User talk:Shuki/Archive6

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

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

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

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

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

CIreland (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at CIreland's page.Cptnono (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, WP:AE#Request concerning Shuki. nableezy - 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, nableezy, i was just about to do this.  :) untwirl(talk) 19:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you both, but especially Untwirl for exposing the lust to shut me up. I think I'll take short break from WP while you guys might perhaps stop frothing at the mouth. --Shuki (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wtf, did you not notice I said that the report should be closed without action? You have called for my blocking very recently, and if I were normally inclined to be petty and vindictive I would have returned the favor. I said at AE that I think we should do the RfC, why exactly are you saying I am "frothing at the mouth"? nableezy - 22:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i apologize for the appearance that i was trying to silence you. i wasn't. i have adjusted my request to reflect that. untwirl(talk) 22:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy. excuse me? You of all people should accept that the user talk page is his realm to do 'wtf' s/he wants (your term I do not appreciate on this page even in shortened form). Given your past attitude towards me, and at least one other recent instance of you butting into others' discussion, I have 'yet' little reason to assume that you came here to sincerely notify me of a reckless user's actions. Perhaps in the future, this will change and I hope so. Good night. --Shuki (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't happen to be that ip would you? Either way, Area C is most certainly not separate from the Palestinian territories. It is not "Israeli" in any meaning other than "Israeli occupied" or "Israeli controlled". Modiin Illit is in the Palestinian territories, that is a near unanimous view. As for you saying I am POV pushing, thats just funny. Im the one claiming areas are in my country that are not, not you. Im the one imposing a tiny minority view over a whole range of articles, not you. Thanks for that, I needed a laugh. nableezy - 23:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Go find a source, stop pushing your OR POV. --Shuki (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean OR POV like "Area C is Israeli"? nableezy - 23:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you? Why did you make this comment? Do you really have nothing better to do? It was a joke, a joke that Malik understood. Too funny telling me to mind my own business when that is exactly what you should have done. nableezy - 23:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice weekend. Please do some constructive editing. --Shuki (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walla. That was unexpected. Not sure I know on what merits do you evaluate my work, but anyway - thank you!. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 02:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Love Jihad. It will be helpful if you could add some incidents reported in Israel in the Love_Jihad#Similar_Incidents section. I have read it here. Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

The article is actually based on this article in the Jewish Encyclopedia.

If you check the edit history of Age of majority in Judaism, you'll notice that

• It began as an exact copy of Part 2 of the Jewish Encyclopedia article. (Part 1 is about 'majority' in the sense of 'quorum'). Here's a link to the original edit
• Further edits were just wikifying this (adding sections, linking words, turning into modern english, etc.), and re-arrangements. Here's the history
• At one point the material about 'sexual activity, betrothal, and marriage' was spun out into a new article. The article it was spun out into was Marriageable age in Judaism - the subject of the AfD. Here's the diff, and here's the original edit on the new article, for comparison.
• My next edit to the Marriageable age in Judaism was to add the definition of ketanah, etc. so that people reading the article new what it is referring to. The definition was copied word-for-word from Age of majority in Judaism. Here's the diff
• Then a minor change of indentation. Here's the diff
• Then material about child marriage was spun out to create Child marriage in Judaism. Here's the diff. Here's a slightly later edit as well moving a piece of information I forgot about when I span the other material off.

That's basically the edit history of the article. In other words, its not WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:ESSAY, WP:OR, or even WP:POV. Its simply a wikified version of part of an article from the public domain Jewish Encyclopedia.

Would you therefore be kind enough to retract your accusation? Newman Luke (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(this relates to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marriageable age in Judaism)

"...for some reason this is not convincing"

What is it that you are not convinced of? Do you still think it is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:ESSAY, WP:OR, and possibly WP:POV ? If so, could you explain why?

• It is copied, with merely structural re-arrangement and wikification, directly from a public domain Encyclopedia, so how can it be WP:OR - original research?
• It is copied, with merely structural re-arrangement and wikification, directly from a public domain Encyclopedia, so how can it be WP:SYNTH - artificial synthesis of multiple sources - when there is just the one core source?
• It is copied, with merely structural re-arrangement and wikification, directly from a public domain Encyclopedia, so how can it be WP:ESSAY - a personal essay?

Would you be kind enough to explain this, or retract your accusation? Newman Luke (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I think you actually mean WP:NOT#ESSAY, as WP:ESSAY is the category for essays about wikipedia policies, etc.)

I saw from here that it's been exactly four years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, "unsubstantiated accusations" is English for "accusations without substance". The next time you decide to accuse someone of violating their topic ban, you should do your homework and look into exactly what the provisions of the ban are. If you are unsure, instead of making statements of fact without citing any diffs, you might simply ask. Tiamut^talk 21:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's hard for you to let go. Anyway, I did check here. If there is an update to the status, it should be there, not hidden away somewhere else on an obscure page. You could have been nice and simply pointed that page out, but you had to educate me there and again here too. Shukran. --Shuki (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference Shuki, all notifications and bans are logged at WP:ARBPIA#Log of notifications and WP:ARBPIA#Log of blocks and bans respectively. Any changes would be, or at least should be, seen there. nableezy - 21:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Jewish fundamentalism. Noam Chomsky uses the term and Encyclopedia Britannica defines it, seems fairly notable, so complete deletion because of lack of sourcing seems extreme. I found those sources in 4 minutes. user:alatari (no access to my unmemorized randomized 16 character password ATM) 97.85.185.160 (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to the Afd and read the decision. The term is used, the entire article was not acceptable. I suggest that if it is important to you, please improve the article with proper referencing. Don't expect others to do the work. --Shuki (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed a recent post of yours regarding WP:HE. I happen to have noticed that the Sabich article contains multiple spellings. Would you agree with me that WP:HE would imply that Sabih would be the correct name for that article, or have I missed something?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so, though the ch is tolerated. Sabikh (?) is yummy, but not sure if there is widely-used spelling that might be acceptable. I haven't been part of that language effort, but notwithstanding 'not biting the newbies', I don't tolerate some new anon coming to educate the rest of us. --Shuki (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks given your lack of strong feeling. I'll leave it a little to see if anyone replies to my comment on the Sabich talk page. Unfortunately Gilabrand assessed the article within an hour of my posting about the diverse spellings, so casual watchers are likely to miss my having posted to the talk page too.

If I ever have Sabich, I would have to hold the Israeli salad as it contains evil red things. However, as a veggie, I think the rest sounds fine. There's what I think is an Israeli restaurant, Gaby's, near Leicester Square which I used to go to regularly after the opera. If I were still going regularly to the oepra, I would try it.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other page, at least that anon is likely to be a genuine newwbie. The Israel/palestine area has more than its fair share of sockpuppets and of returnign banned users hoping not to be noticed.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So they should register new names and start building new alibis and editing traits to hide their past ones :-) I know there are always the 'drive-by' editors who are not aware of past discussions and conventions or understand the idea of collaborating with opposite minded editors. --Shuki (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Israeli Barnstar of National Merit
		Dear Shuki: Even though you have already been awarded this worthy medal by another editor, it is my honor and pleasure to present The Israeli Barnstar of National Merit to you yet again a second time because of all your untiring and amazing work on behalf of so many Israel-related articles. With much admiration, IZAK (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks with God's help, may you too continue to contribute productively and add light to WP. --Shuki (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! IZAK (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shuki,

Please quit issuing mindless threats and argue points on thier merit.

Thanks NickCT (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my request in Talk:Occupied territories#Page protection in the same section. -- PBS (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shuki, could you look at this Hebrew article and see if it would be better to have as an interwiki with Al-Azhar Mosque or with Al-Azhar University? A google translation makes me think it is closer to the mosque page, listing the university as part of the structure of the mosque but the title of the page is University (at least google says so). Thanks, nableezy - 07:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page seems mainly for the university and it engulfs the part about the mosque which could be in a separate article unless the use of the building is for other both uses then more comparison would be needed. --Shuki (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual building is no longer used by the university, but thanks for checking. nableezy - 07:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps later today, or tonight, I can split that info out into a separate article. --Shuki (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Shuki (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But if you dont mind, could I ask a few questions about your AE comment? You say I have been edit-warring since my topic ban, could you say where? I am not aware of a single page where I have made more than 1 non-vandalism revert. And you say I am copy-editing with POV. The only edit I made in which I claimed it was a copy-edit, meaning a non-controversial change in the words but not the meaning, was on some Palestinian rocket attack page. I dont feel like looking for the edit, but you can ask Jalapenos do exist if my copy-edit was "POV" (it was something like changing "all in all, over 2009" to "over the course of 2009"). If you are referencing the Lieberman page, I never claimed that edit was a "copy-edit", that is a substantive change. But I have made exactly 1 revert on that page, so I am a bit confused when you or Jaak accuse me of edit-warring. I wont even try to talk to Jaak about his accusations, but while we have had our problems you have not seemed to be the type to make accusations without cause, so if you could provide some answers to why you made those accusations it would be appreciated. nableezy - 02:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed Tiamut referred to you as "she" in AE. I've never encountered a female Shuki before, so I was wondering if you are in fact female and if so, what name is it a nickname for? You don't have to answer of course, I'm just curious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been kind enough to comment at the unresolved WP:COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver, you may wish to know that it has now been nominated for arbitration. Feel free to review at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Chabad movement editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thank you for your input and patience, IZAK (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shuki: Since you have been involved in the topic of Chabad, this is to let you know that an official arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. You may wish to add your comments for the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. The ArbCom asks that evidence be submitted within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring at hummus, which is not allowed. Moreover, your edits are straightforwardly not within the consensus which has grown on the article talk page. Edit warring will not get you what you want, but it will get you blocked from editing. Please stop edit warring now. You're welcome to share your thoughts about the sources and article text on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you contribute productively to the discussion instead of handing out these threats. And at least do it evenly to all involved not just people who might not be the same train of thought as you. Helps the credibility. --Shuki (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't skirt a warning by attacking me back. If you edit war, you'll be blocked from editing. Use the talk page to gather consensus instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is in fact an edit war, than a NPOV admin/editor would warn all sides. Since you have not warned anyone except me, then there is none. And frankly, before throwing around threats, I advise you to instead send a friendly comment that might reduce tension much better and not raise an issue with a possible agenda. That is the responsible thing to do. --Shuki (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tension lately has been caused by your edit warring, which is not allowed. This is your last warning. If you carry on edit warring, your account will be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited that page in over 48 hours so you are clearly harassing me. Now that you have thrown AGF aside, perhaps you really do have an agenda of trying to scare me off the Hummus discussion. By going through your user contributions, I see it is general behaviour on your part to threaten other editors like this. If you continue this harassment, I will need to report you to admin incident page. --Shuki (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply User_talk:Gwen Gale#Hummus here. It seems that someone did not like an edit of mine, even though he is actually protecting the page aggressively against opposing edits. --Shuki (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're now using the talk page at Hummus. Thanks. However, you'll get much further if you stop talking about other editors and stick to citing sources, along with how to echo them in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It disappoints me when I see admins (and a sysop on top of that) avoid discussion. FWIW, Gwen, you were a party in what you accused me of edit warring and I have also beeen more active on the talk page than you, so please stop the baseless snide remarks on my page and others. --Shuki (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shuki! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 391 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Zephaniah Drori - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dashbot. --Shuki (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shuki: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. As someone who has been involved in the serious COI discussions leading up to this ArbCom case you should be informed of this motion and have the right to explain if you agree or disagree with this proposed motion and why. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] --Shuki (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mordechai Elon, my source is a piece from Reuters entitled Sex abuse claims against famed rabbi grip Israel. If that isn't abuse, then nothing is, or maybe you should research the subject more in detail and make appropriate conclusions. [2] ADM (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a good reliable source, put it in the article. The source you bring has no claims at all, merely a title. Frankly, the media is full of speculation and half-truth on this issue, but while there is a lot around to show what is actually in the real story, it's not in the 'reliable' media. You can read Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein's speech and take more info from there if you want. Or look harder. --Shuki (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki the Gilo discussion is about an Israeli settlement. You wrote "Even proven squatters around the world are given more respect than this crew would allow Jews". Playing the anti-Semitism card is inappropriate and deeply offensive. Request you strike your comments immediately. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. What you are implying is your POV not mine. I am not playing the antisemitic card at all, but definitely claiming discrimination, and double standards and the facts show that the same crew does not pursue or tolerate this POV on Arab settlements. Pushing that to antisemitism is preposterous. --Shuki (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listen: This is a Wikipedia Talk page discussion on the appropriate first-reference descriptor for Gilo. It's just that. To that end, editors are looking through reliable sources relating to Gilo, status of Jerusalem, Israeli government policy, regional history, the UN and international law, among others. If another editor had sunk the discussion with a rant on "Jews", I would regard that editor as a cad. We are instructed to work dispassionately per sanctions that have been placed on this topic area[3]. "An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions." Your refusal to strike your accusations or apologize to editors you have offended is regrettable. I hope you will reconsider this approach. RomaC (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to delete this article, please follow the WP:AFD process instead of unilaterally blanking the page [4].

Page blanking is disruptive and borders on vandalism.

Thank you. Factsontheground (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look who's talking. --Shuki (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But as I said here, I think your bold formatting of delete in both the comments you made is misleading, and I'd appreciate it deeply if you would act upon the suggestions I've made to rectify that problem. If you don't want to, please say so, and I will add a note under your first comment, making it clear that it was not your vote, which appears further down below. Its a long discussion, and an admin might get confused. That's all. I don't see why you would delete my talk page comment here about it without responding either. Kind of rude, no? Tiamut^talk 01:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to waste your time, go ahead and do whatever you want. Free world. I'm not approving and I'm not going back to that discussion either to edit that. When the discussion is so long, gamed and layered, no one is noticing these things anyways. I can only imagine the amount of improvements to other articles close to you that you could have done instead of the time you've invested in trying to save this one and arguing with people who don't respond. --Shuki (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shuki, may I please ask you to help me to correct the article Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) in order to make the language more neutral? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This afd in which you participated is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 12.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shuki, instead of just tagging this article as NPOV can you list the neutrality issues that you see on the talk page so that they can be fixed? Tagging by itself won't solve anything. Factsontheground (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did a good job listing the issues before me. --Shuki (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a note on the talk page of Yonatan Netanyahu about using the English spelling. No one has commented after four days. I can move it the proper way unless you have any objections. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest putting a template up from Wikipedia:Template messages/Moving posting it to WP:Israel to get more visibility. --Shuki (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Talk:Passover (Christian holiday)#Merge with Passover. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think that this issue should receive a policy clarification, so I've brought it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Age By Calendar, not to advocate for a side, but just to figure it out. Just wanted to let you know. Canadian Paul 02:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not such a big deal since the lunar Hebrew calendar ranges up to a month with the solar calendar. I think that WP is tolerant of this and I hope no one feels the need to clutter the article with an explanation for the next two weeks. --Shuki (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I don't plan on making any changes. Canadian Paul 17:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should just merge it into Gaza–Israel conflict already. After more than two months and there is no one oppose the merge. 71.107.193.35 (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference your articles. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please relax. Can you see that I just created it and that I am working on it? --Shuki (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bot. Creating articles and then expanding them is fine; creating a completely unverifiable article and then expanding it is a problem. Ironholds (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to remove this, but what I wrote is not false. You reverted to include the phrase "Golan Heights, Israel" three times on Ohalo College. At the very least remove "Israel" from that location. nableezy - 23:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I have passed 3RR, than it is your duty to report me. If not, stop the false accusations. In any case, my last edit, was not a revert at all but a NPOV edit as per what is on Mount Hermon. This was achieved through consensus, check out the many discussions around that subject. There is no reason to remove any Israeli anything. It is run, built, and operated by Israel and Israeli Jews and Israeli Druze students learn there. --Shuki (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this university is located in "Golan Heights, Israel"? And the Druze of the Golan overwhelmingly reject being Israeli, they identify as Syrian. The Golan is not in Israel and if you are unwilling to remove it yourself I suppose I have to report you. But it wont be at WP:AN3, I think WP:AE is a more appropriate venue. Will let you know when it is posted. Of course, if you are willing to remove ", Israel" from the location I would be willing to skip all that. I'll give it a few hours, nableezy - 00:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you think I should go ahead and post this or if we can try to work this out. nableezy - 01:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE#Shuki. nableezy - 00:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you could do better. I always thought that when I'd be brought up at AE it would be something drastic, and not just some edit war you picking with me. I know you are WP suicidal (the incident at the beginning of the year when you told me to F off and other civility issues at which you even retired), but please don't try to take me down with you. You have been improving lately by editing non I-P articles and it is welcoming. --Shuki (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I started a discussion in which your name is brought up here. [5] Stellarkid (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that but had nothing more to add. Thanks for letting me know. I believe that there is always justice and those Zionist conspiracy warriors will get their due by their own reckless actions. --Shuki (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ariel University Center of Samaria. 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. While you have not technically violated 3RR, your seven reverts to four different editors in four days is clear edit warring. ← George ^talk 11:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war with who? You seem to have warned no one else. Please stop the harassing. --Shuki (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made seven reverts to four different editors in four days on this one article. You would appear to be engaged in an edit war with those four editors. This is just a friendly reminder to work towards building consensus on the issue, via dispute resolution, because edit warring will get you reported and possibly banned/blocked. ← George ^talk 21:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, in clear English: You have warned no other editor to build consensus on the issue and continued harassment of me might get you reported, blocked, and banned. --Shuki (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shuki: Regarding serious Christian content in the Yom Kippur article, please see Talk:Yom Kippur#Theological significance and Talk:Yom Kippur#Poll: Yom Kippur and Christianity. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, this is to inform you that you are now subject to a one revert per page per day restriction for three months as described in this AE thread. This sanction can be appealed as provided for in WP:ARBPIA#Appeal of discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  16:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm famous. --Shuki (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, I also warn you that you may be made subject to sanctions if you file more largely inactionable enforcement requests, as described in this AE thread.  Sandstein  19:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Sandstein, you must be mistaking me for someone else. I filed one which you deemed 'inactionable' and one which you did act on. SInce you are referee here, I suggest you be accurate before making accusations. --Shuki (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the advice left for you in the "result" section of the tread linked to above.  Sandstein  21:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Stifle's advice and accept it, not your blanket accusation. In hindsight, I did not need that extra stuff to drive the point home. But, nonetheless, I do not accept accusations of filing inactionable requests when I simply do not have even a small record of that. On the other hand, someone else does, and that someone else also received the same two month topic ban he received last time, and now he was already under a 1RR restriction. But this one is even better for because you allow him to take part in discussions. Did Nableezy receive a warning for opening frivolous AE requests? No. Your sentence should have been much more harsh then the past one given the repeat disruptive behaviour, and you seem to have not even bothered to warn Nableezy about any future sanctions or behavioural advice either. You gave him a slap on the hand, you gave Amoruso, Gilabrand and drork long-term diaspora. --Shuki (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a single AE request I opened that was frivolous. You on the other hand have filed a completely frivolous report and one that multiple people have called largely frivolous. nableezy - 23:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latest one you opened against me is quite recent. A mere sneeze when you could not handle the content dispute (notice that most of those edits I reverted stayed and other editors supported that - so who was right?), and quite an inconsistently applied restriction in fact, but that's good for my health anyway. Frankly, 1RR should be a restriction placed on all I-P articles. On the other hand, the one I just filed on you, is not frivolous at all seeing as how you just got a two month topic ban handed to you. I am actually sure that you are happy that you got off so easily and frankly, you should just keep a low profile for now and be thankful. Take the time and perhaps write a new article or two. Show us you can contribute to anything besides adding perceived anti-Israel material into 'Israeli' articles. If only you could use 10% of your energy to improve Palestinian articles, but you barely even bother with those. --Shuki (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you say that because this last thread resulted in a two month topic ban that it was not "largely frivolous"? Even the admin that handed down the ban said that. But by your thinking, the thread I initiated about you ended with a 3 month 1rr restriction, so that couldnt possibly have been frivolous? And the one you had filed earlier against me ended with "no action" and "Shuki advised that AE is not a weapon to use against opponents". Finally, what you think is "anti-Israeli" really doesnt matter to me. And the articles I edit are about Palestine and I am improving them, whether you think so or not.nableezy - 06:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whatever. I see we are going to see a lot of arguing with you for the next two months. Spend some of that time and go use an edit counter and see for yourself what your edit habits are. You spend virtually all your time on Israeli articles and virtually nothing on Palestinian articles except for the rare anomaly. You edit Israeli articles more than most pro-Israel editors. You can probably count on two hands the unique non-Israeli articles that you have edited. --Shuki (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you think are "Israeli" articles are "Palestine" articles to me. But this is pointless. Take care Shuki, nableezy - 19:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point, again. More evidence of your provocative nature and behaviour here. I would not be surprised if you have Jewish blood somewhere in your history, it would explain why you like hanging around with us more and the enjoy the attention we give you. --Shuki (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to respond to that seriously, with a joke, or not at all? nableezy - 21:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother? I sincerely don't care anymore, you have wasted enough of our time and especially mine. So you boast your are going to Egypt? I can only assume, with good assurance too, that once you come back, you will still focus on anti-Israel edits instead of improving the Egyptian articles. How's that? Prove us wrong. --Shuki (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt "boasting", and Ill continue to work on Palestine articles. Bye Shuki. nableezy - 15:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll let you have it your way. You like focusing on Jewish Palestinian articles. --Shuki (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, but you can keep playing word games if you like. Im sorry if you think an article on a settlement in Palestinian territory is an "Israeli article". I cant help you overcome that misconception, and even if I could I am not sure I would want to. But it is your talk page, so I suppose I should cede the final word to you. nableezy - 20:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need the last word, but just to make things crystal clear. You have an infatuation with editing Jewish Palestinian articles and ignore Arab/Muslim Palestinian articles. Again, use one of the edit counters on your username and see for yourself. I used one to check you out and it is undeniable. --Shuki (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that an article about a settlement in Palestinian territory is a "Jewish" or "Israeli" article, then sure, I spend much of time editing those articles. Those arent "Jewish" or "Israeli" articles though, they are articles about "Palestine" and "international law" and "colonialism". The article or talk I have edited most is Gaza War, followed by al-Azhar Mosque, followed by pan-Arabism followed by Modi'in Illit followed by Franz Baermann Steiner. Which of those are "Israeli" articles? nableezy - 21:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible, you can count a whole four articles which are your top edits (one is a Jewish city), now look at the percentage of articles you edit and you'll find everything is Jewish and Israeli for you. Nableezy, I'm so convinced that you have Jewish blood in your family because otherwise, you'd just move on. No other reason that you are obsessed with Jewish/Israeli articles and don't bother with the Arab/Islam articles much at all. Maybe you know about it or maybe it has been kept a secret from you. Many Jews who had stayed in what was called Palestine over the past 1900 years were converted to Islam. Most of us were dispersed to what would later become Arab countries. al-Azhar Mosque was actually a nice piece, I've already told you a few times that it's too bad you do not bother to have more of these. --Shuki (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, one is an Israeli settlement in Palestinian territory. That makes it a "Palestine" article. Though the article on Steiner could be called a "Jewish article" if you wish. And I might have some Jewish blood in me, but it wouldnt have come from Palestine. Going back some generations there is one great-great-grandparent that was a Turk, the rest were Egyptian. But I dont generally think about "blood lines" and other such nonsense. That isnt to say I dont have any sense of ethnicity or a sense of a shared history with a number of ethnic groups (including Jews), just that I dont think it really matters (there is one exception to this, if you ask real nice I might tell you). You should try it sometime. But if you want to keep saying I am "obsessed with Jewish/Israeli articles" feel free. I wont even be bothered by the implied accusation in that. nableezy - 21:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

first planned Palestinian city and not first planned city in the west bank?!? is there other planned cities in the west bank? --188.225.180.251 (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are four Jewish cities in this area. Rawabi will be the first 'planned' city. Other Palestinian cities were not planned, they grew 'naturally' from farms and villages. Rawabi, like the Jewish cities, from the outset was planned as a city. Other localities are planned as villages or towns, and not to grow too much larger. --Shuki (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between a city and a colony! The ones u r talking about r colonies and not cities!!! therefore, Rawabi is the first plannaed city in the west bank!

u can not compare city to a colony!--188.225.180.251 (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. 30 000 Jews living together is a colony, but 20 000 Arabs is a city. Gee, thank you for clearing that misunderstanding of mine up. --Shuki (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist communities in Palestine r illegal and r being built on a stolen and confiscated land from the Palestinians! they r colonies, not cities! and they r also considered illegal by the international law and the international community including the US!--188.225.180.251 (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. --Shuki (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I don't have the patience. If I've learned anything in the last few months, it's that editors like Ani medjool don't get what's coming to them on Wikipedia. On the contrary, editors who actually bring something positive to the encyclopedia but get dragged into the drama because of people like him end up getting punished for slips of the tongue that are deemed "personal attacks". Compare that to the garbage he says in his comments. Apparently "Zion will fall" is fair game on a talk page because it's just a movie quote... no malice intended. Now I just have to find some movie or novel that says "Islamism will fall" and see what they have to say. After all, it's just my favourite movie and Islamism is the protagonist's name! No harm done. I think the same admin has warned Ani medjool about 5 times without taking any further action. But for fear of crossing the line, I won't be more specific. Shabbat shalom! Breein1007 (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nrg Maariv has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chocolate4921 09:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolate4921 (talk • contribs)

If you are going to prod an article, at least make the minimal effort to type your reason. --Shuki (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this edit on WP:AE used the edit summary "reply to dumb attempt to delegitimize comments of other editors". That edit summary was approaching the line on personal attacks.

Every time people are rude to each other on Wikipedia, it increases the level of tension and discord and makes finding solutions for problems harder. Abusive behavior is an indirect assault on the community as a whole.

Please try to avoid attacking people in the future.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there should be too much good faith given to other editors who explicity try to discredit the opinions and remarks of others. Such editor should understand that attacking the credibility of other editors is dumb, and does not need to be prettied up. But I do not find it surprising that you did not comment on his talk page about that certainly non-GF comment. His comment was merely a personal attack without any bad words. --Shuki (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you here. Thought I'd let you know. Have a good one :) Breein1007 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFOWR 21:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]