WP:AE#Shuki. nableezy - 00:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of the message I left here: It is acceptable to critically engage the statements and opinions of others if a professional tone is employed; "bogus argument", however, is already too confrontational in my opinion. But it is certainly not acceptable to attack people themselves by claiming that they "lie". Please do not do this again, or you may be made subject to discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  09:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should have noted that it was Nableezy claiming about 'bogus arguments', not me. --Shuki (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here. I tried to find the original evidence in Hebrew of a Channel 2 expose on the incident that blew this up in the first place, but I don't know Hebrew. Also, I'm not familiar with the full progress of events, so the article looks muddled. The article needs help (as the controversy is gradually developing into an influential series of events), so if you know anyone in Israel who is familiar with the case and knows both Hebrew and English, this article could use their input. Shalom and thanks, --Toussaint (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC) PS: You might want to archive your older talk page's posts, at least to make it more readable for newer messages. You could try {{archive talk collapsible}} --Toussaint (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shuki, Is there written policy regarding cats and super cats? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAT --Shuki (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for something that addressing labeling articles with both a category and its super category. I can't seem to see anything address this particular issue on WP:CAT. Do you? Can you point to it? Thanks, NickCT (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try here as well Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. Perhaps start a discussion. I took part unofficially there in my early days with organizing and cleaning up parent cats and subcats. Just seems common sense to not have that redundancy, and was not tolerated. W/R specifically to the settlement articles, I think that sorting them based on religious observance was a way to clean the main cat and adding additional information at the same time. In this case, your edit and DailyCare's unfortunate kneejerk reaction instead of joining the discussion, means that Ariel is in two directly related settlement cats. --Shuki (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no general policy that I know of, but WP:MILMOS#SPECIFIC and the section immediately following are what I tend to go with. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrensath - Yes WP:MILMOS#SPECIFIC is exactly what I was looking for. It speaks to the issue very clearly.

@Shuki - I find myself overruled by policy. I withdraw my initial objection. NickCT (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the talkpage. 21:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that you have been doing a fair amount of reverting of my work. Please read Help:Reverting - especially "reverting good-faith actions of other editors (as opposed to vandalism) is considered disruptive when done to excess, and can even lead to the reverter being blocked from editing."

A more appropriate approach when faced with editing you don't agree with, is to open a discussion first. We'll deal with the Organ donation in Israel situation first, and you can explain to me why you feel that an article which is about organ transplants should be called Organ donation, and then look at the other articles where you disagree with the edits. We'll forget about the reverting, and concentrate on the issues themselves; though please do bear in mind in future that reverting is an inappropriate action unless dealing with obvious vandalism. SilkTork *^YES! 22:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you have a notice about keeping discussion in one place. I don't tend to watch people's talkpages. If you wish to leave me a message, my talkpage is the best place. What I tend to do to keep conversations together is to cut and paste the original notice and my response. Though if we are to stick with the issues, then the talkpages of the articles are the best places to hold these discussions, starting at Talk:Organ donation in Israel. SilkTork *^YES! 22:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, a reasonable (and certainly experienced) editor would admit that they were bold and graciously accept that someone has challenged their editing, not go and try to educate others about how to challenge their edits. The most appropriate approach would have been to start a discussion in the first place. Second, I will AGF your notice to disrespect my talk-page request. --Shuki (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, if you object to edits solely because of a lack of an official "prior permission" discussion, then why didn't you start a discussion? I see that you've reverted what I think is a perfectly reasonable merge of several short articles into Organ donation. Your edit summary gave no reason for your opposition beyond an anti-WP:BOLD complaint. Which of the several affected pages would you like to start the discussion on? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to write a neutral article on tourism in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip both today and historically using reliable sources. I'd hoped to be able to write the article without disputes about politics; silly me. The "Palestinian territories" are the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Israelis settlements in those areas are in the Palestinian territories, even if they're not governed by the Palestinian authorities. An article on tourism to the West Bank and Gaza would be whitewashed if it didn't mention tourism to Israeli settlements, just as an article about tourism in Israel would be whitewashed if it didn't mention tourism to settlements in the occupied territories. It'd be good if you'd help expand the article, there's lots more sources out there. Fences&Windows 00:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Thanks for fixing that note about the pollution, I slipped up there. Fences&Windows 00:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all of the WB and Gaza Palestinian territories is a POV viewpoint. Negotiations are underway, there is no final status, there are Area A, B, and C, C clearly not Palestinian territory, and please don't claim objectiveness if you object to that. --Shuki (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ive given you multiple sources that make clear that Area C is occupied Palestinian territory. You have yet to provide a single source that says otherwise. nableezy - 00:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, so what? The vast majority of sources do not say this, you have merely managed to find those that do, and there is no shortage of them. Your argument is not convincing and based on OR and presenting GHITS. You will not find too many sources saying explicitly that Area C is not occupied. And if we did, they would be challenged as RS. Do you want me me to find articles that do not equate area c with Palestinian territory? All they say is Area C with nothing about occupation. --Shuki (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When quality sources specifically say that Area C is occupied Palestinian territory it is not, by definition, OR to say that that Area C is occupied Palestinian territory. And where you are getting "GHITS" in this discussion is beyond me. And the what in your initial question is that if you cannot present a source that disputes the quality sources I have provided you then your position, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it meaningless. I can find a ton of sources saying "Area C" is occupied. Here is a small collection, not including the ones already provided to you:

• Isaac, Jad; Rizik, Majed (30 November 2002), "The Viability of the Palestinian State and Israel's Settlement Policy", Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics, and Culture, 9 (4), Middle East Publications: p. 76 {{citation}}: |page= has extra text (help) - The interim agreement divided Palestinian land into areas A, B and C
• Shah, Samira (Fall 1997), "On the Road to Apartheid: The Bypass Network in the West Bank", Columbia Human Rights Law Review, Columbia University - While Oslo II transfers a limited amount of authority over the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Israel to the Palestinian Council, it does not remove Israel from its position as occupier of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Oslo II divides the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C which respectively constitute approximately 3%, 24%, and 73% of the West Bank. The agreement transfers "all civil powers and duties" in Areas A and B to the Palestinian Council during the first phase of redeployment. In addition, Oslo II transfers police powers from the Israeli military to the Palestinian Authority in Area A. Since Israel retains the responsibility for the security of settlers and Israelis in all areas of the West Bank, it does not abdicate full authority over Area A. In Area B, Israel still maintains police and security responsibilities. Israel retains its full civil, police, and security authority over Area C.
• Dajani, Omar (Fall, 1997), "Stalled Between Seasons: The International Legal Status of Palestine During the Interim Period", Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (26), Denver University {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) - Area C encompasses the vast majority of the OPT

Many more can be provided. You have yet to provide a single source that say that Area C is not Palestinian territory. So when you say that it is not you are the one engaged in OR as there are no sources backing such a statement. nableezy - 17:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that RS can be POV as well, right? The three sources you brought might be RS, but they are still POV. RS does not mean 'objective'. There's no point in bringing you one source that says that the West Bank is not occupied Palestinian Territory, (there are many many) because you don't care anyways, and I know, that nothing I say will convince you otherwise. And it is very OR to claim 'most of the sources' and stuff like that. --Shuki (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a point. Bring some sources that say Area C is not Palestinian territory and I'll take your argument seriously, if they are of comparable quality to the sources I have provided (peer-reviewed, published by academic presses). And I have not said "most of the sources", what I have said is that I have provided sources when you have provided nothing but your own personal view. nableezy - 21:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, anything counter-Nableezy is hasbara anyway. You like arguing more than you like contributing real information. Compare my edit history to yours. Most of my edits are on articles, most of yours are on talk pages. --Shuki (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my edits are on talk pages because certain users refuse to accept what high quality sources say and instead demand that their own personal viewpoints be presented as gospel truth to the exclusion of that the sources actually say, so I have to spend a great deal of my time dealing with such nonsense (sort of like right now). I provide sources, you provide unsourced opinion. I have given you a number of sources that flat out say that Area C is Palestinian territory, you have yet to provide a single one that refutes that. Guess what? On Wikipedia, sources trump personal opinions and feelings. nableezy - 21:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shuki: Since this is now the time, would it be possible for you to review and add or in any way improve The Nine Days article. Please find more sources as well. Thanks in advance. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally hit the rollback button, didn't mean to revert after your revert. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just edit like reasonable people? I'm sick and tired about the battlefront, and it is because I do have faith in editors that I believe that most are reasonable people who do want to see progress. Not to be condescending to you, but at least I see that you are a contributor on other pages and subjects and do want to add value to WP, as opposed to another editor who is an admittedly negative person. Supporting a position does not mean degrading the other side, but promoting one's side. --Shuki (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE#Shuki nableezy - 19:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you reinserted it? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Who gave you the right to remove it? --Shuki (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA ("Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.") and WP:SOAP. The initial edit was solely propaganda for the Israeli government's POV, and has no place in Wikipedia. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 22:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your motives really are suspect. Twice removing information? What does SOAP have to do with this? A discussion page is for discussion. On talk pages, we are all allowed to freely voice our POV, and do not need to source it. The original post was fine. --Shuki (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A) *What* information? B) How are my motives suspect? C) No, the original post was not fine, it was solely propaganda, and a violation of WP:CIVIL, to boot. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 23:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is continually deleting stuff from a talk page, than it seems they have something to hide. I find the best way to reduce the visibility of something is to ignore it. Making an edit to a page draws attention, blanking is exceptional, and is like waving a red flag ('over here') What is wrong with Eric's original post? He was not accusing anyone specific of antisemitism, and FWIW, I think it exists here in various forms. People coming to WP do not leave their prejudice at login. The talk pages on wikiprojects and userpages are pretty much 'free' zones up to a certain point specified in WP guidelines. --Shuki (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

frontpage is far-right? I don't know. As long as it is not promoting hate, I'm not aware of a policy that says we cannot call attention to any site, even non-RS. This is not articlespace where it is not tolerated. --Shuki (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the "help us stop Obama's radical transformation of America" ad prominently displayed on every page, and this quote from the bio on the site's runner "His Art of Political War (2000) was described by White House political strategist Karl Rove as “the perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield.” Unholy Alliance (2004) was a prophetic work pioneering the view that the Islamo Fascists are working hand in glove with the secular left. In 1988, Horowitz created the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) — renamed by its board of directors the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC) in July 2006 — to institutionalize his campaigns against the Left and its anti-Americanism", I don't think we can describe it as anything but a far-right site that promotes hatred. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 00:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get it. I could post a link here to a book by radical anti-Zionist Neve Gordon, and we could talk all day about it. I would not use that to source anything to an article. Too POV, not RS. --Shuki (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrensath, that's your POV.RS101 (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions, you are topic-banned until 23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC) from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries. Violation of the topic ban shall result in a block of appropriate duration and the topic-ban being reset to run for five weeks from the end of the block. Appeal of this sanction may be made to me, to WP:AE, or to ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All edits made by a banned user may be summarily removed per WP:BAN. I did not even do that, but if you would rather I just completely remove the edits made by a sock of a banned account I would be glad to do so. WP:BAN also specific that editing on behalf of banned editors, such as what you just did, is not allowed under policy. Bye. nableezy - 21:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not accurate at all, AGF my friend. Kindly show where this 'enforcement' is advised to be carried out retroactively. --Shuki (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Also the subsection thereof, 'Enforcement by reverting'. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 21:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to pretend that you really did not see where it says that all edits made by a banned user may be removed, but if you do reinsert the comments by the sock of a banned editor I will not delude myself any longer and instead will ask that the appropriate administrative action is taken. nableezy - 22:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, keep in mind that WP:BAN also says "Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content". So if you feel comfortable taking responsibility for the content, there doesn't seem to be a problem reinstating edits, despite what some people might try to bully you into thinking. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, I hope that you will take a look at wikibias.com, documenting political bias on Wikipedia since 2010. Submissions welcome. Particularly in the area of bias against Israel, we believe that it is useful to document and record the political bias that can appear on Wikipedia, and the efforts by anti-Israel activists to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool.

Submissions welcomed. Discretion guaranteed.CaptainStarbucks (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, User_talk:Stifle#Topic_ban_vio nableezy - 22:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a Nableezy threat to go to AE again. Ya think dat da man would approve of my removing some POV from da article dat counters his. I've lost count of your frivolous accusations, and frankly, your score at AE really sucks lately seeing as how you get yourself topic banned in two consecutive reports there. Like shooting hoops at your own basket. --Shuki (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made report at AE since the one that resulted in both of us receiving the same topic ban. But please, continue saying things that are easily proven false. It makes this much more enjoyable. We'll see what happens here. Bye. nableezy - 22:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my mistake. One AE and one edit war accusation. Let's keep track, so I don't make that mistake in the future. --Shuki (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep track perhaps you should include you being topic banned in the first report listed and Agada being banned for 3 months in the second one listed. Oh, and one last point. I wouldnt have even reported this if you had refrained from, again, calling me a liar. Next time that happens Ill just report that. Bye. nableezy - 19:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point. Pay attention, it's not that complicated. The issue is how reckless you are, perhaps even WP suicidal, that you jump to report attack, seemingly to carry out justice on other editors assuming they will get punished when you yourself are not the angel yourself and get smacked down as well at the same time. Although I was accused of it in the AE you filed against me, it is actually YOU who have no problem taking others down with you. WP is not a nice hobby for you, it is a battleground to wage electronic intifada. You do not want to contribute here, you're here for the jihad. And yes you make false claims occasionally like claiming that certain media are not RS, when they are. Keep it up, I can extend the table anytime. --Shuki (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I may need to open another one for this user accusing me of "waging jihad" and other such nonsense. nableezy - 14:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are a big boy and you can make your own decisions. The expected outcome of another one of your dumb 'pot calling the kettle black' reports is probably going to be an interaction ban for both of us, and seeing as how I have edited many more articles than you on your beloved Israel, you'll have to stay away from me more than I worry about you. Mabrouk. --Shuki (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think I have ever said anything to you on the level of "waging jihad" or being "wiki suicidal" (an inference to suicide bombers no doubt). But we'll see. I think I'll just wait for the next time you are unable to contain your urge to call me a liar for saying things that are demonstrably true. Given the warning you received for such language that should be a relatively easy AE request to process. Of course, you could make it so that does not happen by resisting the urge to call Arabs who write things you dont like "liars". I know it may be difficult, but you should really give it a shot. nableezy - 18:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, another 'I know you are but what am I' reply??? Anyway, you do not have to say it explicity, but everyone knows that your instances of Jihad battleground actions far outnumber the number of times when you've been a civil and pleasant collegue. FWIW, I should not have to tell you that lead in that article does not centre on violence, but that is probably lost on you - true jihad starts with oneself. The suicide reference is your continued filing of AE, ANI, and 3RR reports given that you are also 'taken down' (how many times do I have to explain that to you?) I do not mind saying that anyone claiming Arutz7 is 'demonstratably not reliable' is a liar until they can get a community consensus on the proper noticeboard. And I would strike that insinuation for accusing me a racism against Arabs ASAP. There is absolutely no example of this in any of my 10 000 edits. --Shuki (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats nice. I dont plan on taking lessons on Islam from you and your earlier comment about Jihad was clearly not about "inner Jihad". You can pretend otherwise now, but you would be (oh, whats that word for when somebody isnt telling the truth, I forget). As far as striking comments, I wouldnt hold my breath if I were you. To begin with, I didnt insinuate you are a racist, whereas you have made that insinuation against me a number of times, albeit in a veiled way. What I said was you should resist the urge to call Arabs, eg me, who write things you do not like, eg Arutz Sheva is an unreliable source, liars. You have done exactly that, multiple times in fact, and were told not to say such things. I dont really care about what you mind saying or dont mind saying, but I can promise you that the next time you call me a liar I will not just shrug it off. I think our conversation has run its course, and as it is my custom it is time to bid you farewell. Bye. nableezy - 21:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop lying. I have never insinuated anything about Arabs on WP. Go take it to any forum and prove that I have ever insinuated the racist claims you are making against me. Obviously you care very m,uch what I think about you, otherwise you would not be on my talk page so much. --Shuki (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. That's a lie. He said nothing about Arabs. I hope I won't get reported for calling Arabs liars now. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, you can call me a liar here on your own talk page as much as you like, I dont really care. As to whether or not this is a "lie", it clearly is not. You have said, multiple times, that an Arab (me) who has said things you dont like (A7 is an unreliable pretend news source, or Israeli settlements are *gasp* Israeli settlements) has lied. I did not say you said this because I am an Arab or because you are racist (though I have some views on that). If you cannot understand the plain English that was used I cant do much to help other than to say you should consider getting hooked on phonics. nableezy - 21:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hee Hee, you little rascal, trying to bait me with another one of your classic weenie Nableezy - "I know you are but what am I arguments."? Oh, you seem to care very much what I think because you come back here so often wanting more. --Shuki (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stifle. Shuki made this edit to an article on a "place in Israel". That is a clear cut violation of the Shuki's topic ban. Would you rather I report this to AE or will you enforce the topic ban? nableezy - 22:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is sort of weenie I think all will agree. RVV is not a violation of the topic ban. Nableezy, add a knotch to the list of your frivoulous accusations. I think Nableezy should be warned for this hounding of me and waste of your time. --Shuki (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reinforce how Nableezy likes bring on judgement to himself, now that I'm looking - making edits to a location in violation of his topic ban here. Stifle, should I file an AE? --Shuki (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Stifle/Archive_0810a#topic_ban_exemption nableezy - 23:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No violations in either case.

The intention behind a topic ban is so that users are encouraged to direct their productive efforts to articles which are further away from the locus of disputes. It is not so that other affected editors should be combing people's edits in order to say "GOTCHA!! I'M TELLING TEACHER ON YOU!!!!11" Therefore:

• Pursuant to the discretionary sanctions remedy of WP:ARBPIA,
• Believing that other measures are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project,
• Shuki (talk · contribs) and Nableezy (talk · contribs) are banned from reporting each other for alleged violations of the topic ban imposed by me on them on 27th July last, for the duration of the topic ban. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any report anywhere on Wikipedia, and includes attempts to solicit other users to report the other's violation. Violating this ban will result in a block of appropriate length. This sanction may be appealed to me, to WP:AE, or to ArbCom.

Seriously guys, knock it off. Wikipedia is not primary school. The next step will be an interaction ban. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I note your request to reply on my talk page, but am replying here to avoid any suggestion that you have not been properly informed of the ban. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shuki. I agree that reverting vandalism in a topic are you are banned from is not appropriate since it causes frustrations and drama like this. However, there has been a precedent to include a mention of vandalism in decisions, for editors to ignore it,[2][3] and for admins at the enforcement page to ignore it.[4] I also recall other cases were reverting vandalism was given a pass but Nableezy's was obviously the first to jump out. I recommend that you do not continue to revert vandalism in the topic area just to temper the bickering and to not cross an lines. I'm under the impression that you are not banned from the talk page. That might be the best place to start. You can even shoot a message to me or someone else if it is obvious vandalism (unless it is determined that that is meat puppetry). You could also open up something at the arbitration enforcement requests for clarification if you simply can't not revert vandalism. In regards to Nableez's request, I would consider ignoring it since Stifle appears to be running out of patience and you shouldn't put yourself in a situation like that.Cptnono (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just sad that Nableezy is so quick to pounce, and I was reverting something that was against his POV too. --Shuki (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have seen your comment here [5] regarding (those propagandists) trying to discredit Israel National News as a RS. Thank you for pointing out that it is in fact a political driven agenda to discredit a particular site which is no less of a news site as any other, to say the least.

Acceptance and reliability

Endorsement

The National Review has highly recommended Israel National News as an objective source for news, an alternative to the predominantly biased left media in Israel. ^[1]

Human Rights Watch

High credibility for Israel National News can also be found in such organizations like: The Human Rights Watch which quotes it in an official published book ^[2]

Books

It's widely cited in books,^{[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]} even John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt in their notorious book, highly critical of Israel, have quoted IsraelNationalNews.com.^[12]

Media

Among media outlets quoting Israel National News, The Guardian, ^[13] The Washington Post,^[14] The Washington Times^[15][16][17] and Foxnews. ^[18][19][20]

Any particular reason why you're removing block notices from the pages of blocked users? Black Kite (t) (c) 15:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the 'closing admin' himself changed the block to one year per the arbcom. --Shuki (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, WP:ARBPIA. Please see current discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Shuki (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason why administrators allow so many editwarring by nableezy?RS101 (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your work on Mariam (ship), I hope that you will help me edit an article on the ship Avrazya, which would make an interesting DKY.AMuseo (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited that page. You might want to develop the Avrazya page using similar outline to MV Francop --Shuki (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before I re-edit, please let me know why my sources were insufficient. That way, I will be able to post extra sources. Jieriomka (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to claim that Beit Haggai is illegal, you will have to find a source explicitly saying so and why (built on Palestinian private land? Violating Israeli building codes? No Israeli building permits or government approval? etc...) --Shuki (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I posted sources as to why all settlements are considered illegal by international standards (to which Israel adheres to). I will re-word my edit, and I trust you will be honest. Jieriomka (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please find sources that specifically say that Beit Haggai is illegal and why (unsafe buildings, built on private land, built without proper building permits, built with permits but not according to plan, etc...). If you cannot do that, you might be involving WP in a legal problem for claiming something that is not true. --Shuki (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, yet the more-then-once-pushing-for-editwar: Nableezy has removed it even after any claims of RS was removed.RS101 (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol shuki thanks for the welcome ah sheli, i think there is at least a few others who also are pretty interested. shana tova LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted this to the page of the closing administrator.

• I believe that your deletion close of these three articles was incorrect, perhaps because this is a region that you do not follow closely. You are doubtless aware that there are ongoing peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The incident that you deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting is having a material impact on these talks, in particular, because pressure from settlers in the West Bank has caused the government of Israel to lift the ban on construction in West Bank settlements [6], [7], but also it is widely understood that Hamas launched the attacks in a deliberate effort to derail the peace talks [8], [9]. there are dozens more article like these. Citing an incident with this kind of impact as a news story of merely temporary interest is incorrect.

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting also continues to be in the news. [10], and, significantly, to be cited [11] as an obstacle (or s a reason for obstructing)[12] the peace process. As above, I can cite many recent article similar to these.

My objection to your deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba is that the title under which the article was deleted was, if I recall correctly, a move from a previous title that, like the article, treated the August rocket attacks as the most recent in a series of rocket attacks that jointly target (and cause destruction in) Aquaba, Jordan, and Eilat, Israel. This is not a trivail topic and, unfortunately, not a transient topic as there have been a seris of such attacks in recent years.

I would also like to second User:Shuki's argument. Single terror attacks, even failed ones, in Europe and the United States are routinely deemed worthy of Wikipedia articles. You bring WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to bear. I would argue, rather, that many articles on single incidents over many years have created a defacto Wikipedia standard whereby single incidents of terrorism, even failed terror attacks and incidents, merit articles. 2004 financial buildings plot, Wood Green ricin plot, Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack, 2005 Los Angeles bomb plot, Qantas Flight 1737. there are many more such Wikipedia articles on individual incidents in which no one was killed, or which were plots that never were carried out. Wikipedia standards ought to be consistent. Rather than selectively delete terror incidents in Israel, I argue that we ought to accept articles about incidents of terrorism worldwide. How, after all, can we possibly argue that the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt is WP notable, while the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 rocket attack on Eilat/Aqaba

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting, and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting are not?AMuseo (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Shuki (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These three deletions are now being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 13.AMuseo (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Shuki_reported_by_Nableezy.28Result:_.29. nableezy - 19:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the ongoing dispute, I'm restricting you to 1RR/day until December 31 for all articles which relate to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights. PhilKnight (talk)

Looks like you may add one more to your table above :)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see friendly banter above User talk:Shuki#Frivolous topic ban vio report --Shuki (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shuki. I apreciate what you are doing but it might be best to remove this list. Wikipedia:User pages states: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc, should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." and I asume it could be applied to talk pages.

Nableezy got off lucky (again) considering that he has been back only a couple weeks on articles about settlements and has already been to AE and the edit warring board. You also should be happy that you did not receive a stiffer warning since you were making reverts. Just watch yourself. I believe many of us in the topic area do not expect any change in behavior from Nableezy but it would be a shame to see you also get caught up in any housecleaning if the admins ever actually do it.Cptnono (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the advice. --Shuki (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought about it, and given that this repeatedly disruptive behaviour of his is still fresh (only from the past month or so) and user has shown absolutely no sign of restraining himself, I think that this list is still important record for the next few weeks because I assume it will occur again shortly. If in fact, we see a rehabilitated Nableezy, especially one who admits taking part in this kind of behaviour and promises to do better, I will remove this immediately. --Shuki (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Cptnono, I do not consider this to be a negative information. IMO it is rather funny. I would not have minded, if somebody had something like this about me.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mbz, that would actually be sad. You've tolerated a lot of abuse that has been directed at you with sometimes utterly corrupt application of policies exploited to get you banned. You've virtually even been threatened for breathing on WP. --Shuki (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just my thoughts on it. No worries on my end.Cptnono (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got banned, when I filed AE about Gatoclass's conduct on my DYK nominations. Actually Nableezy has a much better record than I do. At least he gets the same sanctions like a user he files reports about. In my case I was banned, and Gatoclass was only advised. Ban was not such a big deal for me. I hardly edited in I/P conflict area before the ban anyway. Thanks to that ban I wrote many articles I would have never written otherwise. I was even more or less OK with my 3 blocks for so called ban violation, but what the heck, if one is able to make a fun of himself, he will not be afraid of other people making fun of him. So I am ready to make fun of myself in spite of everything :)--Mbz1 (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, don't get me wrong, I truly appreciate your remarks. I think it is wonderful when other editors watch out for each other and warn them about possible personal issues. Unfortunately, in contrast, Nableezy does not have real friends who care enough the same way and instead it seems his friends actually encourage him. It is very rare that they will bother to warn him to hold back with his problematic attitudes, I tried, but gave up. --Shuki (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you are mentioned in a DRV discussion here. --Kbdank71 20:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Adulam Grove Nature Reserve, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sreifa (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was extremely kind and thoughtful of you. When I see an orange/yellow stripe at the top of the page alerting me to a comment, I tend open it with a sinking feeling in my stomach, thinking 'oh no, what have I done wrong now'...--Geewhiz (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've attempted to systematize the discussion on the scope of Racism in the Palestinian territories with regard to racism by Israeli settlers and soldiers at Talk:Racism in the Palestinian territories#Proposed resolutions. This debate does not concern whether such racism exists, merely whether it is an appropriate part of the article. Issues of WP:POLICY are currently being discussed. You've previously addressed the issue. Please contribute your opinion.--Carwil (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please share your knowledge on this matter here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A question; why are you bringing that point up (in settlements discussion)? that makes no sense. why would you undermine your own position so much? we're talking about settlements here as a category. nothing that we approve here would be binding on articles on individual settlements. why are you bringing that up here and now in this forum? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGF is nice, but be wary. You seem to be missing the intentions of a couple of editors. Have you not noticed that SupremeD is aching to add it NOW to all articles. He even recently made an attempt such as this [13] at a few dozen articles [14]. See is edit summary from a minute agao [15] --Shuki (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know and I understand. so we can agree to that one sentence's formulation now. then we can work to expand the information on an individual basis for each article. doing so would not contradict anything being discussed now. thanks for your idea on this point. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not. Start now right. No one is going to then go update 200+ articles with an extra five words that will never get consensus. --Shuki (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Itamar Ben-Gvir has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — Gfoley4 Wanna chat? 12:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no prod, it was SPD again. I was just trying to help. I recreated the page from a google cache stub. --Shuki (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was prodded, I then deleted it as an unsourced negative BLP. Please don't create unsourced articles on living people, especially if they contain controversial information. Happy to discuss why I considered it an attack page either by email or if you post reliably sourced information about the individual I'll comment on that. But I'm afraid we really can't have you posting unsourced negative information about a living person, and I must ask you to stop doing so. ϢereSpielChequers 14:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and I appreciate that you are looking at it from an objective pov but the basic info that was in the stub is actually a concise NPOV description. I imagine that the article will be restarted and I hope that I'll be able to consult with you again about what will be added there. --Shuki (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is neutral POV or not isn't the issue here. I like to think that Russell Brand is a npov article. But if it was unsourced it would legitimately be deleted {{G10}}..... If the information in that article had been reliably sourced then I would have had no problem with your wording. ϢereSpielChequers 16:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 December. PhilKnight (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which dispute is that? --Shuki (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of your editing at Eretz Yisrael Shelanu, which is just about within the scope of the WP:ARBPIA restrictions, and while you didn't go over 3RR, you were edit warring to some extent. PhilKnight (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me honestly. I did two reverts (not four, not three) and my introduction of a different opinion, not the removal of the other, sourced to RS, and also a willingness to compromise and discuss as problematic? What message are you sending here? --Shuki (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That you get the same treatment as Nableezy did in this AN3 report. PhilKnight (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. I'm being compared to Nableezy. My name is scum. Maybe I should whine now about how WP is such an unfair place and there's no use of editing here, and how much WP is anti-Israel, and then put tags on my user page to proclaim this and then threaten to leave... --Shuki (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is strange and absolutely unexplained sanction. I assure you Nableezy and Shuki are not Conjoined twins. You may sanction one without sanctioning another :)--Mbz1 (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was "edit warring to some extent" so you need to prove he gets "the same treatment as Nableezy"? Without going into the technical issue of Nableezy just finishing a restriction regarding places (which I believe Phil gave him) and proceeding to edit war in an article about a place (and getting a shorter sanction than someone with a clean record did for the same offense), did Shuki initiate that AN3 report? What does it have to do with him? This doesn't smell right. I'd appeal if I were Shuki. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're waiting on your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues‎. Thanks for restoring my comment.--Carwil (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have told you not to call me a liar or to say that I am lying before. In fact, you were told not to say that here. Either remove that accusation or I will be going to AE, Im done dealing with crap like this. nableezy - 14:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I don't really care for your threats. Second, you are lying when you accused me of refusinf to bring more quotations. I suggest you retract the accusation that I refused, then there will not be any lie. --Shuki (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE#Shuki. nableezy - 20:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Shuki: Please see my comment[16] at WP:AE#Result concerning Shuki. AGK 20:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Davidi SpeakToHim.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you were involved in the debate over infoboxes in Israeli electoral articles, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#Election_infoboxes for helping to determine a formal consensus.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Shuki (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please sign your comment in Talk:Racism in Israel ? Marokwitz (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, you can use this Template:Unsigned to save time. Thanks for noticing though. --Shuki (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He used this account[17] where he canvassed at least 22 different editors to help sway opinion on the Golan Heights--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed some of the articles he's edited and I believe he's used other accounts including

• Dalwadi6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tastytreasures (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might make sense, those socks also use the edit comments rarely. --Shuki (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust the user at all. He started off as a problematic SPA that rocked the boat unnecessarily multiple times. He has gotten better but if diffs can be provided that show that he broke the rules then I would love to hear his response. Cptnono (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dalwadi6 and Tastytreasures would be problematic if proven, because the editor would have been using sock puppets to avoid 3RR, and because they would be avoiding a permanent block for vandalism. The SwedishArab editor wouldn't be problematic though, as they were never blocked for canvassing (and it would be hard to make the case to get them blocked almost two years after the canvassing). ← George ^talk 14:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I opened an SPI case, but then noticed in the archive that Supreme Deliciousness had already been found to have no connection to those two accounts in a previous SPI case. ← George ^talk 14:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good start :-) --Shuki (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying there is no consensus when an uninvolved admin specifically says there is consensus for the line to be in the lead is bad faith editing. If you do not self-revert in a small amount of time I will be asking you be banned from editing articles about settlements. nableezy - 17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was willing to wait as long as it took me to write the enforcement request. Im done, but Ill wait a short amount of time before pressing save page. nableezy - 17:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE#Shuki. nableezy - 17:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]