Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in January–June 2015/Archive 3

Recent edits

 * This edit tells the Israeli version, and eliminates the family statement. Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not correct . One may see that family version is remained. --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This incident
 * "A Jewish man was found tied up and stabbed in the trunk of a car belonging to Palestinians from East Jerusalem late Thursday night. He was moderately wounded and police believe the incident is criminal in nature"

This so far is believed to be of a criminal nature. Crimes by ethnicity do not figure among I/P incidents on this page, whether the criminal or victim be Israeli or Palestinian. I have been waiting for clarification from sources. If the incident is defined as ‘terror’ then it is included. So far to my knowledge, it has not been so. Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is why I've placed clarify. There were enough cases when the police changed a criminal version to terrorist one. Let's wait. --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. You cannot assume that this is a terror or violent act motivated by ethnic hatred, when there is no official determination. This has occurred several times, and I have always noted on my work page the incident, and either ignored it if it is rejected as a hate crime, or included it when that assessment is made. One waits: one does not prejudge events on Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The source says Ibrahimi Mosque not ‘Cave of the Patriarchs’ . I follow sources. The link is however to Cave of the Patriarchs. Ibrahimi Mosque because there was a protest at the time over not being allowed into the Mosque not into the generic Cave of the Patriarchs.
 * To be cont. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a sandpit for childish games, but a serious labour of work where one strives to present information accurately.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "a serious labour of work where one strives to present information accurately" - alas, "accurately" isn't about you. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "I follow sources" @Nishidani.
 * Not correct twice : there were already 2 source s in your "20:24, 26 April 2015" version before my edits - Ynet & Maan. Surely, you've chosen the last one using the trick Ibrahimi Mosque :) . Moreover, you've distorted even Maans version, where is written " outside the Ibrahimi Mosque", not in it.  --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is called WP:PIPING. Would just adding Ibrahimi Mosque so that it redirects be less of a "trick"? I think the article name should be used if there is not a good reason to not use it and the reason given looks to be one of them. The addition "Ibrahimi Mosque, according to Ma'an" is not better.


 * Can you add more about what you say got distorted? --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "" outside the Ibrahimi Mosque", not in it", as at N. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Maan News write both "at" and "outside". If "in the Cave of the Patriarchs" could look like "inside", it is easy to solve that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ‘excessive’ in inverted commas versus introduced ‘violent’. All these incidents are ‘violent’. Tear gas is always shot, and known to be harmful (it’s on the manufacturer’s label if inhaled in notable quantities). The only edit that looks borderline, but trivial. I have left in 'violent' and written 'exceszsive' per sources. Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not correct . I haven't "introduced" 'violent'. It already was in your Maan's source: "during violent clashes in Sinjil village", but you've omitted it. Thanks, that you didn't name them "peaceful" as you did in other article. So I do not buy your "All these incidents are ‘violent’".--Igorp_lj (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * this violates a principle that you do not describe incidents as ‘terror’ attacks when one side questions this (b) the says in Ma’ale Adumim’ whereas the source says it was at a checkpoint near Ma’ale Adumim. I didn’t even provide details of the Palestinian version because I refrain from quoting IMEMC, but since that is on of the Palestinian POVs, (according to which the incident occurred when a female relative he was walking with was the object of vulgar language). You, Igorp, just adopt the IDF terminology. Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you just wrote that he was killed (by IDF) "the day before". A top of "NPOV" :) Regarding to the Ynet's (not IDF's) "thwarted terror attack in Ma'ale Adumim" - it was to remind why and how he was killed after your confusing text --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Such a touching "Palestinian version": he went for a walk with a female relative "with a butcher's cleaver and knife". :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 20-26 is okay,
 * an Israeli policeman was wounded by a rock, that’s a useful addition.
 * This edit conflates two distinct events, one at sea, one on land. They are separate incidents. Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not correct . According to your own Maan source, it was the same incident:
 * "Israeli forces shot and injured a Palestinian man east of Beit Hanoun in the northern Gaza Strip on Sunday...
 * The injury came as Israeli forces opened fire on fishermen and farmers across the Gaza Strip."
 * --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Generally, please do not paste in tag asking for clarification that no source offers. Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is totally unacceptable to change to the version given by the Israeli army, usually repeated by Israeli sources, when for example Palestinian witnesses quoted in newspapers give another view. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly added 'reportedly' to Palestinian events, precisely to contextualize the 'news' as a POV. None of us here know the truth. All we do is parse as carefully as possible what mainstream news sources day.Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * IMHO, if someone places Maan's one side propaganda as a fact, even without any attribution, such clarification is necessary for NPOV. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What you call 'propaganda' are facts important to the main Palestinian independent news agency that Israeli mainstream papers frequently ignore. I find most reports skewed by bias, and only give the factual content. If you notice cases where this does not occur, notify the page.Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you to count yet a time of your today's reverting edits for "IR". :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a revert and then cancelled it, reverting myself.Nishidani (talk) 08:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

, can you pls explain your revert "Not at all agreed to in the talk page"? --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Igorp, you are showing a chronic inability to understand both policy and points by others. I don't know whether it is linguistic, but it's like talking to a wall. Secondly Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source, being a political organ for settlers that has no credibility, a large part of it being hostile gossip or editorializing. IDF official statistics should be given from mainstream sources that report them.Nishidani (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I might note that, to underline the obtuseness of your editing on these subjects, you object to the Arab designation of 'Ibrahimi mosque' which is where Palestinians pray, and prefer the 'Cave of the Patriarchs' which is not in the source. When reverted, you come back and add 'Ibrahimi mosque,according to Ma'an News'. This is utterly farcical. The incident regarded Palestinian Arabs outside the Ibrahmi mosque where they pray, not the Jewish area, and secondly, it is not 'according to Ma'an News'. That is how the whole Arab world calls it. It is profoundly dumb editing to do things like that.Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Further, Your edit here put the incident re **Fadi Abu Mandil from its proper position on Friday 24 to April 28. It’s incomprehensible why you do this. The 28th report (Tuesday) said he was wounded on the preceding Friday =24th. Evidently you are not reading sources. If you can’t distinguish the date of a report from the date of an incident which occurred days earlier, and which the article refers to, then you should go elsewhere on the net. This place requires care, comprehension and accuracy.
 * "According to Walla!, from January 2015 until April 26, 172 attacks against the Jerusalem Border Police and SWAT teams were recorded. 148 Molotov cocktails and 15 explosive devices have been thrown at Border Police, 1 shooting incident, 4 stabbing attempts or attacks and 4 'car rampage'attacks (attempted or actualized) have been launched."
 * These are assertions of fact, and can’t be reported by Arutz Sheva, which is not reliable for facts. Find a government, or mainstream source. It shouldn't be hard, since it is official data.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding to your revert with so symptomatic description: Fixing damage and incompetence See talk - it's just about you, :) who (why?) isn't able to understand what has been already written above:


 * Not correct twice : there were already 2 source s in your "20:24, 26 April 2015" version before my edits - Ynet & Maan. Surely, you've chosen the last one using the trick Ibrahimi Mosque :) . Moreover, you've distorted even Maans version, where is written " outside the Ibrahimi Mosque", not in it.  --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ynet's (ref name="RoyYan") quote:
 * "Earlier in the evening, a Palestinian terrorist attacked a Border Police officer, stabbing the Israeli in his head and chest with a knife near the Cave of the Patriarchs".
 * So I really do not understand why you've reverted to:
 * "... was shot dead when, rushing a combat unit,(ref name='RoyYan') he stabbed an Israeli soldier three times in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron. The incident took place while the soldiers were reportedly blocking Palestinians from worshipping in the mosque. Some days earlier Israeli settlers had raised the Israeli flag over the mosque.(ref name='Ma'an')"
 * --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Fadi Abu Mandil" - I'll check later.
 * It's so interesting to hear such claims about Arutz Sheva from Nishidani who with his 150 refs "Ma'an" (only here) what isn't better than Arutz Sheva. Any way, I've already asked you what Wiki decision supports your own opinion, but as I remember didn't receive any answer. Especially for you, I'll add a Walla source in Hebrew :) Yet question: are you going to exchange Maan's refs with official PNA ones?
 * About the rest your claims - see my arguments above. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, I can't imagine that Arutz Sheva's coverage could be any worse than Ma'an's, which has been shown to be quite shoddy and propagandistic at times. Take these incredible Ma'an columns in Arabic which blame Israel for the Itamar massacre and promote anti-Semitism or just publishing outright fabrications that are never vetted or corrected. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course you didn't note that,
 * ignorping the talk page, Igorp's edit restored a false datum, about Fadi Abu Mandil he himself had introduced, which he then admitted he hadn't checked ("Fadi Abu Mandil" - I'll check later.'). That is a blind revert, and reportable.
 * You didn't notice that in his blind revert he restored a totally garbled piece of English, which I had corrected.'A 37 year old Palestinian man was shot in the right leg by in the Abu Safiya area east of Beit Hanoun', cancelling my grammatical:' A 37 year old Palestinian man was shot in the right leg by Israeli forces in the Abu Safiya area east of Beit Hanoun.
 * You didn't notice that his edit asserting that the 'Cave of the Patriarchs' is, according to Igorp, known only to Ma'an News as the 'Ibrahimi mosque' when that term is the standard Arabic phrase for the site, and restricting its usage to the opinion of one news site is farcical.
 * You didn't note the farcical incongruency of challenging 'activist' sources, while citing for Ma'an's ostensible unreliability a dubious blogspot like Elder of Ziyon.
 * You didn't note that I am citing the English version of Ma'an News, and whatever controversies stirred up by a rare article (quickly removed, as was the racist/genocidal blog on The Times of Israel website recently, not impairing editors' use of that paper) in the Arabic version are immaterial to editing this page.
 * You didn't notice that the whole history of Arutz Sheva on RSN nowhere affirms that it is reliable for facts. If you have a problem with Ma'an as a source for facts, take it to that board.
 * You didn't notice that I did not dispute the asserted facts which are on Walla!, but their citation through a dubious source. I requested some homework, which neither did.
 * The only intelligent correction here is 'near' for 'in'. You approve of carelessness, if it supports your POV, in short. There is no logic here other than your instinctive tagteaming backing of an incompetent editor, presumably because you have a minor career as a reverter of my edits.
 * Nishidani (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * "ignorping the talk page" @ - I do not know what is the best definition for this post - either result of blind rage or simply an outright lie? So it is about traditional Nishidani's personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with his "only true POV".
 * One may easily check that I've returned an info about the Fadi Abu Mandil to "24.04" section just after my "I'll check" here. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "A 37 year old Palestinian man was shot in the right leg by in the Abu Safiya area east of Beit Hanoun after Israeli forces opened fire on fishermen and farmers across the Gaza Strip."
 * Thanks, not a totally garbled piece of English @, but 2 letters typo error :) is corrected.
 * Cave of the Patriarchs[41 ("Ibrahimi Mosque"[40]) ], etc. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll clarify. I never feel rage. You are an incompetent editor, incapable of simple judgements. I regard you just as a nuisance presence, unproductive, textually illiterate, unfamiliar with the topic, queasy about the content for pov reasons, and, above all, harbouring an obsession with my editing. If you want to waste your time, push on, niggle away, do your best. It isn't much, and I can cope with the noise factor. p.s.Now that you have Waalla! as a source, the crap tertiary report in the settler rag, Arutz Sheva, is not even justifiable. It will be removed, probably not by me. But I will consistently take out stupid attempts to push trash into the sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope a day will come when you, losing your some administrator' umbrella, will have to answer for your boorish personal attacks against all opponents who dare to disagree with your "only correct POV". In the meantime, I'd note that all your dirt, rather - a sign of powerlessness to resist the imposed facts and RS, and inability to cooperate constructively with opponents.
 * Unfortunately, not everyone has so much wiki-time, as you have, otherwise Wiki has already got rid of your not-NPOV a long ago.
 * Returning to the topic: have you any claims to A7's translation? --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Opinions about Arutz Sheva & Ma'an News

 * A7 is not reliable for facts, every discussion where neutral observers have commented, notes that. As to 'boorish personal attacks' please review your comments on this talk page, and note the sequence of silly remarks,smug insinuations and childish errors, requiring constant correction. Finally 'facts' are not 'imposed'. Facts are facts. You've added a couple of bytes to an article, consisting of reported facts that is 124,492 bytes long. I did the rest. I work, you quibble over trivia, and and even you have had to retract much of that trivia.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "124,492 bytes" of not-NPOV? No comments. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , can you pls prove this you revert: "unreliable source"? --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Arutz Sheva has been discussed any number of times ar RS/N. Among them here (Archive_50) and here (Archive_75). Each time the outside view has generally been that Arutz Sheva is not reliable. Please revert your revert.  nableezy  - 22:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's really discussed a lot. Even with such fantastic comparison :) in Archive_50 as
 * "if Arutz 7 is accepted as RS, for balance; it is obvious that Hamas-associated newssources also must be accepted, IMO. (Personally; I could do without both). Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)", or such opinion
 * "I've spent some time looking through it, and I believe its RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)"
 * The same spectrum of different POVs may be found in other such discussions, including such one (Archive_139) where you so defended Ma'an versus A7 :), BUT not your unambiguous "outside view has generally been that Arutz Sheva is not reliable". --Igorp_lj (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but Im looking at uninvolved editors, the majority of which agree that Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source. As far as Ma'an, that isnt really relevent, but Ill humor you. Compare the NYTimes treatment of the two: Arutz Sheva, a news organization that represents the view of Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Maan: Maan, an independent Palestinian news agency. Now, back to the point, Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source, full stop. It can maybe used for a view of the settlers, but thats it.  nableezy  - 16:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your links to the opinion of someone from the NYT just softened me. Do you really consider them as Supreme Judges in Wiki? :)
 * I am afraid that afflict you, but the "settlers", the right, the conservatives - is not a bad word, but people with the same rights as the left, Arabs, liberals, etc., including a right that their opinion and POV will be presented, even in Wiki. :)
 * Moreover, let's check what really wrote some ROBERT MACKEY in his thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/23 :
 * "Arutz Sheva, a news organization that represents the view of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, wrote last week:
 * "The riots at Bilin — and nearby Nilin — are billed by the left as non-violent but are, in fact, extremely violent. Since they began in 2005, the weekly riots have caused the death of a Border Guard policeman who lost his step and fell to his death while trying to catch rock-throwers, as well as causing an IDF soldier to lose his eye and another Border Guard policemen to suffer a serious eye injury."
 * So? In fact, R. Mackey confirms that A7 is RS, using its data in his article along with Amira Hass from "left-leaning Haaretz" & others. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Any tabloid that hosts and airs for its constituency's sense of panic paranoid trivia like Report: Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrated Obama Admin, or Op-Ed: Does The New York Times (and Haaretz) Have A Right To Exist?, or Op-Ed:  The Vatican is Always Against Israel (written by a journmalist retained by Arutz Sheva though mainstream newspapers dropped their connections with him when it was discovered he indulged in wholesale plagiarism), etc., is simply not acceptable as a source for facts. It is a well-poisoning tabloid. (Nishidani)


 * And, I repeat, your way of citing sources in a conversation makes conversation here impossible. A mere glance at the discursive mess visually apparent all over this page, resulting from your refusal to add reflect closing brackets after each of your comments, scares away even the best intentioned editors.Nishidani (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I remember it's not me who's placed it in this topic. Moreover, there are now empty refs in 'Next look' one as result of such edits.
 * At the moment I'd prefer to make a separate ==References== Ref-topic for all this Talk. But in this case, the same Ref-topic should be placed in Archive/s as well. May someone propose a better way? --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So, you don't like the stage they give some writers (Op-Eds) or the fact they reported what an Egyptian magazine wrote. Does that makes them unreliable? It makes then not NPOV which means the tone has to be balanced. This fact is undeniably true about Ma'an as well.
 * Give an example for a news report they have made which is false. And don't forget even reliable source fail sometimes like Haaretz make mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.91.193 (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Really, what is bad with the following op-ed publications ?:
 * Elad Benari. Report: Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Infiltrated Obama Admin] "Egyptian magazine claims that six Islamist activists who work with Obama are Muslim Brotherhood operatives."
 * Jack Engelhard. Op-Ed: Does The New York Times (and Haaretz) Have A Right To Exist? "Are there 50 righteous people on the staff of the New York Times? How about 10?"
 * Giulio Meotti. Op-Ed: The Vatican is Always Against Israel "The Vatican always sides with Israel’s enemies as it has throughout history. It learned nothing from the Holocaust."
 * Surely, they are more RS than this "Wild boars ruin planting season for Salfit farmers" and other such anti-Semitic libels from your Ma'an. --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To repeat. In sourcing facts we must use sources with a good, preferably mainstream, reputation for accuracy. Arutz Sheva has no such repute and is a fringe outlet representing a strong lobby, that of settlers in the West Bank. (2) If you think Ma'an report is anti-Semitic, you have serious problems reading a simple article. I won't be replying further on this, since obviously you are wasting editors time with frivolous remarks.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * See my reply to above (20:50, 22 May 2015) --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I dont actually care about their opeds, and I have no idea what "from the NUT" is supposed to mean. Ill try saying this in plain English, your own link from the NYTimes says a news organization that represents the view of Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Represents the view of Israeli settlers. It can be used for that. Mackey doesn't "confirm" anything, he says its a settler mouthpiece, which is what we are all saying. A7 can be used for the view of the settlers, not anything beyond that. Finally, I have no idea how you expect anybody to follow any of this conversation, can you please not copy paste comments and just respond at the end of the subsection? Thank you in advance.  nableezy  - 21:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * NYT. Is it clear now? :)
 * I have to repeat: the "settlers", the right, the conservatives - is not a bad word, but people with the same rights as the left, Arabs, liberals, etc., including a right that their opinion and POV will be presented, even in Wiki. :) That's all.
 * All attempts of censorship for some groups of leftists, settlers, or even cyclists :( me personally recall the most heinous pages in our history. What about you? --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody is censoring anything, as an attributed view of the settlers on some topic in which its relevant they are fine. As a reliable source for factual statements they are not. We dont treat all views the same, not all views are represented. Views are represented in proportion to how they appear in reliable sources. And Arutz Sheva isnt one.  nableezy  - 07:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a censorship, based on such false statements as "As a reliable source for factual statements they are not", "Arutz Sheva isnt one".
 * They aren't proved just by your own example. See my reply of 20:50, 22 May 2015 : Mackey "forgot to ask permit" from "Wiki's censors" and did regard & quote such A7's "factual statements" as
 * "The riots at Bilin — and nearby Nilin — are billed by the left as non-violent but are, in fact, extremely violent. Since they began in 2005, the weekly riots have caused the death of a Border Guard policeman who lost his step and fell to his death while trying to catch rock-throwers, as well as causing an IDF soldier to lose his eye and another Border Guard policemen to suffer a serious eye injury."
 * in the same manner as for Hass & others.
 * Again: I do not see any decision about A7 in RS/N, only different POVs. The same diff. POVs exist for "Ma'an News", for some reason regarded and defended by you as RS. Sorry, but it doesn't seem me as fair approach. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's because you're ignoring what uninvolved editors had to say about each. Stop restoring that source, at the very least it is clear there is no consensus for its inclusion.  nableezy  - 17:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Pls clarify whom do you call as uninvolved editors, and who from them agrees with you.
 * The same to you & Nishidani, stop POV-Pushing, reverting that source, it's obvious that there is no consensus for its exclusion.
 * --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Im sorry, but thats not how this works here. You revert one more time and Ill ask that a number of things happening on this page be reviewed by administrators.  nableezy  - 11:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And besides that, it makes 0 difference in the content of the article. Why even push this anyway?  nableezy  - 11:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry too, but you haven't answered on my question about uninvolved editors. What I do see here is only numerous force reverts from other side, for some reason not counted by you. :)
 * "thats not how this works here" - ok, what's your way to resolve this problem? I hope you know a way with normal tech discussion & not only with force or admin resource. :)
 * The same quiestion to with her similar "Rv. It does not work that way...". --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved means people who dont edit in this topic.  nableezy  - 16:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Copy of Nishidani's text from other Yet example (7 March) topic below
 * (by the way, I'd like to see there your opinion about so called "reverts" @Nishidani):
 * ":That technically is edit-warring, as is the repeated use of Arutz Sheva for weeks. As it stands a rough consensus of page editors is (User:IRISZOOM (here), User:Nishidani (here) and [User:Nableezy] (here) have indicated by reverting you that this is not acceptable. This has not been resolved on the talk page either.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)"
 * I'd note that User:IRISZOOM's opinion appeared only today at 04:17, 27 May 2015 as revert of my last such one and I am yet waiting for her reply to my question (14:00, 27 May 2015) above.
 * So till her appearing the were 2 POVs of User:Nishidani and User:Nableezy against my one + opinions of 95.86.91.193 (12:18, 22 May 2015) and (23:15, 29 April 2015) above. I hope he will approve it again.
 * Moreover, as I know RS is not a subject for mechanical voting and this is why I've asked Nableezy and IRISZOOM about a way to resolve this issue. BTW, can anyone explain why only erasing option has been used in this case, and not RS one? --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mostly because its already known to be crap source, not one that needs to be questioned. Can you please tell me why this matters? There's already a source there thats perfectly fine, you seem to just want to put in some settler propaganda source for no apparent reason. Whats the reason?  nableezy  - 23:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:BURDEN. Walla! is a WP:RS, Arutz Sheva is not. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As boorish as false
See "And the usual 'why' tag. The spokesperson said the boat had deviated from the ARA. for heaven's sake. Read the fucking entry next time" @Nishidani, 00:12, 27 May 2015

Let's check his claims: "A Gazan fisherman, Muhammad Ziad Bakr (26) was shot by Israeli forces off the coast of Beit Lahiya.('Gaza fisherman shot, injured by Israeli navy,' Ma'an News Agency 25 May 2015)" What's omitted by Nishidani even from his own Ma'an source:
 * My 'why' to the 1st Nishidani's "fucking entry" :) (15:20, 25 May 2015):
 * "An Israeli army spokeswoman said that a fishing vessel deviated from the designated fishing zone and after warning shots were fired, forces fired at the lower extremities of a fisherman."
 * "Israeli forces have repeatedly opened fire on Palestinian fisherman and farmers since the ceasefire agreement signed Aug. 26, 2014..."

"A Gazan fisherman, Muhammad Ziad Bakr (26) was shot by Israeli forces off the coast of Beit Lahiya. According to an Israeli spokesperson, confirming a 'direct hit', his boat had deviated from the area designated by Israel for fishing. "
 * in his 2nd "entry" Nisgidani's already added some info, for some reason retaining the 'why' tag (15:35, 25 May 2015), but as usual for his POV-pushing,
 * "forgetting" to add "after warning shots", mentioned even by Ma'an,
 * and wp:ORing "designated by Israel ".

So Nishidani may go with his claims to... a closest mirror, and I'll repair his pushing. A question only remains: how many such Nishidani's tricks remain yet in the article ? --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That Israel has restrictions on how far Palestinians in Gaza can fish is undisputed and often mentioned as it is part of the blockade. I have added some more sources on that now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not exactly: these restrictions ("6 nautical mile (11 km) fishing zone") are a part of August 2014 cease-fire agreement. --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It is true six nautical miles was agreed to in the truce (Israel has limited it to three before so of course the Palestinians will agree to six) but it does not change it is a restriction in the context of a blockade (they agreed to 20 two decades ago), as Reuters, UN OCHA and many others note, and as FT writes: "Under the ceasefire agreed on Tuesday, Israel undertook to relax fishing limits". --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet example (7 March)
"Israeli naval forces shot dead a Palestinian fisherman, Tawfiq Abu Riyala, arrested two others and confiscated two boats, after four vessels were said to have deviated from the Israeli demarcation line in waters off Gaza City.('Gaza fisherman dies after Israeli forces fire on boats,' Ma'an News Agency 7 March 2015.)" What's omitted by Nishidani even from his own Ma'an source: Warning shots were fired towards the engines of the vessels, and two hits were confirmed. Two of the vessels were detained by Israeli forces, the other two turning back. The spokeswoman added that every deviation by fishing boats from the fishing zone is perceived by Israeli forces as a security threat, citing an incident last month in which a vessel was caught outside of the fishing zone with arms intended for Hamas. And the same question: how many such tricks are hidden in Nishidani's edits? IMHO, this is simple POV-pushing & wp:DIS. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a good edit actually, and will be conserved. It was 3 months ago since that edit, so I can't recall. Normally I stick to the bare facts. Most of these spokesmen reports are formulaic, and I read past them ('We are looking into the matter' etc). You're correct that the information on the gun-running boat background should have been added. People who accuse me of manipulating sources tend to forget that on a page multiply-source with over 200 incidents, requiring the reading of several sources for each item (many of which I don't cite), oversights, negligence, and general errors are inevitable statistically. It's a bit like watching a donkey stumble under a heavy burden, and hitting it on the nose for lack of steadiness (an allusion to a famous poem). All useful editors, when checking a new edit and its sources, do the obvious thing: if something is left out they consider important, they add it in. This happens with me, and others everyday. It is not standard practice to check, spot something unsatisfactory, and wage war pushing a theory that the unsatisfactory edit was deliberate, as you have been doing for months.


 * I'm mulling whether I should report you however for the persistent snide way you keep saying I am engaged in trickery (WP:AGF) (b) you keep breaking the 1RR rule (c) You keep introducing by reverts Arutz Sheva when at least 3 editors, against one, say it is not, per RSN, reliable for facts.


 * The reverts are
 * (1) 23:30, 26 May 2015‎
 * (2)23:36, 26 May 2015‎
 * (3)15:53, 27 May 2015 Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That technically is edit-warring, as is the repeated use of Arutz Sheva for weeks. As it stands a rough consensus of page editors is (User:IRISZOOM (here), User:Nishidani (here) and [User:Nableezy] (here) have indicated by reverting you that this is not acceptable. This has not been resolved on the talk page either.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Igorp. I'll give you a day, but common courtesy would suggest you should reply, when the issue is serious.Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm, "25 May 2015" was before 3 months too ? :)
 * After all your personal attacks and other dirt in my address, it's too late for you to tell me about WP:AGF. May be, after formal apology...
 * "The reverts are" @Nishidan - ?!
 * (carefully) Are you ok? What reverts or 1RR rule?
 * The 1st (23:30, 26 May 2015‎) and 3rd (15:53, 27 May 2015 Nishidani) are corrections of your sad omitting, mentioned above.
 * And only 2nd (23:36, 26 May 2015) is about A7 and it's been made after 15:30, 25 May 2015‎ (Undid revision 663689038 by Nishidani - talk: "there is no consensus for its exclusion") such one)
 * By the way, plz move all what you've wrote here about A7 to an appropriate topic above: Opinions about Arutz Sheva & Ma'an News
 * Thanks in advance, --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless you can provide a coherent reply, I'll have to refer this to the edit-warring page. I'll give you, as I said, a day. Explaining what your reverts were doing sidesteps the facts that the sum of the reverts broke a rule. Can you understand that?Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Here you may find a copy of your "A7 text" as well as my reply about this subject.
 * "Can you understand that?" No, but you may try to explain your POV more clearly.
 * Simply interesting to know: do you feel any responsiblity (as min) for those 2 cases described in this topic? --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can't understand that 1RR rule, as you now say, then I'll get an admin to clarify for you at the appropriate edit-warring board.Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

factual accuracy/single source tags
The only outside editor who has reviewed the single source assertion has denied its appropriateness. So far there has been no effort to document the factual accuracy claim. Please list them here shortly, otherwise I will be removing both.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not only "outside editor" & not only "the single source". All this Talk proves your factual inaccuracy, selected POV-pushing quoting, etc.  --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maan isnt a "single source", each article is its own source. That is unequivocally a misuse of the template. I'm removing it.  nableezy  - 21:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Igorp, try to write comprehensible sentences, and be impersonal (your factual accuracy). I wrote the page, and it has cited 270 odd sources. Cite examples of misreportage and if verified, they will be fixed, obviously. Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The 'only outside editor" didn't reply after his list was revised to show about 2/3rd of sources are Ma'an.
 * Ma'an blaming all sorts of attacks on settlers, sometimes from a specific settlement is clearly unchecked and thus unreliable.
 * why open a new discussion and not continue on those still active?95.86.114.125 (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The revised list showed unequivocally that the article does not rely on a single source. Why would I bother pointing out the obvious when clearly there are other forces at work here—forces which want the article tagged regardless of merit. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq, the tag read "This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source". 2/3rd isn't 'largely'? what is?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.114.125 (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Each Ma'an article is a source. There are well over 200 sources. This should be relatively simple to understand.  nableezy  - 11:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Another point. The objections on overreliance on Ma'an is a natural consequence of WP:Systemic bias. It's widely admitted that Israeli newspapers, our main source, underreport the territories: I,.e.
 * "Loushy asks Oz how he views the modern Israeli reality in relation to “The Seventh Day.” “I see more apathy in today’s society, more lack of sensitivity. What happens in the territories sometimes crosses a red line, constituting a war crime, but it’s [viewed as happening] there and not here. There is some mechanism of repression and disengagement at play. Many people don’t read news items relating to the occupation when they come across them. Thus, the media doesn’t adequately cover what happens there. Every day, every hour, Palestinians suffer humiliation, harassment at checkpoints, in their villages – the settlers’ sewage flows downhill into Arab villages.” Amos Oz, cited Gili Izikovich The ‘seventh day’: Censored voices from the 1967 war Haaretz 7 June, 2015"
 * Naturally, the Palestinian press will report more of their side of the story. It's as simple as that.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Timeline incidents
Could someone explain the importance and relevance of chronicling traffic accidents to the topic of 'the Israeli–Palestinian conflict'? especially in light of Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOTNEWS? Brad Dyer (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there's no need to explain. 'Traffic accidents' are not included on principle. When Palestinian cars hit settlers, or Israeli settler cars hit Palestinians, these are usually regarded in sources as possible aspects of the conflict, one side tending to see the other's behavior as intimidation or terror. All incidents where a Palestinian car hits an Israeli are automatically reported as a possible or probable 'terror attack0'. All-hit-and-run incidents where settlers run down Palestinians and almost invariably do not stop, are reported in Palestinian media as possibly attempts on lives or intimidation. If a follow up report determines to both sides satisfaction that it was an accident, it is removed. WP:NOTNEWS is not relevant to a list of incidents, 98% of which, Israeli or Palestinian, have no news reverberation.Nishidani (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your claim that 'All incidents where a Palestinian car hits an Israeli are automatically reported as a possible or probable 'terror attack'. Certainly some are, and those can be reported here. But not all are. But if we apply the same standards to Palestinian reporting - looking at your source for the most recent accident you added - - could you point out where exactly in that 4 sentence news item is it reported as 'possibly attempts on lives or intimidation'?
 * Your final sentence is actually quite an interesting none. If 98% of the incidents you chronicle here 'have no news reverberation' - what exactly is the point of this article, and what is its encyclopedic value? Brad Dyer (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's of news value to one party to the dispute. That you find this boring and unnewsworthy is your problem. If you think that what is newsworthy only regards the I of the I/P binome, read all the rocket attacks on Israel multiple articles, nearly all of which relate to mortars falling on agricultural terrain, with near zero casualties. That's newsworthy since it violates the Geneva Convention, as do the incidents reported here. Nishidani (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll ask you for the second time: looking at your source for the most recent accident you added - - could you point out where exactly in that 4 sentence news item is it reported as 'possibly attempts on lives or intimidation'? Brad Dyer (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop wasting my time. You are making an inference from a talk page statement and an edit. The edit says nothing more than what the source says. I transcribe sources on the conflict. A Palestinian was hit by a settler's car, which then drove off. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll ask you for the third time, and if you do not provide an explanation ,i will be removing this bit of trivia from the article: looking at your source for the most recent accident you added - - could you point out where exactly in that 4 sentence news item is it reported as 'possibly attempts on lives or intimidation'? Hit and run accident are not normally considered part of any conflict, and your source does not say otherwise. Brad Dyer (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are repeating a question adequately answered. It is very frequent, and is almost never reported or considered worthy of investigation by the occupation authorities who, to repeat, open investigations whenever similar incidents affect Israeli settlers, to determine whether it was deliberate or not. Examine your own premises. You change this 'incident' (neutral) into accident. 'Hit and run accident are not normally considered part of any conflict.' You are assured of the truth: I report what happens, and leave it at that. I have no idea whether it was deliberate or not. That is no grounds therefore for exclusion, which implies irrelevance. If you remove it, I will restore it.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note also that I don't use IMEMC which is far more consistent in reporting these incidents, often interpreting them as deliberate acts.2,5, 4, 6, 7, just recent instances of what is reported as hundreds of "hit and run" incidents that largely went uninvestigated by the Israeli authorities, in different parts of the occupied West Bank, even though many of those incidents have led to fatalities. There is no problem in adding these, and it is quite obvious that such repeated incidents, which fail to be followed up by the occupation authorities, unless the victim is an Israeli, form part of the conflictual incidents listed on this page. I have been quite restrictive on this so far.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There was even, apparently, an ad run for Subarus in Jerusalem praising their capacity to send Palestinian children flying. You can see it, I now note, on an otherwise utterly unreliable website, but the details are available here. Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on falling for and graduating to promoting hoaxes. See http://www.jpost.com/International/Subaru-We-have-no-link-to-ad-showing-kids-hit-by-car. Back to our point:  I have thrice asked you to explain why you added that incident, and you have dodged each time. We both know why: that 4 sentence news item does not claim this hit-and-run is anything but a traffic accident. YOU, a Wikipedia editor,  are performing speculative original research, based on the fact that OTHER incidents were reported (primarily by non-reliable sources) as malicious attacks, and claiming  this one must therefore be as similar case. That's not how this encyclopedia is edited. Brad Dyer (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you ever edited this encyùclopedia under another name? It's a small thing, but there's something in the aboved strongly reminiscent of a banned editor.
 * What you refer to as a 'hoax' with a link, is not described as a hoax in the Jerusalem Post.
 * 'However, the PA, although not revealing where it had obtained the advertisement, also acknowledged that it is not clear whether the ad is genuine or whether someone not connected to the company has made use of the Subaru logo without its approval.'
 * So, again, that's your construction. As in many things, I have no opinion beyond what sources tell me. There is no WP:OR in my edit, and your suspicion there is is pure fantasy. If you check the page, numerous examples of incidents of Palestinians and Israelis being hit by the others' cars are listed, and on that precedent I added this. No issue, unless sources state reasons, is made. So of course (I assume this is step one in an attempt to get a revert war going) I will restore the material, because it is not a singeleton, but the last of many such incidents which no prior editor has raised protests over.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Subaru denies any involvement or knowledge of this, Jpost could not find this "ad" in any mainstream publication, and the PA refuses to say where it got it. That leaves us with two possibilities: (a) Some individual made this bad taste image and posted it somewhere on the intent, or the PA created this, as a smear campaign. . In either case, the claim (which you made) that 'an ad run for Subarus in Jerusalem praising their capacity to send Palestinian children flying.' is a pure fabrication - never happened. It tells us what we should think of (a) your sources (which you conceded are an 'utterly unreliable website') (b) your reading comprehension and (c) the nature of your POV editing.


 * This article is about 'the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015' -if your source does not connect an incident seems like a run of the mill traffic accident to the conflict, then it is OR for you to do so.. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This article was entitled 'Incidents of violence in the I/P conflict' and was unilaterally changed to its present header without consensus. As the lead shows, it covers all incidents of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. No source in any list mentions the title of the list. Since you are convinced of my bad faith, like the other chap, nothing more I can say will change your attitude. Seek a board where this can be discussed objectively before a quorum of disinterested editors.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't connect this incident to the conflict, it doesn't even hint it might be connected. All the justifications brought here are so obviously either OR or SYNTH or both (it's against the Geneva Conventions, apparently), it's not even worth arguing over. I suggest reverting this once and if he puts it back in the article, taking it to one of the boards.
 * As for the hoax - what did you expect? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Which board do you suggest is appropriate for this? Brad Dyer (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, that suggestion was kind of reflexive. I doubt that a the current advanced state of decay here anyone really cares about this sort of stuff. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:AE. Nishidani's behavior here is absurd. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only absurd: a waste of time. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Amira Hass' information
It does not explain why you justified the removal of the source. So explain yourself.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * your edit summary describes what you did


 * Pls explain exactly what RS data is in Amira Hass ' article regarding to the following incidents:
 * "Izz al-Din Walid Bani Gharra (21) was killed by an Israeli Border Policem during a raid on the Jenin Refugee Camp in a search-and-arrest operation and shot him in the chest. The incident occurred as the troops were withdrawing. According to Israeli reports he was shot dead while he was trying to throw an improvised explosive device. (Amira Hass )"
 * "Abdullah Iyad Ghanayim (22), according to Palestinian sources, was hit by an Israeli military jeep after he had been shot in the back during clashes at the village of Kafr Malik. The jeep is said to have been in pursuit of him for stone-throwing when it spun out of control and flipped to land on top of him, severing his leg. Amira Hass says he was run over by the jeep. Witnesses variously reported that he was left under the jeep for over an hour, or three hours, until the body was finally retrieved by Palestinians after a struggle. In the official Israeli account, a suspicious man tried to throw a Molotov cocktail at soldiers, the vehicle swerved and hit Ghanayim on the roadside. The incident was deemed to be an accident."
 * "Danny Gonen (25), a resident from Lod in Israel, was shot dead by a Palestinian gunman, using a 9mm handgun, after they stopped when the Palestinian waved down their car on a dirt road near the West Bank settlement of Dolev. His companion was wounded in the hand. The two had been bathing in the spring of Ein Bubin while on a hiking tour in the West Bank. Hamas, while not claiming responsibility, hailed the attack as 'excellent'. A group, the 'Marwan Kawasme and Amar Abu Isa cell', claiming affiliation to Hamas's military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, assumed responsibility for the operation. (+ addition of --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC))"


 * And this is what A. Hass only mentioned in her article about these incidents:
 * "One final note: Reports about the murder of Lod resident, Danny Gonen, at the Ein Bubin spring near the village of Dir Ibzi’a (her mention only - --Igorp_lj (talk)) were accompanied by links to recent previous attacks: the people wounded in a vehicular terror attack near Alon Shvut settlement, the border policeman who was stabbed near the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. And what was not mentioned? Of course, two young Palestinians killed recently by IDF soldiers: Izz al-Din Gharra, 21 , who was shot to death on June 10 in the Jenin refugee camp, and Abdullah Ghneimat, 22, who was run over on June 14 in Kafr Malik by an IDF jeep."
 * Let's check her claims:
 * Izz al-Din Gharra, 21 has been mentioned by Ynet ,
 * as well as Abdullah Ghneimat, but "hasn't found" any other Israeli source than Hass' one. :)
 * What I can see in A. Hass' article are the absent of any factual accuracy and her hate to IDF and to Israeli soldiers. That's all.
 * So I do not see why her current lies should be added to the article. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That is all irrelevant. The single point you miss is that

By expunging Amira Hass as a source, Ein Bubin stands there unsourced, since the other articles do not mention it, and the deception is created that they do.


 * Since her article also refers to other incidents, I added a link to it for those two incidents. She is talking of media bias, and you have no right as an editor to challenge her right to speak of that. So you made two errors: (a)expunging an RS with new information and (b)making a personal guess that she is wrong. So your personal judgements are beside the point.Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's relevant for us to use RS, not propaganda ones. You may be surprised :), but the same Haaretz (as well as a lot of other sources) have mentiioned Ein Bubin (Buvin) yet at 19.06 . So why do you so insist on not factual A.Hass' one?
 * "... or specifies that the victims bathed there. I noted Amira Hass referred to this",.. "the victims bathed there" (@Nishidani) - ?
 * Again not correct . Even A. Hass hasn't referred "to this".
 * So I hope you personally do not mean for "killing because of bathing". Isn't it?
 * "She is talking of media bias" - no, she is lying about it. See examples above.. --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've said all along that, excluding stupidity, you don't know how to edit (2) you don't read the sources and (3)if you do, you misread them (4) you do not understand what another editor is saying when he replies to your queries which are usually (5) garbled by disordered presentation and incomprehensibly weird logic. This is the last time I will respond to you.
 * The Gonen case had four sources, after you removed Hass. I added her because she named a spring mentioned in other articles (4) used to write the entry.
 * The spring is nott in Ynet (1)  source 1
 * Ma’an (1) refers to ‘appearing to want to ask about a nearby spring.’ source 2.
 * The spring is not mentioned in in Ma’an (2)source 3
 * In Ynet (2), which is the fourth source, we read:'An initial investigation of the attack showed that around 4 pm on Friday, Gonen and his friend finished swimming in a spring located in a mountainous area between the settlement of Dolev and the Palestinian village of Dayr Ibzi.'
 * I added Amira Hass because, reading it, I found she named the spring. There is nothing devious in that, nothing sinister, completely normal, except to you. I'lòlk revert her back because your behavior here is vexatious and informed by a total and consistent incapacity to understand even the ABC of editing. It has all of the appearance of vexatious attempts to waste editors' time. Goodbye.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, let's recap: you have not presented any justification for using the Hass' article. What one may find here are only another your personal attack, as boorish as false. And this is from a man who even can't take responsibility :( for such his own words, as ...
 * "of all the sources cited, none cites the name of the spring, Ein Bubin, or specifies that the victims bathed there. I noted Amira Hass referred to this, and therefore her article had new information, which I included. (Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2015)
 * Now one can see that "bathed" was mentioned not by Hass, but in another, Ynet, source (I add these (3,4) RS and info to the quote above to let somebody understand what's talking about here).
 * So I'm going to add another Haaretz's sourse instead of Hass' one, hoping do not waste more time for such nonsense.
 * A little advice only: you may try to start next discussion not from personal attacks on opponents, but from technical arguments.
 * And pls keep also in mind that all a dirt what you have used to throw out the opponents who disagree with your POV, can be charged at any time in your address. Shalom. --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Reread the above. Since evidently you can't construe properly what sources say, or what I say in English, talking to you is pointless. I will only document the repeated misprisions you make. Eventually this obsessive suspicion about simple edits will have to receive administrative attention. I already let you off after you broke 3RR, but anything here on of theNishidani (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC) same disorder will be noted for possible administrative action.

according to chainsaws? ):)
(not paying attention to a next personal attack) Pls either return the tag or attribute a source of what you're trying to present as a fact : --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nishidani: (Removed attribution request made by editor failing to read the source.'had been cut down using chainsaws.' (2) link)
 * Israeli settlers chainsawed over 70 olive trees between Yasuf and Jamma'in near the close to the Israeli settlement of Ariel and the Zaatara checkpoint.


 * Text.'Israeli settlers chopped down more than 70 olive trees between the towns of Yasuf and Jammain in the northern West Bank districts of Salfit and Nablus on Monday.Palestinian farmers said the trees, which lay close to the illegal Israeli settlements of Ariel and Taffuh, had been cut down using chainsaws.Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think someone had better look into this behavior. It is incomprehensible and disruptive.Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's look into behavior of Nishidani, who refuses to add to the article such attribution as "Palestinian farmers said" what is already exists in his own source. IMHO, it's clear wp:DISRUPT --Igorp_lj (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)