User talk:אומנות

Welcome to Wikipedia, אומנות! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 20:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi אומנות, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 23:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that this is so delayed but I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the message you left on my talk page a few weeks ago, but I'm happy not being involved in the Eurovision discussions. Before I had to deal with insults, frustration and stress which was spoiling my experience on Wikipedia but now I'm much better off being away from that. I might contribute to discussions in the future, depending on who's involved, but we'll see how things go. Thanks again. Pickette (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, great to hear from you! That's okay, I thought you may not even reply, when the important thing was that you recieved my message of appreciation for your hard work, your firm opinions and difficulties you had, to encourage you keep feeling belonging and discuss. So great you stay open to see how things flow. I can empathize as I sometimes felt frustrated on both English and Hebrew wikipedias, but also met very nice people here and on the Hebrew wikipedia I'm engaged in occasional outdoor activities so it's very fun now. I'm so glad to know you feel better now, and it will get better! אומנות (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actions such as this and this are deemed as forum shopping, per details at WP:FORUMSHOP. Forum shopping is not permitted and may hold serious consequences if administrators notice it. Please be careful, and make sure an discussions regarding a particular situation are held on the talk page in connection to the enquiry, and not plastered across multiple talk pages. Thank you. Wesley Mᴥuse 13:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And these is the art of you being pathetically funny - the irony to get a lecture from you in regards to "forum shoping": Someone who constantly use others talk pages to harass them and smear other discussions into their pages; Someone who goes to his friends talk pages so they will back him up in arguments with others (as what you accuse me of doing now with 2 editors that you twist their words). And that's only the tip of the ice, as what takes it all is your audacity to use others talk pages to bash and trash other users, fabricate stories they are sending you melicious emails when you see you aren't fulling anyone to think the other user is bad to you (as with all the crap that you did to Pickette, in addition to other bunch of users that you harassed). Someone else with your actions would have been blocked a long-long time ago, if it wasn't for your constent insecurity, simpathy and pitty that you seek from others here.

Thanks for the warning though. Unfortunately I'm not asking you nor interested in your opinion as taking an advice from you is taking a bite from a snake. Anyway I do sincerely start to think on turning to a third party to officialy handle you and your harrasement of others for the relief of other users. So if you want to send an admin my way in regards to my "crimes" of "Forum Shoping", you can save me the trouble. I will gladly tell him all about your history and at the same chance on all your "Forum-Shopings" that you did on almost every debate you had and to almost every user that had disagreements with you - as you prove time after time how innapropriate wikipedian "contributor" you are. The rest of what I had to say in regards to your "RFC", I wrote on the project page. Thank you. Bye. :) אומנות (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you have quite finished, Pickette and I are trying to sort out our differences, which is a good thing. So start learning facts before slashing someone to the ground. As I explained to Pickette, I only contacted other users for advice, not for "back up" as you call it. There is a huge difference between seeking advice and asking for back up. And that is evident in the fact that I would inform a user where to look in case I may have misinterpreted a situation. Wesley Mᴥuse 10:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly time you finish with your excuses. Me and others know all the facts straight. I saw perfectly well the conversation between you and Pickette and saw your same old lined-up excuses to come out clean, before you conviently apologized to him/her, after you saw I open my mouth on your behaviour. And this is already the 2nd time you apologize to Pickette. Let's see how long it will stick this time. I saw perfectly well how you kept slandering Pickette on 2014 ESC talk page for not aspiring to make "good articles" and doesn't respect the project - when in fact everybody else demonstrated much better civility in discussions then you ever did; I saw how often you bullied Pickette under the excuse of "interaction ban". I noticed very well how you slashed both me and Pickette on 2014-ESC talk page by implying about not doing a proper job as volunteers of Wikipedia and that we are "a couple of editors that want to delete things from the article's-lead because we dislike to see it" - demonstrating your mentality.

Also on Mr. Gerbear talk page - the very same page you accused me of forum shoping! - It's clearly seen how you bad mouth both me and Pickette on different threads, and on other talk pages were you accuse other users of being uncooperative and disruptive - and you also even cast those accusations towards Mr. Gerbear when he started being active on the project, as saw on a 2012 discussion that you once refered me to.

You are the one who duplicate discussions from articles talk pages to others talk pages - to explain on 2 or more different places why you are right and others are wrong + casting false accusations about others by presenting them as bullies and of course giving links to those other users to the discussion itself, after explaining them why you are "right" - which is presicely "forum shoping"+manipulating+trashing. Your false accusations are realy heavily pathetic in light of the fact that you are doing all this, and your miserable excuse that you happen to "ventilate" on others talk pages and as a result "happens" to duplicate discussions to their pages, and as a result "happens" to start bad mouthing other users. How convenient for you... And there were few times I clearly remember were you told Pickette that you are entitled to call others to back you up in arguments you had against him/her, as it shows that project has serious members that back each others up. So give us a break... You have excuses of a 5 year old that only embarasse you. Seriously.

If you continue to "forum shop" and slander others as I demonstrated well above, I will call you up on that, and will definately call others to defend there opinions that they expressed before. Now, if you realy regret your actions, stop making snippets, stop manipulating discussions, stop trashing others. Practice all your speeches about "golden and silver rules of society" and your lectures to other users, that seem to never quite finish, and start following them yourself. Thank you. אומנות (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wesley Mᴥuse 17:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will write there soon. אומנות (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I sent you an e-mail the other day - did you receive it? I know I'm being hypocritical given my track record of replying to e-mails, but I wish to know how you're doing. Feel free to reply to my e-mail directly, or leave a note on this talk page if you prefer. CT Cooper · talk 19:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

הי, חיכיתי לך היום ב 14:00 , בערך 20 דק' אחרי הלכתי לעשר דקות וביקשתי מאמיר שהיה שם להגיד לך שאחזור למקרה שאתה בא, בקיצור פיספסנו זה את זה, רוצה לתאם להערב או מחר? המייל שלי dafna3@gmail.com

Hey! Again sorry for the miss yesterday, with the Varenna bus, and I'm very happy you came to the chapter's meeting yesterday. Also I replaced all of my Wikimania lunches and dinners to "the tent" place so I hope you can make it there again today and we can sit there on Esino's great corner with the mountains views with some partying like yesterday. Now I'm at the chapter's counter explaining about its activities if you happen to see this and want to drop by. See you! :) אומנות (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[www.iba.org.il/program.aspx?scode=2171863 והארץ היתה תוהו ובהו - פרק 1] .--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolter21: thank you very much Stav! And all the times I used this channel's website to watch other content and forgot about its possibility to have this great program as well, you rock. :) אומנות (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edits that he did to the article page at 08:19 and 09:29 you will see that Wesley Wolf modified the article so that it had the elements that MykhayloNaumenko's edit was trying to achieve:

• A wikilink
• Showing the name of the song in the article in Cyrillic script

The surprising thing is that he persisted with a largely irrelevant argument on the talk page, whilst (in parallel) implementing the substance of what was being asked on on the article page.

The issue is actually a weird one. Normally if you want to use an English-language airline website to buy an airline ticket to Dnepropetrovsk airport, you need to enter the English language name Dnepropetrovsk, not a Cyrillic script Днепропетровск. However to buy a copy of the song that Wikipedia calls Zamanyly from an English-language music website (iTunes), Zamanyly does not work, but Заманили does. Clearly, somewhere on the page, the Wikipedia page should contain the information an English-speaking user would need.

I am not sure that "hovering script" would meet the user's needs. If a user does not have a Cyrillic script keyboard, he/she needs to be able to copy the Cyrillic script name and paste it into search engine or a merchant website. When the name is Cyrillic script is on the page, this is easy; I do not think that would work with it in "hovering script"-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the reply. Yea I know that currently there are both scripts and I also only saw the discussion in general, didn't follow the removal or addition of the scripts on the article itself. I didn't want the discussion over the talk page to get more complex as it was also not clear to me what is best to do, especially after your point for web search, and as I still felt I disagree with you on using them. Initially, as I expressed before on a previous discussion, I didn't think they are of any use, that they only clutter - especially tables. And since in previous discussions an option was raised for hovering, and which I could go along with, I thought of letting you know as that seemed like something that can be also reasonable and accepted. Thank you. אומנות (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: I would like to know who were the members of the Israeli jury in the Eurovision Song Contest in the following years: 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1995. You can probably find this information in old press (newspapers, magazines etc.) in a library.

Greetings Carlos M.S. --Carlos MS (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlos MS: I'm terribly sorry, I saw your message back then, indeed started researching, even checked Israeli newapapers online archives to try finding details about juries. However, while I found some old info about Israel's participatations, I didn't find anything so far about the juries. Also, I wanted to tell you that it was actually decided as too detailed to name all juries in the annual articles, so if you have now further info, they really should be presented on the "X country in Y Eurovision" type of articles. Over there it's most appropriate and valuable. Now that I cleaned my talk page a little bit, I saw this, and after I currently gave up on keeping searching (for now), I remembered and wanted to just reply to you already. Apologies and greetings. אומנות (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: Thank you very much for your kind answer, but I actually meant newspapers and magazines in paper format, not on the Internet. You can find them in the National Library located in Jerusalem or in your local library if you live in Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ashdod or any other city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Israel Carlos MS (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that everything is OK now. Many, many thanks for your input; it is very much appreciated! 🙂 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 19:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Robster1983:, Yes, and thank you very much for your contribution, patience to debate, and for containing my thoughts as well. Sorry it came out I posted something more after your previous reply, on the article's talk; just as I already wrote and got to that edit conflict + won't do harm to present more arguments in favor of the current arrangement, just in case other editors will want to keep discussing this matter. אומנות (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

👍 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 23:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	De Beleefdheidsster
	Your words on my talkpage truly made me feel humble, powerful and proud at the same time. You wanted more people like me. Well, ditto concerning you! Nowadays, it takes a lot for people to give compliments. Still, you did it, and it touched me! You totally deserve this! 「Robster1983」☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 03:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robster, thank you very much! And for sending my first ever barnstar message! :-) אומנות (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, THANK YOU! You make Wiki a friendlier place, and that should be encouraged. Let’s hope other wikipedians follow suit. 🙂 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 01:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a great extra compliment from you, that you consider my small try to reach out as making some broader influence. Thanks again! You are truly making influence on me, for the least, you give me the feel that I should and will enjoy proposing ideas and to be more active here. אומנות (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 07:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I won't bother you with pinging since I wrote on your talk, but when/if you happen to come here, wanted to respond here too - great thanks to you again! You truly cheered me. אומנות (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alucard 16: Hey, can you tell me if you recieved my reply and further message? As I also sent it directly to an outlook account this time? then I will figure out you don't want; in this case I understand of course, and will proceed editing with my own truth and actions to handle situations, also technolopgy issues which I guess I can look for and turn to someone else for help. Or if you are still willing to talk, please tell me there; even if you don't have time to write deeply soon, just so I know if yes or no. Thanks if you can. Also, if not, anyway, thanks for your previous kindness. אומנות (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I אומנות I just saw your messages and replied to them. Thanks for the ping Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alucard 16: That's great, I read. Sweeeet! That will be awesome to me. I will start sitting today, will send the stuff, also material+ issues/some questions by the end of this weekend. Thank you very much! :) אומנות (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alucard 16: Hey, mailed something. Thank you. אומנות (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just waited for this to end, to adress your support. Wikipedia, really should have more users like you. Friendly regards —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 09:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi welcome back Dimsar01! Thank you very much, but really it also made me feel good to speak up, so in this sense you also helped me - perhaps much more then I tried to help you - to deal with the one issue that a lot of times made me take long breaks from Wikipedia. Although, of course I truly appreciate you too, that was still my main focus as I think Wikipedia should have more dedicated for maintenance and straight-forward, and caring users like you. Even within the overall unfortunate turmoil of events, I could understand what ticked you from your viewpoint just as I was also aware to previous discussions in those matters, which I also tried to pleasently explain and I hope that got hold. So keep having fun! אומנות (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Eurovision Song Contest, to which you have have been a significant contributor, and to which you assisted in the GA Review, has been listed as a Good Article. Thank you for your contributions. SilkTork (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SilkTork, I highly appreciate your note and for considering me as a significant contributor. Although on paper I contributed just like 8% to maximum 10% of the current look/content there's now, just for few places and few stuff here and there (mainly lead, then some few bits and some rearrangements at other chapters). What was definitely difficult for me, was from my eagerness to assist from the side for the nominator's earlier draft version. So whenever I thought of something which can be rephrased or simply few new ideas and content bits to add, it took me hours (as with myself) to think how I want to first present what's on my mind and also shorten and clarify it before I post, and just for talk page. I even made drafts on "Word" but then still described then on the talk to let the main contributor edit without clashing his edits.

It was some white nights at times (half a year ago), and these past days as I worked on adding stuff + at the review talk, and yesterday's talk page explanation, for what I still wanted to convey which was removed and changed, and as I knew you wanted to progress with the review and didn't want in any way it will get held back because of stuff I want to further debate/ask.

Gladly, my comments for this article in the past where mostly agreed and cooperated already after I posted the first-time. Even what remained different views, I still felt the will to share further and remained with good satisfying feel of being acknowledged and doing my best to acknowledge and be considerate the past months.

I wished though for some more feedback the past week from anyone, as for conveying other musical figures; as some were gladly put on the article by others but I still didn't know thoughts for more figures I suggested. Only afterwards, I realized that the issue for others was that figures specifically previously unknown before the contest, aren't necessary, I just couldn't understand that at first as I couldn't get feedback. I proceeded to add other fields, as there I figured it would be appreciated to round and enrich.

Yesterday I wanted to give myself a final push to put some more hours to comment for places I thought could be still bit worked also to reduce size as that was a hot topic; and ask for the reversions for my contributions. Mainly as I didn't want to edit it back straight, because it makes me feel stressed editing something when not knowing exactly what others think and after they removed something, and with that still may be removed indirectly among other phrasing and looks as done quickly, maybe unnoticed, maybe of eagerness or just indifferent, to others, to remove or keep something.

And as I try my best to even not put something twice if/when I see there's clear reason or objection and with that avoid potential of getting snarky edit summaries or talk remarks. It happened to me only few times in the past (and mostly on Hebrew Wikipedia), but can still cause me mini traumas and desperation feel when happens, even if it's just a feeling of even slight hostility or condescension or anger from anyone and then wonderment if I did something wrong, and I'm not sure as I can't see the faces behind; actually even when I see harsh straight forward edit wars and hostility between other editors, even completely unrelated to me but that I work with both in general in a specific field (or even personally know and met as on the Hebrew Wikipedia people), it effects me... So I really try to put this extra energies and also compliment and cheer for more ideas-share thinking, otherwise it's very hard for me to enjoy editing, and wouldn't be worth anymore.

Yesterday, as I wanted to progress for my own contribution intention and to edit, I did earlier put back the achievements-awards bit and description links with yet another edit-summary explanation (in addition to the talk page) also raising the option for an additional direct links option. It's also important for me to learn, as in general I like to use these adjectives links for meaning instead of direct names in such cases to shorten. This was anyway the last thing I wanted to discuss and ask, as for my own small contribution; and hope that is done with and will be accepted. That's also why I really hoped for the talk page and otherwise felt the need to just edit to feel my own presence, since the review was already done anyway. Anyway, I'm writing all these to you but but also as for myself, as a chance to release some thoughts, with anyone who may read here in the future and to understand better when and why I write long comments, as for my desire to explain myself, and work in a mutual appreciative and fun manner.

Eventually, after me and some others were ignored or disrespected in the past in general on this website, and even on some physical outside Wikimania gathers, at some instances, which I attended as I also volunteered there to meet people and travel; after those I thought few times to retire and still think I don't have much energy left, and indeed took very long breaks many times. With that, and in the face of all that, I thank your acknowledgment and sharing me too in the review, and for referring to my contributions as significant, which helps me feel more energy and a bit even happy now, and to keep editing some more for what I have left in me, also on other field's articles. Thank you. אומנות (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you feel energised to keep editing. It can be demoralising when efforts are ignored. But it can be motivating when people simply say thanks. SilkTork (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork thank you for reading through, and for further care to reply. Yes, those are exactly the two extremes of the feel which can also shift from one to another in a minute and for so many editors here. At this chance, can you please tell me if my recent edits are acceptable, as in description links for names, or does it still somehow falls under "easter egg"? I read that manual precisely some weeks ago as I edited something else in this manner and across several articles, but not 100% sure where's the border for ambiguity or confusion to count as easter egg. Or otherwise, if it can still simply use description: like "the national parliament" then show the direct name to use as the link; side by side, as in "ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony" type. So will be very useful for me to know in general, and also to feel calm in regards to my last edits, to know it's okay and that I'm done with this. אומנות (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think your concerns were correct - this "the highest honour" is not appropriate. Unless there is a compelling reason, such as the words do not fit the flow of a sentence, or the article has an awkward title, such as being disambiguated, we should always allow the reader to see the name of the article being linked. As this is an article about the ESC, keep to the minimum, and just give the name of the award - people can click on the link if they wish to know more.

"Ukraine's national parliament" is more acceptable, though could more clearly and helpfully be written as "Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's national parliament." SilkTork (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there may be some difference between the award and the parliament's name, as the first at least has the English word "award" description encapsulated in it, and the second is completely foreign meaning. Though I personally always love to add or replace with descriptions also for awards as to describe their status, and so the reader sees right on the reading flow (without hovering or clicking the link), I understand what you mean in regards to give the proper names. Thank you, as it's something which will be really useful for me to know also for the future. אומנות (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I didn't blank Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest 1995 as a result of the WikiProject discussion. An IP restored a long-redirected page and did not provide any additional information to establish it. Most of the background had already been moved years ago to the song's page as part of the merge in 2017. The two sources given in the proposed reincarnation are from sources that do not pass WP:RS and while I don't typically have a problem looking the other way for things that have existed and are awaiting improvement, I don't feel that they should be used as a reason to start an article or remove a long-standing condition. Grk1011 (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grk1011 first I explained on my summary the previous redirect without the tables (nor they shouldn't be) at the song's article; while you solely pointed the project discussion. The project discussion even differentiated such articles from the start (as containing general points-ranks + further - regional juries breakdowns) as keep, in comparison to articles with no such info, and concluded in keeping everything which has even some proportion of material beyond Eurovision info, so your first edit summary therefore looked as though contrary-misleading to both that discussion base and further keep-outcome. It will be helpful, collaborative, you will be clear for proper argument from the get go, especially for when blanking entire work.

The project discussion itself – also prevails: Even counting the 2017-blank (as still amalgamating only background info but not these tables), the project discussion with it's aforementioned base and further conclusion, took place in 2021. So this is a long-standing – now further refreshed-a-new-consensus. Also note - the redirect was just recently changed from the song's article to "Belgium in Eurovision", so also not long standing redirect as well as again not directing to the article which gives the pre-selection background info....

Following your further, reaching-out collaborative explanation here, as for RS: still, ultimately the article contains under its repository the exact same 2 sources appearing on all standing country-year articles from older years; "National final database" and "ESC history". Also note - Further, another third source on the Belgium-1995 article which showcased all competitors of Belgium's 1995 pre-selection with their extra personal details. Removing an article just because it was previously blanked results therefore in an arbitrary irrelevant discrimination-result between this and other articles with the same or even less-to-none sources.

All that is regardless that I don't assume that's your intention, but rather that you want to keep high quality of articles. You still look the other way for "old", and another for "new" or "recreated", and we just can't decide to do that. And we can't decide ourselves to follow such old/new procedure,just as that discussion talked about if to keep or remove based on nature, and not based on "veteran"-articles.

We should restore Belgium-1995 for now, and discuss on the project talk about the nature of these sources, then apply the decision equally to all articles solely using tham. Old/new, or previously-blanked/not-blanked, is irrelevant and not a way the encyclopedia should follow, especially as it confuses others. Especially since your argument applies to not create new such articles with such sources, and editors – also based on the recent discussion, are believed they can create and entitled as long as other such articles stand. And turning one way to the first type, but decide to look this way to remove the exact same of such newly created ones, can derive contributors with potential for other work, not understand why their work was removed, and may get antagonized.

Also according to this long-blank (2017) logic, think that if you would had noticed only few years from now that an article was RESTORED, it would apply to not blank again. Also – maybe nobody who's aware to other such standing articles noticed in 2017 as myself, or didn't want to argue, so the blank stuck till now, when both I and the IP object, let alone the creator. With that, the article stood there from 2011 – that's 6/7 years till 2017, so again according to this logic, the 6/7 years + reinforced by long-standing & refreshed consensus, prevails over the lesser amount of years it was redirected.

Ultimately, I also don't mind much or have much personal interest on having an article for every country-year, I even once rejected it myself on another language-Wikipedia, but I do care for clear and fair work environment, as you express care yourself many times when you say you wish for more collaboration and communication. So hopefully you should understand well what I mean in this situation, as for how to proceed in a way that won't confuse/antagonize contributors. If you explain further why these sources aren't reliable on project page, I can of course support - unfortunately - to remove all articles using them, or maintenance/further-sourcing-tags need on all of them.

In relation to this, I have some things that concern me about previous stuff where I personally felt lack of attention and got hurt from you, which I would like to ask if I can send you on mail and that you respond there, also as to not make it look as an argument before others, as in private you will see and know it's simply to try to share some stuff in a pleasant manner in regards to wish to work alongside you and reach out to feel better for myself to have an easier work and discussion on this articles. And it's only few short and simple stuff, small thoughts. אומנות (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@אומנות: There are a couple others, notably Romania 1994, Romania 1998, and Romania 2000 that I thought set a precedent for these types of articles, but it's very hard to gauge a true consensus on the matter given the number of editors, both registered and anonymous, who are making changes daily. Sometimes things can fall through the cracks or go unnoticed and I try to follow most changes as best I can using the assessment log paired with my Watchlist. Historically, I've been quite an inclusionist, but I have to admit I've been feeling very beaten down by what I see as a "drive by" editing style where someone is helping by adding information, but in an unnatural or odd way that at the same time creates more work for others. I think I probably just had more time (or patience) in the past to handle those feelings. Yes, please feel free to email me using the link on the left of my user page if you need to reach me! My intent was definitely not to hurt anyone's feelings! Grk1011 (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loved the article you wrote about Isaac Newton. Good work. Deror (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thank you for your addings and for reviewing the material. אומנות (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rest in peace Deror. אומנות (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin Thank you deeply for your kind and understanding message and help, for contacting me with further help, I sent you also a mail now. Have a happy holiday season and ongoing enjoyable work here! :-) אומנות (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just created a Draft:List of Conflicts in the Land of Israel. There exist similar articles for a List of Conflicts in the Near East and a List of Conflicts in Egypt. I think it deserves to be approved, but there will likely be those who don't want the article to be approved. If you think it should be approved, please voice your input! כל טוב. IshChasidecha (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]