance the “NPOV” already presented with the one sided view. SD does however suggest that if Israel’s position really has to be mentioned "although Israel disputes” can be added"! [23]
It should also be of further concern that when I have subsequently brought sources which talk of NC settlements being illegal, Nab does not accept them. Yet he accepts the 2 sources SD provided for the GH articles. SD uses the words IC, but such usage is not provided for in either of SD’s sources. One is a Primary source which although citing a UN resolution does not state "IC". The second also belongs to a UN body and does not cite the IC. (Nab should have a problem with this too. The 2nd source does not specifically mention "Israeli settlements", rather Israel settlement activities". Yet he only will infer from the sources I provide for the NC settlements that it only refers to Turkey's settling of its civilians as being illegal, not the actual settlements themselves. The words "activities" in the ILO source negates the actual settlements themselves. This is further evidenced by the end of the sentence: "desist from changing its demographic composition”, i.e. the settling of civilians seems to be the issue, not the actual physical settlements themselves. This is good enough for Nab with regards to the GH but not good enough when it comes to NC. (I will add that I did not provide a dissenting view with regards to the NC settlements, because I do not know of one. Had Nab added one, fine. That was not the case. Nab and SD proceeded to completely remove my additions to the NC pages, even after another uninvolved editor re-added my edits.) I want to know:

• 1. If by looking at the above chart if I was in violation of the 3RR.
• 2. Why my edits to the GH articles were viewed as disruptive, bearing in mind that
  • a. I endeavoured to provide NPOV in all the pages and did not take away sourced info or add fallacies.
  • b. The edits by SD were not presumed to be disruptive, although they were all subsequently removed by Poliocretes under the premise that "mass editing, legalities and motivations covered by linked settlement article."
• 3. Why I was blocked while I had not been given a chance to explain my actions.
• 4. Why after I had acknowledged the 1RR, I was still blocked having made no further edits.
• 5. Why was it "clear" that I was going to "blast forward until blocked?"
• 5. Why it is deemed okay for users to use bad language and re-instate it after others have asked that it not be used. Chesdovi (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The language (the three words are often not considered vulgar) was an issue with refactoring. Refactoring is frowned upon so I struck them out instead. I'll remove them right now if it is still an issue you are concerned with.Cptnono (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer to Q4 is the threads on WP:ANI and WP:AN3 concerned different edits. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be verified that the comments made at ANI about AN3 (by Uncle G, etc) were not taken into account by Looie when deciding to impose the block for "massive disruption". It would seem that Looie did, as she has referred to "This affair started with Nableezy filing a number of complaints against you. It was clear that those complaints were legitimate." Nab report was on AN3. Chesdovi (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I want from you at this point, in order to unblock. 1) I want you to acknowledge that the purpose of Wikipedia's articles is to give readers information in the most neutral terms possible, not to persuade readers to accept or reject some point of view. 2) I want you to acknowledge that editing should not be a battle between editors. If you will indicate an understanding and acceptance of those points, then I am prepared to remove the block. If you dodge the question by arguing about the validity of the block, I am not going to do anything. I have already said that I will accept removal or reduction of the block by any other admin without arguing about it, but those are my conditions. (And I'm a "he", by the way.) Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr Looie, It’s not the block per se. It’s the principle and result. I care about my reputation and feel that a decision made in haste has tarnished it. ([24]) I feel this happened too quickly for me to give my version of events and that I was blocked in absentia. Other editors jumped on the bandwagon supporting the block without the full facts. Unluckily, one editor noticed my mass-edits and not SD’s, and I get sanctioned. I may have not tested the water with the edits over at Cyprus, but I did not see a block coming. Nab contributed a lot to this, but he cannot exactly be viewed as being neutral in such a discussion which involved the I-P issue. How can he have of been given so much credence? I am naturally biased, as are most other editors, but do try to provide neutral viewpoints and will discuss things at length to achieve this, as was happening at Rachel’s Tomb. I have also not shirked from adding material that does not sit well with my viewpoint in order to get that neutral balance, [25]. I don’t mind adding the PA flag to sites under PA control either. I do have an issue with the legal status of the NC settlements and have tried to address this before and discussed it again here (where I suggested not using the term “settlement” at either in GH, WB or NC pages, although the result was to include it, hence my additions to NC). When I carried out those edits to NC pages, how can they be viewed as making a point when no recent edits had been made regarding the subject as I-P? It was SD, who after seeing my edits, made her point by altering the GH pages in response! This fact is consolidated by them both removing my edits at NC! I am doubtful if Nab or SD have ever tried researching the NC subject. Nab and SD had no good reason to remove my additions, albeit them being un-sourced, to those pages without discussing the issue first. It shows their robust POV attitude that only Israel is allowed to be crowned with the title “illegal settlement.” I have been editing for many years with appreciation of both your points and are already familiar with them. From time to time things flare up and this time it involved a number of different articles all at once. I need to know firstly if I was indeed in violation of 3RR and whether that had an input it the block. All I am concerned about now is the validity of the block. I want to know if it was imposed justly. If it was not, I would want the block-log deleted, or at the most a summary noting error of judgment. If the block was justified for my mass-edits to NC and subsequent rewording of SD’s edits at GH. The block can stay. Chesdovi (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Argh! I used a slang that I don't feel is lewd but realize you do. Since you mentioned it at the AE I wanted to let you know that I really will try to tone it down. Bad habits! I struck it out pretty quick so at least but still feel kind of bad. Apologies for the confusion on striking v redacting before and I hope you can see past it.Cptnono (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement of Block contested

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chesdovi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I need assistance to evaluate whether my block for what has been termed "massively disruptive and tendentious editing" is justified.
My mass edits to Golan Heights pages were claimed by Cs32en to be unsourced. This stance is taken up by other users, one of whom suggests a block until I follow the rules and guidelines about sourcing. (Secret further suggests that "this is like the 10th notification this week". Yet as far as I know, there was only one message left to me about sourcing, regarding Damascus on 15 Oct. and a further mention here). Georgewilliamherbert then left me a message asking me to "stop editing in a disruptive manner." The blocking admin states "Somebody ought to undo all those edits, on the basis of being unsourced.” All these about complaints about no sourcing and disruptiveness I countered were baseless. Yet I did not have a chance to explain before the block was implemented. As far as I am concerned my edits to the Golan Heights pages were sourced and I had reworded a sentence in an attempt to provide balance, as explained above on my talk page. It is probable that all editors commenting at the incident page were unaware of the facts, even though I had made a shrewd attempt to inform them of their error. Uncle G launched into other allegations, all of which I subsequently denied above as well. Suggestion of a 12 month topic ban by Physchim62 after reading the short discussion and my "contributions" to it, is a little rash. Had he bothered at all to view all my edits, I doubt he would have come to such an opinion. A suggestion by ElComandanteChe that the mass-edits by Supreme Deliciousness were of a similar disruptive nature are not latched onto. Why? This may be due to Nab’s misleading comments that SD’s edits were "sourced"; although as I have shown above, SD’s sources were token. No editors seemed to address the fact of SD’s edits. I therefore fail to see why mine were so hugely disruptive. It is clear that mass-editing was not the problem here. The block was a response to the view that only my edits were of a disruptive nature because they were 1: not sourced, which is false. (I actually provided the NPOV that was missing from SD's addition.) And secondly, that the edits to Cyprus pages were made to make a disruptive point, which, as I have tried to explain above, was not the case either.
"Chesdovi has caused a huge amount of disruption over the past few days, and has shown no willingness to cease the disruptive behavior" – False. As are the other reasons given for the block. I feel the block enforced in haste and was unjustified. I do not consider my editing to be so disruptive that a block was called for or needed. None of my points above have been answered, only an acknowledgemant of my "disruptive" actions are requested. I do not however seek a mere "unblock". I want to know if I was blocked fairly. If after reading my side of the events, the block is seen as unjust, reference must be made to this.
Mention must be made of User:Bali ultimate. This editor has raised a number of complaints against me, (here and here), in the most undesirable and alarmist of fashions. He is no doubt slanted from my admonition of his WP:CIVIL violation. He has been creepily following my moves and is causing trouble. (He even left an edit at Ed Miliband after I had commented there!) I have not been reported on an ANI for years, and this editor see it fit to do so twice in quick succession. His comments on all pages involving me should be viewed as biased and prejudiced in nature. I will have nothing to do with him.

Decline reason:

This is an arbitration enforcement block ([26]). It can therefore only be appealed by following the procedure described at WP:AEBLOCK.  Sandstein  13:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chesdovi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The WP:AEBLOCK should not apply. No further edits were made after it had been noted.

Decline reason:

Of course! You were blocked! Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• If you think the AEBLOCK should not apply then you need to follow the procedure for appealing against an AEBLOCK, and if you are right it will probably be overturned. An individual admin is not allowed to overturn an AEBLOCK, even if he or she thinks it is mistaken, so requesting an unblock here is not going to achieve anything. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The ArbCom Israeli-Palestinian discretionary sanctions message was left on my talk page at 00:44, 21 October 2010. I only noted it at 11:23, 21 Oct 2010. And I was blocked at 18:21, 21 October 2010. (There were a group of edits, but those were made before I noted the notification. I subsequently made no edits to pages besides from those at talk & ANI. Why is that procedure needed if it was issued in error? Chesdovi (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Chesdovi, this is a somewhat legalistic defense, which in my humble opinion, has little chance of success. Anyway, you were notified when the ARBPIA case closed. PhilKnight (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • If you are referring to the message in 2006 regarding the ARBPIA of which I was not personally invovled in, you are correct. I was "notified" 4 years ago, and have since made many thousands of edits without being aware of what was discussed, neither of the consequences of the ARBPIA. I do not feel I was given a fair chance in putting forward my case, and claims that I was ready to "blast ahead" with unconstructive edits is totally unfounded. Chesdovi (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • It should also be noted that Looie496 has thrice indicated that she or other individual Admins had the authority to lift the block? And if this is the case, why was it not made clear at ANI, to prevent multiple editors airing their views about the block - which do not accomplish anything? Chesdovi (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, I'm getting tired of this. Either make a coherent argument that has at least some chance of being accepted, or go and do something else. If you continue in this manner, I'll revoke your talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight—For what reason would you revoke his Talk page access? It seems Chesdovi is trying to clarify what situation he is entangled in. It seems he should be allowed to ask questions and it seems he should be deserving of full and forthcoming answers. I don't think he is trying to inconvenience anyone at the receiving end of the question. Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just used a word processor to do a word count from immediately after the block, up to your post, and the result was over 5000 words. In my humble opinion, that's excessive. PhilKnight (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It may indeed be excessive, but that seemed the only way I could defend myself after I had been denied the chance at ANI. It does not look as if I have a simple way out of this. It really is a sham. You can be blocked by an individual admin for ARBPIA but cannot be unblocked without a group discussion. Why is that? Looie stated in his first rational for the block that it was clear I was going to blast forward with unuseful edits. My edits actually prove the opposite. Looies action is somewhat understandable, though. I was not given the chance to refute the allegations before he blocked. In my view, this block was enforced unjustly, and there is little I can do to reverse the situation. If the blocking process is so serious when it comes to ARBPIA, Admins should not be so impetuous when issuing them. Chesdovi (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My logical argument is: The block was issued due to “massive disruption” carried out over a short period. I believe this was based on a number of edits regarding controversial issues I was dealing with at the same time. I have attempted to explain my actions, and have not received specific responses to points I have raised regarding each case of “disruption”. This leads me to believe that the block was based on misunderstandings, chief of which is that that I added unsourced, POV sentences to approximately 40 pages. I have demonstrated that they were sourced to the existing sources and consisted of a NPOV. Chesdovi (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, what you are saying above in your unblock requests is incorrect, your edits at Cyprus and the settlements in GH were unsourced, you not only removed that the IC view is that they are illegal but you also added "The settlement was built with good intentions by Israel, who brushed aside the adverse legal opinion of the international community"... what source says that? And my edits to the GH settlements were indeed sourced, I used two sources, the first one showed the vast majority of all countries voting in favor of that the settlements are illegal. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I will not be available to answer till tomorrow. Chesdovi (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, if you believe that this block was wrong, it will do you no good to argue so here. Nobody here has the authority to lift it. Only the blocking admin, the ArbCom, or the community at WP:AE have that authority. You will need to explicitly appeal to any one of these authorities. In order to seize the community with an appeal, you need to convince a user to copy your appeal to WP:AE. Your chances of doing that will increase if you write an appeal that has at least a minimal chance of success (i.e., is compliant with WP:GAB) and uses standard formatting (see Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal/doc). People who repeatedly seize WP:AE with frivolous appeals may themselves be subject to sanctions under the applicable decision.  Sandstein  18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If I take the course of action you have mentioned above, will I be able to contribute to the discussion? Chesdovi (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I Don't Care About Your Band

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from I Don't Care About Your Band, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! VERTott 11:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

I have unblocked your account, because I don't believe that carrying it through for the full 30 days will serve any substantial purpose. There are lots of things I am tempted to say, but all I will do at this point is to recommend, in the strongest way, that you stay away from articles in the I-P domain that you are unable to edit from a neutral point of view. If you don't know what those are, it would be best to stay away from the contentious part of the I-P domain entirely. It's clear that your contributions to articles of a less contentious type are highly valued by many editors; I very much hope that you'll be able to work there. Looie496 (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That is nice, but not what I requested. Instead of noting in the edit summary "block is no longer useful", it would have been more fitting to have stated "block lifted after asserting its implementation was made in haste without fair representation". Even if I had erred so inexcusably, it would have been far more agreeable had you noted your recommendations at ANI first, asking for my compliance in productive editing. (Even Nab thought the block was a bit heavy handed, and he is experienced!) Now the block log stain, applied in haste, cannot be rectified. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back Chesdovi! I for one thought that your block was overly harsh considering that you had a four-year clean record and voiced my concerns to Looie496. But that's water under the bridge. Happy editing.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a shame I have just found out about this: [27]. If this was known about, I wonder if it would have been clearer that SD was to blame for any disruptive editing. Chesdovi (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How come? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It would have made no difference. I gather you don't follow AE? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cave of the Ramban

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancient synagogue pages

Hi - the way you're naming your ancient synagogue pages is not so conducive for searching. I changed the name of "Ancient synagogue (Eshtamoa)" to "Eshtamoa synagogue" (though I would not be adverse to you calling it "Eshtamoa ancient synagogue"). Please keep this in mind for other synagogue pages you contribute. I'm also not sure that you are doing all these synagogues a service by taking them out of the context of the ancient communities that they were a part of. You might consider merging the pages as a section in locality page. But keep up the good work! all info is important.--Sreifa (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Mt. Zion Cemetery

Dear Chesdovi,
(and who else decided),
thanks a lot for the award. It was a surprise and is a great joy for me. I expected that the subject would only find few interested readers, but I no way reckoned with that kind of a response. Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC) P.S. by the way, do you know if and how the affair with Diaspora Yeshiva ended? I would add it to the article.

Re: your note to Noleander

He's been on top of that for a while now. [28] [29] [30] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Of interest. Thanq. Chesdovi (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Collage photos

Your collage for Jerusalem is well done. Maybe you could try your hand at a collage for Tel Aviv. The one that is there now is quite horrendous, and there are two editors on that page who are constantly duking it out, each one putting in uglier photos than the next...Another collage that is badly needed is one for Israeli cuisine. Probably would end up being kind of controversial, but at the moment, the top of the page looks so sad and empty--Yespleazy (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Why are you mass deleting categories on pages about buildings in Jerusalem and Israel with no explanation??--Yespleazy (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I got bored after my latest addition to Caves of the West Bank: Ancient underground quarry, Jordan Valley. Are you going to the area any time soon? A photo would be great for this amazing discovery last year and also for the Ramban Cave. Chesdovi (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are bored, why not spend some time on the projects I suggested above? Meanwhile, please restore the categories that were deleted for no reason.--Yespleazy (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

They were removed because I was bored and because of WP:SUBCAT. When are you going on your tiyul to Wadi Joz? Chesdovi (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In the case of buildings in Jerusalem and Israel, these categories are important. They are vital for someone who is writing about architecture, for example. Being listed as a hotel or a hospital or a synagogue is not sufficient. Anyhow, there is plenty more that can be added to these short articles. It seems a pity to waste time on deleting the little that there is...Best, --Yespleazy (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Serious contributors should be using the Wikiproject or Stub categories to find articles to expand. If you want to add pages the parent category, I suppose you could but remember to add the relevant tag. Chesdovi (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As you have begun to re-add cats, please provide the "all included" box to the parent cats you wish and then proceed to un-diffuse the necessary pages. Chesdovi (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Your violation of 1rr

You violated 1rr at Cave of the Ramban. You are only allowed 1 rv per 24 hours within all Arab-Israeli conflict articles [31] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Can you be more specific and provide the diff and I will undo it? Chesdovi (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

1 rv [32], 2 rv [33] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that count? You added the cat on the 18th [34]? Chesdovi (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course it counts. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware. Chesdovi (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom for Ancient underground quarry, Jordan Valley

Hello! Your submission of Ancient underground quarry, Jordan Valley at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Simon Burchell (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ancient underground quarry, Jordan Valley

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hara Seghira Synagogue

Hi, I'm writing an article about the jewish community of Jerba in french fr:Histoire des Juifs à Djerba and I would like to know if the information you added to the article Hara Seghira Synagogue is based on things you gathered on site or in paper sources. Like for example the data of 80 jews living in Hara Sghira. Also, do you know how is called the synagogue you took in picture? There used to be 5 synagogues in service in Hara Sghira. --Kimdime (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Kimdime! Unfortunately the infomation I added was not from a reliable printed source. I just added details of what I had found out while I was there. What was interesting is that the guy I stayed with for Shabbat in Houmt Souk did not know about the Hara Seghira Synagogue which I discovered myself. He was sure that the Griba Synagogue was the only one left in Er Riadh. The synagogue itself was locked and I had to climb over a side wall to get in and have a look round. (I was arrested soon after and taken down to the police station....!) I just called it the "Hara Seghira Synagogue" as I was not sure of its real name. Good luck with the French article! Chesdovi (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Was the guy you stayed with for Shabbes a Jew? If he was, his answer would be quite surprising to me. I have an excellent source for the article, a book written by scholars. It states that there is 5 synagogues in Hara Sghira and that they are locally called yechivot. Torah scrolls are not kept inside them and are brought back after use to El Ghriba considered as the only "real" synagogue of the village

Unfortunately the book is from 1984 and since this time, things seems to have changed quite a lot there, despite the official propaganda stating that Djerba is a model of muslim-jewish relationship.

The data of 80 Jews living in Hara Sghira made me feel specially sad since it is supposed to be one of the oldest jewish settlements in North Africa. Regarding the article Hara Seghira Synagogue, I would suggest you to turn it into a more general article about Hara Seghira, or Er Riadh as it is officially called. Sources are available for that. Best regards.--Kimdime (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. While I was there, they had policemen stationed at the entrances to the Jewish quarter, no doubt this has to do with the bombing a few years back. They also told me, however, that the coucil renamed the main street in the Jewish area after a female suicide bomber but after protests from the Jews, they renamed it again to "Street of Peace"! So much for an oasis of tolerance! I was fortunate to stay with the son of Tunisia's former chief rabbi, Chaim Madar, a really nice, warm and hospitable young family. I told him I had found a synagogue in Er-Riadh in a very sorry state, but he was unaware of it! Chesdovi (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting facts... I've just seen a video from national geographic about the Jews of Djerba, interesting to see how much the focus is on the fact that Djerba is a symbol of brotherhood between Jews and muslims, "Repeat after me : Everything is fine". Any way, I liked the images of the video http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/places/regions-places/africa-northwestern/tunisia_djerbaisland.html Recently, the "grand rabbin de France" went there and repeated the same thing, would you need to repeat something over and over if it was that true? The fact is that it is also a necessity in order to avoid the susceptibility of president Ben Ali and to preserve the security of the Jews of Djerba to keep a low profile about those facts, though it make it harder to write an accurate article.--Kimdime (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess the government in Tunis is trying to do its best. A high ranking minister always graces the proceedings at the Griba on Lag Baomer and reads out a message from the president! As the bomb was by Al Queda, and not a local cell, I guess things are not that bad. Still, it is uncomforable seeing police guarding the Jews, although it does give that added sense of security. (As I was walking around in Zarzis I was stopped by undercover officers who then had a personal guard follow me around. They also had police at the entrances of the tiny Jewish area there. What I found amazing in this isolated desert town was that I noticed a large map depicting land ownership in Palestine in the house of what turned out to be the local school master.....) Chesdovi (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tomb of the Prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi

Hello! Your submission of Tomb of the Prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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) 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to comment on the alt hook. Yoninah (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit at Had Nes

Your edit at Had Nes violates the consensus of the discussion at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues. Please revert yourself. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

AFD input

Is there a reason you expressed your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Praise of Talmud as a comment so that it is not visible unless one is editing the page? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding In Praise of Talmud, why not wait for your suggestion to be commented on before beginning a fundamental rewrite of the article. While it is true that one may well be able to write an article about ethical teachings of the Talmud, I'm not sure that it deserves treatement separate from the Talmud article itself, or from the Jewish ethics article that also aready exists. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Offline hook ref

Hi, Normally DYK reviewers just write "Offline hook ref AGF" (accepted in good faith). But since you quoted the text of the offline ref in the footnotes, I wrote it that way. Sorry if it was confusing. Yoninah (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Thank for the message, but --as I see-- Ethics in the Talmud is deleted. Meantime, a user is trying to delete my In Praise of Talmud, for no valid reason, What say you?Supperteecee (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Lydda

Hi Chesdovi, could I ask you to revert yourself here? The article is currently at peer review, but the source you used for this is not good enough, so it looks odd. Also I'm not sure we should add it as written even with a good source, but that's a separate issue (see talk). The article is on 1RR, so if I revert it myself it means I won't be able to make any more edits this evening, even copy editing, that risks undoing another editor's work, and I was hoping to work on it some more. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tedef

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Neil Primrose Response

For your question, He is Christian, there is a picture of his grave with the Cross in his profile. - 217.132.135.93 (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tomb of the Prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi

Courcelles 12:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It got 4,911 views! Chesdovi (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Right back at ya

Wow! חנוכה שמח to you too as well. And stay away from those sufganiot. Remember one sufgania equals 45 minutes on the treadmill :)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Kind of reminds me of hellfire, but the thought is nice. Thanks.--Yespleazy (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Holiest sites in Judaism

The article Holiest sites in Judaism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ill defined scope, no sources, very poor content.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Marokwitz (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Chanuka

א פריילעכן חנוכה דיר! Sorry I cannot compete with your artwork;-) --Redaktor (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of five days for violation of the ARBPIA one-revert rule on International law and Israeli settlements. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 00:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I must have not gaged the 2 hour time zone difference accurately! Sorry. Chesdovi (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note that other users who violated 1RR recently and were reported at AE 1. received notification on their talk page that a discussion regarding their behavior was taking place and 2. were given a chance to self-revert to avoid a block, with admins waiting for a response from the editor before taking action. I suspect this is why you were reported to AN3 and not AE. FYI. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Lst time SD let me know I was in unwittingly in violation of 1RR, I was able to revert. I have no interest at edit warring over at International law and Israeli settlements. I made further additions before reverting. Later after getting no response at talk, I went ahead not realising I was 2 hours before the limit had expired. Chesdovi (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back Chesdovi. Everyone else is given the chance to self-revert but you get hit with 5 days. Go figure--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Good evening

[35] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem at AE

Throw the Jew down the well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr No Account.

The topic area is just full of humor lately. Funny stuff right there. However, you should not post links to copyrighted material. See WP:VIDEOLINK (plugging my own essay).Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Re

[36] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Time for barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I award you this barnstar for your funny posts on Judaism and violence's talk page and for your article Judaism and bus stops, and for apology you issued to UN. Humor is the best and maybe the only way to fight trolling of many articles about Judaism and Israel that sadly are growing up on wikipedia as mushrooms in a forest after rainy days. Mbz1 (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Royal Palace, Tell el-Ful

Hello! Your submission of Royal Palace, Tell el-Ful at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! — Toдor Boжinov — 15:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Talk:Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia, it would be helpful for you to explain your choice of title for the original page of this article. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I am going to defer to the consensus of the other two editors that commented at the talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Royal Palace, Tell el-Ful

Orlady (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Shame that the hook was changed without disscusion. Chesdovi (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a problem, Chesdovi? --PFHLai (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD-Israel-FOP

Template:PD-Israel-FOP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello

FYI -asad (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked, violation of 1RR restriction per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Further_remedies, from report at [37]. -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of two weeks for violation of the ARBPIA one-revert rule on Rachel's Tomb. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- Cirt (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to make use of {{unblock}}, and discuss here on your talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chesdovi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As far as I was aware, I was within my rights to make my last edit at Rachel’s tomb, reverting once (with further additions). The 13 Jan edit was not a revert. It was a fresh edit. My last edit was my first revert of Asad’s 2nd revert. And the point that Asad mentioned was not a clear-cut revert. The previous text stated: "It is regarded by Israel as part of its "Jerusalem envelope" to be eventually annexed" while I reworded to "effectively annexing it to Jerusalem." One and the same I think. Asad's first revert was at 19:54, 13 January 2011. Brew reverted his edit, he then broke the 1RR by reverting again. He only self-reverted one bit, but has not reverted "Palestinian Territories" to “Occupied territories” or the word "Historically", which has been subject of removal and replacement. I on the other hand have attempted to take on board other editors concerns by leaving and rewording the barring of Arabs and leaving out the reason for the construction of the barrier, not re-adding “Historically”, and adding the "more specific” West Bank instead of "occupied territories” or “Palestinian Territories" I did not make a rash edit for the purpose of warring. I checked the revision history beforehand making sure that the edit would be legal. Furthermore, my edit incorporated additional material which attempted to placate other editors and I was not just reverting for the sake of reverting. I contend the assertion that I made more than 1 revert with 24 hrs. I am also wondering why Asad has not be censured for breaking the 1RR at Rachel’s tomb, with 2 other illegal reverts he made which seem to have gone unnoticed. Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your 13 Jan edit (here appears to clearly revert a large portion of this edit two weeks prior. As you were involoved in that back-and-forth, I'm not sure how you are claiming it was a 'fresh edit'. As noted below, this template is not to request the block of others. Kuru (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am unfamiliar with the conflict, and so will leave this request for another admin. I will note, though, that the conduct of other editors is entirely irrelevant to your block, at least in so far as your request is concerned. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chesdovi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If my 13 Jan edit is indeed to be considered as the 1st revert, my question is: have I broken the 1RR by first replacing “to be eventually annexed” with “de facto annexed”, and then replacing “to be eventually annexed” a second and third time with “effectively annexing”? That’s what the block was based upon. As regards to the claim that I never finished the discussion regarding this, took the liberty of not re-adding “de facto”, but a less “offensive” and quite different term: “effectively”. Chesdovi (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests are not fora for asking questions. You must convince us that you did not violate the sanction. You do not do so here. Kuru above has convincingly explained that your first edit was also a revert.  Sandstein  20:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

File:The Steipler biography.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Steipler biography.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 02:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

Could inform me of the new UN Security Council resolution that was passed in the last 24 hours, or some major shift in world view that went completely unnoticed by the world press to justify this edit? Please revert, even you know that your argument for this one won't even hold up for a second. (I am referring to the edit you made claiming that it is a dispute, not occupation) 1 -asad (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Both cases are both. Chesdovi (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

???? -asad (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't throw yourself on the 1RR sword, 'dovi!

The International Law and Israeli Settlement article is under 1RR you may want to self-revert on that. We can go to the talk page about the issue at hand but, basically, it is an international law issue just not immediately apparent without more depth. I'll work on the better explanation in the article. Ian Lustick's "Israel and the West Bank after Elon Moreh: The Mechanics of De Facto Annexation" is a good read if you want more on the convoluted mechanics in play. Sol (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

NO. I AM ALLOWED 1 REVERT. Chesdovi (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why I'm here. That would be a completely lame thing to get topic banned over. Either way, we can work out the issue on talk. Sol (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The first removal of the section is not by definition a "revert". You would be breaking the rule by readding after my first revert. Chesdovi (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello v.2

[38] -asad (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What was this all about?

You just made this rather drastic change to WP:ANEW, which I reverted. Did I overlook a good reason for your action? Favonian (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No. not quite sure how that happened? Chesdovi (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edits of Assumed Unclean Animals in the article Unclean animals are purposely wrong.

You added buffalo, deer, and even GOATS! These are all cloven hoofed animals that ruminate. You must be doing this on purpose because it would be impossible not to know they are clean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essequamvideri7 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Judaization of Jerusalem

Hi, the text I removed said that Jerusalem would have been founded as a Jewish capital, which was nonsense. I reviewed only the addition of the IP user using the history function, not the whole article this time. Of course, if you find other poor material in the article that I missed, please feel free to remove it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about your edit summaries

Hi, I'm investigating editor conduct at Golan Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Per Wikipedia:Edit summary, edit summaries are an invariably Good Thing™. Does hb4a mean Hebrew before Arabic[39], and does that initialism enjoy mainstream usage? AGK [•] 22:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1RR on Israel, Palestine and the United Nations

Hello -- your second edit today on Israel, Palestine and the United Nations is a violation of 1RR. I request please that you self-revert. thank you, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Maratha, Santalaris and Aloda massacre

• Hello. I have made a detailed research for the article on Turkish Wikipedia and found out that villagers from Maratha and Santalaris were buried in the same mass grave (they were killed together), and actually there is only the number of people who were found in the mass grave, but I have not found any sources stating how many people were killed in just Santalaris or just Maratha. That was actually a wrong statement, and I am adjusting that. These census results say that the population of Maratha was 113 and Santalaris 94. So, the number 94 was probably the population of Santalaris, not just Maratha. Thank you. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Mecca

Why do you not think that Mecca is the holiest city in Islam?VR _talk 04:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles on pogroms in Middle East and North Africa

Nice work with your recent contributions, notably 1948 Oujda and Jerada pogrom. I'm also progressing in putting more info including the 1945 Cairo pogrom. I would like to draw your attention to this and this articles, compared to Safed plunder. I think the 1834 Sefad article is a twin of 1834 Safed plunder, but i cannot find existing one on 1660 Sefad massacre. What can we do here? Greyshark09 (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In Ishmael's House by Martin Gilbert documents a lot of these events, if you guys are interested. Quite an interesting read. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll look into it. You too do a nice work here btw.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, you two as well. If I have the time I'll start some stubs based on the book. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. Chesdovi (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

RM

I don't really care one way or the other. I didn't notice any recent discussion, and the previous discussion was from over 2 years ago, and not very conclusive. If you are going to use talk as a reason, however, you should make a comment in the talk and at least bring it up so that it appears to be related to some recent discussion. So go ahead and remove it if you want. Arzel (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

I don't understand the reason for this edit. Would you please explain it to me? Debresser (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Rabbis in Ottoman & British Palestine spans 430 years. I prefer to list these rabbis by century, consistent with all other such cats. Chesdovi (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, continuing on from the question above, I see that you have removed the category "Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine" and added the category's "Palestinian rabbis" instead. In many of these cases, the articles say they came from somewhere else and emigrated to the area. Unless you can find sources supporting that all those individuals were Palestinians, then I'm gonna restore the original category. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What is your definition of Palestinian? Surely anyone who lives in any region attains that regions nationality or what have you. Chesdovi (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. Many people move to other places and are born in places without them having the nationality and ethnicity of that place. Some of them might be Palestinians, some of them might not. But unless you can prove with sources that all those people you claimed were Palestinians were in fact Palestinians, the Palestinian cats will have to be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editor on this one. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

sd, if we take people who emmigrated to palestinr from 1917 0nwards, it is for certain that they attaned palestinian citizenship under the british. Asad is american and you are whatever country you now live in, although you were born elsewhere. debresser, naeh for sure was palestinian, being born there under ottomon rule. Chesdovi (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that Palestinian here is supposed to designate a country, while it sounds like an ethnicity. How to solve that problem? Debresser (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

See article on Samuel Garmison. The JE says: "Palestinian rabbi of the seventeenth century. He was a native of Salonica." The cat denotes nationality, like all others. We cannot help it if gets confused with a modern entity of the same name. Anyhows, all Jews descend from the original 1st-century Palestinians. Chesdovi (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I still think we can keep Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine and not split it up any more. Debresser (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The general Category:Palestinian rabbis category is a soft redirect to the even more general Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel. The issue is with the century-specific categories. I think these should be restored to the general Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine category (or whatever other subcategory of Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel which is appropriate). Debresser (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for using that cat over the century specifc cats? Chesdovi (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above. The fact that somebody is a rabbi in a country does not mean he has the local nationality. Especially since many (or even most) of them were not born there. Also there is too much confusion with the term Palestine being an ethnicity and not a geographical location. In addition, and specifically, during the 13th century, the place was definitely not called Palestine. In general, I think you made a mistake when you created all these categories and started populating them without discussion! Debresser (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as American is not an ethnicity in this regard, neither is Palestinian. Palestine is a mish mash of a large number of ethnicities and has only achieved its own designation as such in response to Israels creation. Do you think we should not call most PM's of Israel "Israeli" because they were all born abroad? In most cases, a person upon emmigrating permanently, attains that places "natoinality". A person does not need to be born in the UK in order to be called British, so long as he spent a significant portion of life in that place is sufficient. The JE labels a number of tannaim and amoraim and geonim as palestinian thru to the 17, 18, 19th cent. I created a cat called Medieval Jews in Palestine as it was clear that most of them did not indeed spend what I would consider enough time there in order to be categorised as Palestinian. But to have a cat spanning over 400 years doesn't really achieve anything. why not "rabbis in ottoman and britisn P and Israel?" Why stop at 1948 with a name change? Are all "Israeli rabbis" born in Israel? The whole "... in the Land of Israel" cats are a problem. I think they were made b/c people are offended to use the term Palestine in connection with Judaism. Is that proper? Chesdovi (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Just because he spent half his life there and led the Jewish community there, does not make him a Palestinian, I told you above to ad sources, you have not. I saw your edit:[40] where you added the Palestinian cat, not Egyptian. Of course if there is no source saying he is Egyptian, then that should also be removed, since Im busy now, ill look into it later. You can also answer here instead of my talkpage.. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So what does make anyone Palestinian? A passport issued by the PNA? Being Arab? When describing people in these eras, it is common to name them by the paramenters I have decsribed. Eg. Menahem Lonzano is called a a 16th century Palestinian scholar. Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats not up for me or you to decide, in general I have no reason to doubt information about ethnicitys or anything else in articles even if its unsourced unless there is a reason for doubting it, in this case there is a good reason, as you added the same ethnic cat to many articles including about people not even born there, a lot of it if not all being unsourced, so your criteria for being Palestinian is that anyone who moved to the area or was born there is Palestinian, which is incorrect. Furthermore, Encyclopaedia Judaica: Volume 3 identifies David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra as an Egyptian rabbi [41]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As i have shown in my last post, you dont need to be born there to be Palestinian. If a person has lived in a country for a significant period of his life, especially if we are talking about pre-modern times, it is quite correct to descibe tht person as belonging to that country. Zimra was Spanist, Egyptin and palestinian. Chesdovi (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The only thing you have shown in your above post is your own personal believes. If no sources can be shown showing they were Palestinians, the cats will have to be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is false and your request for sourcing each of the approx 100 pages is illogical. If you have a problem with my additions, take it up elsewhere. Don't enforce your belifes here. Chesdovi (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop creating all kinds of "palestinian" categories while you see there are serious objections aginst it. If you do not seek consensus first, I will have to take this to wp:ani. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Your behaviour is what needs to be addressed here. Depopulating tens of pages before becuase you object is a bad move, as I have learnt in the past. Chesdovi (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can't create a whole group of categories, using a controversial term, then substitute existing categories with your categories, while this is being protested on your talk page, and then say you're not the bad guy... Debresser (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna quote myself from above: "Thats not up for me or you to decide", you can not define where a person is generally regarded as being from, leave that up to the sources. You can also reply here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

i am entitled to use my knowlege in this area and experience form the past regarding rabbis and the regions from which they are from. You were very insistent to make it clear the the underground quarry was in the West Bank, when umtine sources defined it as being in Isarel. Your rationale: Because we know best. If Rabbis in British Palestine is synonomous with Palestinian, what's the problem. Palestina here does not mean of Palestinan descent, but rather of palestine. If they livied they, to deserve the lable. No sources needed. Chesdovi (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The situations are completely different, worldview sources has been provided that the West bank is part of the Palestinian territories where the underground quarry is located. Its not clear that Rabbis in British Palestine where Palestinians, maybe some where, maybe some where not. And the majority of the people you added Palestinian cats for where not even related to that era. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"maybe some were, maybe some not". What do you mean. As i have expalined on your talk page, merely by dint of residing in the region is good enough for the application in our case. This is not about Palestinian Arab ethnicity. Why you continue to insist is is about that is wrong. Chesdovi (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, just because someone has lived there is not enough. Unless there is a source that says they are Palestinians, then Palestinian cats cant be added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have an entry in the JE: "Born in jerusalem before 70, flourished in Palestine...." It does not say the magic word that he was a "Palestinian". Are you saying I cannot call him a Palestinian rabbi? Chesdovi (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Elisha' ben Abuya has been identified as being Palestinian in: The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the Conference at Yale, March 1978, Volume 2 p 808. So you can call him Palestinian. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So you are basically saying that a person who was born, lived and died in Palestine and was said to have "flourished in Palestine" can not be called a "Palestinian rabbi" unless that specific term "Palestinian" is used? That sounds very very irrational to me. I will have to throw this open to the floor, because as far as I'm concerned your method of asserting Palestinianity is way out and over excessive. Chesdovi (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Q2) I have a source: "Daniel ben Azariah, supported by the government, began his feud against the Palestinian gaonic family". Now, if I find sources on all these other members of the Palestinian gaonic family, but no sources specificlly calls him "Palestinain", am I to disregard this classification, or would you agree since there is a general source categorisieng all Gaons of Palestine as Palestinian, that would be okay? Chesdovi (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Q3) You state that my criteria for classification of someone as Palestinian, namely that it "includes anyone who moved to the area", is incorrect. Yet we see that RS call [[Menahem Lonzano Palestinian, even though he was not born there. You have never once stated what you would agree is a correct classification of being called Palestinian, the reason of your dispute here. What is it? Chesdovi (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Source has to say the person is Palestinian.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You are more particular than the PLO. Is that good or bad? (Q2 is an example of a general source. Does this suffice?) Chesdovi (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source calling him Palestinian: [42] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You skirt the question again. I am talking about other family members, let's say his son David, for whom there are no specific sources, besides from the general classification. (With Albert Einstein you will see that the article only describes him as "German born" and having "American citizenship". Acc. to you we could not call him either German or American, yet the categories list him as such, even Swiss. Similarly, Zerahiah ben Shealtiel Ḥen is not sourced as being Catalan, should we not categorise him as such?) Chesdovi (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Palestine was not a geographical entity during the Ottoman period. This is the relevant passagfe from the article History of Palestine. "After the Ottoman conquest, the name "Palestine" was no longer used as the official name of an administrative unit, as the Turks often called their (sub)provinces after the capital. The majority of historical Palestine became part of the vilayet (province) of Damascus-Syria until 1660, and later became part of the vilayet of Saida (Sidon)." Thus, to refer to people as Palestinian during that time frame is questionable. You are also ignoring the fact many people live places where they do not become part of the local population. This is why we have Category:American expatriates in France as a distinct category from Category:American emigrants to France to give just one example. Beyond this, the Ottoman period begins in 1515, the British period ends in 1947. Neither fits well with a century break. If the 430 entries is deemed to large for a category the appropriate action would be to create Category:Rabbis in Ottoman Palestine and Category:Rabbis in British Palestine. If it is determined that rabbis by century needs to be georgraphically subdivided, which seems unlikely when Category:16th-century rabbis has only 68 entries, and it is further determined that the at most 30 of those that fall into the new category Category:16th-century rabbis of the Ottoman Empire are still to large and unwiedy, then the logical action would be to form Category:16th-century rabbis in Palestine. This is especially true since the goal of this category seems to be based around an unspoken assumption that since Palestine is the claimed ancestral homeland of the Jews (a claim that is probably justified, but when is usually posited in a way to ignore the Kazars, the Arabs who converted to Judaism, the large number of Jewish proselytes throughout the Roman Empire and so forth, although all these facts can be accepted and not diminish the claim if we argue it is the peoplehood and not the blood ancestry that matters) the question is "did these rabbis work, teach and write in Palestine" not "did they live there" let alone were they in some way people of there. The way this category is concieved if a rabbi was born in Safed but spent his whole career as a rabbi in Constantinople or Salonika he would not belong in the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The passage you rely on is unsourced. The next line which says “Nonetheless, the old name remained in popular and semi-official use, with many examples of its usage in the 16th and 17th centuries surviving” is sourced. But it is of no consequence what is was known by during that particular period. We rely on mainstream RS who are writing in the 20th century. I don’t know what you mean by “Palestine was not a geographical entity during the Ottoman period”. It most certainly was. Maybe what you mean is a “was not a political entity”. That may be so, but that historic region is today known by the name Palestine. That’s why the article itself is called History of Palestine, while you will find various names, depending on era, associated with it.

Your issue with people not “becoming part of the population” has been addressed. We do not rely on what you think, but on published RS. I can assure you that all those listed at Category:American emigrants to Israel are also categorised as Israeli too. Indeed, Abraham ben Solomon Treves is categories as both Category:Turkish rabbis and Category:Italian rabbis.

Why do you think we need to split Ottoman Palestine and British Palestine. This category categorises by region, not geo-political entity. Do we have Category:Weimar Republic rabbis, Category:Nazi Germany rabbis? No, just German rabbis, or rabbis of Germany.

The reason why we needed to add the century specific prefix is because Palestine in not only a historic region with a self-contained meaning, but also has a very modern context, meaning it may not be suitable to have just “Palestinian rabbis”, though I see no intrinsic problem with it myself. Chesdovi (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In an effort to be as diplomatic as possible...

I would suggest you self-revert your insertion of the "nowadays" term in the Joseph's Tomb article that you twice reverted back within span of 10 hours. You are well aware of the 1RR. -asad (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to make the passage flow better and be more accurate. If after my recent considerable and significant additions, you have meticulously spotted an blatant error and illegal move, forgive me. What is the problem you have exactly between the words "recently" and "nowadays"? I don't know where you are staring the 1RR violation from, but as far as I can see, you broke the rule first! Are you going to saction yourself? Last time you got me blocked, I also notcied how you had also broken the rule. Talk about hypocracy. You couldn't be "diplomatic" if you tried. Chesdovi (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I will be glad to self-revert if you could explain to me how my second edit was a second revert of something I previously reverted. -asad (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

deleting "Nowadays" and then: changing "Nowadays" to "recently". You then want to take me to task for changing "recently" back to "Nowadays"?? Chesdovi (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I deleted "nowadays" in the first revert. And in the second edit, I changed "nowadays" to "recently" and added a citation tag. I only changed "nowadays" to "recently" as I feel "recently" is a bit more proper. Go ahead and report me if you like, but I don't see any violation. -asad (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"More proper" as opposed to what? Was that a compromise on your part, rather than having us think the shiek has always been beleived to be buried there? As neither term is cited by the BBC, adding "recently" would, in your words be: "completely misrepresenting the source". You further say "do you have a source that backs up your claim that it is a "recent"' belief?" Yet you later go ahead and add the word "recently" without a source! Just add the tag to "nowadays" and leave the rest to me. And stop being so pernickety. Chesdovi (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should go back and look at the revisions. I changed "nowadays" to "recently" (as I think it is a more proper word for an encyclopedia) and added a citation needed tag, as the BBC source, as you said, does not talk about "nowadays" or "recently" for that matter. It is pretty obvious that the if I believed in the edit strongly by adding "recently" I would have not tagged with a citation needed. Seems like you are a bit confused. -asad (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you are adding unsourced words (problematic for you in this case) deliberately to stoke an edit war. You admitted that the word "recently" was unsubstantiated and said you were not happy with its usage in the article. Why did you add it then? (You had previously removed the insinuation that the interment of the biblical Joseph at the site was in accordance with Muslim belief.) If you want to add “recently” after more research on the subject, you will have to provide an approximate date as to when this occurred. After all, what does recent mean? (We have 1996 for the Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque). Nowadays, means exactly that. No ambiguity. Chesdovi (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with adding "recently" either. My main purpose of the edit was to add a citation need tag to your word. During the process of doing that, I thought changing it to "recently" would be a more fitting word for an encyclopedia than "nowadays". Get it yet? -asad (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You tampered with the word "nowadays" twice within 24hrs. You broke the 1RR. Chesdovi (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So report me if you feel like it is necessary. I would gladly explain my side in such a case and accept whatever happens. Good luck. -asad (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi:You have been editing/reverting that page for the last 24 hrs and have also broken the 1RR rule a few times by now I feel.Owain the 1st (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not if Asad hides behind an IP and then uses profanities. Chesdovi (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any proof or evidence? Or are you just making an unsubstantiated claim? Where have I used profanity, what IPs have I hidden under? I suggest you stop with the rhetoric before you severely embarrass yourself. And if you want, here is the link to report me. I absolutely implore you to do it. -asad (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You and him have both broken the rules, you are having an edit war.I suggest you both stop it now.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Orthodox rabbis who had alternative occupations

Category:Orthodox rabbis who had alternative occupations, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Joseph's tomb

Hi, do you read German? I have a very detailed history of Joseph's tomb and well in German. I can send it if you ask by email. Zero^talk 04:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you already sent it to me, but I don't know German. Chesdovi (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

ARBPIA 72 hr topic ban

Debresser and Chesdovi are both topic banned from Israeli / Palestinian topic areas for 72 hrs due to disruptive editing and edit warring, with a healthy dose of personal attacks and incivility thrown in. This sanction is enacted under the Arbcom case sanctions and will be so logged.

Please DO NOT CONTINUE this behavior after the 72 hr ban is over. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Un-impostoring

Looks like the user Off2riorob took care of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Jewish control of the media

Your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Jewish control of the media, while very amusing, might confuse the closing admin regarding your true feelings about this article. Would you consider clarifying? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Metulla 1896. A Tel Hai 1917 Yesud Hama'ala 1883^%, Ayelet Hashahar 1918 • alVlishmar Hayarden EinZeitim

Einstein

You may be right, but please be careful when changing the assessments of articles. The importance is generally assessed by members of the Wiki Project in question. When in doubt edit separately for each project. Thanks. mgeo talk 10:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please remove remark

Please remove this edit. It is belligerent, and therefore counterproductive to the discussion. In addition, it is factually incorrect, because two other editors have already disagreed with you, one of them in continuation of his previous posts. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Per your off-Wikipedia request, I have made the following edit. [43] Please also notice the editsummary. Debresser (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Muammar Gaddafi speech, 22 Feb 2011.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Muammar Gaddafi speech, 22 Feb 2011.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 17:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Elyah Lopian.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Elyah Lopian.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Kagan New York Times obituary.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kagan New York Times obituary.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 23:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Wailing Wall, Palestine Post 1934.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wailing Wall, Palestine Post 1934.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 23:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Wailing Wall Road, 1967.jpeg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wailing Wall Road, 1967.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 23:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Yisroel Yaakov Fisher.jpeg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yisroel Yaakov Fisher.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 00:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Tiferet yisrael 1930.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tiferet yisrael 1930.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 00:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of the name Palestine

Please provide justification for all the tags added to this article today, or they will be removed. To ensure you have a proper understanding of the topic, please first review the external references section of the article, in particular:

• Jacobson
• Feldman
• Gerber
• Also, Edward Said's A Question of Palestine

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I know I should have provided explanation at talk, but have not yet had a chance. Sorry. Basically, I am concerned that you have gathered from early sources, however these being only translations. i.e. I doubt very much whether in Jewish Midrash the word Palestine appears. It is only referred to as such by the translator, but does not appear in the original text. It seems in this case, it appears only in the notes. The whole page needs to be based on tertiary sources. Chesdovi (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Judean rabbis

Hi Chesdovi. You recently created Category:Judean rabbis a few days ago in spite of warnings not to create such categories that have brought you into the midst of editorial conflicts with other users and in spite of a number of related CfDs and calls for discussions about this subject at Category_talk:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis#Rfc and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Rabbis categories for renaming. You are violating WP:CONSENSUS and the terms of the warnings that were issued to you recently, see User talk:Chesdovi#ARBPIA 72 hr topic ban. Please cool it, or further sanctions against you will be requested. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your addition of this category to several articles, as well as blanked the category page. You have to stop doing this kind of thing until those discussions are decided. And since they will not be decided in your favor, you will just have to stop this - period. Debresser (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Palestine add.jpg

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

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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.

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 Arfican (talk • contribs) 11:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:I D 69.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:I D 69.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:AS P1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AS P1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see and shudder

User_talk:Arfican#Your_recent_edits for the refutation of your slanderous remark. Debresser (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS and WP:NFCC#9 violation

This edit violates WP:CANVAS and WP:NFCC#9. Please revert it ASAP. --Damiens.rf 16:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

While putting the actual image on the noticeboard was inaappropriate, it is not canvassing to notify a noticeboard per Wikipedia:CANVAS#Appropriate_notification. Dreadstar ☥ 16:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

But the caption may have been uncalled for. Chesdovi (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Chesdovi. Also, please take some time to get yourself familiar with our policies and practices in regard to the use of non-free images. Our bar for using these image is a little bit higher than what you may seem to believe, judging by your comments on the deletion discussions. Getting to know our habits may prevent you from further frustrations. But in anycase, thanks for the always polite interactions. --Damiens.rf 17:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CANVAS#Appropriate_notification says "such notices should be polite, neutrally worded....". I wouldn't call this exactly neutrally worded: "Do you want this to be deleted?. Then take no action!". -

Dread, we all know at this point you don't like me. But now you're just pushing the limits. -Damiens.rf 17:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A concern that you did not make clear with your initial comments. Be more cautious with your notifications in the future. Dreadstar ☥ 17:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess it was clear enough to Chedovi, that what who it was addressed to to begin with. Try to be less nosy next time, but if you can't, at least be less arrogant when your mistakes are pointed out. --Damiens.rf 17:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Damiens, I made no mistakes here, just clarifying that putting a notice on a noticeboard is not canvassing per WP:CANVAS. I'll be as nosy as I need to be. Apologies to Chesdovi if I did butt in here... :) Dreadstar ☥ 17:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Chesdovi, definitely use WP:NFCC, as well as acceptable use and Unacceptable use policy and guidelines in any image discussion or decision. Dreadstar ☥ 17:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for those tips and links. Chesdovi (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help! Dreadstar ☥ 17:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of 2010 Kenya–Somalia border clash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2010 Kenya–Somalia border clash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Kenya–Somalia border clash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 15:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

IOJUJO

It's from this discussion, specifically this comment I made on May 31. Cheers. ← George ^talk 20:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian people

Hi Chesdovi. Your recent contribution to Palestinian people appears to be copied and pasted verbatim from the source. That violates Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please rewrite the sentence in your own words to eliminate the copyright violation. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Help on Talk:Eleazar ben Judah of Bartota

I saw you added cat. Can you help me out on Talk:Eleazar ben Judah of Bartota ?

ThanX! --89.139.48.211 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrol

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Anabta

Would you mind reproducing the text used in the source you cited for this [edit]? The Google books entry does not display nearly enough information to confirm what you have added, so I think it would be helpful if you could reproduce it since I do not have the book. Thanks. -asad (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"This Narbata which so far has not been identified, is, most probably, Khirbet en-Nerabeh by ‘Anebta, in the north-west of Samaria. The Aramaic form of its name must be traced back to Neraba. Perhaps also the name 'Anebta originated from 'Ain Narbata. It is true, the distance given by Josephus does not fit in. His 60 stadia = 4040 yards would have to be altered into 146 stadia. The distance given by him reaches only as far as the edge of the highland, and may in reality only refer to the western boundary of the territory of Narbata. According to Georgios Kedrenos,5 the " plain under Parnas " and Narbathon (or Narbathos) were a part of the domain of Herod Antipas. By the former the Huleb plain below Paneas (=Bamas) is meant, and the latter is the Narbatean toparchy, the Herodian possession of….."

Thanks, that makes more sense. Also, thanks for the other information you added about the town, it is very interesting. I would just like to point out one thing though, I do not believe the source is correct in this edit. To my knowledge, and many people in this town who are still alive and lived were alive in that 1931, there were never any Christians, Jewish or Druze. I have asked many people who's ancestor's who have come from Anabta for centuries and there were never people other than Muslims. I am pretty sure the source is wrong on this. What do you think? -asad (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have the census reports and can explain this, I think. Very small locations were lumped together with larger locations rather than being listed separately. In the case of Anabta, the counts also include Iktaba and "Nur ash Shams", which are both about 6km to the west (closer to Tulkarm than to Anabta). In the 1922 census, Anabta and Iktaba are listed separately and show only Muslims (1606 and 121, respectively). Most interestingly, "Nur ash Shams" (located where the Nur Shams refugee camp is now), appears on a 1935 map as "Nur ash Shams (Jail Labour Co. No. 1)". So it was some sort of prison, maybe a prison farm or similar. Those Christians, Jews and Druze in 1931 might have been prisoners or prison staff. The Christians would include British. Zero^talk 00:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel

You contributed to the recent discussion at WP:Cfd. The closing editor recommended that a discussion be started on a new name and we should seek consensus there before proceeding to Cfd again. I've opened such a discussion on Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel and invite you to participate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian categories

I hope you dont mind if I butt in on this issue, but it seems as though a simple solution is being ignored. You want to use the term "Palestinian" to refer to those residents of a place called Palestine. I dont see a problem with this, but others apparently do, regardless of the quality of their objections. Why not just say "in Palestine" or "from Palestine" in the title of the category? So, instead of Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis you would have Category:16th-century rabbis in Palestine or Category:16th-century rabbis from Palestine? nableezy - 15:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This has only just been suggested one of the opposers, namley Biosketch. If they were so worried about their "concerns", why did IZAK or Debresser not suggest such a name themselves much earlier on? The problem they all have is with the word "Palestine," not its claimed confusion over ethnicity. Debresser also objected to Category:Mediveal Jews in Palestine. IZAK changes each category connected to Jews named Palestine to "Land of Israel". There is a larger issue at hand here. Chesdovi (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Carrigal was a palestinian.tif

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Carrigal was a palestinian.tif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review

If you'll notice at the bottom of this diff, new nominations should be placed below the line that says "place new nominations BELOW THIS LINE" (emphasis theirs). I can't fix this for you, as it requires your signature, so you'll have to fix this yourself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I wondered why it wasn't appearing. My suspicion of a conspiracy are indeed unfounded. Chesdovi (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 20th century

Why, well it is a specific category that explains why a building or structure has significance in a given year or century. Architecture is very unspecific as to why there is significance. Is it because the building was designed in said year, is it because the building started construction in said year, is it because the building was finished in said year? The completed categories also roll up into the engineering tree since that is involved with construction and not all architecture is engineering related. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Palestine

I dislike your walking the edges, but have no real problem with adding a link to Palestine to the name of cities. Please see Palestine#Ottoman_rule_.281516.E2.80.931831_AD.29 that the name Palestine was not the official of the region since the beginning of Ottoman rule in the 16th century. Debresser (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I grossly dislike and am disgusted by your parochial, manipulative approach. Chesdovi (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you should use Ottoman Palestine, not Palestine. If I notice other editors making that change, I think your edits will have to be modified. If not, I'll not push on this one, since there is something to say for it. If only you weren't such a pusher. Debresser (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:PUSH has your name written all over it. Ottoman Palestine redirects to Palestine, so you better be having words with User:Brewcrewer if you want to do any of your "modifying". Chesdovi (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

1. I changed that redirect now, see the editsummary for the rationale. 2. Even while it was still a redirect to "Palestine", it would still be better to use "Ottoman Palestine", since it is always good to be precise. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Do not change my post to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Palestinian_rabbi. You can add that image, even though it is of no use there, below my post only. Debresser (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you move it if it bothers you? What very strange behaviour. Chesdovi (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Not only does it bother me, it is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. And so is this editsummary. Ever see WP:CIVIL? Debresser (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No. It is a violation of the rules to delete other peoples comments. You are really asking for it. Chesdovi (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Read again, and on Wikipedia:User warning templates, that it says "editing" and "refactoring", not only "deleting". Debresser (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which bit of your comment I edited, but if you felt bothered that the image was too close to you, why did you not move it down, instead of deleting, a serious violation in itself. I will only concede that I forgot to sign it. I have had enough of you games here. Something will happen. Chesdovi (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Like the Lord striking me with lightening? There are no games. I am just trying to stop you pushing certain edits and behaving any way you like. And I do so in respect for your person and the good things you do on Wikipedia. I'd like to be able to say I feel the same attitude from your side. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You are behaving any way you like by taking the law into your own hands by reverting brand new edits that you WP:DONTLIKE. The only way this will be sorted out is if you stop enforcing you POV before the issue at and has been discussed and judged upon by the community. Your censorship tactics are vile. Chesdovi (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry you see things that way. Still, I remember at times even you acknowledged that I am not "wagging a war" against you, and did not revert all the things you did. Even today, I have not reverted your addition of a link to "Palestine" even though I think "Ottoman Palestine" would be more appropriate, and I have agreed with you in a rename discussion to "Category:16th-century rabbis in Palestine". Debresser (talk)

fyi

Hi. I know you've already expressed a view, and it of course may not change your view, but I just wanted to let you know that since then I added a number of sources to Agudas Achim Congregation (Alexandria, Virginia), the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agudas Achim Congregation (Alexandria, Virginia). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi -- I've just noticed that you've created articles that have a lesser level of indicia of notability (in the form of refs) that this one now has reflected in the article, so perhaps this now meets your personal criteria of notability. I don't know if you missed this note, so am dropping by again. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to nominate them as I did myself recently. Chesdovi (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:I Herzog.jpg

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

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:History of out people 5th edit. 1968.tif

Thanks for uploading File:History of out people 5th edit. 1968.tif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Blackman mishnayoth 1951.tif

Thanks for uploading File:Blackman mishnayoth 1951.tif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:J Hertz daily prayer book, 14th edition, 1971.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:J Hertz daily prayer book, 14th edition, 1971.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Immanuel Jakobovits, Palestine.png

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

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Shach

Sorry about that. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Jewish knowlegde.tif

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

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Modern Jewish thoughts 1960.tif

Thanks for uploading File:Modern Jewish thoughts 1960.tif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:1977 Soncino Tamud.tif

Thanks for uploading File:1977 Soncino Tamud.tif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:J H Hetz Pentateuch 1929.tif

Thanks for uploading File:J H Hetz Pentateuch 1929.tif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Silberman rashi.tif

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

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:A Steinsaltz 1977.tif

Thanks for uploading File:A Steinsaltz 1977.tif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

source quality

I wish you would be more fussy about your sources. It should be obvious that Kaplan's book is a polemic and that he has no expertise in demographics. There isn't any scholarly support for the claim he makes. Zero^talk 14:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, I believed him okay, he is a rabbi you know. Okay, this is a good book: [44]. Chesdovi (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the book by Hezser seems quite good. Zero^talk 03:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

...but instead you look for tertiary sources whose version you prefer. Encyclopedia Americana??? If you devoted your time to finding the most eminent sources regardless of what they say, you would be a great editor. I'm bothering to make this criticism out of respect.. Zero^talk 09:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A/E

[45] -asad (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Jewish Community of Hebron logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jewish Community of Hebron logo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

My reversion here was an error - I clicked on the wrong "undo" in my watch list. I reinstated your original text a few minutes later when I saw what happened. Apologies for the error. Tvoz/talk 21:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

hello

Hello, Chesdovi. 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.

Topic ban

For the reasons stated in this AE thread, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, you are hereby banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, for one year. This ban may be appealed following the procedures set out in WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions; however, I will not consider any appeal until at least three months have elapsed. T. Canens (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, I am, sincerely, sorry that you got hit with a ban of such a length. I think I have told you this before in the past, but I think you are, for the most part, a good editor. However, when you decide to do something you go full steam ahead, without regard for the views of others. I cant lie, I do the same myself though I have tried to go a bit slower in the past year or so. The issue with the categories is a good example (and like Debresser I dont think that it falls in the ARBPIA topic area; while the motivations of some are surely based on Zionist views and a dislike of the word Palestinian, I dont think anybody can make a reasonable argument that whether or not a 16th century Rabbi was Palestinian is in the Arab-Israeli topic area). I wrote at your AE that if you were willing to slow down a bit I would support no ban, and I still would. But look at what happened at Hebron. You completely removed the seal of the city and replaced it with the seal of the settlers council. When that was reverted you added an infobox for the city based on the settlers council. You did not wait to see if your position had any support before restoring the seal, you just decided that you were right and that was the way the article would be. As I am sure you know, I have gotten in a bit of trouble for a similar, and I hope you forgive me for being frank, bullheadedness. I still think you are, for the most part, a decent editor. But you need to slow down when you are in a dispute. Take care, nableezy - 14:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I wasn't aware there was anything going on at AE until it was over. Despite the fact that your editing annoys me quite often, I always thought of you as an honest editor and we need honest editors from a variety of viewpoints. If you want to apply for a remission after a time, I'll support you. I'll be out of touch for a few days, though (a very long journey). Zero^talk 10:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Your topic ban and our disagreement

For what it's worth, in my personal opinion the subject of our disagreement - see Category talk:16th-century Palestinian rabbis - is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I for one, do not see it so. But the banning admin might take a different stance on that issue. I suggest you take it up with him. Feel free to quote my opinion to him. Georgewilliamherbert, who topic banned you (and me) from "Israeli / Palestinian topic areas" for 72 hours in this edit obviously thinks differently about this. Debresser (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You still have not said what the "chief rabbi evidence" proves. Chesdovi (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I see the source of the misunderstanding. I was referring to the dictionary entry you brought there. I replied that it proves rather the contrary. I didn't mean the chief-rabbi section at all. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The scope of the ban does include Palestinian rabbis, Palestinian minhag, Palestinian synagogues, etc., since it's the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is the reason we're locked in our debate. If the word "Palestinian" did not come to be associated with Palestinian statehood, there wouldn't be any confusion involved in it and Debresser (talk · contribs) and I probably wouldn't object to it. But despite that being said, I wouldn't have a problem were the banning Admin to make an exception in this case to allow Chesdovi (talk · contribs) to continue contributing to those articles and their related Discussion pages. It wouldn't be fair for User:Debresser or myself to avail ourselves of User:Chesdovi's one-year absence to make changes that would otherwise be seriously challenged. This is also why I think the banning Admin's decision is scandalous. It hurts the Project much more than it helps it. Even though I disagree with Chesdovi's conclusion (though not necessarily his methodology), his contribution to the Project has been outstanding. Debresser, it sounds as though you agree with me. So perhaps we should suspend our discussion for three months, whereupon Chesdovi will be able to submit an appeal of his ban, and when that time comes we'll support lifting it for the reasons I just gave and pick up where we left off.—Biosketch (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. I think the discussion was closed correctly before when the category was deleted. And I don't see much agreement with Chesdovi's point of view anyway. So I think we should not wait for him, but close the issue as it was. In addition, a banned editor should not try to return to previous disagreements right after the end of his ban. Debresser (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't stoop to the level of other editors who exploit AE to suppress debate and create facts on the ground in controversial articles. The situation now isn't ideal, but it's what we've got. Chesdovi (talk · contribs) put a lot of his time and resources into the discussion at 16th-century rabbis, and we owe him the courtesy of still being considerate of his position, even if it means making a concession we're not happy with for the moment.—Biosketch (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to be stuck with a discussion which is decided as it is for possibly up to a year because of this. If anything, Chesdovi's ban lends argument to my opinion, that he is a pushy and tendentious editor, and that all his arguing in this matter is just another example of both these traits. And again, I see a clear consensus disagreeing with Chesdovi. In short, I don't view his ban as a great loss to the community (in effect, the community seems to deem it the best way of resolving a problem), and think we should go on doing the right thing. Sorry to hack Chesdovi's talkpage in such a way, and to write such negative things about him. It's a bit of a chutzpe, but then, that is probably justice. In any case, I do appreciate his positive contributions, but agree with the community decision that at this moment we are better off without him. Debresser (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Nicosia municipal logo - Turkey.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nicosia municipal logo - Turkey.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Nicosia municipal logo - Cyprus.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Nicosia municipal logo - Cyprus.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis

Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.  Sandstein  17:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Chanoch Ehrentreu

Thanks for taking this up.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason that you deleted the few sentences that I wrote, which did not pass judgement on anyone, merely linked to sources from both sides, and helped to provide a greater understanding of this controversy? Do you actually know anything about it? Why would you get rid of a link to google books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.203.141 (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It was not me. Chesdovi (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.116.142 (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Great Synagogue of London

Who destroyed it? Chesdovi (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You tell me!-it was evidently destroyed by a bomb or a fire that resulted from the Blitz (as is appropriately categorized). But it was not a 'synagogue destroyed by the Nazis' in that they deliberately sent in, or organized, people to smash it up, as they did for the other synagogues in Category:Synagogues destroyed by Nazi Germany.--Smerus (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The German Airforce does not equal the Nazis. Bombings of anything in Brittain by the German airforce are not actions of the Nazis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? The "German Airforce" or Wehrmacht is not synonymous with "Nazi Germany"? How odd. Am I wrong is saying that the Blitz was carried out by Nazi Germany? Chesdovi (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Menachem Mendl Hager.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Menachem Mendl Hager.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Menachem Mendl Hager.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Menachem Mendl Hager.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) 03:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yitschok Yaakov Dovid Hager.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Yitschok Yaakov Dovid Hager.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) 03:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Etiquette

Hello, Chesdovi. 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. Debresser (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Category

Hi Chesdovi! IIRC I was referring to the same discussion, which I started in 2007. The comment about 2007 was just added because it's usually an odd thing to restart a 2-year-old discussion (although not uncommon). Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI-2

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Chesdovi regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories

"Historical regions" and "Subdivisions of former countries" are very different things. Term ""historical region" refer to modern region which has certain historical significance, while "subdivisions of former countries" are former official administrative units that do not existing in modern times. Some historical regions might correspond with former subdivisions, but some other might not. The only problem that I see with "Historical regions by country" category would be fact that some articles from that categorization tree would rather belong to "subdivisions of former countries", so you are free to move any such article to more appropriate category. PANONIAN 16:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cordial invitation

As a sign of goodwill, I'd like to invite you to comment on a proposal about splitting the article on the Arizal, which seems to be more about Lurianic Kabbalah at the moment. Please comment here. Debresser (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nicosia municipal logo - Turkey.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nicosia municipal logo - Turkey.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Countries and regions

There are many unclear cases, and "country" isn't a particularly clear term. Even "sovereign state" is not completely clearcut. It seems pretty clear that Bavaria was a sovereign Kingdom from 1814-1871; was it a "country" from 1871-1918 (when it was part of the German Empire) or before 1792, when it was part of the Holy Roman Empire? As for Galicia, there was a sovereign medieval kingdom, but it has not been a sovereign state in modern times. Are empires countries? It seems weird to call the British Empire a country because it recognized various "dominions" (Canada, India, etc.) within it; on the other hand, it isn't a region either. And of course the Ottoman Empire included some dependencies that weren't fully integrated.... --Macrakis (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was definitely a country in the modern sense of the word. Debresser (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Bummer

Please consider this your last warning as to mentioning my name when my editing style. You are using it in such a manor by inferring that I have a bad editing style that goes against policy. Under WP:NPA:

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence - Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users.

If there is a matter of my editing that you view is violating WP policy, I suggest you e-mail an administrator about the issue. But making claims about my editing without backing them up (even though you can't even back them up considering your ban) will lead to me seeking enforcement. -asad (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your dispute with Debresser

It's getting a bit tiresome now, isn't it? Why don't the two of you head for mediation? It may not succeed, but, who knows, you might be able to find some common ground. Or at least a measure of mutual respect. Are you up for it? --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Siddur meforash.jpg

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

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Jah ribbon.jpg

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

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Tefillin a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

File copyright problem with File:Palestinian shulchan aruch.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Palestinian shulchan aruch.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Invasion of Banu Nadir

Dear Chesdovi, you left a message on my page which said: "Is there any extra-Koranic source for the existence?" , but i didnt get what you mean. Do you mean does any other Quran verse refer to the event?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis

The verdict is in. Incredible. Does truth count for nothing on Wiki? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Showing your true colors only after the fight?

Truth is elusive, and there is much to say for being smart also. If you get my drift. Debresser (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Like yourself Debresser, I find it impossible to hide my true colours. Truth will out. Attempts at smoothing rough edges are usually futile, as the Palestinian debate has shown. Best to be true to the Truth from the start. In Ireland, the expression for one who is "smart" is "cute hoor"; you'll have to Google the Hiberno-English for that one. Suffice to say that I'm glad to say that I'm not smart in that way if that was what was intended by your comment. Better to be a fool than by those standards to be judged "smart". Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to have clear positions. Your position wasn't that clear in the discussion, but your comment here resolved that question. My other remarks were intended to be vague and philosophical, because I really try to not let my personal opinions interfere with what I think is correct from a Wikipedia point of view. Debresser (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

From one topic-banned user to another

I, like you, was topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict (my ban is 3 months). I wish to ask you whether it is safe for one banned from this topic to edit articles about Israel in general, such as the country, the government, communities, etc, if you stay away from pages on the conflict. I wish to make a major edit on the Knesset's section which has to do purely with its functions, but I would like to know if it is safe to do that. Thanks.--RM (Be my friend) 02:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Palestinian Patriarchate

Another contribution to the DYK project, thanks Victuallers (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Afd of Palestinian rabbis

If have nominated the article "Palestinian rabbis" for deletion. The main reason being that the term is a product of your fantasy. Detailed rationale and additional arguments, please find on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian rabbis. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi (talk · contribs), can you provide a source for this quote by Ben-Gurion: "Rabbi Yitzhak of Acre was not the only Palestinian scholar to leave the country in this period"?—Biosketch (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I already have. Chesdovi (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, can you reproduce it here?—Biosketch (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, currently note #26 at Palestinian rabbis: David Ben-Gurion (1974). The Jews in their land. Aldus Books. p. 220. Chesdovi (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. My guess is that that's a translation from Hebrew, "לא היה היחיד מבין חכמי ארץ ישראל שעזב," or something to that effect, in which case it's ambiguous as far as translation goes. But I'll have to track down the original Hebrew. Tell me, what are your feelings on renaming the article Rabbis of Palestine or Rabbis of the Land of Israel? Would either of those be acceptable alternatives to the article's current name? This way the confusion with the modern Palestinian ethnopolitical identity would be avoided.—Biosketch (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Point 1: The nominator specifically stated that such an article title does not instigate confusion. Also the nominator would be against such a rename per Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel. Chesdovi (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The way the ANI is going, you and the nominator are both going to get topic-banned because of these recurring episodes. I'm trying to suggest a way to avoid that, because you write articles that are valuable to the Project but at the same time also provoke people on account of their possible subtext. If you don't want to answer, that's your prerogative. But strictly regarding yourself, would you approve of moving Palestinian rabbis to Rabbis of Palestine or Rabbis of the Land of Israel? I haven't consulted the other party in this dispute yet, but if you tell me you're fine with either or both of those names, I think the onus'll be on Debresser (talk · contribs) to explain why he's opposed to them, if at all.—Biosketch (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Point 2: You are most probably correct that it is a translated work. (I can check as there is a copy in my local Beis Midrash). Nevertheless, am I correct in thinking you seem to want to apply the Jewish name for Palestine to all Jewish subject articles? I know that’s what IZAK seems to endorse, but I feel that it is unwarranted. After all, this is not Jewish Wikipedia. You can see that Palestine links to the Hebrew version EI. It seems there does not exist on Hebrew wikipedia a page on “Palestine”: [46]. The main English page on the region is called Palestine which provides the comprehensive article on the subject, while Land of Israel on has a summary about it meaning in Jewish history, etc. Note that Hebrew wiki page states: השם המקובל בלשונות אחרות לאזור הגאוגרפי המכונה בעברית "ארץ ישראל" הוא Palestine ("פַּלֶסְטַיין", "פַּלֶסְטִין" - אנגלית, צרפתית), Palestina ("פַּלֶשתינָה" - ספרדית, איטלקית, רוסית), فلسطين ("פִלַסְטִין" או "פַלַסְטִין" - ערבית; ובעברית כונתה לעתים פַּלַשְׂתִינָה). And since this is English wiki, we should always be using the name Palestine for all subject pertaining to the region. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Between "Palestine" and "Land of Israel," I don't really have a clear preference. Those two words refer to the same thing. (There is a problem on Wikipedia with Template:WikiProject Palestine associating the Palestinian flag with Palestine, but that's a separate problem and one that I'm trying to resolve elsewhere.) Now, you can see that I added an interwiki at he.wikipedia to your article Palestinian minhag, even though I also left you a somewhat caustic comment on the Discussion page of that article a while back. The point is this: Palestinian is today used to refer to a group of people claiming a common national identity that didn't exist at the time of the rabbis your article is discussing. The meaning of Palestinian has correspondingly undergone a semantic shift over the centuries. Palestine, on the other hand, hasn't. Wikipedia distinguishes between Palestine the region and Palestine the proposed state. What I'm suggesting is that, as a practical measure, we be considerate of the modern meaning of Palestinian and not apply it retroactively where it can mislead readers into associating rabbis with an ethnic-national identity that didn't exist in their time. It seems to me that the easiest way to do that is by renaming Palestinian rabbis→Rabbis of Palestine, Palestinian minhag→Minhag of Palestine, and so on.—Biosketch (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry Bio, but the meaning of Palestinian today is not much different than it has always been. Like each and every other country in the world, xxxian refers to residents of that country or region, be they ethnic xxxians or not; whether they indeed hold xxxian nationality or not. Unless you can persuade such categories like “Jews by Country” to be changed into the format you suggest above, why should this be this different?

Let’s say Ben Gurion called the new Jewish homeland in Palestine, Judea. Would we have Roman era Judean blacksmiths together with Modern era Judean footballers under Category:Judean people by occupation? Possibly. Maybe the prefix “Ancient” would be used to disambig form the earlier Judeans. But both would be referred to as Judean. No one would suggest that a page on Judean rabbis should be renamed to Rabbis of Judea, lest one think these ancient rabbis formed part of an modern ethnic-national identity which did not exist thousands of years ago. Or even if such an identity did exist, that people may erroneously associate these early rabbis as being alive and kicking during the past 60 years. The term Judean can be applied to both ancient and modern rabbis since it delineates the very same location.

I do not known what the rabbis referred to themselves as, but all I can do is base this classification on the extensive contemporary RS which refer to such rabbis as Palestinian. There may have never been a Palestinian nation as we know it nowadays, but the classification used in RS does not necessarily insinuate there was. It merely means such people were from Palestine. It does not mean they were Arabs or held PNA identity papers. Is it really such a significant issue that this confusion precludes us from using this term in this case? (Remember, there is only opposition (by Zionists?) when it comes to Jewish articles!) If anybody has been a tad bewildered upon seeing such an article/category name, so be it: Upon reading the first line of the article, all becomes clear. What is the fuss about? Those few seconds of puzzelment: “How can Jewish rabbis be Palestinian when there are no Jews in the West Bank or Gaza?” What?!! “Oh, I see, this refers to rabbis living in the region when it was known in its entirety as Palestine.” Let people educate themselves. I believe that when the typical reader see a page entitled “Rabbis of the Land of Israel” his mind thinks of a biblical entity, not the medieval and pre-modern period. Palestine or Palestinian on the other hand refers to the region over a much extended period of time, not only since 1964 when the PLO was established. Such a halabaloo about this, made mostly by one editor, makes people think there is an unmentioned agenda on the part of some editors regarding this issue. ([47])

As it stands, there may be a distinction between Palestine the region and Palestinian state, but that may soon change: Palestine will direct to the modern state, with the current being disambiguated to Palestine (region). We could be left with Rabbis in Palestine which would make no sense at all. About the suggestion of Rabbis in the Land of Israel, that would obviously have to include Category:Israeli rabbis, which is beyond the scope of the article, which is about rabbis who lived there before Israel was created in 1948 with the subsequent influx of thousands of rabbis.

I am not sure how we will deal with people of Palestine when the state is declared. Possibly Category:Poets from Palestine (state), while all other poets who lived before 1948 in the region would be simply called Category:Palestinian poets. Chesdovi (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Try your argument with "Spanish rabbis". They are not related to contemporary Spain, and when they lived, the country was not known as Spain, yet we still call them Spanish... And remember, the Spaniards did far worse to the Jews than any Palestinian Arab ever has... Chesdovi (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nicosia municipal logo - Turkey.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nicosia municipal logo - Turkey.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chesdovi_and_Palestinian_edits regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Category creation

You lost me I didn't make this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my error. Chesdovi (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian

A word with at least two meanings:

• The Jewish inhabitants of Palestine.
• The Arab inhabitants of Palestine.

Using the less common sense of an ambiguous word, when we don't have to, does not help the reader; it does score points about the legitimacy of Israel (which I support, btw). But, despite the appalling conduct of some prominent editors on both sides, this is not the place to demonstrate one's political commitment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian has one meaning: Inhabitants of Palestine. Be it Palestine 1512, or Palestine 2012. There is no valid scholarly reason to only reject the term when referring to Jews. That is discrimination. If I say "Syrian" to you - do you think of an Arab or Jew? Arab of course. Jews make up .002% of Syria. But it is not ambiguous to call a Jewish rabbi Syrian. On the contrary, it is usual informative descritption which feature on many biographical pages. Chesdovi (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Palestinian" can denote a modern ethnicity, a modern citizenship, or an historical area. Denial of any of these meanings is impossible. I can not even guess how someone can do so. The only parallel which comes to mind is Holocaust denial, being equally absurd. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To be absolutley precise, the term actually has just two meanings: 1. Palestinian: the dialect. 2. Palestinian: A person from Palestine. Be someone an "ethnic" Palestinian, hold Palestinian citizenship or reside in historic Palestine, they all share the same common desingnation: They are/were inhabitants of Palestine. That why they are all called Palestinian. Chesdovi (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I forgot about the language. But ethnicity and citizenship are no longer related necessarily to the geographical area. You have to recognise this fact and these meanings if you want to continue to edit on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Write sense or I will save myself the bother. Chesdovi (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to sound rude, but if you don't understand English, don't edit here. Debresser (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not. Silence need not imply consent; it may imply that I am tired of the issue and see no profit in further discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tired already? You did not even respond to my first reply. Your silence could also imply that you are not willing to publicly retract your assumption and acknowlege defeat! There is no doubt that Jews historically lived in what is termed Palestine. Yet you think we should not call them Palestinian? There is nothing ambigous about it. What other example is there of this phenomenon anywhere, that we do not call people after the place they are from? Chesdovi (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Constantinopolitans

It says right on top of the Constantinople article: "This article is about the city before the Fall of Constantinople (1453). For a more detailed approach after 1453, see History of Istanbul.". See also the repeated and repeatedly fruitless attempts to rename the article or at any rate move the Ottoman period under "Constantinople" at Talk:Istanbul. If you want to have a shot at changing this, go ahead. Constantine ✍ 15:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The actual lead of Constantinople states: “After the Ottoman conquest of 1453, the official name of Constantinople was retained in official documents and coinage. Not until the creation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 did the Turkish government formally object to the name, and ask that others use the more common name for the city.” Further, Names of Istanbul says: “It remained the principal official name of the city throughout the Byzantine period, and the most common name used for it in the West until the early 20th century.” So I can not see why Istanbul is being used in article before 1923? Chesdovi (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it was the common name of the city in Turkish during the Ottoman period, and is also used in more modern books for the after 1453 period. Per WP:ENG and WP:COMMON it is still rather a weak argument, as the overwhelming majority of contemporary and modern literature use "Constantinople" for the city even post 1453, but the division exists de facto in WP. Personally, I can live with the 1453 dichotomy and the notion that both Ottoman and modern Turkish city are covered under "Istanbul": there are certainly far more continuities between Ottoman Constantinople and modern Istanbul than between Byzantine Constantinople and the Ottoman capital. For accuracy's sake, I'd prefer a separate article on the Ottoman city, whose history is a fascinating subject, but I am not in the mood nor do I have the time to devote to the massive and in all likelihood impassioned discussion, let alone the resulting huge restructuring, that any change on this will generate. Constantine ✍ 18:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Nerve

You have a lot of nerve: commenting on a discussion not about you on my talkpage, accusing me of beig impolite, and making this edit yourself. Perhaps you had better strike that insult, or I shall have to take it to WP:WQA. Debresser (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Impolite again

Please refrain from personal attack language like "petty" or "shame on you", as yo did in this edit. If you are not able to be more polite, people at WP:WQA will have to explain some things to you. Debresser (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal

Also, please don't send out thank-you notes likes this one, giving people the feeling that they have sided with your personally, rather than with your point of view. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Awards on Syrian and Libyan topics

Chesdovi, thank you for the awards! Greyshark09 (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. You are a real asset! Wear you awards with pride! Chesdovi (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Joseph's Tomb

The article and the content you are commenting clearly falls under the scope of your topic ban (see the warning on the talk page). I am asking that you strike through your comments. -asad (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont think so, I think the ban only extends to parts that discuss the conflict. What the name is or if it is the Prophet Yusuf or a Sheikh Yusuf that is buried there is not, in my opinion, part of the topic area. nableezy - 19:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I will not comply with Asad's suggestion in any way, shape or form! I will continue to occupy myself with sorting out the correct Arabic name for Joseph's tomb until the age-old Muslim association is given its rightful place in the lead. With Nab's help, we are nearly there. I am sure we can get the wording right. It's kinda cute how Asad says "I am not claiming that it was never referred to as Muslims by the burial site of the Prophet Joseph," as if the suggestion that it was is open to question. What he really should admit is that is most certainly was called after the prophet, and the draped cloth over the tomb in 1917 proves it beyond doubt. Once he accepts that, we may have a chance of providing an accurate picture. Once we find contemporary RS that call it en-Nabi, we should be able to use the term, because sources using Qubr Yusuf would naturally just be using it as a shortened version. (Indeed, that's what the road signs used.) Then we have the problem of the Sheikh. Wafa claims he was from the 7th-century, while most other sources claim he was from the 18th! We will have to sort this out some how, because most pre-Israel sources do not mention this guy. Chesdovi (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

My fault, I thought it was more clear. Jewish Israelis believe it is the site one of their prophets, Muslim Palestinians believe it is a site of a local cleric. Both sides have shed blood for control and access to the site based on the conflicting claims I just mentioned. You are inserting the POV that Muslims believe it is the site of their prophet as well, which would give relevance to the Jewish claim. I find this fits the defenition of narrow, but your ban states that you are "banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces, for one year." So just to confirm, you are not willing to strikethrough? -asad (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You are making that link. I am not. Neither am I making edits relating to the conflict. So no, I will not strikeout my comments. I am not required to. Would you also expect me not edit Nathan of Gaza as that would be construed as propping up the Israeli claim to Gaza? Don't go causing problems again please. I know for a fact you are wrong in this case. As this Arabic naming issue was one of the fake sccusations you made against me, it is no wonder you are trying to scupper any progress on the matter. Let me remind you that I was not banned for adding this term based on RS. It was my knee-jerk reaction to your report that casued it. Now, we can mention in the lead that Muslims have changed their view about who lies buried there since the Jews and their Israeli allies reclaimed rightful posession, but we must also mention the RS which state that Muslims regard/ed the tomb as belonging to the Nabi. Got it? Chesdovi (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

[48] -asad (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Question 2

This was a joke, right? Debresser (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right

If editing the topic was in violation of your topic ban or not -- I don't care. I want to withdrawal my request because I sincerely misinterpreted your intentions regarding the article -- for that I apologize. Even though I entirely disagree with you with you about the subject matter, it would be better for the article to work on it and get it straightened out despite whatever ill feelings we have towards each other as editors. -asad (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

See here -asad (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Question 3

In the article about Isaac ben Samuel of Acre you bring the book Chovot HaLevavot as a source. The problem is only that that book predates this rabbi by over a century. Please explain. Debresser (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can't give a satisfying reply to this question, I shall have to remove the reference as an obvious mistake... Debresser (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The source was intended to reference the word Palestinian, but you have removed that anyway, so what's the point? I will further mention that this page was created with Palestinian kabbalist, but IZAK removed that term together with the Palestinian Rabbis category with a "minor" edit. Funny how my readditions of both these are lambasted by yourself as "controversial", "POV", etc. To me, my edits are of the same ilk as IZAK's: minor. You have turned them into the wiki-debate of the century. Chesdovi (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you agree to writing Mamluk Palestine? Debresser (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

We all know you have a bee in your bonnet with the "P" word. But you have elsewhere asserted that you would agree to use the word "Palestine" if no other editor besides yourself took issue with it - no other editor has. You also conceded that using the the term "Palestinian" to describe tannaic & amoraic sages was quite in order. What happened to that? Chesdovi (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am doing my best to come to compromise with you. A shame you didn't grab the chance. Anyway, let me say that I admire your work in making these stubs about amoraim. Perhaps you should add {{Rabbi-stub}} to Hanan the Egyptian as well. Notice please that I have no real problem with "He later moved to Palestine and was active among the scholars of Jabneh." in that article. I would have a problem with calling him a Palestinian amora because of this, for several reasons, which you probably know by heart already. But since you, perhaps out of consideration for me or my arguments, didn't use that wording, we both agree that this turned out a fine stub. To answer your questions. Other editors have taken issue with your usage of the term Palestinian. That they don't comment every time your continue to ignore them, only does them credit, in a way. Also, editors are simply worn out because of your unending pushing. If you keep being pushed, many people will just take a step aside. That is why I have argued in WP:DRN that you should take a break of a few months before opening a centralised discussion about this issue. People are just not interested at the moment. As to your second question, I remember saying that the term "Palestinian Talmud" is a legitimate term, although "Jerusalem Talmud" should be preferred for all practical purposes, but I do not remember saying generally that amoraim of the "Jerusalem Talmud" can and certainly not should be called "Palestinian". Would you also please reply to another question I asked you a little higher, something about IZAK and waiting. Debresser (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I would in fact like you to apply your reasonings to our Egyptian friend. Why has this Egyptian escaped unscathed? You state that we cannot call an ancient Jewish rabbi "Palestinian" because nowadays there are no Palestinians who are rabbis and people seeing such a term will be thrown aback at such a insane suggestion. Rabbis who lived in "Palestine" were not ethnic Palestinians, it would be misleading to term such rabbis as being so. Yet you are 100% happy with leaving this ancient rabbi "Egyptian". Why? Is this rabbi an "ethnic Egyptain"? Do you know how many Jews there are in Egypt today? Maybe 6? Why do you not worry that people will be confused when we refer to a rabbi as being Egyptian? There are no rabbis in Egypt!? [PS. You are allowed to change your views, (I had hoped you would have by now) but you did previously state: "Anyways, as far as talmudic sages are concerned, there is definitely a point for calling the sages of Israel "Palestinian" as opposed to the Babylonian sages. Just as the Talmud Yerushalmi is sometimes called the Palestinian Talmud."] Chesdovi (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought you might ask this question. But I was sure you were smart enough not to do so. I was wrong. The reason is so very simple: that was his (nick-)name. But notice that you did not say "Hanan the Egyptian was an Egyptian amora". And now I turn the table on you! Likewise you should not say that any of our sages was a "Palestinian" amora! Thank you, Debresser (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why should I not say any of the sages of Israel are "Palestinian". Why should I be any different from the past 5 chief rabbis of the UK & Commonwealth who have used the term? And if you don't care about a "nickname" why did you move "Tachlifa the Palestinian"? Chesdovi (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Because his (nick-)name is Tachlifa of the West. You ask such simple questions today. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And you keep dodging the hard ones: You seem to have said "there is definitely a point for calling the sages of Israel Palestinian" - yet you remove this from all Tananim pages, why? You ignore the fact that great Jewish scholars, including cheif rabbis have used the term Palestinian - but I "should not say that any of our sages was a Palestinian!" Why? (Btw, Rabbi Tachlifa's "nickname" is Ma'aravi which translates into normal english as "the Palestinian". Much like "Rabbi Shimon ha'Teimani" - we do not call him "Simeon of the South", rather "Simeon the Yemenite".) Chesdovi (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have said? Or have I said? Anyway, you seem to have problems with correctly understanding the English language. If someone says "there is a point for it", it means that he can see some merit in it. It does not mean that this one merit tips the scales. In effect, I see so many problems with using that term, that whatever merit it has, is completely outweighed by the disadvantages and problems of and with this term (the "P" word). Debresser (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's start with the fact that Rashi (Maseches Taynis 19, 1) and the Bartenura (Mishnayes Taynis 3,7) say that Shimon HaTeimani was from Timna(s) (תמנה/ת). So he is actually "HaTimni", and the usual "HaTeimani" is based upon a misunderstanding. In addition, saying that "Palestine" is the normal translation of "Ma'arav" is simply wrong. The normal translation of "ma'arav" is "west". During the time of the gemorre, when the two main centers of learning were in Bavel and Israel, "ma'arav" came to refer to Israel, because Israel lies west of Bavel. But "refer to" is not the same as "normal translation"! Debresser (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Soncino Edition of Tractate SOTAH, TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH NOTES, GLOSSARY AND INDICES BY REV. A. COHEN, M.A., Ph.D. UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF RABBI DR. I. EPSTEIN B.A., Ph.D., D. Lit. on page 41a does not refer to Rabbi "Yehuda bar Ma'arava" as "Judah of the West", but rather as "Judah the Palestinian." On page 27a, where R. Tachlifa is mentioned, it translates as "Tachlifa from the West" (i.e. "the Palestiniaan"). There is no reson whatsoever why there should be any oppostiton to the name "Tachlifa the Palestinian". But "rabbi" Debresser obviously knows better... He has yet to answer why it is okay for cheif rabbis to use the term, but not Chesdovi. I have also added Category:Egyptain rabbis to Rabbi Hanan, but oh look, that seems to have slipped under Debresser radar, yet he was so quick to remove the Palestinian rabbis cat as soon as they were added. (Don't go now and remove it, spare us, please) Chesdovi (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am certainly not responsible for decisions made by the editor of that book. But you see yourself that "of the West" is an accepted translation. And it has the additional plus of being unambiguous and uncontested. As to the "Egyptian rabbi" category, I simply hadn't noticed that yet, so nothing can be inferred from my actions or non-actions in that regard. Also, I sincerely regret the aggressive tone of you last post. I was hoping to keep conversation civil, without unnecessary and insulting sarcasm. Debresser (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI

In view of the reaction of admins last time we were at WP:ANI, namely to topic-ban both of us, I find it rather unwise that you have posted there. I have tried to reply as concise as possible, and hope it will not come to that. I'd advise you to do the same.

More to the question. I do know the procedure for moving an article: press the "move" button. I have replied more to the issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#New_stub:_Tachlifa_the_Palestinian.

In general, this instance of your POV-pushing sickened me. I sincerely find you a disruptive editor, and think you should be at least be topic-banned. Other venues for consensus-building not withstanding.

In the mean time, I'd like you to reply to my questions here on your talkpage. I do not ask them lightly. You could at least show me that courtesy. Debresser (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Abba of Jaffa

What is wrong with the wording "Jewish Amora sage of the Land of Israel" like in Rabbi Aha? That shows you what the consensus has been so far. Debresser (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Palestinian rabbis

Hello! Your submission of Palestinian rabbis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Orlady (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

POINTy behaviour

Chesdovi, please don't advertise every article that you have created that uses the word "Palestinian" on WT:JEW. You are fairly obviously engaging in WP:POINT. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Naw... Thank you for sharing and communicating! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Simeon the Yemenite

Please do not add unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What is unsourced? You will be blocked for removing citations. Chesdovi (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

What is unsourced???????????????????????????????? Chesdovi (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You remove sources. Debresser (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but you warned me saying: "Please do not add unsourced content." I will also add that you twice removed a cited source. The cheek of it. Chesdovi (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Simeon the Yemenite

Do not try to own te Simeon the Yemenite article. The text you prefer is clearly inferior, as it introduces doubtful and simply superfluous geographical qualifiers. Debresser (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS, GO TO THE RELEVANT TALK PAGE. Chesdovi (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? You are just trying to push your habitual POV. Debresser (talk)

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to your being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

If that's your attitude, follow this path till your stumble across civilization. Chesdovi (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not my attitude. That is my assessment of you: a pushy editor, even to the point of being disruptive. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

El Ghriba synagogue + Synagogue of the Kohanim of Djirt

Hi Chesdovi. Both these synagogue articles in en.Wikipedia link back to the same he.wikipedia which has the same photos. ג'רבה יהדות_ג'רבה Are you 100% certain that they are different? note there's no geo-cordinates on the 2nd. Maybe Google Earth can help? Cheers! In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

They are both different places. Chesdovi (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Amka and Amqa

There is a currently ongoing merger proposal discussion regarding merging of Amqa article into the previously created article of Amka. According to sources and geographic location we are speaking of different prenounsation of the same place name Amka/Amqa/Amca, the same as Acre/Acco/Akko and Tiberias/Tabariya/Tveriya. As done with other towns/cities, all time periods are listed in one article.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Selected teachings

I notices you have added selected teachings to some articles about Jewish sages. Do you think that falls within the scope of what Wikipedia should do? I am not opposing this interesting idea, but I'd like to know if this has precedent on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Priestly covenant

Hi, any idea what the correct standard WP:RS translation of מדרש הנעלם would be? I translated it into English, but was guessing. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't see where. If this refers to note 3, there is no need for it to be translated. Chesdovi (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It may have been edited out. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Rabbis called "the holy"

Category:Rabbis called "the holy", which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:People named for Jerusalem

Category:People named for Jerusalem, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refactor

Hi Chesdovi

In this edit, you imply that Catholic priests provide a benchmark for "revolting, base" "foul language". This is offensive to many if not most people here whether or not they bother to translate your remarks. Please refactor your comment immediately.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 12:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. What a terrible error. Chesdovi (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stay away from Debresser, and stop the personal attacks, or I will block you. Do you understand? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I have made it quite clear I want nothing more to do with that “rabbi”. And I would have thought Debresser's choice of words is 100 times more reprehensible than my vociferous protest against them. Yet I see you have not censored him yet. If you remove my remarks, I await you action on the matter. Chesdovi (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

1) If you can't refer to him by name, please refer to Debresser as an editor, not by any other expression.

2) What comments of his are you referring to? I'm not aware of them, but I will come down just as hard on him if he's attacking you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit summary is totally unacceptable. What's the matter with you?—Biosketch (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yid Hakodesh

Yes, Yid Hakodesh is an exception. Not every Hasidic rebbe is called Hakodesh. Yoninah (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

He still looks rather odd in the category, which will be deleted anyway.... Chesdovi (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Deeply honoured

by your gift of that barnstar. One of my real names is Joseph, chosen precisely for the patriarch, a story that has entranced me since early childhood. It's not an easy article to do justice to, and much remains to be done. Please keep that keen eye on whatever I do there, and keep me honest. I put a few links in the bibliography on things (Wright etc.) I think would be useful to give coverage of the scholarship on Joseph's death and the interment, through the biblical, aggadic tradition, etc., and hope you can advise me as to whether or not you think we should explore this there. Best Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ches, do you know off-hand if Rav Yudan's comment in the Genesis Rabba about goyim was made before or after the Rabbinical judgements which reclassified the Samaritans as gentiles? It's apropos of nothing, pure curiosity, woken while parsing that passage today. It is highly curious, and makes more sense to me if Samaritans were intended, given the period (400-450, though Christians were violently anti-Samaritan at that time). Only a Samaritan would make such a charge about Shechem being stolen, surely. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

topic ban

You are violating your topic ban by commenting at an AE request related to the topic area. You are risking a block or an extension of the ban. I suggest you remove your comments, all of them, if you do not wish to be blocked. nableezy - 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Tim said it is not related, only Bio. Chesdovi (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The edits by SD are not related, the actual request is. You cant comment on anything related to ARBPIA anywhere on Wikipedia. I dont plan on getting in to an argument with you on this, but if you do not remove your comments you may be sanctioned. I wont be filing an enforcement request, but somebody else may and I would guess if they did so you would be blocked. nableezy - 15:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Palestine

Hi please see block of Talk above your thread. I hope the comments I made were helpful to all, I'm not pushing anything there and would like to see happy but WP:RS compromise. Re "Antiquity, thru to the Middle Ages and up to 1948?" You might want to clarify "Antiquity" = Hadrian, since the Herodotus and Aristotle use of Palestine aren't typical of pre-70CE "Antiquity." Particularly weight has to be given to Strabo, whether or not he deserves it. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

This jived with the stories I have heard, but I was having a difficult time finding the source. I appreciate your addition. -asad (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nicosia municipal seals.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nicosia municipal seals.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) 22:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nicosia municipal logo - Turkey.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nicosia municipal logo - Turkey.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) 03:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please look in at DYK again

Please comment for what I hope is one last time at Template talk:Did you know/Palestinian rabbis -- is the latest ALT hook valid, per your understanding of the topic? --Orlady (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Ben Zakai.jpg needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Ben Zakai.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided),authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

• If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which:{{subst:usernameexpand|Chesdovi}} will produce an appropriate expansion,
  or use the {{own}} template.

• If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Nicosia municipal seals.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nicosia municipal seals.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Rfc at Talk:Palestine

Hi Chesdovi. Please provide a convenience link at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Rfc at Talk:Palestine to the RfC you want the admins to close. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

re-instating personal attacks

could be construed as a personal attack. Just saying :) Cheers! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Mufti

Hi, I've done my 1 revert for today but that stuff you found in David Dalin's ridiculous book is going to go. There isn't any evidence for either of the two things you inserted so far, both are well known inventions. The Auschwitz visit that in fact never happened is on the talk page somewhere. None of the serious historians of al-Husseini make either claim. Zero^talk 11:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Mufti

That article is almost certainly covered by the topic ban. nableezy - 14:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Mufti

See User:Biosketch v. User:Supreme Deliciousness (September 2011). You can edit articles under ARBPIA sanctions as long as the edits themselves don't concern the Arab-Israeli conflict.—Biosketch (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I want to add an image of Jews buying land from an Arab in the 1920s or 30s to Jewish land purchase in Palestine. Is that allowed? Chesdovi (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Jewish land purchase in Palestine doesn't sound like it's about the Arab-Israeli conflict inherently. But according to WP:TBAN, if the section you're editing is related to the conflict, then it's out of bounds.—Biosketch (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, that interpretation of what the Talmud says is awful and has got to go. There have to be less semantically misleading sources for explaining what Yishuv Eretz Yisrael is than that book.—Biosketch (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like add it to the "Land purchases" section. Btw, what does "semantically misleading" mean? Chesdovi (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It means that the way Yishuv Eretz Yisrael got translated into English makes it sound like the expression means something different from what it actually means – certainly different from how its original users intended it.—Biosketch (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Solomon ben Jeroham duplication

Thanks for letting me know. This happens when articles don't have variant (or even standard) spelling, particularly with Arabic, Hebrew, Armenian etc. names. But thanks for letting me know and fixing, merging copying across the ref. That "boiling excrement" article of Mare.. HoElohuth is still there waiting for a rename :( In ictu oculi (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Chesdovi! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Recategorization

Hi, I noticed that you removed Category:People from Jerusalem from some Rabbi pages and listed them instead under Category:Rabbis in Jerusalem. It is true that they are rabbis in Jerusalem, but they are also natives of Jerusalem. I was actually trying to populate the former category with more religious figures who were born in Jerusalem. Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I was aiming for consistenacy, but recognised the issue. Most wiki cats are called "people from". Would it be necessary to have two cats, "from" & "in"? Lots of rabbis were not born in Jerusalem, or can "from" also indicate only residence aswell? Thoughts? Chesdovi (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

From my experience, "from" is being used both for people born in that city and people who currently live in that city. I agree it's not the most precise categorization for those who only live there. I would prefer keeping the Category:Rabbis in Jerusalem, but adding back Category:People from Jerusalem for those rabbis who were born there. Yoninah (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Last warning

See the editsummaries of the following edits. [49] [50] Debresser (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Chesdovi_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_.29. Debresser (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Translation

For File:Mauthausen_IMG_1717.JPG I don't think it's Arabic might Persian or Urdu, I can decipher one word "Afghanistan" Tachfin (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what my Arab friend said too, but he wasn't 100% sure, so thanks for clarifying! Chesdovi (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As promised months ago

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.. Note that your input to that thread can be placed here on this talkpage, with {{adminhelp}} tag used to ask for it to be copied over (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} BWilkins, unbeknowst to yourself, I am currently topic banned from I/P for a year (on some spurious basis), and I have a self-imposed interaction ban with the "other" annoying, arrogant and despicable editor, as I indcated to you a while back. So your proposal in in fact truly ineffective. This will never be resolved until some willing Admin actually involves themsleves in the knitty-gritty issue at hand, instead of implementing useless blocks. I have tried everything possible, two RFCs, two DRNs, appeals at wikiprojects, etc. etc. So don't blame any of this on me. While consensus to keep Palestinain rabbis has been reached umpteen times, Debresser will not accept it. It is further just not possible to concrete that "consensus" while Debresser reverts each time! Debresser thinks he is right. I know I am right. Now you sort it out. Threatening us we blocks and sanctions will not get the project, or your reputation as an effective and fair Admin, anywhere. Chesdovi (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Y Done

Malik is correct in saying that the meaning of "Palestinian" has changed to refer soley to non-Jews nowadays. But when discussing history, we use historic terms. The words Palestine still is used to refer to pre-1948 Israel. That will never change. It is therefore valid to term people from that period "Palestinian". The more I read on this subject, the more I see the term is used to refer to such people. The latest book I read was published in 1978 and was a collection of scientific discourses. It was editied by two leading Orthodox Jewish personalities, Aryeh Carmel and Cyril Domb, and ancient rabbis are called "Palestinian". Now Debresser may want to burn this book due to that offending word, but it is crystal clear that the term "Palestinian" is used by contemporary mainstream neutral Jewish RS, just as "Palestine" is used to describe the historic region. Who can claim to the contrary? Even the chief rabbi used to term to refer to Levi ibn Habib. But Debresser will just not accept these facts. As he so idiotically stated: To use such a word to describe a Jewish person is, wait for it: "anti-semitic". Can you now begin to understand his mindset? He said he would "fight will all his might" to stop the word being used. Is that normal expression for a wiki-editor or does it indicate a strong POV related to the I/P conflcit? For Debresser, this indeed is associated with the conflict, but for me, coming purley from a historical viewpont, this has little to do with it. Debresser's opposition to this is a clear case of politically inspired POV which has no place here and I find it very hard why other editors do not recognise this. Debresser can state as much, and as hard as he wants, that there was never a place called "Palestine", but any person with a grain of intellect will just smirk at such a stupid assumption. The Encylopedia Judaica calls Daniel ben Azariah "Palestinian", but God forbid for us to use it here. I find Debresser a disruptive, arrogant and foul-mouthed menace. He has lost any credibility in my mind. Wikipedia should not be pandering to the views of such people. Every fickle argument Debresser has forwarded on this subject, I have refuted. As far as I am concerned, the majority of the communtiy concede usage is valid, but Debresser continues to reject it and enforce his own opinion. There have been enough centralised discussions on the matter. The conclusion, believe it or not, is that "Palestinian" can indeed refer to people of historic Palestine, be they rabbis or christian monks. Any one who wants to help out here should try and convince Debresser of this. Chesdovi (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC) {{adminhelp}}

 Done I'm assuming that the reason you asked for adminhelp was to copy the above to ANI ... please specify next time. I have copied accordingly (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} Please post to ANI:
Why can we just not rely on RS to use the word "Palestinian" to describe medieval rabbis? Claiming that the term is confusing holds no credibility in the face of widespread contemporary usage in mainstream RS. Further, 3RR reports on Israel ben Meir di Curiel. He is described at Palestinian rabbis, as "a rabbi who lived in the region known as Palestine", yet the region he lived in is removed by Debresser because it is "controversial". What is that supposed to mean? Why is it "controversial." Is adding "Israel" not "controversial?", besides from being a absolute untruth. The AFD and rejection of two "potential renames" supports the fact that using such a classification for such rabbis has been accepted. It is now up to the community to impress upon Debresser that any removal of the word "Palestine/Palestinian" from any "Jewish" pages will be dealt with accordingly. Chesdovi (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} Please post to ANI:
How unfortunate Dweller suggests we are "unsuitable for editing in a collaborative system like Wikipedia." Instead of castigating editors who are locked in a dispute over term usage, he should try suggesting a resolution to the dispute in the true spirit of Wikipedia. The community is marvellous at suggesting bans and implementing blocks very swiftly. There’s never a dearth of Admin input in those situations. But when it comes to sorting out sticky points to help the project move forward, that’s a different matter. DRN’s are closed without comment. RFCs are left “unclosed”. CFDs are closed with the wrong conclusions. Nevertheless, I can provide a list here of a majority of editors who have commented about this and have supported using “Palestinian” for rabbis. So what more is there to discuss? To gain consensus, one has to make edits and see if they stick. How can I go about doing if every time I do, Debresser comes along and reverts immediately? I cannot come to an agreement with him because his arguments are in my view irrational and I know very well indeed this this is not about “confusion” at all, but rather about not mentioning the supposedly offensive “Palestine” on “Jewish” pages. What clearer evidence is there that this is a thinly veiled “pro-Israel” manipulation? It is not “anti-Semitic” to call a rabbi “Palestinian”. Neither is it inaccurate or offensive. It is 100% correct and proper. That is why its use is so widespread in reliable sources, many of them written by contemporary Jewish academics. Now, unless there is a rule on wiki that we not use terms which are deemed offensive to certain individuals, I see no reason why unless those editors provide a convincing argument not to use such accepted terms, they cannot be used. Ed suggests: "Both editors should be banned for six months from any naming issues concerning 'Palestine' or 'Palestinian' in both articles and talk pages." Why is this necessary? I am quite capable of not using the word while the matter is "sorted out." On numerous articles, I purposefully blanked out the offending word, pending the outcome of the discussion on the matter: [51]. When the outcome was clear that using the term was okay, I added it. There is similarly no reason why I cannot edit in pages such as Palestinian synagogues, Palestinian Patriarchate, Palestinian minhag and Palestinian Gaonate. An uninvolved editor should try explaining why we cannot use "Palestinian Rabbi" on bio pages even though Palestinian rabbi exists as a self-contained article. That is a very intriguing question, don’t you think? Chesdovi (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} Please post this image above my latest comment at ANI:
 Done. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Example of the English "Palestine" being used by a rabbinic school in "Eretz Yisrael". How can we say that the Torath Chaim Yeshiva was not in Palestine?!!

Notes

Balady citron, New Jewish Cemetery, Kraków, Moshe Zvi Segal, Abraham Sternhartz, Eliyahu Chaim Rosen, Shlomo Yosef Zevin

Joseph Saragossi

Hi Chesdovi. I am sorry but I failed the good article nomination of Joseph Saragossi as it failed the criteria 1a and 3b (Layout and Broadness). Feel free to expand the article into sections and nominate again. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

unblocking, with bans

Following the outcome of this ANI thread I am unblocking you under the following conditions, which are to be taken both as community sanctions and discretionary sanctions as put forth at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_.282011.29.

• You are banned from any interaction with User:Debresser for six months.

• You are banned for six months from any naming issues concerning Palestine or Palestinian in both articles and talk pages, broadly construed. Moreover, for these six months you are banned from making edits having to do with any answer, also broadly construed, to the following question: What term should be used to designate the country of people who were from the region of what is today called "Israel and the Palestinian territories" from Antiquity, thru to the Middle Ages and up to 1948?

• You are banned for six months from adding categories to articles having to do with any notions of Palestinian or Israeli, broadly construed. You are allowed to ask neutral questions of others as to the tagging of articles which they have created or meaningfully edited themselves. Otherwise, you must stay silent on this topic.

• You are indefinitely banned from making personal attacks of any kind, anywhere on this website. Comment only on editorial content and sources, do not comment on other editors.

If you breach any of these bans you will be blocked for one month. The outcome of any later breaches will be longer blocks, swiftly lengthening to indefinite. These sanctions will be posted at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#2011_2. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Abraham ben Zmirro

Hello - I just wanted to know why you moved Abraham ibn Zimra to the current title. The common name seems to be ben Zmirrou/Jmirrou. Also did he have 7 or 6 sons? Thanks --Tachfin (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Zmirro is the French spelling, but in English it seems to be Zimra. Is this rabbi the same fellow? It metions nothing about Safi but he was also a poet? The source says he had 6 siblings, not sons. Chesdovi (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Mmm..I don't think it's the same guy but you never know. The Moroccan Jewry website have him under Abraham Benzamiro [52] They also say he had 7 sons which were buried with him at the famous shrine. I also know that he's called "Benzmirrou" or "Benjmirrou" in Safi and people there say that he had 7 sons, all of them buried in the same sanctuary which is called "Oulad Benjmirrou" (The sons of Benjmirrou) Tachfin (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Moroccan Jewry website is in French. Chesdovi (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the present name I was just curious. Yes it is in French but they say he had 7 sons, I think that website is a trusted source in this field. Also, a Google book search returns 5 results for "Abraham ibn Zimra" 4 of which are in French,[53] so the current name is not particularly "non-French." Tachfin (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Zafrani says he was from "Grenade, Safi, Tlemcen". Chesdovi (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes probably the same person in the Jewish encyclopedia. Tachfin (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violating your interaction ban with this edit. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

• I've further commented here on why this block happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, I got your email. I believe you, when you say, you didn't look at the history. However, the whole pith of these bans (you're under four of them now) has indeed been to make you much more careful in your editing. You weren't careful and this triggered a block: You should have looked at the history. Likewise with Debresser, who carelessly threw in a comment about your editorial behaviour in reporting the interaction. This is, spot on, what these latest bans have been all about, to keep you two from stirring up time-wasting kerfluffles over each other (since you can't seem to handle them on your own). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I understand but, knowing about all the edit overlaps with the other editor and being under all those sanctions, you should have checked the history. Meanwhile, with the block having been made as arbitration enforcement (owing to the latest sanctions being discretionary), no single admin can unblock you on their own, other than the admin who made the block, User:Timotheus Canens. There is some slight hope that you might be able to get the block shortened some (there are three ways to appeal, listed at Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Arbitration_enforcement_blocks). However, please keep in mind what I've said before, that none of this has been about the editorial content of your edits, or your good faith, or even that you've had a disagreement with another editor, but rather, the way you've handled disagreements. From what I've seen it's likely going to take a big shift in your thinking, about how to edit here and deal with editors with whom you don't agree, before you'll be able to keep this kind of thing from happening again (along with getting back to editing whilst not under sanctions). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked

After checking with Gwen Gale, I'm reducing the block to time served. Note that this is the last time I'm going to reduce a block on you for this kind of reason - it is your responsibility to ensure that your edits conform to the term of the restrictions. If you violate the restrictions again, even simply because of carelessness, it's likely that you'll serve the entire duration of the block. T. Canens (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the Tiferes Yisrael Synagogue membership award! It really brought a smile to my face! I'm now working on expanding the pages pertaining to the Boyaner dynasty. (By the way, I'm a "Mrs.") Kol tuv, Yoninah (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No way! A "Mrs."? Goodness. Chesdovi (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you familiar with the Hebrew name Yoninah? It means "little dove".

Regarding the Ruzhiner Yeshiva, Tiferes Yisroel, on Malkhei Yisrael Street: Have you ever taken a picture of it? It has a small dome on top, which is only visible from the roofs of the buildings across the street. The main building across the street is a yeshiva. Judging by your Hurva shot, I thought you'd be pretty expert in photo-climbing :) Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Just thought this might be in need of something sweet. As a human gesture. :) Welcome back. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

What is this stuff?? It tastes absolutely delicious - thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Turkish originally, I think, you seriously never tried it? ;) In ictu oculi (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Location?

File:אדמורי דעש.jpg - where is this ohel? Chesdovi (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been informed by the author of the file that this is the ohel in Dej. --Redaktor (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Asher Arieli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Mir Yeshiva

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nachum Dov Brayer

The Hebrew image is far better. Please upload it! Yoninah (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Too bad the image was pulled. I put the old one back on the page. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you did get it to work! Good job! (And thanks for putting the images on the Boyan page.) Yoninah (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mordechai Shlomo Friedman

Thanks for adding this image. Is there any way you could crop it to fit in the lineage box at the bottom of Boyan (Hasidic dynasty)? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Eliezer Shlomo Schik

"Shick started a new approach to Torah study where one should say the words without focusing on understanding because he will understand in the next world."

I heard about such a practice in Breslov from my mashgiach, although for a different reason. Chesdovi (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Breslov, so I wouldn't know. :) BTW, this page really suffers from a lack of reliable sources. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

RE Category:Critics of Judaism

The above category, which you created, has been referred for WP:CFD here. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mordechai Shlomo Friedman

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the DYK nominations! Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Upload

Hi again. Would you mind uploading this image from the Hebrew Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chaim Shmuelevitz.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Chaim Shmuelevitz.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. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruzhiner yeshiva photo

Yes, please crop out the bin. I took the picture in a parking lot across the street, trying to get as far back as possible to see more of the dome. (Actually, the best place to take a picture is from the Talmud Torah across the street. They're doing work on the roof now, but maybe a man could get in and take a picture from the upper-floor classrooom windows?). Yoninah (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nachum Dov Brayer

Hello! Your submission of Nachum Dov Brayer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Marrante (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you the resident photo maven?

I really appreciate the photos you added to Yehuda Tzadka and Ben Zion Abba Shaul. And you did a great job cropping out the garbage bin for the Ruzhiner yeshiva. Keep up the great work! Yoninah (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nachum Dov Brayer

Thanks from the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Saragosi

You're welcome. thx4thx. The tool I used to check that phrases were original is here. I think its good that you are pulling in the Jewish Encyclopedia although it has obvious bias (in places) but its easy to add some balance if required. I am trying to start a trend so if you get bored then do have a go at some strangers DYK article. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Hi Palestinian rabbi is defined as being before his birth. Do you mean palestinian and then a link to rabbi? That would be fine - although it does not mention palestinian rabbi except in the lede Victuallers (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Click on the link. Palestinian rabbis "rabbis lived between 150 BCE and 400 CE " Victuallers (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC) I may have been too fast. Sorry. Do revert my edit Victuallers (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Saragossi

Orlady (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC) 08:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Zoharei Chama Synagogue

An inside picture sounds good. Yoninah (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Avrohom Bornsztain

Do you have some kind of "in" with pics of Polish rabbis? Are you able to upload something for the first Sochatchover Rebbe, the Avnei Nezer? Yoninah (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban

Arent you topic banned from the A-I conflict?

[54][55] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yad Sarah

Hi, I wonder if you could help me upload the Yad Sarah logo from the [http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Yad_sara-log-n.png# Hebrew Wikipedia]? I don't understand how to fill in all the parameters. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Hurva_Aron_HaKodesh.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Hurva_Aron_HaKodesh.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Beit_El_print.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Beit_El_print.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Tallit, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Ashkenasic (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) 10:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Judaism Portal

Hi, I was just wondering what you were adding to Portal:Judaism? Are you having technical difficulties? Magister Scienta^talk 14:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Chanukah Chesdovi!

Maariv→Arvith

If I were to initiate a WP:RM to move Maariv to Arvith, would that be something to which you would object?—Biosketch (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is so called in the diaspora by Sefardim, who spell it: Arbit. I prefer evening prayers or service. Chesdovi (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Judaism Portal

Hi Chesdovi, I was just wondering why you were taking some of the Judaism FAs off of the portal page that gives a list of them (e.g. Anne Frank). Thanks, Magister Scienta^talk 18:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What does Anne Frank have to do with Judaism? Was she a rabbi? Chesdovi (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

She was Jewish and is perhaps the best known victim of the Holocaust. Magister Scienta^talk 21:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Judaism and Jews are different. Judaism is the religion, Jews are people of semitic appearance who enjoy eating chopped liver. I agree the wikiproject scope os blurrred, but it is like that as no other project or portal has been created. If this was called "Jews and Judaism" it would be different. Chesdovi (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that article about Jewish people should, in their own right, not be included in the scope of WikiProject Judaism? Magister Scienta^talk 23:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. (But I think User:Busstop disagrees). Chesdovi (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Since it is currently WikiProjects Judaism's de facto policy to consider most articles pertaining to some form of Judaism, Jewishness, etc. part of the scope of the project, I think you need to have an RfC (most likely on the project's talk page) to clarify what WikiProject Judaism's policy on scope is. Otherwise, I think it's fair that I reinsert the FA articles that you took off of the portal section. As a courtesy I will not male an action pertaining to any of this until either a) a consensus has been found concerning this issue of b) you tell me you don't want to continue this issue. Thanks, Magister Scienta^talk 03:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited History of the Jews in the Land of Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temple of Jupiter (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) 10:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

More uploads from Hebrew wikipedia

Hi, I was wondering if you could upload these images from the Hebrew Wikipedia for inclusion in articles about the Sochatchov Hasidic dynasty. (I'm currently writing the main page for the dynasty, though I already have all the rabbi pages up.) If you don't have time for this, could you direct me to some kind of instructions for uploading these images?

• Ohel of the Avnei Nezer
• Shmuel Bornsztain, Sixth Sochatchover Rebbe
• Menachem Shlomo Bornsztain

Thank you very much, Yoninah (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You save the image (use the same name or choose a better one in English), then upload it to commons retaining all the details of the original uploader. Chesdovi (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have spent a few minutes back and forth with Commons Helper and TUSC control, and I have no idea how to upload Menachem Shlomo Bornsztain! Do you mind? Yoninah (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest cropping out the right book shelf on: Shmuel Bornsztain, Sixth Sochatchover Rebbe.jpg. Chesdovi (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I don't know how to crop pictures, either :( Yoninah (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2011 (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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

... and it's been closed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well its very lucky, because I did not check the history. Chesdovi (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sochaczew Jewish cemetery

Thanks for the heads-up on these images. They're excellent for the Avrohom Bornsztain page, where I see I added a whole discussion about the restoration of the ohel and the cemetery. Yoninah (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks, it makes interesting reading. Chesdovi (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

History of the Jews in the Land of Israel

Hi Chesdovi. I really appreciate the superb job you are doing on this article.

Since I understand you have a lot of knowledge in this topic, I'd really appreciate any help you can provide in the improvement and expansion of the article Timeline of the history of the region of Palestine (I mostly need help completing all the missing reliable scientific sources to the events occurring prior to the 1st millennium). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of having the time and will I'm afriad. Chesdovi (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Israel Friedman of Ruzhyn

Hi, I noticed your latest edit, removing "Yisroel" from the page. Did you see my comment here on the talk page? I really think this article should be retitled Yisroel Friedman of Ruzhin. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I am all for consistency, but in this case I feel Israel is better. Chesdovi (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited History of the Jews in the Land of Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mourners of Zion (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) 10:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Alfandari

I don't think it's him. He was Turkish, not Yemenite. Yoninah (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Response

Lemme know if you have a response to this[56]. Silence would mean you agree.VR _talk 00:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nabi Yahya Mosque

Greetings old friend! Just wanted thank you for adding that picture to the article ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw it and couldn't resist, and it looks much better in the box you put it in. Chesdovi (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem Naming 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) 19:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

AE

[57] -asad (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)