User talk:Zkharya

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --7T7 14:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please suggest major changes at the talk page first

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive, POV/OR editing

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Ishmael Khaldi page

Please read wikipedia policies and do not vandalize articles. 20:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Joatsimeon (talk)

February 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ishmael Khaldi. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. CTJF83 21:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

I have blocked your account for 31 hours for your conduct on Ishmael Khaldi. Edit warring (repeatedly reverting to your preferred version) is not acceptable in any event and, in particular, your content was largely unsourced and poorly sourced, which is unacceptable for a biography of a living person. (Please see also the relevant AN3 report). If you disagree with this block, you are welcome to contest it using the {{unblock}} template and another administrator will review it. --B (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Promise (2011 TV serial). If you continue to edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others you may be blocked from making further Wikipedia entries. Headhitter (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not possibly see how my adding an extra line of Cesarani's criticism can constitute 'vandalism'. Cesarani is the only academic historian of this (or any) period to have reviewed The Promise. The quotation cited does give much insight into the basis of his criticism. The fact The Promise makes no reference to the Balfour Declaration (and hence the Mandate under which the League of Nations granted Britain's its rule) is an extraordinary omission in a drama that purports to be historical.

Further, given your close co-operation with Kominski, would I be altogether wrong to say that your cutting that observation by Cesarani serves an apologetic purpose on behalf of him and his work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya (talk • contribs) 23:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have also emailed Professor Cesarani about your continually editing out his more substantial criticism, and cc.d in Jonathan Freedland, who dismisses The Promise in conversation with Howard Jacobson on Jewish Book Week http://www.jewishbookweek.com/2011/last-words.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

00.55 Freedland says Kominski panders to antisemitic tropes of Jewish wealth.#

01.13.40 ff., Freedland says that Kominski uses Holocaust imagery as a 'downpayment' for what he wants 'to say attacking Jews later'; and that he perpetuates the myth that Israel was founded because of the Holocaust, and that Jews arrived out of the blue among Arabs who had lived in peace for thousands of years.

Zkharya

The Promise

Hello, Zkharya. You have new messages at Jheald's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jheald (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not break up other's editor's comments with your own, as you just did on Talk:The Promise (2011 TV serial). Nick Cooper (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heaven's sake. I am just engaging in the discussion as best I can, as I understand other's are doing.

This is the first time I have done such a thing. Are you going to use this as an occasion to delete those comments too?

zkharya≈≈≈≈

Please see my message on Talk:The Promise (2011 TV serial)‎. Headhitter (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some pages that you might find helpful in being a Wikipedian:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions. Headhitter (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Promise

Personally, I don't think the Jenni Frazer review is a good link. It is her blog published on the JC website, not a review in the paper. In fact, having a large number of negative reviews from one paper could be said to give undue weight to one paper, especially as the negative comments tend to repeat and overlap to some extent. I would not put up a fight if these are trimmed or deleted, but rather, if you feel that undue weight is currently placed on positive reception, aim to provide a rounder, fuller rendering of the negative responses from a wider range of reputable sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've edited it down and moved it around. I have also fleshed out the reception section to make it more balanced. Obviously, you are free to change it again! Regards, BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenni Frazer's is a journalist's opinion. Why is it thereby invalid? It is a review, of a sort ('Under the duvet', remember?' As for the lengthy quotations, I can't seem to win on that one. When I paraphrased concisely Cesarani, you objected that they were not his actual words. Now you argue the reverse.Zkharya (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'In fact, having a large number of negative reviews from one paper could be said to give undue weight to one paper, '

You obviously haven't been counting. At least two or three positive views come from The Guardian and Independent each. In any case, what is so strange or 'unbalanced' about a treatment of a Jewish matter disproportionately provoking Jewish criticism, good or bad? Jews are a small community. The JC is their chief British organ.Zkharya (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Jenni Frazer's opinion is invalid; I think it carries less weight than published articles. Long quotes are always going to get edited out, but I moved both Frazer's and Rounds to the refs so that they are kept in. Full quotes v paraphrase - I think space is the main issue usually, but it seems to me better to use original if it's the same number of words, plus I was not sure if triune and even tricorn are very widely used words.

It is true that there are several Guardian refs (9?), all positive, but most are just references not quotes .There are around the same number (9?) refs to the JC, and there is much more quoted. I agree that the JC is particularly relevant here, as it is the main media voice of Anglo-Jewry, but I think that's now adequately represented. (There's one JC ref not yet there, the one on the extras feeling ashamed, which I'm planning to put in in a minute.) One of the Indy refs, of course, is negative: Howard J's. Hope that explains my edits! Obviously, please do keep editing yourself. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Am toying with the idea of fleshing out the historical "Subjects depicted in the serial" section, which would show where the series is and where it isn't accurately reflecting real events. I've started doing that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobfrombrockley/The_Promise It would be great if you could work on this with me, and when it is in shape we can paste it in and see what happens. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]