User talk:Chesdovi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

I Don't Care About Your Band

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from I Don't Care About Your Band, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! VERTott 11:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

I have unblocked your account, because I don't believe that carrying it through for the full 30 days will serve any substantial purpose. There are lots of things I am tempted to say, but all I will do at this point is to recommend, in the strongest way, that you stay away from articles in the I-P domain that you are unable to edit from a neutral point of view. If you don't know what those are, it would be best to stay away from the contentious part of the I-P domain entirely. It's clear that your contributions to articles of a less contentious type are highly valued by many editors; I very much hope that you'll be able to work there. Looie496 (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That is nice, but not what I requested. Instead of noting in the edit summary "block is no longer useful", it would have been more fitting to have stated "block lifted after asserting its implementation was made in haste without fair representation". Even if I had erred so inexcusably, it would have been far more agreeable had you noted your recommendations at ANI first, asking for my compliance in productive editing. (Even Nab thought the block was a bit heavy handed, and he is experienced!) Now the block log stain, applied in haste, cannot be rectified. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back Chesdovi! I for one thought that your block was overly harsh considering that you had a four-year clean record and voiced my concerns to Looie496. But that's water under the bridge. Happy editing.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a shame I have just found out about this: [1]. If this was known about, I wonder if it would have been clearer that SD was to blame for any disruptive editing. Chesdovi (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How come? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It would have made no difference. I gather you don't follow AE? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cave of the Ramban

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancient synagogue pages

Hi - the way you're naming your ancient synagogue pages is not so conducive for searching. I changed the name of "Ancient synagogue (Eshtamoa)" to "Eshtamoa synagogue" (though I would not be adverse to you calling it "Eshtamoa ancient synagogue"). Please keep this in mind for other synagogue pages you contribute. I'm also not sure that you are doing all these synagogues a service by taking them out of the context of the ancient communities that they were a part of. You might consider merging the pages as a section in locality page. But keep up the good work! all info is important.--Sreifa (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Mt. Zion Cemetery

Dear Chesdovi,
(and who else decided),
thanks a lot for the award. It was a surprise and is a great joy for me. I expected that the subject would only find few interested readers, but I no way reckoned with that kind of a response. Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC) P.S. by the way, do you know if and how the affair with Diaspora Yeshiva ended? I would add it to the article.

Re: your note to Noleander

He's been on top of that for a while now. [2] [3] [4] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Of interest. Thanq. Chesdovi (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Collage photos

Your collage for Jerusalem is well done. Maybe you could try your hand at a collage for Tel Aviv. The one that is there now is quite horrendous, and there are two editors on that page who are constantly duking it out, each one putting in uglier photos than the next...Another collage that is badly needed is one for Israeli cuisine. Probably would end up being kind of controversial, but at the moment, the top of the page looks so sad and empty--Yespleazy (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Why are you mass deleting categories on pages about buildings in Jerusalem and Israel with no explanation??--Yespleazy (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I got bored after my latest addition to Caves of the West Bank: Ancient underground quarry, Jordan Valley. Are you going to the area any time soon? A photo would be great for this amazing discovery last year and also for the Ramban Cave. Chesdovi (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are bored, why not spend some time on the projects I suggested above? Meanwhile, please restore the categories that were deleted for no reason.--Yespleazy (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

They were removed because I was bored and because of WP:SUBCAT. When are you going on your tiyul to Wadi Joz? Chesdovi (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

In the case of buildings in Jerusalem and Israel, these categories are important. They are vital for someone who is writing about architecture, for example. Being listed as a hotel or a hospital or a synagogue is not sufficient. Anyhow, there is plenty more that can be added to these short articles. It seems a pity to waste time on deleting the little that there is...Best, --Yespleazy (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Serious contributors should be using the Wikiproject or Stub categories to find articles to expand. If you want to add pages the parent category, I suppose you could but remember to add the relevant tag. Chesdovi (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As you have begun to re-add cats, please provide the "all included" box to the parent cats you wish and then proceed to un-diffuse the necessary pages. Chesdovi (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Your violation of 1rr

You violated 1rr at Cave of the Ramban. You are only allowed 1 rv per 24 hours within all Arab-Israeli conflict articles [5] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Can you be more specific and provide the diff and I will undo it? Chesdovi (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

1 rv [6], 2 rv [7] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that count? You added the cat on the 18th [8]? Chesdovi (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course it counts. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware. Chesdovi (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom for Ancient underground quarry, Jordan Valley

Hello! Your submission of Ancient underground quarry, Jordan Valley at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Simon Burchell (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ancient underground quarry, Jordan Valley

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hara Seghira Synagogue

Hi, I'm writing an article about the jewish community of Jerba in french fr:Histoire des Juifs à Djerba and I would like to know if the information you added to the article Hara Seghira Synagogue is based on things you gathered on site or in paper sources. Like for example the data of 80 jews living in Hara Sghira. Also, do you know how is called the synagogue you took in picture? There used to be 5 synagogues in service in Hara Sghira. --Kimdime (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Kimdime! Unfortunately the infomation I added was not from a reliable printed source. I just added details of what I had found out while I was there. What was interesting is that the guy I stayed with for Shabbat in Houmt Souk did not know about the Hara Seghira Synagogue which I discovered myself. He was sure that the Griba Synagogue was the only one left in Er Riadh. The synagogue itself was locked and I had to climb over a side wall to get in and have a look round. (I was arrested soon after and taken down to the police station....!) I just called it the "Hara Seghira Synagogue" as I was not sure of its real name. Good luck with the French article! Chesdovi (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Was the guy you stayed with for Shabbes a Jew? If he was, his answer would be quite surprising to me. I have an excellent source for the article, a book written by scholars. It states that there is 5 synagogues in Hara Sghira and that they are locally called yechivot. Torah scrolls are not kept inside them and are brought back after use to El Ghriba considered as the only "real" synagogue of the village

Unfortunately the book is from 1984 and since this time, things seems to have changed quite a lot there, despite the official propaganda stating that Djerba is a model of muslim-jewish relationship.

The data of 80 Jews living in Hara Sghira made me feel specially sad since it is supposed to be one of the oldest jewish settlements in North Africa. Regarding the article Hara Seghira Synagogue, I would suggest you to turn it into a more general article about Hara Seghira, or Er Riadh as it is officially called. Sources are available for that. Best regards.--Kimdime (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. While I was there, they had policemen stationed at the entrances to the Jewish quarter, no doubt this has to do with the bombing a few years back. They also told me, however, that the coucil renamed the main street in the Jewish area after a female suicide bomber but after protests from the Jews, they renamed it again to "Street of Peace"! So much for an oasis of tolerance! I was fortunate to stay with the son of Tunisia's former chief rabbi, Chaim Madar, a really nice, warm and hospitable young family. I told him I had found a synagogue in Er-Riadh in a very sorry state, but he was unaware of it! Chesdovi (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting facts... I've just seen a video from national geographic about the Jews of Djerba, interesting to see how much the focus is on the fact that Djerba is a symbol of brotherhood between Jews and muslims, "Repeat after me : Everything is fine". Any way, I liked the images of the video http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/places/regions-places/africa-northwestern/tunisia_djerbaisland.html Recently, the "grand rabbin de France" went there and repeated the same thing, would you need to repeat something over and over if it was that true? The fact is that it is also a necessity in order to avoid the susceptibility of president Ben Ali and to preserve the security of the Jews of Djerba to keep a low profile about those facts, though it make it harder to write an accurate article.--Kimdime (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess the government in Tunis is trying to do its best. A high ranking minister always graces the proceedings at the Griba on Lag Baomer and reads out a message from the president! As the bomb was by Al Queda, and not a local cell, I guess things are not that bad. Still, it is uncomforable seeing police guarding the Jews, although it does give that added sense of security. (As I was walking around in Zarzis I was stopped by undercover officers who then had a personal guard follow me around. They also had police at the entrances of the tiny Jewish area there. What I found amazing in this isolated desert town was that I noticed a large map depicting land ownership in Palestine in the house of what turned out to be the local school master.....) Chesdovi (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tomb of the Prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi

Hello! Your submission of Tomb of the Prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to comment on the alt hook. Yoninah (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit at Had Nes

Your edit at Had Nes violates the consensus of the discussion at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues. Please revert yourself. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

AFD input

Is there a reason you expressed your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Praise of Talmud as a comment so that it is not visible unless one is editing the page? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding In Praise of Talmud, why not wait for your suggestion to be commented on before beginning a fundamental rewrite of the article. While it is true that one may well be able to write an article about ethical teachings of the Talmud, I'm not sure that it deserves treatement separate from the Talmud article itself, or from the Jewish ethics article that also aready exists. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Offline hook ref

Hi, Normally DYK reviewers just write "Offline hook ref AGF" (accepted in good faith). But since you quoted the text of the offline ref in the footnotes, I wrote it that way. Sorry if it was confusing. Yoninah (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Thank for the message, but --as I see-- Ethics in the Talmud is deleted. Meantime, a user is trying to delete my In Praise of Talmud, for no valid reason, What say you?Supperteecee (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Lydda

Hi Chesdovi, could I ask you to revert yourself here? The article is currently at peer review, but the source you used for this is not good enough, so it looks odd. Also I'm not sure we should add it as written even with a good source, but that's a separate issue (see talk). The article is on 1RR, so if I revert it myself it means I won't be able to make any more edits this evening, even copy editing, that risks undoing another editor's work, and I was hoping to work on it some more. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tedef

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Neil Primrose Response

For your question, He is Christian, there is a picture of his grave with the Cross in his profile. - 217.132.135.93 (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tomb of the Prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi

Courcelles 12:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It got 4,911 views! Chesdovi (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Right back at ya

Wow! חנוכה שמח to you too as well. And stay away from those sufganiot. Remember one sufgania equals 45 minutes on the treadmill :)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Kind of reminds me of hellfire, but the thought is nice. Thanks.--Yespleazy (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Holiest sites in Judaism

The article Holiest sites in Judaism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ill defined scope, no sources, very poor content.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Marokwitz (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Chanuka

א פריילעכן חנוכה דיר! Sorry I cannot compete with your artwork;-) --Redaktor (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of five days for violation of the ARBPIA one-revert rule on International law and Israeli settlements. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 00:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I must have not gaged the 2 hour time zone difference accurately! Sorry. Chesdovi (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note that other users who violated 1RR recently and were reported at AE 1. received notification on their talk page that a discussion regarding their behavior was taking place and 2. were given a chance to self-revert to avoid a block, with admins waiting for a response from the editor before taking action. I suspect this is why you were reported to AN3 and not AE. FYI. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Lst time SD let me know I was in unwittingly in violation of 1RR, I was able to revert. I have no interest at edit warring over at International law and Israeli settlements. I made further additions before reverting. Later after getting no response at talk, I went ahead not realising I was 2 hours before the limit had expired. Chesdovi (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back Chesdovi. Everyone else is given the chance to self-revert but you get hit with 5 days. Go figure--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Good evening

[9] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem at AE

Throw the Jew down the well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr No Account.

The topic area is just full of humor lately. Funny stuff right there. However, you should not post links to copyrighted material. See WP:VIDEOLINK (plugging my own essay).Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Re

[10] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Time for barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I award you this barnstar for your funny posts on Judaism and violence's talk page and for your article Judaism and bus stops, and for apology you issued to UN. Humor is the best and maybe the only way to fight trolling of many articles about Judaism and Israel that sadly are growing up on wikipedia as mushrooms in a forest after rainy days. Mbz1 (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Royal Palace, Tell el-Ful

Hello! Your submission of Royal Palace, Tell el-Ful at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Toдor Boжinov — 15:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Talk:Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia, it would be helpful for you to explain your choice of title for the original page of this article. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I am going to defer to the consensus of the other two editors that commented at the talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Royal Palace, Tell el-Ful

Orlady (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Shame that the hook was changed without disscusion. Chesdovi (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a problem, Chesdovi? --PFHLai (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PD-Israel-FOP

Template:PD-Israel-FOP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello

FYI -asad (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked, violation of 1RR restriction per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Further_remedies, from report at [11]. -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of two weeks for violation of the ARBPIA one-revert rule on Rachel's Tomb. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- Cirt (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to make use of {{unblock}}, and discuss here on your talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

As far as I was aware, I was within my rights to make my last edit at Rachel’s tomb, reverting once (with further additions). The 13 Jan edit was not a revert. It was a fresh edit. My last edit was my first revert of Asad’s 2nd revert. And the point that Asad mentioned was not a clear-cut revert. The previous text stated: "It is regarded by Israel as part of its "Jerusalem envelope" to be eventually annexed" while I reworded to "effectively annexing it to Jerusalem." One and the same I think. Asad's first revert was at 19:54, 13 January 2011. Brew reverted his edit, he then broke the 1RR by reverting again. He only self-reverted one bit, but has not reverted "Palestinian Territories" to “Occupied territories” or the word "Historically", which has been subject of removal and replacement. I on the other hand have attempted to take on board other editors concerns by leaving and rewording the barring of Arabs and leaving out the reason for the construction of the barrier, not re-adding “Historically”, and adding the "more specific” West Bank instead of "occupied territories” or “Palestinian Territories" I did not make a rash edit for the purpose of warring. I checked the revision history beforehand making sure that the edit would be legal. Furthermore, my edit incorporated additional material which attempted to placate other editors and I was not just reverting for the sake of reverting. I contend the assertion that I made more than 1 revert with 24 hrs. I am also wondering why Asad has not be censured for breaking the 1RR at Rachel’s tomb, with 2 other illegal reverts he made which seem to have gone unnoticed. Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your 13 Jan edit (here appears to clearly revert a large portion of this edit two weeks prior. As you were involoved in that back-and-forth, I'm not sure how you are claiming it was a 'fresh edit'. As noted below, this template is not to request the block of others. Kuru (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am unfamiliar with the conflict, and so will leave this request for another admin. I will note, though, that the conduct of other editors is entirely irrelevant to your block, at least in so far as your request is concerned. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

If my 13 Jan edit is indeed to be considered as the 1st revert, my question is: have I broken the 1RR by first replacing “to be eventually annexed” with “de facto annexed”, and then replacing “to be eventually annexed” a second and third time with “effectively annexing”? That’s what the block was based upon. As regards to the claim that I never finished the discussion regarding this, took the liberty of not re-adding “de facto”, but a less “offensive” and quite different term: “effectively”. Chesdovi (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests are not fora for asking questions. You must convince us that you did not violate the sanction. You do not do so here. Kuru above has convincingly explained that your first edit was also a revert.  Sandstein  20:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

File:The Steipler biography.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Steipler biography.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 02:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

Could inform me of the new UN Security Council resolution that was passed in the last 24 hours, or some major shift in world view that went completely unnoticed by the world press to justify this edit? Please revert, even you know that your argument for this one won't even hold up for a second. (I am referring to the edit you made claiming that it is a dispute, not occupation) 1 -asad (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Both cases are both. Chesdovi (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

???? -asad (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't throw yourself on the 1RR sword, 'dovi!

The International Law and Israeli Settlement article is under 1RR you may want to self-revert on that. We can go to the talk page about the issue at hand but, basically, it is an international law issue just not immediately apparent without more depth. I'll work on the better explanation in the article. Ian Lustick's "Israel and the West Bank after Elon Moreh: The Mechanics of De Facto Annexation" is a good read if you want more on the convoluted mechanics in play. Sol (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

NO. I AM ALLOWED 1 REVERT. Chesdovi (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why I'm here. That would be a completely lame thing to get topic banned over. Either way, we can work out the issue on talk. Sol (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The first removal of the section is not by definition a "revert". You would be breaking the rule by readding after my first revert. Chesdovi (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello v.2

[12] -asad (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What was this all about?

You just made this rather drastic change to WP:ANEW, which I reverted. Did I overlook a good reason for your action? Favonian (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No. not quite sure how that happened? Chesdovi (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edits of Assumed Unclean Animals in the article Unclean animals are purposely wrong.

You added buffalo, deer, and even GOATS! These are all cloven hoofed animals that ruminate. You must be doing this on purpose because it would be impossible not to know they are clean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Essequamvideri7 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Judaization of Jerusalem

Hi, the text I removed said that Jerusalem would have been founded as a Jewish capital, which was nonsense. I reviewed only the addition of the IP user using the history function, not the whole article this time. Of course, if you find other poor material in the article that I missed, please feel free to remove it. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about your edit summaries

Hi, I'm investigating editor conduct at Golan Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Per Wikipedia:Edit summary, edit summaries are an invariably Good Thing™. Does hb4a mean Hebrew before Arabic[13], and does that initialism enjoy mainstream usage? AGK [•] 22:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1RR on Israel, Palestine and the United Nations

Hello -- your second edit today on Israel, Palestine and the United Nations is a violation of 1RR. I request please that you self-revert. thank you, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Maratha, Santalaris and Aloda massacre

• Hello. I have made a detailed research for the article on Turkish Wikipedia and found out that villagers from Maratha and Santalaris were buried in the same mass grave (they were killed together), and actually there is only the number of people who were found in the mass grave, but I have not found any sources stating how many people were killed in just Santalaris or just Maratha. That was actually a wrong statement, and I am adjusting that. These census results say that the population of Maratha was 113 and Santalaris 94. So, the number 94 was probably the population of Santalaris, not just Maratha. Thank you. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Mecca

Why do you not think that Mecca is the holiest city in Islam?VR _talk 04:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles on pogroms in Middle East and North Africa

Nice work with your recent contributions, notably 1948 Oujda and Jerada pogrom. I'm also progressing in putting more info including the 1945 Cairo pogrom. I would like to draw your attention to this and this articles, compared to Safed plunder. I think the 1834 Sefad article is a twin of 1834 Safed plunder, but i cannot find existing one on 1660 Sefad massacre. What can we do here? Greyshark09 (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In Ishmael's House by Martin Gilbert documents a lot of these events, if you guys are interested. Quite an interesting read. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll look into it. You too do a nice work here btw.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, you two as well. If I have the time I'll start some stubs based on the book. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. Chesdovi (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

RM

I don't really care one way or the other. I didn't notice any recent discussion, and the previous discussion was from over 2 years ago, and not very conclusive. If you are going to use talk as a reason, however, you should make a comment in the talk and at least bring it up so that it appears to be related to some recent discussion. So go ahead and remove it if you want. Arzel (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

I don't understand the reason for this edit. Would you please explain it to me? Debresser (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Rabbis in Ottoman & British Palestine spans 430 years. I prefer to list these rabbis by century, consistent with all other such cats. Chesdovi (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi, continuing on from the question above, I see that you have removed the category "Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine" and added the category's "Palestinian rabbis" instead. In many of these cases, the articles say they came from somewhere else and emigrated to the area. Unless you can find sources supporting that all those individuals were Palestinians, then I'm gonna restore the original category. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

What is your definition of Palestinian? Surely anyone who lives in any region attains that regions nationality or what have you. Chesdovi (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. Many people move to other places and are born in places without them having the nationality and ethnicity of that place. Some of them might be Palestinians, some of them might not. But unless you can prove with sources that all those people you claimed were Palestinians were in fact Palestinians, the Palestinian cats will have to be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editor on this one. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

sd, if we take people who emmigrated to palestinr from 1917 0nwards, it is for certain that they attaned palestinian citizenship under the british. Asad is american and you are whatever country you now live in, although you were born elsewhere. debresser, naeh for sure was palestinian, being born there under ottomon rule. Chesdovi (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that Palestinian here is supposed to designate a country, while it sounds like an ethnicity. How to solve that problem? Debresser (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

See article on Samuel Garmison. The JE says: "Palestinian rabbi of the seventeenth century. He was a native of Salonica." The cat denotes nationality, like all others. We cannot help it if gets confused with a modern entity of the same name. Anyhows, all Jews descend from the original 1st-century Palestinians. Chesdovi (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I still think we can keep Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine and not split it up any more. Debresser (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The general Category:Palestinian rabbis category is a soft redirect to the even more general Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel. The issue is with the century-specific categories. I think these should be restored to the general Category:Rabbis in Ottoman and British Palestine category (or whatever other subcategory of Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel which is appropriate). Debresser (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for using that cat over the century specifc cats? Chesdovi (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above. The fact that somebody is a rabbi in a country does not mean he has the local nationality. Especially since many (or even most) of them were not born there. Also there is too much confusion with the term Palestine being an ethnicity and not a geographical location. In addition, and specifically, during the 13th century, the place was definitely not called Palestine. In general, I think you made a mistake when you created all these categories and started populating them without discussion! Debresser (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as American is not an ethnicity in this regard, neither is Palestinian. Palestine is a mish mash of a large number of ethnicities and has only achieved its own designation as such in response to Israels creation. Do you think we should not call most PM's of Israel "Israeli" because they were all born abroad? In most cases, a person upon emmigrating permanently, attains that places "natoinality". A person does not need to be born in the UK in order to be called British, so long as he spent a significant portion of life in that place is sufficient. The JE labels a number of tannaim and amoraim and geonim as palestinian thru to the 17, 18, 19th cent. I created a cat called Medieval Jews in Palestine as it was clear that most of them did not indeed spend what I would consider enough time there in order to be categorised as Palestinian. But to have a cat spanning over 400 years doesn't really achieve anything. why not "rabbis in ottoman and britisn P and Israel?" Why stop at 1948 with a name change? Are all "Israeli rabbis" born in Israel? The whole "... in the Land of Israel" cats are a problem. I think they were made b/c people are offended to use the term Palestine in connection with Judaism. Is that proper? Chesdovi (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Just because he spent half his life there and led the Jewish community there, does not make him a Palestinian, I told you above to ad sources, you have not. I saw your edit:[14] where you added the Palestinian cat, not Egyptian. Of course if there is no source saying he is Egyptian, then that should also be removed, since Im busy now, ill look into it later. You can also answer here instead of my talkpage.. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So what does make anyone Palestinian? A passport issued by the PNA? Being Arab? When describing people in these eras, it is common to name them by the paramenters I have decsribed. Eg. Menahem Lonzano is called a a 16th century Palestinian scholar. Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats not up for me or you to decide, in general I have no reason to doubt information about ethnicitys or anything else in articles even if its unsourced unless there is a reason for doubting it, in this case there is a good reason, as you added the same ethnic cat to many articles including about people not even born there, a lot of it if not all being unsourced, so your criteria for being Palestinian is that anyone who moved to the area or was born there is Palestinian, which is incorrect. Furthermore, Encyclopaedia Judaica: Volume 3 identifies David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra as an Egyptian rabbi [15]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As i have shown in my last post, you dont need to be born there to be Palestinian. If a person has lived in a country for a significant period of his life, especially if we are talking about pre-modern times, it is quite correct to descibe tht person as belonging to that country. Zimra was Spanist, Egyptin and palestinian. Chesdovi (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The only thing you have shown in your above post is your own personal believes. If no sources can be shown showing they were Palestinians, the cats will have to be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is false and your request for sourcing each of the approx 100 pages is illogical. If you have a problem with my additions, take it up elsewhere. Don't enforce your belifes here. Chesdovi (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop creating all kinds of "palestinian" categories while you see there are serious objections aginst it. If you do not seek consensus first, I will have to take this to wp:ani. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Your behaviour is what needs to be addressed here. Depopulating tens of pages before becuase you object is a bad move, as I have learnt in the past. Chesdovi (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can't create a whole group of categories, using a controversial term, then substitute existing categories with your categories, while this is being protested on your talk page, and then say you're not the bad guy... Debresser (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna quote myself from above: "Thats not up for me or you to decide", you can not define where a person is generally regarded as being from, leave that up to the sources. You can also reply here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

i am entitled to use my knowlege in this area and experience form the past regarding rabbis and the regions from which they are from. You were very insistent to make it clear the the underground quarry was in the West Bank, when umtine sources defined it as being in Isarel. Your rationale: Because we know best. If Rabbis in British Palestine is synonomous with Palestinian, what's the problem. Palestina here does not mean of Palestinan descent, but rather of palestine. If they livied they, to deserve the lable. No sources needed. Chesdovi (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The situations are completely different, worldview sources has been provided that the West bank is part of the Palestinian territories where the underground quarry is located. Its not clear that Rabbis in British Palestine where Palestinians, maybe some where, maybe some where not. And the majority of the people you added Palestinian cats for where not even related to that era. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"maybe some were, maybe some not". What do you mean. As i have expalined on your talk page, merely by dint of residing in the region is good enough for the application in our case. This is not about Palestinian Arab ethnicity. Why you continue to insist is is about that is wrong. Chesdovi (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, just because someone has lived there is not enough. Unless there is a source that says they are Palestinians, then Palestinian cats cant be added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have an entry in the JE: "Born in jerusalem before 70, flourished in Palestine...." It does not say the magic word that he was a "Palestinian". Are you saying I cannot call him a Palestinian rabbi? Chesdovi (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Elisha' ben Abuya has been identified as being Palestinian in: The Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the Conference at Yale, March 1978, Volume 2 p 808. So you can call him Palestinian. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So you are basically saying that a person who was born, lived and died in Palestine and was said to have "flourished in Palestine" can not be called a "Palestinian rabbi" unless that specific term "Palestinian" is used? That sounds very very irrational to me. I will have to throw this open to the floor, because as far as I'm concerned your method of asserting Palestinianity is way out and over excessive. Chesdovi (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Q2) I have a source: "Daniel ben Azariah, supported by the government, began his feud against the Palestinian gaonic family". Now, if I find sources on all these other members of the Palestinian gaonic family, but no sources specificlly calls him "Palestinain", am I to disregard this classification, or would you agree since there is a general source categorisieng all Gaons of Palestine as Palestinian, that would be okay? Chesdovi (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Q3) You state that my criteria for classification of someone as Palestinian, namely that it "includes anyone who moved to the area", is incorrect. Yet we see that RS call [[Menahem Lonzano Palestinian, even though he was not born there. You have never once stated what you would agree is a correct classification of being called Palestinian, the reason of your dispute here. What is it? Chesdovi (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Source has to say the person is Palestinian.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You are more particular than the PLO. Is that good or bad? (Q2 is an example of a general source. Does this suffice?) Chesdovi (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source calling him Palestinian: [16] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You skirt the question again. I am talking about other family members, let's say his son David, for whom there are no specific sources, besides from the general classification. (With Albert Einstein you will see that the article only describes him as "German born" and having "American citizenship". Acc. to you we could not call him either German or American, yet the categories list him as such, even Swiss. Similarly, Zerahiah ben Shealtiel Ḥen is not sourced as being Catalan, should we not categorise him as such?) Chesdovi (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Palestine was not a geographical entity during the Ottoman period. This is the relevant passagfe from the article History of Palestine. "After the Ottoman conquest, the name "Palestine" was no longer used as the official name of an administrative unit, as the Turks often called their (sub)provinces after the capital. The majority of historical Palestine became part of the vilayet (province) of Damascus-Syria until 1660, and later became part of the vilayet of Saida (Sidon)." Thus, to refer to people as Palestinian during that time frame is questionable. You are also ignoring the fact many people live places where they do not become part of the local population. This is why we have Category:American expatriates in France as a distinct category from Category:American emigrants to France to give just one example. Beyond this, the Ottoman period begins in 1515, the British period ends in 1947. Neither fits well with a century break. If the 430 entries is deemed to large for a category the appropriate action would be to create Category:Rabbis in Ottoman Palestine and Category:Rabbis in British Palestine. If it is determined that rabbis by century needs to be georgraphically subdivided, which seems unlikely when Category:16th-century rabbis has only 68 entries, and it is further determined that the at most 30 of those that fall into the new category Category:16th-century rabbis of the Ottoman Empire are still to large and unwiedy, then the logical action would be to form Category:16th-century rabbis in Palestine. This is especially true since the goal of this category seems to be based around an unspoken assumption that since Palestine is the claimed ancestral homeland of the Jews (a claim that is probably justified, but when is usually posited in a way to ignore the Kazars, the Arabs who converted to Judaism, the large number of Jewish proselytes throughout the Roman Empire and so forth, although all these facts can be accepted and not diminish the claim if we argue it is the peoplehood and not the blood ancestry that matters) the question is "did these rabbis work, teach and write in Palestine" not "did they live there" let alone were they in some way people of there. The way this category is concieved if a rabbi was born in Safed but spent his whole career as a rabbi in Constantinople or Salonika he would not belong in the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The passage you rely on is unsourced. The next line which says “Nonetheless, the old name remained in popular and semi-official use, with many examples of its usage in the 16th and 17th centuries surviving” is sourced. But it is of no consequence what is was known by during that particular period. We rely on mainstream RS who are writing in the 20th century. I don’t know what you mean by “Palestine was not a geographical entity during the Ottoman period”. It most certainly was. Maybe what you mean is a “was not a political entity”. That may be so, but that historic region is today known by the name Palestine. That’s why the article itself is called History of Palestine, while you will find various names, depending on era, associated with it.

Your issue with people not “becoming part of the population” has been addressed. We do not rely on what you think, but on published RS. I can assure you that all those listed at Category:American emigrants to Israel are also categorised as Israeli too. Indeed, Abraham ben Solomon Treves is categories as both Category:Turkish rabbis and Category:Italian rabbis.

Why do you think we need to split Ottoman Palestine and British Palestine. This category categorises by region, not geo-political entity. Do we have Category:Weimar Republic rabbis, Category:Nazi Germany rabbis? No, just German rabbis, or rabbis of Germany.

The reason why we needed to add the century specific prefix is because Palestine in not only a historic region with a self-contained meaning, but also has a very modern context, meaning it may not be suitable to have just “Palestinian rabbis”, though I see no intrinsic problem with it myself. Chesdovi (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In an effort to be as diplomatic as possible...

I would suggest you self-revert your insertion of the "nowadays" term in the Joseph's Tomb article that you twice reverted back within span of 10 hours. You are well aware of the 1RR. -asad (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to make the passage flow better and be more accurate. If after my recent considerable and significant additions, you have meticulously spotted an blatant error and illegal move, forgive me. What is the problem you have exactly between the words "recently" and "nowadays"? I don't know where you are staring the 1RR violation from, but as far as I can see, you broke the rule first! Are you going to saction yourself? Last time you got me blocked, I also notcied how you had also broken the rule. Talk about hypocracy. You couldn't be "diplomatic" if you tried. Chesdovi (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I will be glad to self-revert if you could explain to me how my second edit was a second revert of something I previously reverted. -asad (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

deleting "Nowadays" and then: changing "Nowadays" to "recently". You then want to take me to task for changing "recently" back to "Nowadays"?? Chesdovi (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I deleted "nowadays" in the first revert. And in the second edit, I changed "nowadays" to "recently" and added a citation tag. I only changed "nowadays" to "recently" as I feel "recently" is a bit more proper. Go ahead and report me if you like, but I don't see any violation. -asad (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"More proper" as opposed to what? Was that a compromise on your part, rather than having us think the shiek has always been beleived to be buried there? As neither term is cited by the BBC, adding "recently" would, in your words be: "completely misrepresenting the source". You further say "do you have a source that backs up your claim that it is a "recent"' belief?" Yet you later go ahead and add the word "recently" without a source! Just add the tag to "nowadays" and leave the rest to me. And stop being so pernickety. Chesdovi (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should go back and look at the revisions. I changed "nowadays" to "recently" (as I think it is a more proper word for an encyclopedia) and added a citation needed tag, as the BBC source, as you said, does not talk about "nowadays" or "recently" for that matter. It is pretty obvious that the if I believed in the edit strongly by adding "recently" I would have not tagged with a citation needed. Seems like you are a bit confused. -asad (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you are adding unsourced words (problematic for you in this case) deliberately to stoke an edit war. You admitted that the word "recently" was unsubstantiated and said you were not happy with its usage in the article. Why did you add it then? (You had previously removed the insinuation that the interment of the biblical Joseph at the site was in accordance with Muslim belief.) If you want to add “recently” after more research on the subject, you will have to provide an approximate date as to when this occurred. After all, what does recent mean? (We have 1996 for the Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque). Nowadays, means exactly that. No ambiguity. Chesdovi (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with adding "recently" either. My main purpose of the edit was to add a citation need tag to your word. During the process of doing that, I thought changing it to "recently" would be a more fitting word for an encyclopedia than "nowadays". Get it yet? -asad (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You tampered with the word "nowadays" twice within 24hrs. You broke the 1RR. Chesdovi (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So report me if you feel like it is necessary. I would gladly explain my side in such a case and accept whatever happens. Good luck. -asad (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi:You have been editing/reverting that page for the last 24 hrs and have also broken the 1RR rule a few times by now I feel.Owain the 1st (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not if Asad hides behind an IP and then uses profanities. Chesdovi (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any proof or evidence? Or are you just making an unsubstantiated claim? Where have I used profanity, what IPs have I hidden under? I suggest you stop with the rhetoric before you severely embarrass yourself. And if you want, here is the link to report me. I absolutely implore you to do it. -asad (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You and him have both broken the rules, you are having an edit war.I suggest you both stop it now.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)