User talk:Ashley kennedy3/Archive. Old page

ANI
ANIAshley kennedy3 (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.


 * Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
 * The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
 * Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
 * Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

Thanks for the tip PC unfortunately I can only edit this page.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested articles
would the Jerusalem Arab council be more correct as Arab Council of Jerusalem....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Ashley, in addition to Kuru's suggestion that you have another look at WP:3RR, I suggest you have a look at Guide to appealing blocks. If you were to admit that you have been edit warring, and promise that you won't in future, then I guess it should be possible to get agreement that your block could be reduced. PhilKnight (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock
I have unblocked you per your request and commitment to resolving disputes without edit warring. Please be advised that further edit warring will result in an extended block. Toddst1 (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes the basic template was found in Wiki:guide to appealing...The request was however meant and not a sham...I do appreciate the vast reduction in the sentence. I will seek alternative methods to "edit wars"...Thank you...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, I am very glad to see you back, and I am looking forward to seeing your contributions again! Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC) PS: Thanks to Toddst1, too!

Welcome back and a request
I didn't want to bring this up while you were blocked, as that would be kicking a man when he's down. But now that you are once more among the quick, I would like to suggest that we remove from the article Blood Libel at Deir Yassin the sentence, "He adds that Milstein is selective." First of all, it is untrue - Pail in the interview cited never says that Milstein is selective. Secondly, you meant it as an epithet, but to the casual reader, that sentence sounds like a compliment. Being selective is generally considered a good thing. Even I, who am familiar with the material and the people doing the writing, had to think a moment before understanding what you meant. Finally, I think the article makes Milstein out to be enough of a nincompoop without the sentence.

I leave it to your discretion. Incidentally, if you were to nominate this article for deletion, I am not sure I would oppose it. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I forget which interview it was, (The interview was an English translation and not the one cited). In the interview Meir was talking of Milstein's selectivity in the material obtained through oral testimony. Academically being selective is not considered as "good". There is a reasonable case to be made for "notability" or rather "notoriety" of the book, it is being used/abused to support an extremist position [Political forum debates that follow the line of; Milstein says "no massacre" therefore "no one died"]. With that in mind I have no problem with leaving an article which portrays Milstein as an nincompoop.....

I'll try to look up the article that has the interview with Meir Pa'il and stick it on the talk page (ps the block terminates at 16.37 27 Aug, not that I'm eagerly counting it down or anything like that).....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC) This is an interesting copy of e-mails for background I fell on some time ago....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. It was not fair to see you blocked.
 * Welcome back and good work :-)
 * Ceedjee (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Committee Confronting the Iron Fist
Committee Confronting the Iron Fist, a Jewish-Arab group opposed to Israeli policies in the occupied territories. Co-founded by Dr. Sari Nusseibeh. On 19 January 1988 as a response to the first Intifada Yitzhak Rabin, as Israeli Defense Minister, announced the "iron fist" policy. As Israeli defense minister, he launched the ‘Iron Fist’ policy in Aug 85, ordering his troops to "break the bones" of Palestinian demonstrators. On 19 January 1988 the then Israeli Defence Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, announced a new Israeli Government policy for dealing with the Intifada "Force, might, beatings," a policy that Prime Minister Shamir announced was "decided upon and instituted by the Government as a whole”. This was soon followed be an open letter sent to The New York Times from Irving Howe, Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, Professor of Religion at Dartmouth College; Henry Rosovsky, former Dean of Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and Michael Walzer, a political science professor at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies' that called on American Jews to speak out in criticism of Israel stating that the authors disagreed profoundly with the 'iron fist' policy.'' UN Doc U.S. Jews Torn Over Arab Beatings By David K. Shipler, New York Times Published: January 26, 1988

Robert B. Asprey War in the Shadows: The Guerrilla in History vol II Published by iUniverse, 2002 ISBN 0595225942 ISBN 9780595225941 Ch 88 p 1162

External links   [www.passia.org/about_us/MahdiPapers/Notes.doc]  .....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your note, but I´m sorry, I am not familiar at all with Committee. Generally, I am more interested in older (pre-1948) stuff. Take care, Huldra (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC) PS: I have the Friedman book, though, (Zealots for Zion)., lots about rabbi Kook etc. Very facinating.

Martin Gilbert
Even the Israeli MFA contest Gilbert's "well researched" figures Yeshiva.org Ha’aretz Taayush
 * In 1974, after the Yom Kippur War - the so-called great crisis of Israeli society - the Gush Emunim movement was established. This movement set as its goal the establishment of Jewish settlements in the empty territories of Judea and Samaria. Gush Emunim was led by R' Tzvi Yehuda's students and was accompanied from its inception and throughout its existence by the blessing and guidance of the Rabbi, now leader of the pioneering settlers. Thus, the ideology of Rabbi Kook was being practically implemented.

Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful), a right-wing ultranationalist, religio-political revitalization movement, was formed in March 1974 in the aftermath of the October 1973 War. The younger generation of NRP leaders who constituted the party's new religious elite created Gush Emunim. Official links between Gush Emunim and the Youth Faction of the National Religious Party were severed following the NRP's participation in the June 1974 Labor-led coalition government, but close unofficial links between the two groups continued. Gush Emunim also maintained links to Tehiya and factions in the Herut wing of Likud. Country studies Fundamentalism, Terrorism, and Democracy: The Case of the Gush Emunim Underground by Ehud Sprinzak Hebrew University of Jerusalem Geocities

Benny
That might interest you about last Morris book :. Ceedjee (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Avraham Ahituv
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Avraham Ahituv, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.shabak.gov.il/English/History/heads/Pages/AvrahamAhituv.aspx, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Avraham Ahituv and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Avraham Ahituv with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Avraham Ahituv.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Avraham Ahituv/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Avraham Ahituv saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Shuki (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Avraham Shalom
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Avraham Shalom, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.shabak.gov.il/English/History/heads/Pages/Avraham(Shalom)Ben-Dor.aspx, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Avraham Shalom and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Avraham Shalom with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Avraham Shalom.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Avraham Shalom/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Avraham Shalom saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Shuki (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Avraham Ahituv
I was merely commenting on my disagreement with your proposed version, because it's too similar to the copyrighted text, and therefore could be considered a copyright violation. I have every right to make this comment, and it's my business as a Wikipedian, in order to inform other Wikipedians of the problems with the proposal. I do not intend to edit the article at this point and frankly, writing it is not on my priority list at all. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 19:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Just in case you're wondering, I didn't make the comments on the Ahituv talk page to annoy you. If you're interested in re-writing the article (again, at this point I am not), I will be glad to explain the reasons for my comments and specifics on how you could improve the article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that there are no hard feelings. My point though was that there's a deeper issue here: copyright. If your wording is very similar to the copyrighted version, you're still violating copyrights. The article's wording and especially structure needs to be radically changed, and the draft you provided does not really accomplish that. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Yossef Harmelin
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Yossef Harmelin, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.shabak.gov.il/English/History/heads/Pages/YosefHarmelin.aspx, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Yossef Harmelin and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Yossef Harmelin with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Yossef Harmelin.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Yossef Harmelin/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Yossef Harmelin saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Shuki (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom
There is only one answer : badly. What is the issue ? Who is concerned ? In practice before to go to the ArbCom, editors have to follow a long process to try to solve the dispute another way (see wp:dispute resolution). Take also care an ArbCom will never deal content issues. May I help as medtiator ? Ceedjee (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One useful rule is never ask for formal administrative action until you've exhausted all other venues (argument, proof, documentation). You never ask for arbitration within a day, let alone weeks, of a dispute on a talk page. (2) If, after some days of argument, you can't find a compromise, ask for someone with experience, preferably on the other side with a balanced approach (e.g.Ceedjee) to look at the problem. If this doesn't work, ask an arbitrator to look at the page. In general, even if 'pissed off', you shouldn't trouble administrators. On the Hebron page for example, you have encountered a challenge. You have to argue it through. How you argue that through is your business. But you should start noting 'precedents' for what you are doing on other pages (on the al-Aqsa Intifada page, notoriously, the whole initial clash (the day before Sharon's walk to the last week after that walk) is framed by naming two Israelis killed, none of whom have a wiki page. The 47 Palestinians killed, and 1850 injured are left nameless. This is quite common in I/P articles). I would prefer that people be not named in this way (in contexts where the other sides victims remain anonymous). But if they are named, then properly the Palestinians should be named, and vice-versa.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, put ANI and other relevant pages on your special watchlist, and read the relevant sections, dealing with the area you are editing, for several months. These procedures are extremely complex, and before resorting to them, one needs considerable familiarity with the wiki rule book, and the conventions surrounding arbitration. Editing is a complex business, and it is best to conserve one's energies for that, and avoid as far as possible complaining, even if one has a legitimate grievance. Just a friendly tip from a non-editor, now using what little time he has to drop boring words of advice here and there.Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Hebron page has long been one of the hardest to edit because the area is one with extremely strong interests that are consisted under protection from editors who appear to think that anything regarding the extraordinary violence of the settlers in that area must be sieved through the most rigorous wiki procedures before being allowed to pass, while anything touching on Palestinian 'terrorism' is fair game. Much of the post 1981 (=post 1968) material requires reorganization, which however, given the imaginable opposition, would mean full-time focus on this article (apart from the fact that it would be liable to challenge as an abuse of recentism. The issue of violence is a significant one, and the problem is that settler violence there has been wholly disproportionate compared to Palestinian counter-violence, some of it of a terroristic nature. To note the truth of this, while not (a)unbalancing the page to a POV that is pro-Palestinian and (b) not cramming the page with too much material that favours recent history, as opposed to Hebron's 4000 years old history, is a very difficult thing to do, and can only be broached when conditions arise of responsible editors on both sides working collaboratively towards that end. The article is POV, even in the historical section, since it is spelled out as an area of almost exclusively Jewish historical value, when it has been a predominantly Arab city for more than half of its historical existence.Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, It is a content issue. ArbCom is not the solution. The best way is to discuss and discuss again, and again. By the way, my mind is that names of guilty should not be given per the philosophy of WP:BLP (why to harash them and make them famous all around the world, just for a... killing ?) and per WP:due weight (why would their name be important ? What is important are the consequences and the climate that was created, the causes, the sociological and ethnical issues...) So I may not be the right guy to discuss with the opposite side (Hertz1888) -> but stay and keep cool :-) I see what I can do/say/mediate !!! Ceedjee (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind trying to meadiate the issue.
 * But with whom exactly ? Hertz ?
 * It is not simple... Ceedjee (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

adding 'news' to locality pages
I noticed your effort to add to many locality pages, whether Jewish settlements or Arab towns, news usually about violence caused by either the Israeli army or civilians. It would only seem 'fair' to also include the actions of residents of Palestinian towns and villages such as martyrship operations and other accomplishments. What do you think? Please reply here. --Shuki (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

To be fair the Israeli club is far larger that the Palestinian club. The extremist element within the Israeli club is pushing POV like nobodies business. As the active Palestinian club can be counted on the fingers of one hand and the Israeli club is pushing extremist POV may I suggest you try going through Israeli related subjects and replace Israeli POV with NPOV.....and as there is more violence against Palestinians it would seem that the Israeli POV is disproportionate.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd get a more civil response. In any case, you didn't answer my question. As a veteran editor on WP, I expect you to care about improving WP along with any other interests you might have for editing. IMO, it is everyone's best interest (whatever POV they have) that WP be credible and respectful so that the general public actually trusts WP for information. When WP's quality is poor, it affects the image of the entire project.


 * I didn't ask you about pushing POV, I asked you if I should start 'improving' the locality articles close to your heart with examples of resident's achievements and if this improves the quality of the articles. Personally, I think that adding in these things reduces the quality of Arab and Jewish towns. --Shuki (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you believe that "martyrship operations" would be an improvement in WP....And I do believe that the extremist Israelis element in WP has already included just such elements into "localities" on a far greater scale than is proportional...Have you tried posting that they should include more Israeli attacks on civilians to improve WP articles?????? Somehow I don't think so.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, keep cool !!!
 * What you wrote is not WP:CIVIL.
 * I fear sysops will not forgive you any excess any more. That would really be sad.
 * More, people don't even read your arguments concering content when the tone is such !
 * Please, try to take care of that.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You rise to the bait a bit, Ashley. Remember, one is not obliged to respond to each and every post directed one's way. Indeed to do so is often a waste a time, if the editor(s) from experience are tone-deaf to appeals. There is absolutely no parity between Israeli settler 'violence' (the act of settling foreign land against its rightful owners is violent, even if one acts pacifically) and Palestinian resistance. One has the world's 4th most powerful army at its back, the other is disarmed, policed, and poverty-stricken. That is the real world, and outrageous. That is obvious to many, but you will never convince here those who do not see it that way to think as you or I, or a good many Israelis, and Jewish intellectuals, do, and to try to do so is to exhaust valuable time better spent on deep research, and its product, fruitfully informed edits. You're an ex-military man. Take a page out of Michael Mori's exemplary notebook! never blew his cool, worked within a system whose rules he found appalling but by the book, and, in the end, managed to honour his country, and greatly reduce the injustice to his client. Had he stepped out of line, broken the rules, Hicks would still be in Guantanamo (p.s.I have no sympathy for Hicks, as opposed to hicks) Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Both Ceedjee and I would agree with you that this is a very weird place to work in. It goes completely against the grain of my mind to adjust to it. In fact I have retired, accept for some cursory assistance here and there, because the mental strain of not working as I am accustomed professionally to think is aggravating, even though the project is an admirable one. In the real world, one argues with peers and fellow experts. here, one finds extraordinary minds, and at the same time, an intensely bureaucratic regime that does give quarter-baked sophomores equal rights. I say that as someone who underwrites egalitarianism in everything I otherwise do.


 * If one is to work here, one must think like an anthropologist and accept that you are an outsider who has to adapt to, say, the Yanoama worldview, instead of bringing the heft of your (imperial) wisdom to the benighted natives, so that you can, through mastery of their system, say intelligible and intelligent things that the natives can understand. It really is like that, in part, though I have used an hyperbole. Good luck. You are a content man, and they are in short supply. Don't fribble with useless bickering. Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wonderful :-)
 * Thank you Nishidani for this hyperbole. It gave me good mood for the whole day ! Maybe the whole W-E.
 * I would add that they have Assegais while we are unarmed !
 * The natives also suffer hyper-sensitive auditivity. When you shout at them, they really become crazy and start talking a strange language and you always find yourself tied in a cage :-)
 * By the way, they are also hyper-sensitive to respect, civility, politeness, etc. Those who succeed in staying cool even when other foreigners jump all around you, shouting and threathening you, they come and help... but not always fast, they are only sensitive when they are shout at...
 * Oh... And they have also some fetichism for books ! In case of problem, take one out of your bag, take a sentence out of it and they become silentious, listening to the message as if coming from the Bible... They call it a "doubleyoupee-aresse" :-)
 * Ceedjee (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Pleased to oblige, Ceedjee. Just a brief philological pointer on the finer points of English pronunciation. I think the natives pronounce WP:RS as (Wipe) Ars(e), which is what native custom appears to regard quality books as: un moyen de se torcher le cul, as the great Master Rabelais would say! Amitiés Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct Nishidani....:-)Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you guys are enjoying yourselves in your little clique so I'll stop bothering you guys about this. --Shuki (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Come now sir, a little humour. We have not likened our beloved encyclopedia to the works of Dr Goebbels, and ranted against it, as one editor has in these past days. It's not a clique either, since all three of us have not infrequently been at each other's textual throats, and will disagree in the future no doubt. We just happen to concur that encyclopedias are built from content, not scaffolded by etiquette around a dazzling void. Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
Hello Ashley, I am not sure to see how is your "opponent"... Could be more precise. Then I can organise a constructive discussion... :-) Cheers, Ceedjee (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I did worse numerous times, eg when we quarrelled each other some weeks ago :-(
 * Just keep cool and try to fit to facts.
 * You will see that even here, the form is sometimes more important than the content...
 * By the way, another solution is to reatreat (a few days) from an article; the time it cool down, and to come back later BUT above all, never start an edit war !
 * Cheers, Ceedjee (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Thank you for this comments !
 * You are perfectly right !!!
 * This is funny... This is a bias I should add in my list and keep in mind ! It is due to the fact I consider History cannot be written by one man but only by many men... But the little one man "writes" deserves considering and reading because it influenced the whole picture...
 * What would suggest as a good biography of Ben Gurion ? There are so many ones...
 * And what about Shapira last book about Yigal Alon, did you read this ?
 * Another suggestion ?
 * Cheers, Ceedjee (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
Hi. Thank you for working to address the copyright concerns at Avraham Ahituv. Your new version of the article, with some additional changes to further separate it from its sources, is in place in article space. However, Avraham Shalom has had to be deleted. In addition to the detected copyright violation, it infringed on the New York Times and zeek.net. If you would like to create a new article on the subject, please feel free, but please do so completely in your own words. It can be difficult to revise text sufficiently to avoid infringement, but as a basic rule of thumb we should not duplicate even phrases of creative text from any other site unless it is in public domain, released under a license compatible with GFDL or unless it meets our non-free content criteria. In all cases, we should note that we have duplicated the text. If the text comes from a copyrighted source (and lacking clear evidence otherwise, we presume that it does), we need to mark it with quotation marks and attribute it, as well as citing our source. Otherwise, a general note on the article page noting that text is duplicated from the site is often sufficient. Almost all language we encounter in other sources will be "creative text" by the definition of US law. Exclusions include things like lists of ingredients, which aren't creative, or official titles. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to let me know here. I have watchlisted your talk page for a time. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Working on Avraham Shalom BenDor....There is so little available on shadowy ISA figures that when you "amend" one source you end up with infringing CR of another source....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hebron split
Don't need my permission. That's a really difficult page, and I was just trying to oversee things so that the old fights didn't recur. Certainly a separate page should be created. The actual wiki page should only contain the major incidents of three or more people killed by violence on either side since 1967, and then link 'Settler/IDF/Palestinian violence in the Hebron area' (a page to be created) where one will be at liberty to document in strict sequence and sparse neutral language what RS say about this issue- That is my earlier suggestion (one could see it coming), and I think there is some sign of agreement to this. I suggest you ask Michael Safyan, Canadian Monkey, Ceedjee (who's good at this and at avoid problems associated with 'forks') as to how this ought to be done (it will mean excerpting some stuff already there, like Shalhevet Pass and individual Palestinians killed). Something like this needs collective decisions. Propose it under 'Proposal to create a separate page on the settler/Hebronite clashes, or something like that. Best wishes and, thanks for the compliment. I tend to associate Wiki with a rapid deterioration of my normal writing style, further reason for limiting my presence(apart from the fact I'm following the Belgian Grand Prix at the moment!). But if some trace of it is visible, I'm relieved. regards and buon lavoro Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Arab rioter = Arab rioters- A slip. (2) the passage also says After the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt . . .'. I am almost certain this evacuation took place in early (April?) 1936, on the eve of the revolt, and after strikes and other forms of protest began to break out. Regards Nishidani (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert
Glad you reverted that. You beat me to it, since I was reverting you until I got an edit conflict message. I put that in. I have checked the text. Ben Gurion was dead wrong of course, since 'Jewish people' didn't exist in 2000 B.C. any more than 'Italians' did, and neither did Abraham. But his 'view', based on pseudo-historical chronology widely accepted in his day, explains his argument re Hebron. He had a huge library, I think of 20,000 books, but clearly hadn't read up the fine detail on archeology! Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The italicized text is on Lustick (note sp.)p.42 (I'm sure, since the book is freely consultable in an unpaginated online version, that specific page references can be disposed of, since anyone can check whatever is culled from it, by searching the net edition).Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's the book.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh stuff the finicky point. Just read away, son (excuse that, but). People who undertake to read books, rather than google the hoped-for gen, are a credit to the ideals of Wikipedia. Take your time.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with speed reading, (though I lack that talent) as long as the phrase doesn't imply you take a toke of speed while reading! A book mark at the back pages, which you can flip to open an index, to either boost the index's details (if the book has an index) or create your own, sorted by name, theme, topic and jot down page numbers as you browse the book, saves a lot of trouble. But perhaps you already do that.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Subset of
The page is now a subclass of Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which has subpages in turn on the annual statistics 2000-2008. (a) You might like to link this (b) I still think one needs a general page: Settler-Palestinian Conflict, of which this would be an area sub-page. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Latroun
Ceedjee what is the reasoning behind calling the 25 pounders 88mm cannon?....In the UK it was only ever referred to as a 25 pounder....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well. I am not familiar with canon specifications.
 * After your comment I checked.
 * Lapierre & Collins talked about 88 mm canon BUT it seems from wp that it is only used for german flak...
 * It is highly probable I made a mistake !
 * Thx for your notice. I try to get more information about this.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hebron
"Towards the end of the Ottoman period Hebron attained the status of a large village and 10 Jewish families living in Hebron"

Grammatically that's dicey, since the 'attained the status' carries over to 10 Jewish families.

Something like, 'Towards the end of the Ottoman period, 10 Jewish families lived in Hebron when it attained the status of a large village.'

What does 'attain the status' mean? Was their some formal recognition it was a 'large village'. If not, the phrasing is odd. I haven't checked the source though. Regards Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're doing some fine work there and elsewhere, Ashley. One of the remarkable things about many of these articles is how little of the actual evidence, chipped in by dozens of hands variously over time, has been rechecked, and the overall text reviewed when all refs have been consulted. It was quite a mess when I first starting working on it 2 years ago. In the good old bad days, every intelligent edit had to be pushed like s*** up a hill with slippy fingers before a quarter of it would stick. I hope these days things, esp. after the new dispensation earlier this year, work more smoothly. Well done. (p.s. 'in the sacking' = during the sackage?) Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, no, not quite. Sackage is, at worst, vintage English with a distinct patina of the narrative style of 19th.century history-writing. You are no doubt right (I infer this is your meaning) that folks don't use it much these days (hence perhaps not quite germane to wikistyle). But 'spoil and sackage' comes naturally to my mind, not only because I'm in my anecdotage. Sackage is a fine Tudor period word (Walter Skeat, Anthony L. Mayhew, A Glossary of Tudor and Stuart Words: Especially from the Dramatists, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1914 p.843). Curiously, Shakespeare never uses it, while he is fond of both 'sack' and 'spoil'. As you have a military background you might be interested in the fact that Thomas Wilhelm's A Military Dictionary and Gazetteer, L. R. Hamersly & Co., 1881 p.502, glosses it for the pillage and rapine that occurs when a city is taken. My suggestion arose because I have a slight dislike of deverbal gerundive nouns (sacking) when a simple noun from the same root (sack) exists. This example from Southey is particularly pertinent:-


 * ‘Some among us, says he, in this city, count from the sackage of the Jewry, when the people plundered and burnt it, after which feat the Synagogue was consecrated into a Church in the name of St.Christoval, and many Jews were baptized by their own free will, all of which was in the year 1391’ Robert Southey,''Chronicle of the Cid', 1808 p.386


 * In any case, no big deal. You're probably right to reject it on the grounds of contemporary taste Nishidani (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You think my retirement was brief. Just wait till I presently cancel my retirement from my retirement. (Damn it. I have shovel loads of stuff on Hebron, and just got sick of seeing the page stagnate) Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I gathered that, you ratbag, and I fell for it. After several minutes of psychoanalysis, I've clued up to the defect in my character (narcissist lineaments cathected against a wiki window!) and am preparing to return to my true destiny, the divan, in the Persian sense. By the way, the word 'community' recurs throughout this Hebron piece, and many other articles. It is a Zionist-nuanced retroactive reading of what were distinct communities (in Hebron, Karaites, Sephardim, then joined by Ashkenazim). In Hebron, the Sephardim and Ashkenazim kept distinct congregations, worshipped in different synagogues, and did not intermarry, for example. What unified them, in the end, was the 1929 massacre.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Bayt Jibrin
Josephus refers to Maresha as Marissa, but as for Beitogabra, Josephus refers to it as Betaris. This is found on footnote 7 in page 67 in Robinsion and Smith's Biblical Researches in Palestine. Also here Betaris/Beitogabra/Bayt Jibrin was a suburb of Maresha, but not Maresha itself. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhhh. I thought you were arguing against Betaris. So, what you are saying is that Bayt Jibrin was called Baitogabra before the Romans and Beit Gubrin in that Talmud? --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So it was called Beitogabra before Eleuthoropolis? Just need to know so I could make that fix. I also need that specific reference. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So the sentence in the article should be this: prior to the Roman conquest, the town was known as Beitogabra. Yes? --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will choose to use Betaris since it is the true site of Bayt Jibrin and it is an etymology section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

1948 Palestine War
I may need some support soon but lack time to keep this article in my follow-up. Could you keep this article in your follow up. Thx. Ceedjee (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thx. But that is not that easy : eg . ;-)
 * Ceedjee (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about this. Ceedjee had a convincingly documented point, but was, it appears, simply outvoted by blow-ins, who could not, save for one, give any reason for their opposition.Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Latrun
Are you saying you want an infobox? If so, that would be a bit difficult for me before the article is actually completed - this is a complicated 'battle' comprised of many distinct operations. It's likely that I will help improve this article in the future, but it would be better if Ceedjee translated it first. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman Hebron
This can still be thickened out, both with more detail on 1830-1845, and the Bedouin upheavels as they affected the area, and on the arrival, soon after things settled down, of Iraqi Sephardim, and the establishment of the distinct Ashkenazi congregation (a word I prefer to 'community', which is a dulcet simplification, to impress the naive with a sense of ethnic integration premature for the period).Nishidani (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably best to use Palestine, the term Western travellers used. Syrian Jews, like Christians etc., there, had significant financial resources, whereas the small Jewish settlements in Palestine were subject to endless problems in funding, hence the frequent missions abroad by emissaries, even as far as the US in the late 1700s, to get subventions.Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Hasbara" and the JIDF
Ashley, I still do not understand your connections here. Do you think the JIDF is involved with the Israeli government? Dr. Oboler is not officially involved with the JIDF and I'm not quite sure of his involvement w/ the Israeli government. The reason I take it out is because the JIDF itself has been critical of the Israeli government at times and I don't think WP should mislead readers into thinking the grassroots organization has anything to do with Hasbara. It's really not a huge deal, but it seems to be to you and others who want it in there. There has not been any RS connecting the two. Just seems bizarre that so many people have tried to throw that in there for some reason. I do realize many are highly paranoid about the Israeli govt. I'm not accusing you of this, but it seems the placement of Hasbara in the article about the JIDF will only raise the level of paranoia among certain readers possibly. Thoughts? --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK - would you mind telling me what "similar attributes" the JIDF has with Hasbara? To me, the two are completely unrelated.  --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What I personally know or intuit doesn't enter into it, Ashley. I've actually done research on these sorts of networks and agencies etc., in Japan, for instance, and know how things operate (if people stopped wasting my time on absurd defamation, I'd have probably written a wiki page on the history of antisemitic literaturte in Japan, another project gone down the tube, though I have 10 books on it in Japanese). In any case, all my remark meant that if there is a source for a Hasbara agency link to the JIDF put hasbara in, if not, leave it out. I think, as I said, this is a pseudo-grassroots, backshop one-man operation more or less in a highly competitive field, where making a lot of noise and creating incidents is useful for establishing one's name, and get funding. All over the world this is how these groups operate. In fact some reps are probably here to create incidents for JIDF feedback, (CJCurrie incident) bignote themselves, and use this to establish some cred. on mainstreet. Dr.Oboler's withdrawal from the page is easy to read. He's an aspiring academic, interested in mainstreet, not on shonky off-broadway (is that broadside?) theatrics. Given this and many other considerations, I say, on the JIDF page, the rules of wiki evidence should be as strict as possible, no room for equivocation.Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an amusing way of looking at it. As I've been following them for a while, I don't think the JIDF cares much about "mainstreet" at all.  They've written about it.  People in official capacities have officially have told them not to do certain things that they do anyway.  That's why I like them.  They are anti-establishment.  What do you mean Dr. Oboler's withdrawal from the page?  The JIDF article you mean?  It's been quiet in general it seems.  --Einsteindonut (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

JIDF are a tu'ppenny ha'penny operation that, without Oboler, are nowt but a husk...as ESD points out JIDF are a marginal extremist group that is between 3 and 10 strong....ESD Oboler withdrew due to CoI...Oboler is not an aspiring academic, he's an aspiring political activist using student bodies as a launch pad......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * english please. it's funny, just as you are wrong about the i-p conflict, you are wrong about Oboler and i have no idea what "tu-ppeny" and "hapenny" and "nowt" is...been drinking again, ash?--Einsteindonut (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

erh, it is English...and I don't drink...you need to stay off the drugs they are making you paranoid...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * no drugs nor paranoia here. --Einsteindonut (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Fun JIDF stuff
Just so you know, you've been mentioned in a posting at this website. (permanent link) Let me know if you experience any problems regarding this. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's share the honour. I'm thinking, as I hit the f**t-sack, of Hugh MacDiarmid's lines:-
 * "There's nane sae ignorant but think they can"
 * "Expatiate on you, if on nae ither.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)"

It's nice to get recognition for our work...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge base

 * No Personal attacks there, Mr. Excitement! The size of my knowledge base is my business, thank you.  Now run along and pull some more material from Electronic Intifada to continue your quest to make WP as non-neutral as possible, (because that will make you memorable)!  --Einsteindonut (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just one little point ESD, I've never used Electronic Intifada...makes your assertions some what ridiculous....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
For starting Michel Khleifi and clarifying the Sabra (camp) issue. Is there an article on the neighborhood of Sabra? --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that work on Nahum Goldmann, Ashley. It very much needed the solid nudge you gave it.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC), and best wishes for future repairs, personal and otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahlan wa Sahlan
I think this image is the best description about you, I hope I have a small % of your wide knowledge, BR « PuTTY Sch OOL 11:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Next time read my comments thoroughly before criticising others
I read your page numbers. I quoted pgs 21-22 because they gave a different view. Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC) I have answered you on my talk page. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but no it did not....pages 31 to 33 as quoted.....campaign.....next time read the words....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"extremist site?"
On my talk page, you accused me of using "extremist sites" for Wikipedia - can you please provide any proof of any such instance? If not, I believe you owe me an apology. --Einsteindonut (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

JIDF...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nazir
I have a problem there. I have only inserted inf. from Schölch, who does not define the word/position...Sorry. Huldra (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Note
I'm not sure that your recent assertion about 'Israeli POV writers' is the best way to maintain a collaborative atmosphere. Please keep WP:CIV in mind.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  05:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From.
 * Using the Israeli POV as though it is the NPOV position is not conducive to a productive working environment...remarking on the fact that it is used is merely noting reality...It would be so much more easy if you went around the Israeli POV pushers giving lessons on write for the enemy...May I suggest that those who wish to put the "Israeli side" get on with improving the appalling state of the Israeli related articles...The Nahum Goldmann article was a prime example, no citations and strong extremist POV and half of his life missing...And yet the Israeli section seem to spend all their time pushing POV in contentious issues and not on subjects they profess to know about....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * POV pushers exist everywhere but your arguments are dabbled with Israeli vs. Palestinian finger pointing which is non conductive and in violation of the January Arbcom ruling.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  10:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From.
 * Only when the Israeli POV pushers carry on pushing POV to the detriment of the articles...I've only found 2 pro-Israelis who anywhere near approach an NPOV position...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hezbollah-UK
Hi Ashley, I've put a slightly stroppy note on the talk page. Please look at this point, the UK's position has changed. I understand the problems on these pages, with large numbers of editors determined to push a very one-sided Israeli view into them - but at the same time, dispute can surely be avoided over what are fairly simple issues of verifiable fact? Cheers --Nickhh (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ashley, I'm losing sympathy here. You seem to be just repeating yourself rather than actually checking anything -


 * http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/goverment-proscribe-hizballah
 * http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act/proscribed-groups (this is an updated version from the one previously referenced on the page, please scroll down and read the relevant section)


 * Again, this has nothing to do with POV. It's just about what happens to be the case or not. --Nickhh (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalking 2
All of my page may presently be archived. Archiving does damage, and makes reconstructing certain connected edits hard (or perhaps I just don't know the ins and outs of diff-making and hunting). So, with your permission, Ashley, I'll post the evidence I garnered here on that twit. You can remove it if unnecessary. In principle, I don't complain to administrators (I think in any case it an extreme waste of time to argue the obvious to distracted editors who are unaware of the real backgrounds, and contexts, all the unsaid that flows like the waters of Alph between editors over time. I just like to keep the records clear, so that people know how I thought or this or that. By the way, few really pay attention in AN/1 complaints and these things are judged according, mostly, to preconceived political or personal biases irrespective of arguments ('He's out for one of our guys. To the defence!' etc.). But if you have in the future occasion, since you will now be niggled extensively, to lodge a complaint, you'd better master the details of presentation. The page you've drafted is hard on the eyes, and no one is likely to look at it closely, however impressive the evidence. Look at the AN/1 page, and ChrisO's presentation, that is a lucid model to follow. My forensic style of analysis, by contrast, only loses as many readers as it wins over, so it is a self-cancelling strategy, if one must speak of delivery strategies. Cheers, and best wishes. I'll keep my wiki page, a blank one, just in case anyone wants to ask me something I might be helpful on, like copyedits, checking, etc.

- - - - - Draft

(1) I encountered NoCal100 in an  AN/1 page discussion on Eleland, whose banning he supported. There I simply, en passant corrected his confusion over the distinction in English between 'flaunt' and 'flout', since he used the former in the sense of the latter

(2) This trivial note appeared to seed a grievance. He trailed me to the Nafez Assaily page, which I wrote, and which the now banned User :Einsteindonut had, as a measure of retaliation, but also for his own POV-pushing on I/P articles, just endeavoured to get deleted. Hardly anyone had looked at that page. It is only known to people who scour my page. Einsteindonut did so as to wipe out evidence of the existence of a Palestinian pacifist which I had documented.

(3)While reverting an anonymous I/P tagteam push to revert, without prior discussion or response to requests for discussion, on the Shuafat page, which I have edited, NoCal100, turned up and posted a warning on my page admonishing me not to call their anonymous tagteam behaviour vandalism. . He did not post any such message on the corresponding pages of the two anonymous I/P editors involved in the abuse, aside from confusing several facts. (See note a. below)

(4)Palestine Liberation Organization

(5) A day after Ashley kennedy3 asked me if I could go over an article he has worked extensively on, and I had, in reply to the request done a preliminary copy-edit on the first part, NoCal100 turns up and did a mass delete Banias

Note (a) On Shuafat.


 * Anonymous I/P editor 24.62.27.63 restored an edit made three months earlier. Namely,


 * ‘Shuafat is an Arab town within the borders of Israel as part of north-eastern Jerusalem' here


 * (1)I reverted on the 16th of October back to
 * "'Shuafat is a Palestinian town within the de facto borders of Israel as part of north-eastern Jerusalem'."


 * My edit explained: 'reverted ideology’. Why? 7 experienced editors including strongly ‘pro-Israeli’ editors like User:Canadian Monkey, had found since July nothing wrong with the original edit by Ashleykennedy, which conformed to the reference note 1 to Kershner. (I’d noted way back that her name is misspelled, in the footnote directed to colleagues. While all are prepossessed by possible POVs, no one will change this, one more proof that POV hunting predominates over serious editing.) Kershner wrote:


 * "‘the latest such finds is a narrow strip of antiquity that runs down the middle of a main road through what is now Shuafat, a Palestinian neighborhood in north Jerusalem. . . . touching on one of the most contentious issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the ownership of the city that the Israelis and Palestinians claim as their capital. . . The government expanded the city limits to take in outlying Palestinian villages like Shuafat, and annexed them. The Palestinians were offered Israeli citizenship, but considering themselves illegally occupied, most refused, choosing permanent residency . . most of the world do not recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem and other areas occupied in the 1967 war.’"


 * The edit therefore ignored the source and was ideological. The reference supports Ashley Kennedy’s nuanced version ('Palestinian' 'de facto'), as several editors for thre months did not question. That 'Palestinian' for 'Arab' is by now the vox propria does not have to be argued on several hundred pages, repetitively. 'Arab' could be anyone from Saudi Arabia to Morocco. It has been also accepted that Israel never annexed that land, and that the borders (which are not in international law determined unilaterally) are provisory de facto borders. Many articles accept this.


 * (2) Within another half hour, my revert was reverted in turn by a new anonymous IP editor, and I immediately reverted it with the explanation ‘Undid.The border is not recognized. Hence de facto’


 * (3)Only on the third revert in what was now a tagteam operation by again 24.62.27.63 did I explain my revert back by remarking on vandalism, ‘Rv vandalism’.


 * (4) The anonymous IP editor 24.62.27.63 reverted my restoration back again the next day, and, after a half a day has passed without any other traditional editor intervening to restore the damage, I cancelled his revert, explaining the edit as ''Revert ideological vandalism'.


 * (5)Three days later his anonymous companion 64.119.142.118 restored the ideological POV-driven edit and, within an hour, I restored the consensual edit speaking of ''Rt vandalism of an ideological kind'.


 * (6) At this point, as Ashley Kennedy and I, both customary editors there, were editing, User:NoCal100 steps in to post a severe warning over my page on reverting the tagteamers’ abuse as ‘vandalism’. The tone of voice was that of an administrator, not of a mere editor like myself here. Several things were wrong. He was wikistalking. Secondly he warned me against edit-warring, without saying anything on the pages of the two anonymous I/P editors who were certainly edit-warring in a tagteam effort to restore a non-consensual and false statement that did not reflect the source. Third, I’d explained twice the reasons why the anonymous tagteam revert was false, the two editors did not reply but persisted. I therefore branded their combined effort ‘ideological vandalism’. Fourthly,  I'd spoken of vandalism thrice not four times. Fifth, he tried to make this out to be a content dispute by (a) ignoring that seven editors had never challenged AK’s edit for three months (b) ignoring that the source quoted for the controversial sentence supports AK’s edit, and does not support the tagteam anonymous IPs’ edit, Since he aimed his dart only at me, and had obviously ignored an examination of the content of Kershner’s note, this was further evidence that he had me in his sights, and not the need to write to that page to NPOV standards.


 * (7)He then proceeds to edit the Shuafat page, challenging (in my view legitimately, PR). But his attack on me for behaving responsibly motivated his entry there, as did his subsequent behaviour.


 * (8)On the 28th of October, the second of the 2 tagteamers, after NOCal’s warning to me, reverts back to the false statement they wish to push. In the meantime User:Coppertwig had appeared, and tried to turn this into a content dispute (as NonCal100 argued) to be discussed.  Coppertwig’s invitation to reargue this struck me as an suggestion I engage in an attrition war over what was the commonsense neutral phrasing. Neither he, nor noCal100, nor User:Jayjg who also joined in, had cared to justify the two tagteamers' edit, or show why the consensual edit in place was wrong. So we have three pro-Israeli editors watching the page of a sudden, and I posed them a test Well I'll just watch on, amused that those who have come here to monitor the article and the behaviour of a few of us, are silent on the controversial and persistent tag-team revert that occurred, again, yesterday. In my book, silence is assent


 * (9)What has occurred over the last four days? None of the three has checked the Kershner reference, none has warned the two anonymous I/P editors of edit-warring, none has reverse them, despite the fact that the edit they supporti s not supported by the source. They in short approve. Their problem is monitoring Nishidani, PR, or Ashley Kennedy, not writing according to sources. This is what much of I/P editing is all about. If you don't have the courage to make a bad edit, wait for some anonymous I/P to do it, and attack any pro-Palestinian editor who challenges it. That is why Ashley Kennedy got pissed off, and that is why I think far too many colleagues in here are engaged in an irresponsible farce. I challenged PR, they back each other, even if in their midst an idiot or two crops up. I suppose, for Elonka, this is just another piece of Nishidani's 'rhetoric' Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nishidani, I was monitoring you talk page. But thanks for moving it across..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Draft for ANI
ANI

NoCal100 is obviously a sock puppet of an established or banned account. NoCal100’s use of the complaints procedures has been phenomenally fast for a ‘new account’. The method of attacks on Calton at Sellick666 in tandem with MegaMom (one wonders how many sockpuppets she's bred) to gain status is suspect and typical sockpuppet behaviour.

NoCal100, often, promotes POV by insisting that there is consensus in his/her attempts to flout the rules for dealing with POV. NoCal100 stalls improvements to articles through false claims of consensus, these are rightly ignored as disruption of the encyclopedia, alternatively, NoCal100 might insist that there is "no consensus" for changes that bring an article's text more closely in line with the rules for dealing with POV.

Acting in tandem as a tagteam Nocal100 and Jayjg accounts should therefore be considered one.

This is not a dispute of content. NoCal100 uses the technique of edit by deletion and then claims that consensus must be gained for anyone to be able to have information inserted thereby initiating edit wars. NoCal100's actions are incorrect, the wiki policy is that consensus should be gained before editing. NoCal100 turns up on an article that he has no previous experience of editing therefore he should seek consensus prior to making an edit, he does not do that. When NoCal100 needs to be adopted and his edits vetted until he learns to use the references in an NPOV manner and not be allowed to remove any material until he has learned to edit sensibly and not an "I don't like it" manner and to control his wikistalking. NoCal100 edits (both deletion and insertions) show that NoCal100 is editing for a POV and not NPOV.

It is a dispute over the inability of NoCal100 to edit constructively. NoCal100's edits have generally been to reduce the information available, to remove links that he/she finds not to his/her Ideological liking using a myriad of nonsensical spurious arguments. In the pursuit of an ideological goal he/she has become the antithesis of the founding principal of the ethos of wiki the "access to information". That is Edit by deletion without consensus in a manner that places inaccurate and misleading information in wikipedia

a) Banias

With no other editor involved. NoCal100 with no previous edits on that subject deleted with no attempt at consensus. Wiki Policy clearly states that consensus should be reached before editing with interested parties. (deletion is an edit) NoCal100 made not such attempt. examples below.

i) NoCal100 repeated removal of sourced material here

His/her argument being "Not directly related to Banias".

John Francis Wilson, the academic and author of Caesarea Philippi: Banias, the Lost City of Pan I.B.Tauris, (2004) ISBN 1850434409 thought that the incident was of such note to Banias that he included it in his book on page 178. (the Wilson (2004) book has been repeatedly used throughout the Banias article and as the book is available electronically one must assume that NoCal100 must have read it before editing on the wiki article that he/she recently wiki stalked his way to)

ii)NoCal100 repeated bad faith edits here

repeated reversion to "by mutual agreement"...it is a facetious statement; in that all agreements, if made, are by the fact, of an agreement being made, obviously by mutual consent. In this instance, no agreement was made therefore there was no mutual consent. His edit is only to try to repeatedly expound his/her ideological POV of the myth of Israel as the peace maker whereas the reference given pointedly show that it was a Syrian offer that it was rejected by Israel, as shown in the references supplied.

b) Shaufat

again NoCal100 bad faith edits here

NoCal100:-

No one was yet living in them.

quote from reference supplied by NoCal100: ''At least two of the houses destroyed Monday were occupied by families; the others were empty. The Abu Kweiks moved into their one-story, four-bedroom house four months ago, the family said, after saving and scraping for five years to build it. Members of the family have lived in the Shuafat camp since fleeing their original home–in what is today central Israel–during the Jewish state’s 1948 War of Independence.''

NoCal100 makes a blatant false statement. Nocal100 either doesn't read or is only cherry picking to suit his own extremist ideology.

c) NoCal100 Bad faith edits in Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing here where he/she removes work that is supported by the reference that he supplied.

From Lucy Dean (2003), The Middle East and North Africa, 2004 Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge, ISBN 1857431847 p 915

"Nevertheless appeared to have reined in its suicide bombers, giving its tacit support to its fragile cease-fire and stating that it would not unleash more suicide bombers on Israel as long as Israeli troops did not kill Palestinian civilians. However in early July both Islamic Jahad and Hamas formally declared an end to the truce."

NoCal100 uses the reference to remove all sentences (which had citations) to the previous behaviour of Israeli troops a removal of which is 180° at variance with his own reference.

The bombing came 10 days after Israel's assassination of two leading Hamas commanders in Nablus, Jamal Mansour and Omar Mansour, as well as 6 bystanders, including two children.

d) NoCal100 bad faith edits In the Category:Suicide bombing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Removal of category nationalism by substitution of category here I can only assume because it mentions Palestine and nationalism which would fall under the category of an "I don't like it" edit to an Ideological extremist.

e) NoCal100 bad faith edits category removal..while on Palestinian subjects category additions   blatant POV

f) NoCal100 bad faith edits placing POV

g) NoCal100 bad faith edits puts 1965 rather than 1930s because the initial cause was increased Jewish immigration into Palestine

"The allocation of the Jordan's headwaters began to be taken seriously in the 1930s when increased Jewish immigration into Palestine created a need for sustained water management for agricultural development and drinking."

h) NoCal100 bad faith edits here calling University papers in the public domain "original research"...

i) NoCal100 bad faith edits the group was known as the Stern Gang, historical fact. (in the English speaking world it was only known as Stern gang).

j) NoCal100 bad faith edits here removal of pertinent material.

k) NoCal100 bad faith edits here again edit by deletion without gaining consensus for edit.

l) NoCal100 bad faith edits here the article is about the Semitic use of ADN from ancient to modern not just the Hebrew variant.

m) NoCal100 bad faith edits using I don't like it delete technique here

n) NoCal100 and Jayjg acting in tandem and still break 3RR here on 19 Nov 2008 (no penalty from admin)

o) NoCal100 and Jayjg acting in tandem again claiming consensus where there obviously is none. here on 19 Nov 2008

p) NoCal100 I don't like it edits POV edit here King of Jordan is not relevant to the Arab league (where the King of Jordan speaks of his hands being tied by the Arab league) yet NoCal100 finds that the mufti in Germany prior to the conception of the Arab league is relevant, strange edit basis.

q) NoCal100 bad faith edits

Is 10 a "large number"? I personally think not. In which case this should be renamed to "incident" or "attack" or similar. Otherwise any terrorist attacks that kill 10 or more people should likewise be listed as a "massacre". Wikipedia will quickly fill up with "massacres" diluting those that really are massacre of large numbers of people. Oboler (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Agree. Renaming, per the discussion here NoCal100 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC) original here

And then on 1 December 2008 NoCal100 changes his mind on definition of massacre here

Scorpion pass is referred to as an ambush by the majority.


 * Lipman ambush
 * Israel Misard Ha-huts ambush
 * Nissim bar-Yaccov Incident
 * Eedson Louis Millard Burns Incident
 * Liliental attack
 * Morris massacre
 * Oren massacre
 * Middle East Institute ambush
 * Ovendale ambush
 * Hutcheson ambush
 * Higgins incident
 * Love massacre/ambush
 * Neff ambush

or killing: The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957: 1948-1957 By Avi Plascov Published by Routledge, 1981 ISBN 0714631205 p 101

r) NoCal100 bad faith edits here. Use of the word terrorist..complete POV. The perpetrators were never caught, the main conclusion from Jordanian and UN investigations was that it was robbery, Israel's evidence was found to be incorrect and the Jordanian and UN version confirmed when ID from the robbery was found in Gaza several years later. How can you tell the motivating force without confirmation from either a group claiming responsibility or evidence, apparently NoCal100 is able to.

s)NoCal100 and Jayjg acting in collusion again here making controversial edits. The fact that the West Bank article has sections about alternative names one wonder why Nocal100 and Jayjg want to place a controversial name in the lead?

t) T stands for tag team NoCal100 and Jayjg here

The term "Judea and Samaria" is also highly controversial in Israeli society itself, and is often employed specifically as a collective reference to the Israeli settlements in that area, historically and presently, especially by Jewish settlers and their supporters. Left-wing Israelis prefer "HaGada HaMa'aravit" (הגדה המערבית "The West Bank" in Hebrew) or "Hashetahim Hakvushim" (השטחים הכבושים, The Occupied Territories). Many Arab Palestinians object to this term as a rejection of their claim to the land. Nevertheless, the term al-Yahudiyya was-Samarah is used by Arab Christians in reference to the Bible.

NoCal100's Previous history of bad faith disruptive and vandalism in his/her editing and stalking pattern:-

   and identified as a wikistalker tracking both Nishidani and CasualObserver'48 here


 * 15:17, 29 October 2008 CasualObserver'48 (Talk | contribs) m (7,597 bytes) (misc grammar, technical)
 * 19:30, 1 November 2008 Nishidani (Talk | contribs) (28,427 bytes) (chur) (undo)
 * 15:06, 2 November 2008 NoCal100 (Talk | contribs) (29,743 bytes) (→British Mandate to contemporary: not directly relevant to banias) (undo)

Gilo 
 * (cur) (last) 17:34, 16 October 2008 Nishidani (Talk | contribs) (11,840 bytes) (→Shooting incidents: fixing phrasing) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 21:57, 16 October 2008 Ashley kennedy3 (Talk | contribs) m (11,842 bytes) (→References: condense refs) (undo)
 * 01:55, 17 October 2008 NoCal100 (Talk | contribs) (11,673 bytes) (→Land dispute: ref does not mention Gilo) (undo) (again after no previous record of editing gilo)

Palestine Liberation Organization
 * 17:27, 30 October 2008 Nishidani
 * 17:53, 30 October 2008 NoCal100 with no previous record of having edited PLO


 * previously exhibited stalking behaviour on non-ME articles and strong sockpuppet behavioural pattern.here

 Oh, and something struck me that I should have realised earlier. 100 = "ton" (to quote from Ton - "In Britain, ton is colloquially used to refer to 100 of a given unit"). Given "NoCal100" = "NoCalton" and your stalking behaviour, I'm inclined to think I've got enough evidence to the contrary not to assume good faith. GBT/C 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of 246 Edits on articles NoCal100 has a very high percentage of disruptive behaviour. here

IronDuke recruits to act in tandem with NoCal100 here acting in tandem with Nocal100 and Jayjg therefore accounts should be considered one Check user Boodlesthecat

Best wishes, Ashley

 * The same to you, Ashley. Remember this is a postmodern tribal world, where the rules say that Einstein, were he to lose his temper in an argument with a flatearther of impeccable manners, would be subject to sanctions in the short term by administrators who appraise good manners as the operative essence of the project, until, after several months of arbitration, outside consensus finally agreed he was right. Elonka means no harm, though operatively her choice does privilege that side of the wiki rule-system which makes successful drafting to GA status in the I/P area virtually impossible, except for candidates for martyrdom and sainthood. It is just that in her reading of the rules - quite legitimate - manners impress more than meaning: one is required to assume good faith where it does not exist, and be polite to tagteamers pushing a POV, even if this means that they will always trump you by sheer attrition of patience. None of your antagonists, note, actually edit pages structurally, from go to woe, but specialize in reverting or challenging what real article builders do, strictly in terms of what they see as Israel's international image and interests. Since this is basically a numbers game, they will always win. Some things to reflect on, over the plum pud and I hope, several bottles of stout and assorted grogs. I can't help more than this because I am on strike as a page editor, until that abusive decision on my page is overturned.


 * (1)Aharon S. Klieman’s analysis of Israeli negotiating culture throws light on the cultural hinterground of the hasbara operation in I/P articles.


 * Applying many of the principles of IDF warfare to bargaining, soldiers in mufti are prone to treating diplomatic talks as analogous to wars of attrition and conducting them according to one of two models: either as a game of waiting out the opponent, or as a lightening offensive aimed at breaking the back of resistance. If the former, then the objective is to wear down one’s adversary in a battle of wills through such strategems as looking for the tactical high ground, refusing to budge, and fighting for every inch and centimetre by wrangling over even seemingly trivial technical details. If the latter, then the enemy’s bargaining position is vbest taken by storm by using intimidation and bluff. Apply mounting pressure, if warranted, by constantly devising and tabling fresh counter-proposals. Insist on quid pro quo. Outsmart the opponent by probing for openings, soft spots, and weakness. Bring constant pressure to bear. Present maximum demands in the knowledge that one can always back down and offers concessions; especially symbolic ones, further along the negotiation . .The basic inclination is to assume neither goodwill nor magnaminity on the part of the Arab opponents.’ Cited in Yoram Peri, Generals in the Cabinet Room: How the Military Shapes Israeli Policy, US Institute of Peace Press, 2006 p.238 (citing Aharon Klieman, “Israeli Negotiating Culture,” in How Israelis and Palestinians Negotiate: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of the Oslo Peace Process, ed.Tamara Cofman Wittes (Washington D.C. United States Institute of Peace Press, 2005)


 * (2) 'In the late 1980s, Internet users adopted the word “troll” to denote someone who intentionally disrupts online communities. Early trolling was relatively innocuous, taking place inside of small, single-topic Usenet groups.’ (b) ‘trolling, pushing peoples’ buttons.' Mattathias Schwartz, ‘The Trolls Among Us,’ NYT August 3, 2008 (see Postel’s Law)


 * (3) Postel’s Law. ‘One promising answer comes from the computer scientist Jon Postel, now known as “god of the Internet” for the influence he exercised over the emerging network. In 1981, he formulated what’s known as Postel’s Law: “Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from others.” Originally intended to foster “interoperability,” the ability of multiple computer systems to understand one another, Postel’s Law is now recognized as having wider applications. To build a robust global network with no central authority, engineers were encouraged to write code that could “speak” as clearly as possible yet “listen” to the widest possible range of other speakers, including those who do not conform perfectly to the rules of the road. The human equivalent of this robustness is a combination of eloquence and tolerance — the spirit of good conversation. Trolls embody the opposite principle. They are liberal in what they do (posting anything they like, nishidani) and conservative in what they construe as acceptable behavior from others(manipulating wikipedia etiquette against adversaries). You, the troll says, are not worthy of my understanding (this is the real meaning of whoever links your position to a strawman argument); I, therefore, will do everything I can to confound you.’ Mattathias Schwartz, ‘The Trolls Among Us,’ NYT August 3, 2008


 * (4) lulz “Lulz” is how trolls keep score. A corruption of “LOL” or “laugh out loud,” “lulz” means the joy of disrupting another’s emotional equilibrium. “Lulz is watching someone lose their mind at their computer 2,000 miles away while you chat with friends and laugh,” said one ex-troll who, like many people I contacted, refused to disclose his legal identity. Another troll explained the lulz as a quasi-thermodynamic exchange between the sensitive and the cruel: “You look for someone who is full of it, a real blowhard. Then you exploit their insecurities to get an insane amount of drama, laughs and lulz. Rules would be simple: 1. Do whatever it takes to get lulz. 2. Make sure the lulz is widely distributed. This will allow for more lulz to be made. 3. The game is never over until all the lulz have been had.” Mattathias Schwartz, ‘The Trolls Among Us,’ NYT August 3, 2008


 * (5) If you want to stay in, never go to arbitration, which is a huge waste of time, since most never read the stuff, but just express their rapid impressions, and don't interact or remonstrate with known abusers. Just edit, and explain the edit. Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)