User:HG1/archive2008 1

Q:Retaining Talk and History after an AfD deletion
If content from an article is being retained, we need to retain the history of that content in order to comply with the GFDL. If the article is being split into two new articles, I'd suggest keeping the existing talk page where it is, but link to it from the talk pages of the new articles (to provide an historical record of previous discussions). You should also not delete the old article but replace it with a dab, so that the old article's editing history - and therefore the history of the content that's gone into the new article(s) - is retained. That would satisfy the GDFL requirements. Hope that helps! -- ChrisO (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability
Chaim Rapoport, Joel B. Wolowelsky are both published, prominent left-wing Orthodox rabbis, who are innovators in the field of Orthodox Jewish thought. Each has published two or more books. While it's true that Wikipedia doesn't have pages for far more notable figures in Reform Judaism, I don't understand why an Encyclopedia which has room for bit actors on Star Trek doesn't have room for conteporary rabbis.

Are you looking for "proof" of notability? I would argue that at this point, the Jewish community's media is so ineffective that you can't rely on them to point out what's notable, any more than you can rely on the mass media to indicate which parts of Klingon culture are notable. There is a reason that the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Judaica were definitive statements on many topics.

I write as someone who relies on Wikipedia and has accordingly begun writing articles where Wikipedia is lacking -- but who has enough other commitments that I'm not going to be an insider or editor.

Yudel (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Yudel, thanks for your note. Not sure if one would call it proof, but we do need some reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Or, we need to verify whatever statements in the article that do establish their significance. Rabbi Wolowelsky does have the advantage of having published often, but that in itself isn't usually considered significant. The key indicator tends to be published work (esp. in the press or scholarly literature) about the author (i.e., biographical) or at least their writings/activities. (Personally, I'm sympathetic to your comparative point about bit actors, but so it goes....)


 * You mention the JE and EJ. The 2007 EJ does not list either person. Some left-wing innovators (your description) are at least mentioned in EJ, e.g. Saul Berman. I would guess that at least R. Wolowelsky seems plausibly notable, but it would help to have 2ry sources about him. thanks again for your note. HG | Talk 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Alas, the world of contemporary Jewish thought -- unlike, say, the world of MMORPGs -- is all but devoid of secondary periodical literature. (Yes, this is a particular pet peeve.) Does that mean contemporary Jewish thought isn't notable?

Demanding secondary references puts Wikipedia in a parasitic position. When someone publishes a book on Modern Orthodoxy 1980-2020, should someone go back and add entries for all the thinkers under discussion? I think it would be more helpful to have stub articles in place (yes, with appropriate sourcing) so that when there is a secondary reference to a thinker as "ground-breaking" or "shockingly derivative," a Wikipedia editor will have some place to put it. Yudel (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See also WP:BIO. The MO world does offer awards, honors and leadership positions (e.g., top echelon at YU), and there are probably untapped 2ry sources. Meanwhile, it's wouldn't be good for Wikipedia to put in stubs for everybody who might become notable. Meanwhile, whether Avi Weiss is "shockingly derivative" (love that!) or merely groundbreaking, he does get noticed in the press. Maybe you should search the Forward (etc) for references to R. Wolowelsky.... Kol tuv, HG | Talk 13:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

New arbcom proceeding
Hi HG. Have you seen the notice below? There is a new ArbCom proceeding! it has been posted at several user talk pages. let me know what you think. it does not relate to any one specific article, apprarently. I already posted a reply there. thanks.

== Requests for arbitration ==

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards,  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC) end of message. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * hi. hope you like my general comments on the process itself so far. feel free to write to me anyt time with thoughts or comments. what do you think of things so far? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't be sure, Steve, but the ArbCom members may have enough input already to make a decision on whether to take the case. So what's our role now? I think it is in our interest to keep things as calm as possible, limit the drama. To do this, our best course of action is to not agitate the waters, don't spill a lot of ink over it, don't create lots of side conversations, because any extraneous chatter can add to the drama, esp for folks who tend to get pulled in that direction. So, we need to be models of restraint, to demonstrate patience and measured disinterest. Off-line, I suppose we could try to think of some creative steps that ArbCom might adopt. Meanwhile, let's turn our minds to other directions. For instance, how might you follow up your success with Category:Jewish political status? What gaps might be filled in? Have you thought about improving Jewish Emancipation? (It doesn't even mention Wissenschaft des Judentums.) Perhaps we could ratchet such an article up a class? Best regards, HG | Talk 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. i appreciate all your valuable input and ideas. I also appreciate you giving some ideas on a possible role, as many people here, including me, have an extremely high opinion of your approach to editing and how one stays fair and balanced. however, i never claimed at to be neutral or to be necessarily a mediating figure. So I don't feel any great need to practice restraint or brevity, other than how one normally would based on common sense, in the way you suggest.


 * Re that category, i haven't really thought about it at all since then. i may think about it from time to time, should the need arise, but right now I don't have any plans to do so. thanks very much for your helpful input anyway. thanks. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
A case has opened in the WP:Mediation Cabal and a user has listed you as an involved party, related to edits/comments at Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The case is located at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-09 Israeli-Palestinian conflict‎, please feel free to comment on the article talk page. Thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * PS. I felt like it was time to open a mediation case, since in spite of all the contention, dissent and new proceedings curently going on, as well as edit-protections on several entries, there are actually very few active mediation efforts for any articles right now. so this is a step in hopefully a right direction. by the way, did you know that a single MedCab case can cover a few articles at once? so this seems like possibly an appropriate way to go. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

brief note.
Hahahahaha. please have that editor brought before the tribunal. :-) see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at Arbcomm
Hi HG. I'm a little offended by your comment at the Arbcomm. First off, we have a pretty decent editing relationship and I'm surprised that you filed a 3RR report, mentioning my name without even informing me. Second of all, you will notice that you cite me making exactly one revert and yet you conclude from this one revert that I am "tag-team edit-warring". I think that's a rather unfair conclusion to make and it assumes bad faith. Arab citizens of Israel is on my watchlist and it's an article to which I have made a significant number of edits. When editors refuse to respond to talk comments and go ahead and add text that is WP:UNDUE anyway, I think it's my right to remove it. You should know that I did make two reverts, but you ignore these comments I made on the talk page this one in September explaining why the material Zeq was inserting was WP:UNDUEand this one after I reverted his edit repeating what the problem was the text. I don't consider this evidence of my being a "combative editor". I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge the talk comments I made and the fact that Zeq chose not to respond to them and insert the text anyway (which you will also note has since been removed, since it is WP:UNDUE.)  T i a m u t  13:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi HG. My problem is not so much your characterization of the edits are as "edit-warring", since they could be considered as such (some people consider more than one revert edit-warring). It's more the idea that I was "tag-team" edit-warring, which implies a level of collusion between RolandR and I that is not substantiated by the diffs or any other evidence. I think if you review my response at the Arbcomm page, you might better understand why I feel that description is both inaccurate and unfair.
 * On a personal note, I'm still really rather shocked that you (of all people) would file a 3RR report for those events (when neither I, nor anyone else violated 3RR) and not inform me. You have in the past refused to help me seek sanctions against other editors, saying your focus is more on conflict resolution over content, rather than focusing on behavioural sanctions. So I'm going to ask again (nicely), since you didn't answer me the first time: what was so offensive about my behaviour that you abandoned that personal principle, filed a 3RR report, didn't notify me, and then went to post about it at Arbcomm?  T i a m u t  18:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Greetings again. Well, your point about collusion is interesting. I'm not sure "tag team" implies collusion, e.g., behind the scenes planning. Oh, would it be better for me to explain this at the ArbCom? Regarding our personal relations: About 9hrs after your last comment in a section entitled reverts, I did inform everyone on the article Talk page. Last October, I didn't think I was abandoning my principles. Last October, I saw an increasing level of unhelpful dispute-by-reverting. To try to move things back to substantive discussion, I tried some 3RR and page protection requests at Jenin, Arab citizens, AoIA, etc. I think my requests had some positive effects. Indeed, I'd be inclined to do this kind of thing more often, except that I found it time-consuming and unpleasant. As you say, I far prefer resolution than sanctions; nevertheless, I support misconduct sanctions (and pretty much all WP policies) and simply have felt that I'd rather others take the lead in their implementation. Anyway, I'm sorry that my 3RR request last October offended you. I hope this is responsive and thanks for raising this with me. HG | Talk 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi HG. I'm sorry I missed that comment by you on the talk page. I checked my contribs to see what happened there, and it looks like I was away between October 19 and November 3 (my last edit being eight hours before your notice on the talk page. I guess I didn't see your message there or anywhere else. I shouldn't have been bitching about that in the first place. So please forgive me. I agree fully with your statements about the unhelpful dispute by reverting dynamic. Indeed, my own break from editing right at the time was a way of pulling back from the back-and-forth to get some perspective. Thanks for acknowledging that I might have been offended by the 3RR report. You have been, as usual, very responsive.  T i a m u t  01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Splendid, sounds like we're back on track. Thanks. Regards, HG | Talk 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Feasibility
Your subheading certainly describes the comments of Shirahadasha and others. Wouldyou like me to change the heading of the whole section to follow your wording? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment on my page is helpful and I appreciate it. I also note that you changed your section to a subsection, which makes sense.  i just want to factor this section (everything below the call for a vote) in a way that encourages dialogue - so that people read recent comments, not just those in the bottom-most section, and we have a meaningful discussion.  Do you have more ideas about how better to accomplish this? Maybe there is a way to refactor the comments into numbered sections focusing on different issues/questions? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks! I wonder whether you have any suggestions about how to refactor/number comments above by Mperel, Shirahadasha, and Jayrav.  Again, the point would be to facilitate discussion and an exchange of views.  Can you see a better way to organize the material (JMperel commented directly in that section, but I copied earlier remarks by Shirahadasha and Jayrav and pasted them here because they seemed relevant, maybe I could have done a better job ... Slrubenstein   |  Talk  —Preceding comment was added at 22:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks!! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

thoughts at arbcom page
it is extremely great to see your input at the ArbCom case. i have now laid out some ideas on how this can proceed, all of which is in line with most of what i;'ve previously expressed. I laid it out with the hope of providing a genuinely helpful way forward. your thoguths and insight would be extremely welcome. please feel; free to comment, whether there, or at my talk page, or anywhere else. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (from ArbCom) Good point. From that standpoint, we should focus on halting the insinuations, etc., and we should assume the good faith of combative editors. Still, I suppose that, by virtue of editing WP, all editors are implicitly agreeing to abide by the COI guidelines. Might it be helpful for a principle to specify the COI expectations as it applies to this case? HG | Talk 19:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User:HG - I think that's an excellent idea. We're locked into Common Law ways of thinking, an "impartial judge" and parties putting evidence/arguments to them. That may not be the best way. There could be real advantages in having a more inquisatorial system (Roman Law), with our lords and masters demanding answers to questions. (It appears we've abandoned this Anglo-model anyway, since ArbCom members can and do reject having people as parties on particular cases).
 * I think we should know if there are people editing with what could be gaping Conflict of Interest. It strikes me as quite improper not to know where people might be coming from.
 * For myself, I have zero CoI in the I-P conflict. I was strongly pro-Israel in school in 1967. Later, I twice tried to get on a sponsored trip to Israel as a result of neighbours who painted living on a kibbutz in horrendous terms (?!) but was rejected each time. However, I've also spent some time in a Muslim society (I don't particularly care for it). As a member of a minority myself, I'm fundamentally sympathetic to both "sides". PRtalk 19:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship discussion at ArbCom
Seen here:
 * Proposed. To the best of my knowledge, this remedy would apply to PR (currently subject to required mentoring) and to Jaakobou (pursuant to the last clause). I believe that part of the problem with PR's mentoring experience is due to the lack of clearly-articulated parameters from the community. With more clarity from ArbCom, perhaps Required Mentoring will be a viable remedy. Suggestions and friendly amendments welcome. Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I declare a CoI in this discussion - but I can tell you my mentoring worked extremely well until it was cynically sabotaged. eg Meanwhile, I'd hoped that Jaakobou's new mentor would act as a conduit for communications with him, but I'm not sure it's working. PRtalk 20:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Working Group, your ArbCom suggestion

 * You said here-> To enable ArbCom to evaluate the disputed topic area, ArbCom endorses the development of better mechanisms to monitor and measure disputes in articles covered by this arbitration.
 * Draft idea (1a). ArbCom asks uninvolved parties to set up a working group to observe user conduct related to the articles covered by this arbitration. This working group will exercise no new authorities. This working group may promote dispute resolution or recommend remedies through existing channels. The working group is asked to report its observations to ArbCom periodically. ArbCom will aim to provide an ArbCom member as a liaison or member of the working group.
 * Draft idea (1b). ArbCom endorses the development of a page (in Wikipedia mainspace) that tracks and tabulates data on the level, intensity, and character of disputes covered by this arbitration. For instance, this tracking page might identify articles by protection level, dispute resolution efforts, 3RRs and blocks, revert levels, etc. The page may be dynamically generated, in part, while allowing input by observers.
 * While your thinking is excellent, I fear you are opening the door for outside funding of (effectively) policy-making bodies. I can't see this working from volunteers - and I see no need for it.
 * Only if, for instance, regular, named academics with no known strong opinions in this area could be recruited would such a board work. And I cannot see that happening - especially with the number of poisonous accusations coming, I'm afraid to say it, overwhelmingly from pro-Israeli sources.
 * I'm not saying anything at the ArbCom Working page, but I really think you should float this dangerous idea somewhere much more prominent. PRtalk 10:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gee, I'll take the compliment about my thinking. My proposal doesn't refer to outsiders, only work by admins/users who aren't engaged in the quotidian POV battles within the topic area. Thanks, PR. Take care, HG | Talk 19:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message
I replied on my talk page. Do you also check your mail? I sent some to you yesterday. It's not urgent; I just don't want it to get lost in cyberspace. &mdash; Sebastian 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Idea for Talmud articles
Hi HG: I am reposting the following request from User on my user talk page for wider notification: Centralized discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Izak. Saw it; liked your category; hope it leads to new articles. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 13:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion and Abortion
Let's do take it to the talk page. My main concern in this section is unconscious editorializing.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Battleground statistics
You ask that I show how BLP, libel and abuse issues have been addressed through "Noticeboards and the like". This is difficult, as in many of the articles I added, the attacks were made by one-off accounts, which were blocked immediately, and the abuse was self-evident, so there was no need to refer this to any form of intervention. I will remove the comments for now, but would appreciate guidance on how rto address these concerns, since this affects a great many pages; I plan to add several more. RolandR (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could provide an example/diff of a block for a self-evident case? Otherwise, maybe you could raise the question (how to document, how to raise these concerns) on the page's Talk? thanks. HG | Talk 15:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

contact
That is a pity I forgot to add an email adress... This is now done. Regards, Alithien (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

new community idea
good to see you. thanks for your comments. by the way, I just created the following page. WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Community lounge‎ feel free to comment anytime of course. I will keep you posted. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I fell down our (stone) stairs this morning and landed on my elbow. My arm is in a sling and it's very painful right now, but I'm hoping it's just bruised nerve.  T i a m u t talk 13:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know somebody who had a minor fraction in the elbow. Did you get an x-ray? Amateurly yours, HG | Talk 13:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No Xray yet. I hate hospitals. Prefer to wait and see if the pain goes away, keeping it in a sling for now so it doesn't get worse (in case it is fractured). Thanks for caring though.  T i a m u t talk 14:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * wow. I hope you feel better. I really suggest you get it x-rayed though. the best way to avoid a hospital is by dealing with it fully now, in my humble opinion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I-P collaboration discussions
Hi. Just posted at the I-P collaboration poage. below is a copy of my comment. feel free to reply here or there, if you wish. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Steve, thanks. Unless it's crucial, you generally don't need to msg me when you post on a Talk page where I am already involved. Thanks. Have a good day! HG | Talk 15:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Institutional bias
Can I ask you to consider 'hosting' a page demonstrating apparent "institutional bias" in articles? And/or lending your support and advice to me doing it?

As an example of what happens, I would like people to compare the treatment we give Ayaan Hirsi Ali with what we give Israel Shahak. These two people have either turned on the religion they were brought up in (Islam and Judasim respectively) or lashed out at extremism within those religions. You'd really never guess that Hirsi Ali has repeatedly confessed to lying about her own past and/or her relation with Muslims (and cannot get on with her neighbours, having apparently been hounded out of Holland and, now perhaps the US), while Shahak was a Holocaust Survivor, Israeli soldier and Professor of Chemistry in Israel. PRtalk 15:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My impression is that equivalency in WP is not a helpful angle. Nor do I think it's helpful to argue about WP's biases, except through the WP:CSB which deals w/other stuff. Just calmly ask for the best encyclopedic treatment of both articles. HG | Talk 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm an uninvolved editor as regards the articles on Hirsi Ali and Shahak. From my lofty position of near total disdain for religion-based articles, it is very evident that one or both articles is hugely POV. However, I have zero interest in trying to fix them. (If you want me to suggest the way forward, I'd be inclined to think that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is OK in it's current lovey-dovey form except for the extremely lurid quotes about Islam - and it's the Israel Shahak article that needs extensive revision for POV).
 * What use are my observations? Well, it's valuable to know what "neutral" editors consider to be below the usual standard of the project. I was asking for your advice, not suggesting such articles go on the IPCOLL page, where they clearly wouldn't belong. PRtalk 15:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I-P battleground stats
PR -- I'm bringing this to your Talk because I already tried on the project Talk page, but you don't seem to have responded to my point. You say: "I'm now complaining that I'm linked to the mentorship of Jaakobou." PR, how does (that project page discuss Jaakobou's mentorship? It doesn't, so what is there to compalain about? I don't get it. Pls reply to my talk, concisely. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Project page implies that Jaakobou is under some form of punitive mentorship that might inhibit him from deviating from the principles of the project. I'm not convinced that that is the case, in particular, I have 3 significant questions for him, concerning his abiding by policy. I've presented these questions to him via his mentor, who appears to think it is not her business. PRtalk 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How does the Project page imply he has a punitive mentorship? What wording do you see that implies that? pls quote it here. thanks. HG | Talk 20:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, I misread what the project page says, seeing two editors under "involuntary mentorship", I took it that Jaakobou was one of them. However, that's not the case, his alleged "mentorship" isn't mentioned atall. PS - am I the only editor around who admits occasionally making mistakes and proceeds to apologize for them? Is such behavior a character defect, proving something wrong with me? PRtalk 11:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. See same page and here, too for the proper wording. ;-> Yours truly, HG | Talk 15:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)  PS So pls note your mistake on the page (and strikeout as needed), thanks!

Article discussions
Hi. Please see Talk:Palestinian people. This seem to me to be getting excessive, unwarranted and irrational. I suggest we find some consensus version, and end this nit-picking discussion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Steve, I'm glad to listen to your frustrations. But please don't put such stuff on the Talk page. It doesn't help to knock the process, or the people who are proceeding in a way that bugs you. Better just reason with them, from where they are, or give them alternatives that they might find persuasive. Anyway, what makes you think there is an agreed upon compromise? I gather that there are still holdouts, right? Thanks. HG | Talk 05:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration
Greetings Fayssal. Maybe it's your fault ;-) but we've gone ahead and started something for Isr-Pales modeled on the Sri Lanka project you'd mentioned at ArbCom. Would you be willing to join us and sign on? Here the shortcut, WP:IPCOLL. Even if only as an observer and occasional advisor, it would be a vote of confidence or moral support. Also, we'd welcome you suggestions on how to advance something like the Sri Lanka agreement you mentioned. Thanks for your encouragement, be well, HG | Talk 16:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks HG. Being a member (observer/advisor status) would be fine but prefer it to be effective after closing the case. I'll consider that part of my priorities. Yeah, i like the shortcut :) -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  16:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Greetings HG! Just want to stop by and thank you for copyediting and clarifications in the Mosque of Omar (Bethlehem) article. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, replied at your Talk about the DYK. Cheers back at you.... HG | Talk 21:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin
Your edit at Battle of Jenin actually looks better in context than I gave it credit for.

However, I still have a problem with "Subsequent investigations found no evidence " (of a massacre) - which was part of the statement you said you'd only modify to our general agreement. The published testimony definitely claims there was at least one small "up-against-the-wall" type massacre. It's described by Amnesty, and the Independent newspaper cites it to the Red Cross and HRW observers. It is thought we know the names of two of the Israeli soldiers who carried out this killing, and the IDF has never carried out (or published, anyway) any form of investigation. (That's on top of the other 9 very well-referenced incidents I feel sure belong in this article). I really think we have to re-visit this incident and the entire article. PRtalk 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Thanks for giving us credit.
 * 2) Aren't you answering a question (about where you see Jaakobou's mentorship implied) with a question (Jenin)? Isn't that very Talmudic of you? But you will answer my question first, or else agree to drop the whole complaint, right?
 * 3) Sure, I'm like to see us revisit the massacre question at Jenin, and much else there to, at the right moment. Meanwhile, you already have your hand in one mess at Saeb E., so why don't you and Jaakobou try to resolve that first? Please work with Ryan and Durova and try to straighten it out. Given the recent ArbCom pronouncements, it's fair to say that the community wants to see these kind of contentious pages settled down -- and not spread elsewhere. PR, will you do it? Thanks. HG | Talk 21:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've answered the questions you had for me? I'm not going back to Saeb Erekat, I'm leaving it as a monument to WP:OWN and time-wasting by a master. 8 editors bludgeoned into acceptance of ridiculous UNDUE, as documented here. It's clearly not going to stop, see this today. See this if you still think there's a shred of justification for what he's doing. PRtalk 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Good diplomacy
Your statement here was very well worded! To be honest, when I read it, I felt sad, too, because it reminded me of how I often have to curb my own enthusiasm. But it is necessary if one wants to achieve certain goals. I'm eagerly looking forward to the moment when IPCOLL will resolve the first I-P conflict! You guys are really making a difference! &mdash; Sebastian 06:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
Hi HG: I see that you have quite a lengthy talk page already. Usually if its over 30-50 k then the rest should be filed so that your talk page does not get cluttered up. For your convenience I have inserted talk page archive red links at the top of this page, feel free to use them if you like. Just copy and cut and from this pa, click on the archive page and paste it to that archive page. If you need help and I can help, let me know. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks I have an archive box lower down. Feel free to move it up or I can try. And archive my various "love letters"! HG | Talk 14:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And Izak, thanks for your kind words about the Shomer Shabbat, it's good to get noticed after I work on something. Do you think the DYK request will work? HG | Talk 14:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok, I didn't see that you have the archive box, so I removed what I put in. And as you see below, the DYK request worked. Congratulations. IZAK (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mosque of Omar
......Mabruk! Thank you for all your constructive efforts for the article. Great Job! --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:SeferShomerShabbat.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:SeferShomerShabbat.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Used PD-100, though it's also public domain because prior to 1923. Thanks. HG | Talk 07:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Shomer Shabbat
Hi HG: Shavua Tov! great work with the Shomer Shabbat article. You have breathed life into a good new article. IZAK (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: WP:IPCOLL
HI HG, you said: Hi. Thanks for joining WP:IPCOLL and for your active participation already. Did you want to vote on an article for collaboration? (I added your Semite idea to the options, fyi.) Meanwhile, I'd like to archive or move your long thread. Or better yet, how about if you or I move the first paragraph to the Members statements above and the rest archive or to the Lounge? Thanks. Pls let me know soon. HG | Talk 14:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to pass on voting at this time, the ones selected are good to the extent I am aware, but none really strike my fancy. I will take a look at what is in #4, tho. I tend to be somewhat of a loner, tho I might learn more of the techno/format side in collaboration than I have not had time to learn. I need some time to see whare I currently stand. I will, however take a look at what I suggested and see what a can of worms it is from my end. I already know what it might be for some others in particular. If I can get somewhere I will bring it up again; am not going to do anything on it until I do. I am only thinking the root noun, not the generational changes, tho they do make me steam. But then, I did come to IPCOLL to coll, not maul. I did see that you'd added it and also comments before struck, thanks for that but I am a big boy. I would appreciate if you could move my 1st para up to statements and archive the rest, it might calm things. I did run across one article recently that might be a good one to consider for IPCOLL, I was unaware of the term, 1948 Palestine War. To me it is a neologism for 48 A-I war, but restricted to limited civil war aspects between UN vote to partition Nov'47 and May15'48. It seems to be being pushed by the I-side, but I noted some P-side refs to it also. Lounge? where is that? thanks CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tss tss tss.
 * CasualObserver'48. You analysis of the situation is biased by your "knowledge" about the topic. You should focus on the sources and nothing else. But no problem to discuss this deeper and the time needed. This is indeed not an easy topic. Ceedjee (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * HG,
 * In reply to your message. The analysis of "the projet members" of Jakobou attitude in dealing with content issues is not fair. We are in front of the limit of WP:AGF. If that is not understand by this project, don't even start your "attempts". Ceedjee (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, if you had said this I would have been able to reply. This is more clear. Yes, I can certainly see why you've reached your AGF limit. But you need to give others a chance to reach or assess their own, right? As you can see from Durova's comment on the article Talk, at least in my read, she seems quite amenable to the possibility you raise, but wants other eyes. Anyway, my suggestion was that a few of us trouble to figure out if you're right about Jaakobou, and otherwise we all pitch in to improve the article. Do you see why I would go about it this way? Thanks. HG | Talk 12:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, if you had said this I would have been able to reply. This is more clear. Yes, I can certainly see why you've reached your AGF limit. But you need to give others a chance to reach or assess their own, right? As you can see from Durova's comment on the article Talk, at least in my read, she seems quite amenable to the possibility you raise, but wants other eyes. Anyway, my suggestion was that a few of us trouble to figure out if you're right about Jaakobou, and otherwise we all pitch in to improve the article. Do you see why I would go about it this way? Thanks. HG | Talk 12:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Shomer Shabbat, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Marshall Sklare Award
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Marshall Sklare Award, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * replied to Coren. HG | Talk 17:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Shaw Report in a large variety of articles

 * Looks well-informed and tolerably referenced to me (though I'm very surprised by the comments on the Shaw Report and the Mandatory Commission, and will have to examine these more carefully). Given the terrible state of many of the articles on this and allied subjects, I would sincerely hope we see more scholars and scholarship in TalkPages and articles. PRtalk 14:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:KosherLamp.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:KosherLamp.gif. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Question submitted. Of course, I welcome any readers here to submit a free image of such a product! Thanks. HG | Talk 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

IPCOLL stats
Yes, I have only noted protects in the past year. Some of them were protected frequently earlier, but I have not taken this into account. I will try to break these down. I also intended to add Steven Plaut, but noticed that you had already done so. RolandR (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

IPCOLL scope
Hi. thanks for all your help at the IPCOLL page. I think i just need some basic information here, which is why I'd rather ask you right here at your talk page. what exactly is the potential role in IPCOLL for addressing actual specific issues which are in dispute? I thought that one of the main points ws to find new ways to address specific issues more constructively? Am i wrong on this? please let me know. Also, if you could, could you please reply at my talk page? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC) ''
 * Hi. i just created a new opage at IPCOLL. Hope you like. it. please feel free to let me know any thoughts or comments. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. i just wanted to make sure that you found the page I created to be basically ok? If not, I'm open to discussion on it, or I can even withdraw it entirely, if you want. please feel free to let me know. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My great-aunt
Actually, she was my great-aunt (my mom's aunt). And she used to wear a white headdress with tiny coloured embroidered flowers around the trim. But in all seriousness, that edit wasn't based on her experience alone of course, the text itself describes the headwear of Samartians and other religious groups, so I thought the change was appropriate.  T i a m u t talk 12:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, no problem, though I appreciate the response. Any old family photos to upload? Or Samaritans, Druze or other folks not among the already terrific image display? Thanks. HG | Talk 12:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Problematic comments
Hi HG, I think there is a big problem indeed. And what I have written is completely and absolutely not acceptable. I assume it must have upset you. That is what was expected because now you can understand what is the frustration we feel having received equivalent attacks during 2 years long, to which was added wikistalking, days of bad faith pilpul for the use of one word and discussions and discussions for nothing. Frankly, you can thank me to be kind because the other solution was to engage you in a polite long term discussion hammering and hammering you for a detail. Eg, you deleted this comment. Why ? You should not have done. Could you explain ? But why not this or that etc. I hope you have understood, now, how inacceptable was your own behaviour from our point of view. Nevertheless, now that it worked (and let me tell you your really lack patience !) I will completely refrain to comment your action. And we will see what can be done. Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC) I must go but please, don't hesitate to delete all the comments from me you consider problematic. That is acceptable from my point of view.
 * I don't remember you deleted a comment of mine recently. But it doesn't matter.
 * Please, fell free to delete or revert *any* of my comment, edit or whatever on the whole wp:en that you consider problematic, inappropriated, uncivil or disturbing whoever and whatever is concerned.
 * But, please, let me tell you that you are really too kind for this job. You should have asked my ban for what I wrote to you. 8h. With such a comment as "whether you cool down, whether it will be 16".
 * I really hope your technique will be successful and that Nishidani will not leave. Accessory, let's see the articles improve.
 * Shavoua Tov, Ceedjee (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ...you are really too kind for this job. And the pay is too low. Anyway, thanks, see you 'round the bend. HG | Talk 05:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Scope of Palestinian costumes
If the sources that discuss Palestinian costume mention that worn by Jews, of course it should be mentioned. I don't recall seeing anything about it specifically though. Do you have any such sources in mind?

I'm sure Arab Jews wore costume similar to that of the Arab Christians and Muslims. But there were lots of non-Arab Jews too (as described in the article on Arab Jews, the sub-section on Palestine). I think if we stick to sources that mention Palestinian costume as it related to Jews in Palestine, we are fine. I don't think we should dig up sources on what Jews in Palestine wore in general and add it to this article though, since its scope is narrowly defined to "Palestinian costume", more specifically, traditional costume. If such an article is eventually written (on what Jews in Palestine wore for traditional dress), we can link to it from this one and take it from there.

Is that okay with you?  T i a m u t talk 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Not sure I entirely see a difference between Palestinian costumes of Jews and what (traditional?) Jews wore in Palestine, but ok. Anyway, you might find this old Jewish Encyclopedia article interesting (search for "Palest"). Ciao, HG | Talk 05:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

tagging Israeli-Palestinian conflict sanctions
(copy) Greetings. Glad to see you helping with sanctions. However, I wanted to talk to you about the Israel-Palestine sanctions. These apply to a broad swath of articles, by no means not just the article you recently tagged Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It may be confusing because the article name is similar to the topic area name used by ArbCom.

In the Talk page to the case, there has been discussion of whether to tag individual articles. Perhaps you should discuss the question of tagging there? Thanks very much, (pls reply to my Talk), HG | Talk 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not fair for editors to not be notified that a specific article must be edited differently than other articles, so I marked articles which seemed to have no other notifications. The ArbCom is arbitrary enough that I didn't try to hunt down all articles which might be relevant (I wouldn't have thought of British Isles but a sanction was applied there), but my actions don't affect what others will decide.  I also didn't try to identify the specific type of sanction, as the phrasing differs rulings, but others will improve my edits.  You say there was discussion of notification but I didn't see any hint of article notification methods in Wikipedia talk:General sanctions.  -- SEWilco (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's where there's discussion about why tagging individual articles isn't needed. I suppose you could ask the Israel and Palestine WikiProjects to post a notice. But does it make sense to tag 150+ articles? (You could leave an explanatory note at the Sanctions page.) See also the list of articles WP:IPCOLL/BATTLE analyzed here. If by any chance you want to help monitor and "pacify" this topic area, we'd welcome uninvolved parties to this WikiProject, thanks! HG | Talk 18:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are other tags which are on thousands of articles, and I'm not concerned with the number of articles which ArbCom has chosen to drop a blanket over. I'm not trying to hunt down any more articles, and I don't see any more definition of which those are.  Others who figure out the sanctioned areas can mark them to warn other editors.  I edit so widely that I don't appreciate having such unmarked traps; I don't want my forthcoming garden and geological history edits to wander through unmarked minefields.  -- SEWilco (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Postage stamp article
My reasoned reply is here. Sorry but I cannot support this inaccurate title; and there is no such place. ww2censor (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to delete whole offending section
So won't start brouhaha with Monday morning readers. Then I'll raise WP:Game issue elsewhere. Since being able to say ANYTHING in arbitration and then those groups getting created to solve the problem, I was under the delusion one could be overly frank about the whole thing - spank!!! Carol Moore 02:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Problematic new Christian/Jewish template
Hi HG: Please see the discussions at Template talk:Books of the Bible concerning the new troubled and troubling Books of the Bible template. Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Israeli stamps
Hi HG: I have tried to use Israeli stamps over the years to illustrate issues and personalities, but I have not done so lately. Originally there was no opposition to it, but in the last year or two, as new guidleines have been drawn up, even past postings have been removed. I think the source you cite should be better publicised wherever the rules for such things are mentioned, such as at Public domain Category:Public domain stamp images, Category:Fair use stamp images as examples. It would help to create a template for Israeli stamps like the PD-stamp, Stamp rationale, Non-free stamp templates as examaples and as would apply to Israel. Just some ideas. IZAK (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Israel stamp collecting cover Takhtiv.jpg
✅ Thank you for uploading Image:Israel stamp collecting cover Takhtiv.jpg. However STBotI (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I added the fair use copyright tag, thanks. HG | Talk 03:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In Fair Palestine
So i looked at old revisions of the page and i put the AfD tag back up just like it was.jo (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi HG. My email is inaccessible again for some reason or another. (Technology is so fickle.) I'll check out your comments at the other talk page.  T i a m u t talk 09:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey HG. I'll check it again tonight (or should I say this morning - it's 3 am here :) I sent an email from my husband's account to the provider, so I'm hoping it's all cleared up now. Anyway, thanks for checking in.  T i a m u t talk 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. I'll try to hit the sack now. Just about impossible for me to sleep these days. It comes and goes in cycles. This is a no-sleep cycle. Hopefully, hibernation won't be far off. Happy editing!  T i a m u t talk 01:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HolyLand Austrian Post 1899 envelope stamp.jpg
✅ Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:HolyLand Austrian Post 1899 envelope stamp.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done that. HG | Talk 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority stamps article
Bring that up when you submit the hook, if any. I think we might be lenient. Work fast (I'm sure you can); the meter's running. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, and for your work on DYK in general. HG | Talk 17:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Who gets credit
It's often a matter of whose name is next to the nomination and anyone else they choose to mention. Some editors (admins need not be the ones choosing the hooks for the next update, although in practice we are since the actual update, as well as protecting the picture, can only be done by admins) may look in the history and decide who else to credit (I don't; this whole task is very time-consuming). If you keep track of how many DYKs you've contributed to (as I do), I have no objection to you claiming this one since IIRC the two articles were sort of split before the hooks were submitted. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PNA minister Kamel Hassounah at UPU.jpg
✅Thank you for uploading Image:PNA minister Kamel Hassounah at UPU.jpg.
 * done. HG | Talk 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Khalidi Palestinian identity.gif)
✅ Thanks for uploading .... However, it is currently orphaned BetacommandBot (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks BetacommandBot for the nudge about the images. HG | Talk 02:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

old covers and such
Austrian post only keeps copyright for 70 years. While it's conceivable that a 19th-century postcard photograph could still be under copyright (the photographer would have had to have retained copyright and be rather young), the "business side" of such an old postcard is safely PD. BTW, I was just noticing Category:Stamps of Israel. For non-free images, we generally want to put them in dedicated categories not mixed in with articles and such, so images of stamps should go in something like Category:Non-free Israeli stamp images. I'm not at all clear on whether they have to be here or can go in commons:Category:Stamps of Israel; I'm doubtful of the reasoning over there, but don't know enough about Israeli copyright law to argue it. Stan (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of your questions in this regard are answered on the commons, like here and the copyright issues are here, but you should also look at the copyright templates here. Hope that helps. (btw, I reply where I post so I am watching this page) ww2censor (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks very much. I've seen both those links (and commented myself on the first) but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer yet. Indeed, the licensing link doesn't show the new (2006) Israeli copyright law. (3rd link didn't work?) I checked Hebrew wikipedia and wrote to a wikipedian friend there. So the question seems unsettled to me. HG | Talk 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, try this link now which leads you to this page where the Israeli stamp copyright seems quite clear to me. 17:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC) ww2censor (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience but you'll see that I already commented on that page. The copyright discussion only refers to stamps, not envelopes. Plus, now I'm trying to figure out the artwork design for the 1948 first day cover. I hope you'll like this new article -- and that I'm trying to learn about citations, as I hope you'll appreciate, though I still need help. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright on artwork for an unissued stamp would be hard to determine I think, because it would depend on the terms of the artist's contract with the postal authority - does ownership pass over as part of doing the "work for hire", or only upon completion? The careful thing would be to take the longer of author's copyright and government's copyright. Non-government-issued cachets on envelopes would of course be copyright the cachet maker; cachet and stamps are pretty much the only copyrightable material on a cover, anything else would be PD-ineligible. If a cover is PD, then any copy you find around the net is fair game to upload here (and in practice, I don't think that, say, auction houses are going to complain about the free publicity of being mentioned as the source of an image). Stan (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, gentlefolks, check out the fabulous image (imo) at Otte Wallish. Have your lawyer call my lawyer... HG | Talk 18:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In the vast majority of cases, all stamp design is done on commission for the postal authority and is therefore, like most commercial work, the property of the commissioner, so the copyright will be that entity. Official postal stationery had the same copyright and licensing as their stamps. ww2censor (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be property of the postal commissioner in this case, when its been sold at auction? HG | Talk 19:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Who knows? Ask the auction house. ww2censor (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A request
I can't keep up with your suggestions for renames at Syro-Palestinian archaeology and frankly find the constant new ideas to be more disruptive than helpful. I'm sorry to say that, but that's how I feel. I would deeply appreciate it if you would just step back a bit and let the article breathe under its current new title for a while. It's a legitimate article, reliably sourced to experts, and far better sourced than either Archaeology of Israel or Biblical archaeology. If anything, those articles would benefit from some attention.

I realize that your intentions are good. But I find the obsession with my new article (only two days old now) to be undue, especially considering the state of the others. Given too that a complete article cannot be written overnight, I'd appreciate the space to develop it using the reliable sources I have been and more, confined to "Syro-Palestinian" and "Palestinian" for now. Please consider this request as a genuine plea for understanding. With deep and abiding respect.  T i a m u t talk 18:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do tend to get a bit obsessive at times on wikipedia. Hopefully, I'm not the only one and folks will be empathetic or forgiving with me. I'll hold off further responses for now. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It's not that I don't appreciate your enthusiasm or your highlighting of incredibly useful sources or potnetial directions. I'm just a little overwhelmed and a bit frsutrated, particularly by Canadian Monkey's disappearance from the scene (which means, I think, that the DYK is DOA). And it was indeed a sleepless night that churned that article out, so I guess my nerves are just a little frayed. Much appreciated.  T i a m u t talk 19:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

article note
Hi. Just want to let you know, i made some edits to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. just want to ask, what do you think? see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Steve, thanks for the note. I'm not so inclined to evaluate the substantive content there (esp since the changes look significant), I'm mainly focused on editorial process. What buy-in do you have from the (so-called) "pro-Palestinian" side of editors? Thanks. HG | Talk 19:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't know, but I seem to be intact. :-) It appears they may generally seem to grant me a bit of leeway. I think we're in good shape in that regard. I don't know if I'm the only pro-Israel editor so privileged, but I'd like to think that it reflects somewhat on some of my past efforts. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Israel first coins 1948 25 mils.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Israel first coins 1948 25 mils.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale -->BetacommandBot (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt, BetacommandBot! HG | Talk 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Geneivat Da'at
You cited the Encyclopedia Talmudit, which in turn cites a midrash. Could you add to the page where the Midrash is? I hadn't heard of it; this sounds like a late Midrash, like Yalkut Shimoni. JFW | T@lk  08:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the ET is an encyclopedia. Could you therefore expand on the ruling that GD is permissible for the sake of honouring someone? Surely there is a thin line between this and flattery (which is definitely forbidden). JFW | T@lk  08:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an early midrash -- the Mekhilta. I'll cite the honoring exception sources and learn it inside later. HG | Talk 05:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up with creator of Minnesota synagogues stubs
Hi HG: You may be interested to know that I have contacted User who was the editor who originally created all the stub articles about synagogues in Minnesota that have now become the focal point of much debate, and he, as creator of the stubs has neither responded, participated nor defended himself in any discussions AFAIK. Please see User talk:Grika. Feel free to add your comments. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary comment
HG, this edit summary is not helpful IMHO. I'm not being uncivil by pointing out that Canadian Monkey's conclusions are WP:OR. While my comments to him have been a little cold, I have been restraining myself given his continued deletion of sourced material without engaging in the requested requisite discussion beforehand. If you notice, despite his having appended material that I find to be wholly irrelevant to the article, I have not deleted it outright. Instead, I placed it on the talk page for discussion first. I'm trying to be fair and follow the rules of engagement that I request from others, despite his not doing the same. When you make comments that place both of our comments or editing styles on the same level, I find that to be (as I've expressed to you in the past) unhelpful, since it encourages the editor engaging in inappropriate behaviour, by giving the impression that nothing is wrong with what they are doing. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 13:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What I wrote is this: "before this gets more uncivil, pls define the question." I didn't mean to suggest that either of you have been uncivil, merely that I feel tension and that you're both pretty testy (or "cold" as you say above), and I am encouraging you to figure out a way to deal with this before it gets more tense. Also: Not sure where this fits with civility, but you do tend to come on unnecessarily strong and unequivocal at times, Tiamut. Heavy-handed. For instance, in that thread you said: "You are making a logical deduction that is prohibited by WP:OR." The guy might be wrong, but he's hardly violating OR and -- even if it were an OR concern, aren't there less aggressive ways to say so? Would you talk to Huldra that way? Are you trying to understand C-M's point? (I think C-M's concern is that "Golan Heights" might be misunderstood to mean former Syrian territory.)


 * Recently, an editor deleted source material from an article I started and hope(d) to get to DYK. See Talk:Geneivat da'at for how I've handled it so far. Yes, I find it frustrating. Maybe I've responded uncivilly, I hope not. But I don't think it would help to blame him for "deletion of sourced material" as if that isn't allowed. Just because an edit is sourced, doesn't mean it belongs in the article. It might be off-topic, unnecessarily pov, undue or simply not the best text for the article. So, I've tried to reinsert and improve my material, but I recognize that there's nothing inviolable about sourced material per se.


 * Yes, I do recognize that you are making a terrific and commendable effort to discuss disputes/concerns on the Talk page. I hope other folks will follow your model. Be well, HG | Talk 14:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * HG, with respect, it is WP:OR for him to claim that because an Israeli source says that an archaeological dig was conducted by Israelis at the site in 1966, that that constitutes clear evidence that the area was not part of Syrian territory. Maybe the date is a typo? Maybe the Tel Dan site spans both sides of the border? Maybe the Israelis got permission from the Syrians to conduct the dig? While these are speculations, it is just as speculatory to assume that the area hit by Hezbollah rockets was not Syrian territory, when the source he provided says quite clearly Tel Dan in is the Golan Heights and the other sources he provided say nothing about who it belonged to before 1967.
 * You are right in pointing out that I wouldn't talk to Huldra that way. But Huldra hasn't come to two separate articles that I have been working on to repeatedly delete sourced information I have added. Neither has Huldra ignored my requests to discuss things on the talk page first. In other words, Huldra and I have established a very collegial editing relationship based on real collaboration. C-M has done nothing of the sort. And while civility is required, warmth is not. I am under no obligation to exhibit warmth to someone who repeatedly deletes things I add, fails to discuss, and when he does is uncivil in the process. I am under an obligation to maintain civility, which I have. But I also do not have to continue to WP:AGF when I am met with bad faith actions. Did you see this edit ? He just removed the Golan Heights altogether without even responding to my comments (or your) in that section. Is that an example of good faith editing? I don't think so.  T i a m u t talk 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, a logical reading of a published source is generally not OR. Nor is it OR to assume that a published date is correct! (!!) You are really stretching it with your own suspicions/questions above, like maybe the source got it wrong. C'mon now. Did you read Golan Heights on the 1920s transfer of Tel Dan? Sure, Wikipedia isn't technically an RS, and footnotes 30-32 could be wrong, but that's hardly grounds to call this OR.


 * I'll look at the editing itself later. Right now, I need to walk away because I'm frustrated and would rather enjoy my Wikipedia editing. HG | Talk 17:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry HG, but now I'm offended, and particularly by what I just read between the lines of your last comment. So I guess Wikipedia will get a break from both of us this evening. Good night.  T i a m u t talk 18:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi HG. My email is working now. But I have to say, I'm not really into having offline communication on Wiki subjects. I only maintain it here so as to allow for private correspondance with people who want to discuss off Wiki issues (like setting up a film viewing for My Fair Palestine in Nazareth for example). This is a basic operational principle of mine. IMHO, there's nothing regarding Wiki stuff that can't be said online. I hope you understand. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 12:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Adam_Moodley_book.jpg
✅ Thanks for uploading Image:Adam_Moodley_book.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image.  Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, elaborated on the rationale, consistent with our policies. HG | Talk 21:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Links
(please refer to the date for the chronology) Ceedjee (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * - -  no discussion here. Just threat and no answer to my comments.
 * - -  and finally :
 *