User talk:Okedem/Archive 4

Arab capital of culture

You were involved in this article... some users are trying to remove basic facts there... you might be interested [1] 216.165.3.29 (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

re Hamas

I stand by my edit as being the far more balanced of the two. Given your history of contributions, I assert that you are not only biased but very pro-Israel and thus not able to rid yourself of such and thus unsuited to editing such articles as Hamas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starstylers (talk • contribs) 18:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. Don't judge the editor, but the edits. okedem (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

I'm sorry, but did you actually read the edit you reverted at [2]? I attempted to remove some oddly formatted text describing the entities involved in non-neutral terms ("Zionist terrorists", etc.). I'd like to know how you arrive at the idea that I have an "extreme POV". Best,  Sandstein  18:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, your edit didn't add any POV claims or anything. You have my sincere apologies, I was confused by an edit on another page, and that was why I wrote such an edit summary. Sorry... okedem (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at it again.  Sandstein  19:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hamas. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tiptoety ^talk 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying. Unfortunately, User:Kupredu is trying to push his POV in the article, without discussion, and against previous consensus. That user has, by the way, performed multiple reverts (at least four). He is actively vandalizing the article, deleting sourced statements he doesn't like ([3]), with absurd claims as saying "Suicide bombing claims are also controversial". This is a POV-pushing vandal, and should be blocked. okedem (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have given them a warning as well, and if they continue to edit war they will be blocked. As for your accusation about them being a POV vandal, if you would like assistance in that matter your best bet would be to start a thread at WP:ANI. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 21:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, you should never call anyone vandal. This never helps but can be used against you. Please note that Kupredu was indefinitely blocked.Biophys (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, thanks. okedem (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Lebanon as a belligerent in the 2006 Lebanon War

Hi, I noticed you reverted my removal of Lebanon from the list of belligerents in the 2006 Lebanon War article. Rather than getting into an edit war, I'd like to invite you to join the discussion I started on the article's talk page. Your statement when reverting was "Regarding Lebanon - attack took place from its sovereign territory, and it made no attempts to prevent it, nor to impede militias commiting it, before or after". While I generally agree with your statement, inaction (or failing to control a rogue militia) does not match the definition of a "belligerent". This isn't a list of "involved parties"; this is a list of "belligerents", which carries a very different, quite specific meaning. ← George ^[talk] 21:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

arab capital of culture reverts

there was a compromise edit that includes a footnote. please join the talk page instead of reverting. thanks. untwirl(talk) 22:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

note

hi. i posted some comment in your discussion at WP:IPCOLL. You make some good points. could you please keep watch in the discussion at the page Talk:State_of_Palestine as well? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist, and I try to keep up, but time is limited... okedem (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead links

Thanks - I did hunt for a bit for an alternate link, but the organization Boycott Watch appeared to have vanished from the net. FWIW, the site www.boycottwatch.com still doesn't have an IP address from where I'm looking at it.--Dailycare (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't explain it - it works perfectly for me. Perhaps the DNS server your ISP is using has some error with that. These things usually works themselves out - the regional DNS servers get updates from the root servers, so any changes trickle down eventually. It works from both Firefox and Explorer. They even have a (seldom updated) Twitter page - [4]. Unless you live in a country with some sort of internet filtering, it must be a technical error. You can try accessing it from a computer in your workplace, or school. They also have the domain www.boycottwatch.org, which leads to the same site. okedem (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Issues at Israel and Human Rights

Freedom of Religion.

Can you click on the edit button next to this section and word-search "Mordechai Vanuna." Alt-F is the hotkey to perform this task.

I can't seem to view the last paragraph even when previewing the article in its entirety. I searched key words but nothing came up. I am concerned someone inserted a spoofing code to block users from revising content. It is possible, or so I've heard. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Must be some issue with your browser's cache - you can't find it because I removed that paragraph (here). okedem (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Perspective

There was nothing rude about my revert of your Dirty War edit. As per WP:LINK your edit was over the top when it came to wikilinks. Since when was a revert labelling an edit as "good faith" rude? Your comment on my talk page was out of place, so in fact you were being unnecessarily rude and I chose to ignore it. Now please stop badgering me. Justin talk 10:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think some links are unnecessary, you should just remove them, but you reverted to a version not in line with MoS - no bold in title, no linking of anything (not even Argentina, for instance). Saying "good faith" is very nice, but you reverted a useful edit, to a bad version, instead of bothering to fix it yourself. It would have taken you 2 seconds to do so, instead of blindly reverting. okedem (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Okedem, a word of advice. You're going to have to live with the fact that, on Wikipedia, there are a bunch of Kuntz running around, doing things wrong, then acting all arrogant about it when you point out to them just how wrong they are. -- Thekohser 02:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd think after all these years I'd have gotten used to it... Whatever - it was nothing serious, just annoying. Thanks. okedem (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Following your report of Songbordie, you may be interested to look at Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Runtshit. This vandal obsessively attacks me, and defaces articles I work on. If you come actoss him again, simply report and state that this is Runtshit; an admin will deal with it at once. RolandR 20:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I knew it's a known guy, because I've reverted him plenty of times before, but didn't remember his name. okedem (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Arab Capital of Culture

Please discuss why you think the sources pertaining to this subject should be ignored on the talk page. I see that you have been edit-warring there over a period of 3 months now to include Israel in a listing of Arab Capitals. I don't see you having participated in the talk page discussions. Start to now before reverting again. Tiamut^talk 21:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Before jumping in and changing the article, why don't you try the talk page? Contrary to your claim, I've participated in the discussion. You, again, want to trump any compromise to get what you want. okedem (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I did use the talk page. You, on the other hand, have been low-level edit-warring quite consistently for months to enforce your version of reality at that page in defiance of the sources and without regard to the the article's subject. Its a CULTURAL article for goodness sake, not the CIA factbook entry for Jerusalem. In this article, a footnote for Israel's claims to the city will do just fine. Wasn't that you argument for the world's viewpoint in the aritcle on Jerusalem? If its not sufficient here, why is sufficient there? Tiamut^talk 22:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No apology for your false claim against me? Didn't think so. And you only used the talk page today, already changing the article to suit your liking. I actually participated in the discussing a while ago. But don't mind those facts.

The Palestinians are the ones with the "claim". Israel actually controls the entire city. The claim to have the Israeli flag there is much stronger than the Palestinian flag, and yet - a nice compromise was reached, and the edit-war stopped for an entire month, until you came it, and sparked it again. Do you view yourself as a positive force in this? You want the Palestinian flag. I want the Israeli flag. Just having no flag is reasonable here. I can quote you: "Its a CULTURAL article for goodness sake, not the CIA factbook entry for Jerusalem" - so why are you pushing the Palestinian flag? Will people not understand which Jerusalem we're talking about?

Compromise, Tiamut. Compromise. okedem (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not just about the flag. You keep removing the word Palestine. Now, I prefer to continue the content discussion in one place. I've responded to you at the talk there. Let's keep it there.

And yes, I was wrong, you made 2 talk page comments. The history also shows you made 25 reverts, by far the most out of any editor involved in the edit warring there. So please, before accusing me of disturbing the peace, take a look at your own actions. Tiamut^talk 22:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

One does not relate to the other. You made a false claim against me; I've never claimed to not revert. okedem (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

עופר,

מזה החרטבונה הזו עם הדגל הפלסטינאי שוב פעם בערך על בירת התרבות הערבית? על מה בדיוק הסכמת?

Ori (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

יותר ויתור מהסכמה, תאמין לי. הטענה שלהם שלכאורה התואר ניתן למדינה מסוימת, ולכן זה בסדר לכתוב פלסטין. ניסיתי להילחם למען הגרסה שלך, אבל לא זכיתי לתמיכה, אז ויתרתי. אם תיאבק - אני איתך. okedem (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

בודאי שנאבק. עד החסימה. למה לא קראת לי? Ori (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

אוי... התשישות, אורי, התשישות. okedem (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Aftonbladet article

You miss the point. Whether or not there is any merit to, or evidence of, the claims is irrelevant. What is significant is that it has triggered a diplomatic incident between the Israeli and Swedish governments. This is surely of encyclopaedic notability, and the Wikipedia article on organ donation is surely the most appropriate place to build upon the story, unless you would prefer that the claims should receive their own article(?)

LaFoiblesse 2009-08-21 15:55 (GMT)

At this point, it's of no importance anywhere. If it develops into a serious incident between the governments, it would belong in an article about Israeli-Swedish relations. We have policies about fringe claims and giving things undue weight. If this was a real thing, well documented, etc - fine. It's not. It's just a crazy claim with zero evidence, and even the so-called journalist says he has no clue if it's true. Thus, it has nothing to do with the issue of organ donations in Israel, just with the journalistic merits of that paper. okedem (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Organ donation in Israel. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Shell ^babelfish 06:12, 26 August 2009 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not, in fact, perform more than 3 reverts within 24 hours, so this block is unjustified. There's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, with no consensus for the new addition some users are trying to push.

Decline reason:

Consensus does not mean you can edit war, if there is one, why were others not reverting too? The point is, you didn't break the rule technically, but when you around 10 consecutive reverts in the last few days, that's still edit warring Jac16888^Talk 08:03, 26 August 2009 (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.

okedem (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You are technically correct, your fourth revert in two days was not within 24 hours of the first, however, policy forbids edit warring generally, and editors may be blocked if they edit war, with or without breaching 3RR. Even if the article is "wrong" for a period of time, its important to resolve the discussion on the talk page rather than edit war. There is currently no consensus to exclude the material either. Shell ^babelfish 08:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion, and the stable version is the one without the material. Those wishing to add new material new to get consensus on the talk page for their change to the stable version, not the other way around. How about this - release the block, and I won't remove the material again without consensus on the talk page. I will, however, rewrite it the provide all the necessary facts in the matter. okedem (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Aftonbladet-Israel controversy

Hello, good that you removed the inappropriate comments put there by Skyjewel (talk · contribs). I just wanted to tell you that there is a specific policy to refer to, WP:NPA, and templates that can be put on user's talk pages, starting with Template:Uw-npa1. Some new editors may be unaware of policies, and putting the template on their template can hopeully help to inform them - at least in some cases... Tomas e (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea, but in some of those cases it's better to just revert and be done with it, instead of engaging on the talk page. A link to NPA in the edit summary doesn't hurt though... Thanks, fellow chemist :-) okedem (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Okedem. You have new messages at Talk:Golan Heights/NPOV noticeboard.
Message added 01:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ipatrol (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

state of palestine

do you know how may reverts the two of you have made on that article the last day? If you do not want it fully-protected or both of you blocked I suggest chilling out for a bit. nableezy - 19:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea, you're right, it got out of hand. okedem (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Great research

On the capital of Israel. Stellarkid (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! okedem (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Jean Ancel

According to this Romanian source he is "the most important historian amongst those that studied the history of Holocaust in Romania". (The site is a Romanian publisher that published some of his books, so more independent sources would be needed to confirm that view.) I think he qualifies for a biography. He already has one on the ro.wiki and he.wiki. Some of the details from that Romanian source contradict some English sources, like this, e.g. whether he is a principal researcher (Ro source) or an "affiliate" (En source) at Yad Vashem. He probably has a web page in Hebrew somewhere from which we can clarify stuff like that, but I wouldn't be able to read it even if I find it. Pcap ping 03:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to find out that detail, and translate his entry from Hebrew. okedem (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on if/how to qualify "Capital (and largest city): Jerusalem"

Hi okedem, thought I'd come over here, nice Talk page, did you do it yourself? Does it take morning sun? Anyway because there is not a lot of progress in the discussions on the question above, I am thinking to start a RfC any comments? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, I didn't get that first sentence...

Anyway, the reason for the lack of progress is that once I presented the sources, basically all dissenters decided to stop discussing - Nableezy, Sean and yourself. Even when you returned you didn't address the sources. okedem (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, first sentence was a nervous visitor making small talk. Sorry was away, am not as active on the article as you are. What I see is that editors presented sources that qualified Jerusalem as capital of Israel, then you came back and out-numbered these with more sources that did not directly qualify as such. In my opinion, source-tallies do not constitute discussion. I will probably proceed with the RfC, but yes, not right away, have real-world stuff that gets in the way of my "dissenting" on Wikipedia. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Anyway, I don't want to duplicate the article talk page here, so see my reply there. okedem (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

walla.co.il

Can you tell me what kind of site that is, and if this is a review of JDownloader, and if it's user contributed or staff-written, i.e. a WP:RS? walla.co.il is the 5th site by traffic from Israel, but it doesn't seem to have an en.wiki article, and this description is pretty confusing. Thanks, Pcap ping 09:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it does have an article - Walla! (I guess the "!" is like Yahoo!). The article is accurate, to the best of my knowledge - it's one of the largest sites in Israel, and is extremely well known.

As the article says, many of the articles come from Haaretz, but the site has a staff, and can be considered an RS (though in a limited capacity - like, say, a small newspaper). I've never seen any user-contributed content on this site, and I visit it every day. The page you linked to is a review of JDownloader, by staff-member Didi Hanoch (דידי חנוך). They do say that it's better than Raptor.

A note (actually a word of warning) - you can use Google translate to read the article ([5]), but the translation is just plain wrong. The headline is not "Removed" but "Downloading" (similar words in Hebrew). Even worse, the sub-heading says "illegal content", but actually in Hebrew it says "legal content". I don't understand it, but it translate "חוקי" (legal) to "illegal" ("לא חוקי"). So - don't trust Google! okedem (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply. Pcap ping 09:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick translation favor again

Could you translate the "Cons" line at the end of this review? The google-automated translation doesn't make much sense at that point. Thanks. Pcap ping 18:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I assume you mean the cons of the last review in that article, "סכנת רוגלות ותוכנות מציקות." - it means "danger of spyware and other annoying programs" (referring to the adware they install). okedem (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

An invitation

May I invite you to look at the latest edits at Judea and perhaps join the discussion developing on its talk page? I suspect similar discussions have taken place about a great many other articles. Anyone can easily find citations calling Judea either occupied or disputed, but that does not make it objectively so. Depending on which editor one asks, one term is more neutral and the other is pov. Is there a general policy that applies across articles? Would appreciate any light you can shed. Thanks! Hertz1888 (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's an argument I really don't want to join - my time is severely limited these days, and learning and discussing a new topic isn't too appealing. okedem (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

HOCR (software)

This free Hebrew OCR software is up for deletion. I was able to find a ton of mentions of it in an Israeli Linux magazine, [6], but they all seem to be blog entries. It's also briefly mentioned in this Ynet story. The author also gave a presentation here. These make think the software is somewhat notable in the Israeli open source movement. Could you help find some articles that satisfy WP:GNG, i.e they are independent of the creator and are not self-published (blogs), so we can save this from deletion? Thanks, Pcap ping 20:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did a short search, but failed to find any notable mentions of this. Sorry... okedem (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem, the chosen city

I would like to try to convince you offline of the merits of my proposal at Israel. You, nsaum and others have latched on to this idea that writing "Israel has chosen Jerusalem" is in some way weakening Jerusalem's title to the crown. But no reader, other than those who have been personally involved in this convoluted debate, would ever read my proposal that way. Set yourself outside this argument, and read these two sentences:

Israel has chosen Jerusalem, historically the religious and cultural focus of Judaism, as its capital. Jerusalem is the seat of government and the most populous city.

Jerusalem is the capital, seat of government, and largest city.

Which of these two sentences leaves you with a stronger impression of Israel's claim on Jerusalem? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the fact that in other articles we simply say "X is the capital", the first one leaves me wondering what's going on. It may be a fine point, but an important one nonetheless. In State of Palestine we have "The declaration designated Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine". Your suggestion essentially places Israel's claim to Jerusalem as capital on the exact same level as the Palestinians - choice, designation, selection, rather than actuality.

I do not support using intentionally vague phrasing just to appease some editors. In encyclopedias we strive for accuracy, and your sentence simply leaves out information - sure Israel chose it as capital, but did it make it the capital? While the current phrasing, "Jerusalem is the capital", gives both facts - it was obviously chosen, and it serves as such. Your sentence leaves out the second fact, because some people don't like it. What you're suggesting is a sentence that can be understood in several ways, to fit the reader's existing opinion. This might be the way to write a political candidate's agenda, but it isn't the way to write an accurate encyclopedia. okedem (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Israel (and the status of Jerusalem as capital) has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission. -- tariqabjotu 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Golan mountain mediation

I'm thinking about requesting an official medcom mediation for the Golan mountain names. If I start one, would you be interested in participating? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I quit that discussion for lack of free time, and that hasn't changed. okedem (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Israel. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Good luck

Sorry I won't be helping out in the Israel talk page anymore. Funny how the same people are back with the same arguments they just lost an RfC with. I think the kind of tag abuse RomaC is engaging in would have gotten me or you threatened with arbcom, but oh well.

Keep up the good fight. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't really think there's any need for a lot of further involvement there. We've had a long and deep discussion about it. The time for discussions about Jerusalem's status is over. Now it's time to make it clear that enough is enough. okedem (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That won't happen without some kind of binding decision. A few months ago they wanted a footnote. Yesterday the footnote wasn't marked clearly enough. Today the infobox is not neutral. Tomorrow it will be something else. This won't stop until they get their way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Okedem, I know you seem to have begun to distance yourself from this, but I'm interested in hearing your opinion on the proposal at Talk:Israel#Lead 2 that the final sentence of the lead be changed to "Tel Aviv is the country's economic hub and home to Israel's only stock exchange, while Jerusalem, although not recognized internationally as such, is its capital city." and the capital footnote be changed to [a]. Tiamut, RomaC, and Dailycare appear to have all agreed to it. -- tariqabjotu 17:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you read my mind... ignore me... -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your request

Diffs when required, not when requested. That means for RfArb. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Israel FAR

I have nominated Israel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cptnono (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Some things to sort out with Avaya1 to do with financial numbers in Israel

Please see User_talk:Avaya1#Israel_financial_figures. You seem to be trying to sort out the numbers in the FAR. I'm not mentioning this point there yet, but this sorts of inconsistencies do really need to be straightened out in an FA.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is absolutely no justification for this edit. Everything you removed is supported by a source. Cut it out. 76.191.230.178 (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WildBot

I think you misunderstood the purpose of that bot's edit to the talk page, it is meant to inform the editors that named links in the article are disambiguation pages. We should not be linking the disambig pages, the wikilinks should be to the actual article the link is meant to reference. nableezy - 17:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea, rethinking it now, I realize I misunderstood the bot's message. Thanks. okedem (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Arab citizens of Israel. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. You are already in breach of 3rr. Please stop now. RolandR (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"already in breach of 3rr"? You might want to count better. okedem (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry -- I misread your 21 March edit as yesterday's. Glad to see that you are now cooperating in improving the passage, rather than removing it. Technically, I think that still counts as a revert, but I do not intend to report this. RolandR (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

a favor

on the wikepedia main page it shows on the "on this day" article that 200 palestinains fled to the church of nativity from advancing israeli forces. it sounds kind of anti-israeli to me. considering that some of those 200 palestinians were terrorists wanted by israel. Also considering that those terrorists vandalized the church of nativity and took the people inside hostage., i requested they change it up and make it more nuetral on the discussion page, but im not sure if theyll listen to me. You seem mch better at wikipedia than i so im asking for your help. thank you chag kasher vesameach--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I see this was solved already, using the word "militants", which is what is used here instead of the more accurate "terrorists". It's good enough. okedem (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

toda--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem

I have given the suggestions on the talk page.--RM (Be my friend) 19:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Water Politics

the article water politics is very anti-israel if you see the section about the jordan river it can clearly be seen that its anti-israel. in fact the article is considered a palastine article. im not sure what to do or how to fix this so i was hoping you could tell me what i should do?--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Relax, I've seen much worse. Some of the claims there are clearly false, and some are questionable. I've removed a long-sourceless claim, and placed some citation needed tags on others. If sources aren't provided within a reasonable time, I'll removed those unsourced claims. okedem (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks--Marbehtorah-marbehchaim (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you help me take care of the vandalism

Hello my friend. The member "Tiamut" [[7]] is keeping making a vandalization on the page [8] of Vipera palaestinae. He is keep changing the name of the region area from "Israel" to "Israel/Palestin" wich is clearly PoV (the Vipera palaestinae are not found on judah and samaria area). Please help me to block his edits somehow, because he is just keeping his PoV everytime i edit it again. Thanks for the help. --Sipio (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(Hi) אהלן

רק עכשיו שמתי לב שאתה דובר עברית שפת אם..ואני שובר שיניים..

Only now I noticed that you speak Hebrew ...And I'm breaking my teeth..--Gilisa (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

אכן... :-) okedem (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Key facts of Israel and other countries

Shalom,

I think its a good idea that a country's historical facts at a glance include just that - historical facts at a glance.

All countries should follow the modus operandi of historical facts of Bulgaria- it is a more accurate presentation of the country's history.

The question is not why is Bulgaria different.

It's why other countries don't present more accurate historical information. Sagi Nahor (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Would appreciate your help

Greetings, O.K. It is good to see you back. Could you have a look at this edit and apply your expertise? While the addition does not look kosher, I am unsure how to modify it, or whether to remove it entirely. I am sure that, if it stays, there is a better wording. Thanks in advance. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Sometimes there's just not enough time (or energy) for these things... I reverted it, on various grounds, as you can see in the edit summary. okedem (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well done - much obliged. I can learn a lot from you. Kol tuv, Hertz1888 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Come now, you're not exactly inexperienced here... okedem (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you said that, but I meant what I said in all sincerity. You do set a good example. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel FAR

Hi Okedem - I am just checking in to see how work is progressing on the work on the Israel FAR. It has been at FAR for over four months, and at this point the article has two outstanding "delists" and several comments. It may be beneficial for you to ping the editors who have commented or voted to delist and ask them to revisit the article, if you feel that you have fixed or responded to all of their comments. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of replies. Been way too busy to properly follow these things. Saw you demoted the article. Too bad I don't have enough time, and no one else seems to care. By the way, there's no edit warring there now, just a couple of reverts concerning some minor point. Unless you completely freeze an article, minor content disputes will always arise, and are not grounds for delisting. okedem (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel and Lebanon

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

I actually only did one revert, so your warning is quite out-of-place. okedem (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your first change was a revert of this edit, so you made two reverts. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I provided two superior sources, as George pointed out the discrepency between our text and the source, which was shown to be the fault of the source. It was not a "revert", but a substantial edit, objectively improving the article. okedem (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Preemptive Strike

I think this should put an end to the debate.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

We'll see... okedem (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Guess I was wrong.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition to being disruptive, I think we're dealing with a sock using multiple IPs. At least one is confirmed.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza "Holocaust" controversy

hey, what do you think of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_17 your input would be appreciated.

Sorry, I don't have the time or energy for these things now... okedem (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

state of palestine article

Hi, I've made some digging and found out that converting this article to a "country" article (With an infobox and everything) happend in august 2009, and you were there. My question is why this was allowed? As far as I know, the state of palestine that was proclaimed in Tunisia (!!) in 1988, was proclaimed to include all of Israel (med-to-jordan). Of course, such proclamation has no actual meaning, since it controlled no territory and no people. Furthermore, no wikipedia user can change the declaration... now the article seems to include only the west bank and gaza, as if there is an effort to "connect" the PNA to this "state of palestine" political baloon. (you can look in the previous years, the article specificly mentioned that the "state of palestine" includes all of Israel, as was in this declaration).

The PNA which was established as a result of the Oslo accords between Israel and the PLO, and is completely different entity than the "state of palestine". further more, the "state of palestine" displays area, gdp & hdi and even internet TLD and international prefix. Oddly enough, as this proclamation from 1988 is merely a political baloon.. further more, one can effectively claim that the .PS internet TLD and +970 international prefix were allocated to the PNA, and not to the state of palestine.

A small remark: Don't get me wrong - i'm not trying to do anything against our country, but merely to point out that the article "state of palestine" is just a political baloon that was released in 1988, and to expose that it's purpose was to replace Israel. the world should know that. Furthermore, any person that comes into wikipedia and looks for palestine, will probobly come across this page and will (falsely) think that there is a state of palestine that covers the west bank and gaza. this is a deception! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.167.160 (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

If you dig down in that discussion, you'll see that one of the claims was that the use of the infobox does not necessarily mean that it's a state; an example given there was Jefferson (Pacific state), a proposed state in the US, whose article uses the country infobox despite clearly non being a country.

You don't have to convince me - I was against the portrayal of the "State of Palestine" as an actual state, but those of different opinion prevailed. I'm no longer active in this area, or in the English Wikipedia at all, due to such tiring and pointless arguments, the use of attrition tactics, and the abuse of the Wikipedia system to enforce non-factual views. okedem (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)