See Talk:One-state_solution#1RR. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see Talk:Beit Kahil#1RR. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See here the alert you received regarding discretionary sanctions. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited One-state solution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page INSS. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Khirbet el-'Ormeh at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Mixed cities. There's a question regarding the NPOV tag which you placed that needs to be resolved. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at Talk:Mixed cities#Neutrality tag, please comment there if you have managed to find any sources which would support your proposed amendments to the article. If you are busy and need to make time to look for these, please could you let us know how long you need. Many thanks. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the discussion here - User_talk:Izzy_Borden#Mixed_Cities, and let me and Onceinawhile know if the issue has been resolved. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I have just replied on the thread. Tombah (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you breached 1RR again on Palestinians and that this is becoming a bit of pattern/habit. I suggest you curb it unless you want people to stop AGF.Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323 this case is not a 1RR my friend. Anyway, yes, I agree we have a problem today. I'm afraid we have some editors here we tend to automatically revert some contributions, sometimes without even checking what the sources actually say, just because they believe it gives space to a viewpoint they disagree with. I try my best to AGF, but it seems there are some people here who prefer to act like this is a battleground instead of collaborating. We should all learn to be more respectful of each other. Tombah (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tombah: You're right - must have been staring at the screen too late at night. Incidentally, I meant to mention the other day that while I suspect we may have our differences on matters of balance, I generally respect what seems like your interest in rigour and good intentions with respect to the portrayal of sources and Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was a single revert. nableezy - 13:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to my own correction, but yes, it was. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here

Kindly restore the improperly removed comments. Selfstudier (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. I see Onceinawhile already fixed that for me. Thanks for the heads up. Tombah (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure if you're using the visual editor or not, and Im not sure of the limitations of the VE either, but in general if a page has an established citation style you should match that in your edits. Israeli occupation of the West Bank uses shortened footnotes with the full citations in the references section. Ill clean up the latest edits, but if you notice an article with what seems like a standard style (be it citation style, American vs British English, BCE/CE vs BC/AD, whatever), you should try to follow that style in that article. nableezy - 18:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out next time. Thank you. Tombah (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you did at Temple Denial. Doug Weller talk 08:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation Stone is on the Temple Mount. A source stating that early Islam identified the Foundation Stone as the Temple's location means that the Temple Mount was identified with it. Nothing wrong about this statement, which is supported by other sources as well. An apology would be nice. Tombah (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get one. The source does not say "temples" for a start, it only mentions Solomon's. And you may have missed that I added Foundation Stone. Doug Weller talk 09:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Tombah (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller @Tombah: Incidentally, while I'm not aware of the level of Islamic attestation of the "foundation stone" as pertaining to the ancient temple, the broader corpus of Islamic myth pertaining to the Dome of the Rock identifies it as the spot where the Prophet Muhammad alighted during the Isra and Mi'raj episode [1], a poorly covered detail at present. A range of folkloric accounts have variously attributed specific marks in the foundation stone to specific actions of either Muhammad or the Buraq, such as, for example, the belief that certain marks are hoof prints. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323 Absolutely, traditions are very dynamic and develop over the course of history. Specifically regarding the Temple Mount - I read a lot on the subject recently; Jewish traditions regarding the site evolved over time as well - while the Bible mentions the Mount (under different names) as the site of Araunah's threshing floor, David's altar and Solomon's Temple, it says nothing about the creation of the world starting from the site. This is a later, Talmudic addition. And there's no need to mention that as long as the Temple existed, there was no need to revere the Western Wall. This is equally true when discussing Islamic traditions of the site - reverence of the site began in early Islamic times, but it wasn't necessarily linked with the Quranic Night Journey until the Umayyad period. A super interesting subject, isn't it?

You are much right about coverage... Let me add this to the article. Tombah (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Palestine and Area C.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here once more BRD has been ignored a revert reverted without discussion just an edit summary. The gratuitous addition of the phrase "See also Judea and Samaria Area." and subsequent claim that it is not a violation of WP:WESTBANK is transparent POV, the only purpose of the edit is to add the phrase. Selfstudier (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier Nope... please check section #5 at WP:WESTBANK. This addition complies perfectly well with this policy, as it refers readers to this article for further information regarding Israeli administration arrangements in the West Bank. Tombah (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I was falsely accused of sock-puppetry today on the basis of my timecards that suggest I live in Israel and hold certain views about Jewish history. No notice has even been sent to me. Thought I might want to keep this memory in the future. Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tombah. Tombah (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See here. You cannot keep forcing in your edits with reverts. Kindly self-revert or you may be reported. nableezy - 15:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless attack, again. This is not a violation of 1RR. This is my first revert on this article in the last who knows when... Tombah (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ive documented both reverts. If you do not self-revert I will be reporting to AE. nableezy - 16:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have the report ready, though even if you dont believe me Id rather not report you as I personally think you are generally a fine editor. But this method of enforcing your view through reverts is not acceptable, and if you continue to do so I dont have much of a choice. Will you self-revert your change and seek consensus for it? Or should I press save page at AE? nableezy - 16:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, Nishidani already restored EJ to the first sentene, so Ill let this go now. Next time you refuse to self-revert a clear 1RR violation I will be reporting it however. You have to follow the same rules as everybody else here. nableezy - 18:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Israel into Ashkenazi Jews. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Golan Heights, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pan and Khadr.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firs, WP:ONUS is not optional. Second, mind your personal attacks. Continued refusal to abide by our policies, including WP:ONUS, may be reported as disruptive editing. nableezy - 15:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend, you are the one who disruptively removes content, consistently labels authors as "Zionists" and "pro-Israeli," and occasionally leveled the same charges on editors, personally attacking many for their perceived views. Once more, I'm pleading with you to try taking a more impartial stance. If you don't, I'll report you. Tombah (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi is not a Zionist, silly of me to use such a "label". Feel free to report what you want, Im well aware of the rules here and I follow them. You should try it, you may find it much easier to reach agreement through discussion over attempting to enforce your view through edit-warring. nableezy - 15:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Occasionally, it seems as though some editors here have a tendency to automatically remove my contributions to articles about Palestinians just because "I'm too Zionist" for them. That is a problem. Tombah (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that is not the case with me. I actually think you are very smart, able to access some very good sources, and oftentimes contribute things that Wikipedia sorely needs. But there are certainly examples in which you attempt to frame certain things in a very obvious POV slant, a framing that I dont think the preponderance of sources support. Those are the additions I revert. Like today for example, you have been inserting the accounting of what our article extensively documents as a Zionist activist for the history of Palestinian Arab towns. You take one biased source and then insert it into a number of articles as unimpeachable fact. I dont think that is appropriate, and so I revert it. But then there are edits like this that from my overview look to be a very well sourced improvement to the article (dont hold me to it on all parts, Ive only looked through bits of it so far), and so I do not. Im not reverting you because youre "too Zionist" or "Zionist" at all, Im reverting you when I do because I feel the edits skew the content to a non-neutral POV. And if instead of just re-reverting me and trying to push that non-neutral POV through you discussed on the talk page you might find an area of agreement. For example, if you find some secondary sources that discuss Ben-Zvi's account and give it context then sure it may be appropriate to include. But you dont try that, you just try to ignore the requirement of consensus for new additions and push it back in. nableezy - 17:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City of David.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the birthplace statement because it is a meaningless metaphor in the context of a people - peoples do not have birthplaces, and even if such a concept existed in Judaism, surely it would canonically be whatever mythical location Noah or Abraham once inhabited or where Moses received the commandments, not in the promised land, which first makes its appearance in Numbers not Genesis. From a policy perspective, there is no mention of this anywhere else in the article, and no source supporting it, so that's a MOS:LEAD problem. I'm not quite sure what point the awkward origin-related allegory serves, but I would suggest an alternative means of illustration for whatever the point is. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tombah. I have noticed that you have made some interesting edits in the artcle on the History of ancient Israel and Judah, but I have also viewed that you have provided only a few sources to reference the claims made in those new sections (or in the case of one section, none). I think you could try to employ more sources, such these standard works [1][2], in order to provide some recent scholarly sources for those sections. Potatín5 (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jenin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that when you unify refs, you tend to give them ref name=":0", ref name=":1", or ref name=":2" etc.

This can be rather confusing, ie it isn't immediately obvious what ":0" refers to.

Could you try to give them a bit more meaningful ref names? Eg:

• Conder and Kitchener, 1881,p 33, could be SWP33.
• Palmer, 1881, p. 14 could be Palmer14

etc, etc

Thanks, Huldra (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: also, please note that when a ref is in the Biblio-section, there is no need to give the full ref, again, in-line.Huldra (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Can this be done via visual editing? or only using the source editing? Tombah (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry, I have absolutely no idea; I only edit the source, Huldra (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think its a limitation of VE, see here for where it was hoped for that would improve. Apparently never did. nableezy - 00:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lehi_(militant_group)

You seem to know a lot about Israel. If you look at the Lehi page it says that it is a terrorist organization right in the first sentence and then repeats it twice in the same introductory paragraph. In the Lead. No group has that. Not Hamas, not anyone. Wikipedia calls all groups paramilitary and so on and says that X has designated the organization terrorist. That's the practice eveywhere but with Lehi they are signaled out. One way they try to do it is to say that Lehi itself called itself terrorist. It's a crazy accusation based on one anti Lehi author who said it. If you look at the talk page, user:Zero0000 misrepresented a source. He says that they literally used the word "Terrorism" in that article by a Lehi member. Then he gave not a translation but some sort of commentary about something else, not that source, and falsely claimed that it's the translation of the source.

If you look at the actual translation of that piece, Lehi is saying that the British are the true terrorists, not them. Exactly the opposite of what is being claimed here. Regardless, even if they did ever call themselves terrorist (obviously in a tongue of cheek ironic way to say that they are proud of the false accusation because they are fighting for freedom) there is no justification to say "Lehi is a terrorist organization" singling them out like that against any other organization in the world. Surely there are some reasonable with actual historical and Israeli knowledge and fair minded users in Wikipedia who can remove this incredible bias and not let anti Israeli warriors treat historical pages like that as their own personal propaganda against Israeli related articles. Someone like that Zero is on a crusade and he has actual administrative power? He should be reprimanded for misrepresenting a source and personal attacks and be removed of his admin powers. Please look into it or advise relevant users/admins who can. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.102.2 (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[2] and [3] is a violation of 1RR. Looking through your talk page, I and others have reminded you of this many times, and given you significant grace. Please would you self revert and commit to being much more careful? I don't want to go to AE but this seems to have become too frequent an issue, and last time I raised this you did not self revert. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tombah, I see you are editing again but have not responded. I will bring this to AE if you have not self-reverted by the end of today. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a violation of 1RR, and this article is not limited in any case. I have to ask you to refrain from deleting substantial portions from articles about Israeli cities prior to discussing this first on the talk page. I'll be pleased to participate in any discussion on the subject. Tombah (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is in scope. The topic is what counts; the article does not need a tag to be covered. Per [4] and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#Definition of the "area of conflict", the sanctions apply to the topic area "broadly interpreted".

It is definitely a violation of 1RR. See Wikipedia:Reverting#What is a reversion?

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the article talk page, Moving its lengthy history to an article about its incarnation as a fellahin/Palestinian village depopulated in 1948 feels way off, suggests that the article is covered, the absence of notices notwithstanding. Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the RM for 1948 Palestinian exodus you wrote It appears that someone is trying to impose their viewpoint on a vote when the outcome will be determined by low turnout. I initiated the RM. Am I the "someone"? If not, who? And how is this someone supposed to know that the turnout will be low? I suggest you be more careful with your comments in future. WP:ASPERSIONS applies, even more so in this topic area. Selfstudier (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and I will try to get to what your requested soon. The person who made the edit that I reversed is fighting with me on the talk page. If you could write something supporting me, I would appreciate it.Dovidroth (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per this edit, it appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant cross canvassing between 2 editors from the same side of the fence. I would have to say that the credit card has just hit the limit. Selfstudier (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]