User talk:Dailycare

Israel FAR
Hi Dailycare! You commented on the Israel FAR (located here) when it was in the FAR portion of the review. It has since moved to the FARC portion where editors enter keep/delist declarations. Any further comments on the article would be appreciated, as would an opinion on whether the article should be kept at or delisted from FA status. Thanks in advance! Dana boomer (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Yo Dailycare! I read something that said the US is going to intervene in Syria. Is that going to happen? Chipperdude15 (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edits at Jerusalem
I will politely request that you stop edit warring at Jerusalem. The discussion is ongoing and you are the only editor who has expressed support for the suggested change. Everyone else has attempted to explain to you why your suggested change does not make sense. Continuing to edit war without reaching consensus for your change will be considered disruptive editing, and you may face the consequences if this happens. Breein1007 (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, could you provide diffs for any edits of mine which you consider to be edit warring? --Dailycare (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"No More Mr Nice Guy"
That phrase is kind of a cliché of cheap action movies, where the hero is pushed one step too far and then exclaims "No more Mr. nice guy!" as he prepares to take the bad guys down... AnonMoos (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know that. Still, it sounds a bit confrontational. --Dailycare (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaza aid shipment
You changed the lead without reading the current discussion in the talk page. Please feel free to join the discussion about mentioning international reaction in the lead. I'm removing your changes until a consensus is formed. Zuchinni one (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edit tags seem misleading
Hi Dailycare,

In your recent edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=367590380&oldid=367587067

You say that you want to include the definition of martyr for those people who might not know. While that is a laudable goal, your edit seems to be more about removing information than including it.

You again removed that information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=367590563&oldid=367590380

And you reverted the more NPOV word "condemnation" to "outrage" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=367579623&oldid=367575326 With the reasoning that RS are using that term. However RS are also using the term condemnation. Since wikipedia needs to remain NPOV we should be using the less POV term. There have also been discussions about this that you have taken part in, and no consensus was reached.

While I may personally agree with some of the edits you've made, the bottom line is that you have already passed the 1RR limit for this article, with the three reversions above. This is not the first time you have done so. And these reversions were not made with the consensus of the discussion page.

Please stop the edit warring. Your opinion is appreciated but it would be better served in the discussion section rather than in reverting edits and leaving comments that are questionable regarding the nature of your edits.

Zuchinni one (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Daily,


 * Thanks for getting back to me. In regards to your comments:


 * 1) My concern here wasn't exactly your edit, but the edit comments which seemed indicate that information was added, when in fact information was removed. This seems to be a problem that recently got worse and I've contacted several people about being more clear.
 * 2) In regards to the "outrage" my concern is that there has been an ongoing discussion in the talk section about precisely this word, since the very first day this article went up. And there isn't really consensus to support a change.  Since this was covered in basically every paper in the world there are tons of RS that use many different terms.  Outrage and condemnation seemed to be the most common.  There were many refs at one point that used condemnation but most of them seem to have been removed.  Either way in many of the cases where 'outrage' was used, it was used in reference to outrage over the deaths, not the raid itself.  The current wording implies that the outrage was over the raid.
 * 3) In regards to the 1RR, you are allowed to make multiple edits, but you cannot undo or revert other author submissions more than once. The three edits I mentioned earlier are each removal of another authors edits.  So you basically have 3RRs right there.
 * You've made some really thoughtful contributions to the talk page and I hope that you continue to do so.
 * Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem is in Israel.
Even if you appellant about Jerusalem as the capital, you can't appellant Jerusalem as part of Israel. All the sister cities of Jerusalem are noted Jerusalem as Israeli city. If you want to edit, you need to bring it to the talk page. --Sipio (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edit at Israel
Hey, you added: "toward Golan Heights", but the sentence already says "Galilee" which is the land "toward" Golan, so "toward Golan" is repeat and does not need to be mentioned. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you were trying to do. The section is about geography in Israel, not geography in Syria, so Golan shouldn't be mentioned at all. But I just wanted to make you aware that "Galilee" is already mentioned so there is really no need for any mention of land "towards Golan" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

sovereign states sorting criteria
Sorry to bother here, but as you are a contributor to certain discussions at the List of sovereign states I would like to show you the recently compiled list of all proposals for sorting criteria so that you can express your opinion here. Thanks! Alinor (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You start one
and Ill make a post there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion at Lib RfC
I was wondering what next step you may recommend for dispute resolution. Certain editors there don't seem to respect the outside opinions garnered from the RfC process. I would like to keep to processes which are article-related, but unfortunately, the behavior at the talk page is as much of a problem (for example, see: this), leading me to the conclusion that an RFC/USER might be a more definitive way to improve productivity at that article. I hate to focus on editors instead of content, but, at the heart of it, tendentiousness seems to be the actual problem. What did you have in mind, though? BigK HeX (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There's certainly plenty of evidence of a few editors disregarding overwhelming outside opinion, as I assume that you've seen. We've tried to get informal mediation, but that's languished unaccepted for over a month.  As much as I hate bringing editors up for individual scrutiny, I think I'll have to bite the bullet, and just pursue it, in the interests of stopping the endless WP:IDHT. Thanks for the input! BigK HeX (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

AE
I've closed your AE filing. The consensus was to warn and proceed under SPI, SPI will handle as warranted. --WGFinley (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Six day war
There is going to be issues if you don't use the talk page. Would you mind making a comment over there?Cptnono (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Notification
A proposal to change the layout and sorting criteria of the article List of sovereign states has been finalised and submitted for consensus.

As you were previously involved in the discussion for this change, I thought I would inform you of the final proposal. Please provide comments here.  Night w   13:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel and the apartheid analogy query
Dailycare, hope this message finds you well. Following a request at WP:3O and per the conversation I have had with Tempered here, I would be grateful if you could fill in the section or comment at Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy. Many thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment
As you correctly guessed, I am dying to respond to your comments. But I will hold back, because the essay you linked to made some interesting points that I need to think about. Having said that, i'd be grateful for your views on a broader point coming from this, as you are one of the few editors on I/P issues who IMHO appears to get the very difficult NPOV balance pretty spot on. My question is that since I/P issues are clearly susceptible to behaviour detailed in another essay topic - WP:TAGTEAM - what are editors who think tag-teaming is wrong supposed to do to counter such behaviour and reach NPOV if anything approaching WP:BLUDGEON is out? I can't think of any other antidotes to tagteaming. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to respond. My thoughts below:
 * I think a solution to tag-teaming hasn't been found - the opposing positions in the tag-team essay deletion discussion are very interesting. However it is undisputed that the tag teams can build their own consensus via WP:NINJA editing, circular or illogical argumentation and a continual ignoring of points, and that this works particularly well in debates with the impossible to define WP:UNDUE and WP:ROC policies at their core
 * I personally think it is not possible to expose a tag-team without infiltration - hence I have never made such accusations. My concern with your infiltration idea (which should definitely be considered) is that often there is no need for tag teamers to formally coordinate - each members' (e.g. nationalistic) goals can often be understood perfectly without discussion
 * I agree that RfC can be used in certain cases, but on high profile articles like Israel which has over 1000 watchers, I think the chances of ever getting the tag team in the minority are very low
 * If the only way to counter such behaviour is to create an equivalent tag-team, to fight fire with fire so to speak, then I will drop from WP as I didn't join to play a game or win a war (not that you in any way suggested that - it's just my concern that WP might be going that way). What I have been trying to work out is whether the correct way to counter tag-teaming editors who use gaming tactics and/or "circular or illogical argumentation and a continual ignoring of points" is simply to expose them. In other words whilst as you rightly say it is impossible to convince those editors, it might be possible to embarrass or undermine them so that it is more difficult for them to repeat such tactics with credibility going forward. Do you think that is too idealistic, and do you think it is possible to achieve this without tripping the WP:BLUDGEON guidance? Oncenawhile (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to say thanks for your response - it's helpful to discuss difficult topics like this once in a while. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

.

Jerusalem did not start in 638 either
Your comment here is true. In fact, this is mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Why have you removed mention of the early Jewish connection to the city, leaving only the Muslim connection statring in 638? Chesdovi (talk) 12:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * we are stay here forever !!! with or whitout usa. פארוק (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Cabal of Mediation
Hello, my name is Asinthior and I will be your mediator. I have no prior knowledge of Israel and the Apartheid Analogy, which I think is a good thing as I will be able to provide a pair of fresh eyes and I won't have any prejudice on the matter. I hope we can all actively participate in the solution of this dispute. Feel free to leave a note at my talk page at any time. I will be available through the weekend. Asinthior (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Could we please transfer the discussion to the Mediation Cabal case page? In other words, all further comments concerning this dispute and how to insert the controversial paragraph into the article should be done at case page until we close the case. If you agree, please state so in the discussion section of the case page. Asinthior (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've read the subsection of the discussion page for the article in dispute. As the Mediation Cabal did not have an immediate response, I feel the debate have moved to a new topic. I would ask all concerned parties to make a very short statement trying to define as narrowly as possible what is the topic of the dispute and what would be the expected outcome. Please do this in the discussion section of this page. Asinthior (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Mount Scopus
My dear friend !. You should not have to be anti-Semitic. Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people forever. You can not read that another person he hates Jews and hates Israel - a disgrace to say ! To say that Mount Scopus + Mount of Olives is not a Jewish area more than 3,000 years - that people are talking like that is itself anti-Semitic. Mount Scopus will never be an arab land. Like that London will never be sold for Saudi Arabia. i'm sorry - you don't know the real history of the Great Arab Lie. פארוק (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Israel and the Apartheid Analogy
It's been exactly one month since User:Tempered last contributed to WP. I think you can go ahead and do the edits you were disputing about. If he comes back and still has a problem, we can mediate then. Just throw me a line at my talk page. Asinthior (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you live here in Israel - So that you knows what every Israeli feels in everyday life. " Obama " also lives in Israel and know what every Israeli feels !!!!! . פארוק (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Three and one-half hour Gaza flotilla rewrite
Hi, Dailycare. You wrote at the talk page for Gaza flotilla raid that you didn't have time to review Reneem's edits. Your comment also left me with the impression that you thought that someone else should or could do so. But Reneem has now spent spent 3 and 1/2 hours rewriting the article to a pro-IDF perspective, and reviewing his changes would be a monumental task.

Along with Marokwitz, you objected to the revert I made for that reason. But I believe it would take a determined editor at least three times as long - a solid ten hours - to evaluate Reneem's rewrite by trying to step through the 17+ diffs and make sense of them. Without having the benefit of knowing what his (procedural) intention was for any given subset of saved edits, and with no edit summaries, it would be a huge undertaking. I don't have the time to do that, any more than you do, and I don't think its reasonable to expect that anyone who follows the article does.

That's why I reverted, his extremely "bold" edit series. I'd hoped he'd "discuss", but after Marokwitz immediately reinstated, Reneem went on to add another two hours of consecutive edits. I'd be grateful if you'd review my subsequent comments subsequent to yours in the talk page section ( livelink/snapshot ). If you'd like to reply, could you possibly do so the article talk page? I need to put my watchlist on a diet, with all the individual user-talk pages it has on it already. Many thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Luther" redirect move discussion re-opened at new page
I'm inviting everyone who contributed to the previous discussion to weigh in (again) at Talk:Luther (disambiguation). Thanks, Aristophanes 68   (talk)  20:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Hey! I'm looking to de-redlink this template and I wonder if you could assist me with your valued opinion and shared knowledge on these questions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#1985_PLO_ships_bombing Shoplifter (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem
recently I reciever a lot of anti-Semitic messages. mainly by Arabs on every sentence I write about Jerusalem. I just want to say from a Jew to Christian, he lived in Europe and did not know what it means to live in Israel. "Jerusalem is the forever capital of the Jewish people" and it does not matter if it Palestine or Israel. thank you ! . פארוק (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My revert
Sorry for the revert without explanation. You added a figure reportedly given by Mansour, but it deviates from the official figure given by the PLO. Mansour is also unreliable when it comes to giving figures: in the past month alone, he's given 130, 131 and 139, and not in that order. At the very least, since it deviates from the official figure, I'd like to move it to the section discussing confusion in numbers. Thanks for your time and sorry again,  Night w   02:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

East Germany
You are misreading the situation. it is YOU who has made a bold edit, to something that was in the article for eight years. Five editors have reverted your change, not a single one has supported your change. The "previous version" is the one that has been here for years, not your recent addition. Jeff Song (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the result of your 3RR complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

arabs can do quite a bit in israel and 'even' in the west bank areas as well
you wrote "Besides, in the occupied areas Arabs can't ride the same bus as Jews, and can't vote" - arabs can ride the same bus as jews in the 'occupied areas' (it was just proven again this past week when 6 people did it). and they can vote. they do not vote in israel since they are not israeli citizens, but many hold jordanian citizenship and work it out there. Soosim (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
I'm just tired of wasting too much time on these silly issues. Thank you for taking the time to fix it. Wish I had thought of that idea - checking the article for sources that already mention this. It's completely illogical to require sources for this since it's common knowledge... And any first-hand source will by definition not be a "reliable source". So thank you for solving it! --Piz d&#39;Es-Cha (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem Naming Conventions
Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes on Talk - Acceptance and rejection of plan
Hi Dailycare. Being banned from wikIPedia for 6 months I can't comment in Talk... Never the less


 * Anonmoos ought be reminded that it was six months after the Arab States rejected UNGA res 181, the Jewish People's Council made the final, official, acceptance of the partition plan by declaring the Establishment of the State of Israel enshrining UNGA res 181 in that declaration.
 * Being a non-binding resolution, there was no clause or article in UNGA Res 181 requiring the parties to co-sign or agree. Nor could there have been.  Declaring independence is by it's very nature a completely unilateral concept.  Either party could accept or reject.  The Jewish People's Council accepted, without registering any official reservation.  In doing so, Israel agreed (in fact declared) that Jerusalem was not Israeli and that whatever remained of Palestine was not Israeli
 * As corpus separatum was never instituted, Jerusalem has never been legally separated from Palestine.


 * S/RES/465 (1980) 1 March 1980 | Secondary Source
 * "Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem
 * Deeply concerned over the practices of the Israeli authorities in implementing that settlement policy in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem ... "| Primary Source


 * S/RES/476 (1980) 30 June 1980 | Secondary Source
 * "1. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;"| Primary Source


 * Of course Anonmoos's argument falls apart all by itself, as does all propaganda. If the Arab rejection rendered UNGA res 181 null and void, then corpus separatum was never instituted and Jerusalem was never legally separated from Palestine ... talknic (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC) talknic (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Pakistan
Dailycare, the report in question is the "Index of Failed States 2011" published by Foreign Policy magazine in collaboration with the Fund for Peace. By themselves alone, they would not have enough weight to be carried into a country article, but if you read the discussion above, you will find that there is significant independent coverage of the report itself by reliable sources. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  20:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the addendum. I have added comments under extended discussion. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDMOS
We do not typically use "patient" but rather "person with X" Cheers Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
You left me with no choice. I am sorry that it had to come to this --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Concerning this edit where you say that Abba Eban stated that "Nasser's assurances he wasn't planning to attack Israel were credible," Do you have Eban's book and did you take the quote directly from Eban's book? Or did you lift the quote from another book. I am well acquainted and very familiar with Eban's view's on the subject and he did not subscribe to those views after Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. I am going to order that book and I am going to ascertain for myself how you construed Eban's views and whether they are accurately reflected or whether you deliberately chose an out of context snippet thus distorting Eban. You have a lousy track record.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can save you the expense. I have the book in front of me, and can confirm Dailycare's reading. A fuller quote is: "The Secretary General had virtually brought nothing back with him, apart from Nasser's assurance that he did not plan an armed attack. I said that I found this assurance convincing. Nasser did not want war; he wanted victory without war." So Dailycare's quote is accurate (except for the substitution of a full stop for a semicolon), and in context, and his interpretation is fully borne out by the text itself. RolandR (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And what date was that? When did this exchange with the Secretary General occur? I am still going to order the book because I want to see what else Eban said and I am certain that he had a lot to say about Arab intentions before the war, omitted of course by Dailycare.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Conversation with Arthur Goldberg, 26 May 1967. RolandR (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

AE involving you closed
I have closed the AE thread involving you. The result was that you are now considered to be clearly aware of the editing restrictions imposed by WP:ARBPIA, and should feel free to ask for clarification on them if need be. No sanctions will be imposed as a result of this report. Seraphimbladepublic (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to log a formal warning.

July 2012
You did it again--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Hello Dailycare, I noticed the edit-war at. This topic falls under WP:ARBPIA (which I see you notified of above) and so is one where edit-warring is typically dealt with more harshly. If it happens that you feel the need to revert again at Six-Day War, please consider pursuing dispute resolution instead. CIreland (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * On a similar note, I've declined the edit warring report you left at WP:AN3, but only because you need to bring edit warring related to Arab-Israeli articles to WP:AE. I've explained a little more with the report itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem
Hi, I would appreciate it if you'll add your opinion here: Talk:Jerusalem. --MeUser42 (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Request to Clarify a Past Third Opinion
Hi, awhile ago you generously made a third opinion comment for La Luz del Mundo article. Here is your third opinion that you provided. Since then, a source and its content that contained the specific accusation against the church's founder was removed. The accusation was the "exploitation of underage women." Since another source meant to help bring context and another POV to that subsection was added, and now is the only one that remains, the subsection title was changed to "Schism of 1942" and moved into a new subsection called "Criticism." Another editor here claims that your third opinion meant that the subsection should not be named anything other than "Allegations of Founder's exploitation of underage women." Please note that "Founder" was added to the title in the past by another editor.

So please clarify your third opinion. Did you mean that the subsection name could not change to reflect the content? Did you mean to include the word "founder" in the section name? Is the current name and placement of the subsection going against your third opinion? (See the current section here ) Thank you for your time and your kind assistance. Fordx12 (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apartheid in Israel?, the Dialog poll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Haaretz article
I googled, "Israel calories". It's on the first page. It works intermittently. Currently it's not working. For something like that, you would need more than one source anyway. And then after that you have to consider whether this summary of the blockade should include that bit of news, etc etc. Not really appropriate where it is. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wrong on both accounts. WP:BURDEN says that the onus is on the editor who "adds or restores" material.  Also, the WP:3RR says you can't make more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period.  Do you try to intimidate all anons this way to get your way?  Please don't make me start up another RFC, and just leave the material out.  You haven't been able to verify the claim made because you can't even view the source.  So you are adding material that you don't have any source for.  Don't even try to pretend that I'm making the bad edits here. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said before, the site works intermittently. I just loaded it moments before writing this.  If you're fast, maybe you can check it out before it goes down again: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/2-279-calories-per-person-how-israel-made-sure-gaza-didn-t-starve.premium-1.470419  159.1.15.34 (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned
An editor has complained at User talk:EdJohnston about your usage of www.radioislam.net which he believes is a hate site. It looks like a bad site to me as well. We are unlikely to allow usage of that kind of a site in articles. It is questionable to use them as a source for anything, even on an article talk page, even as a convenience link to a copy of what is claimed to be some other work. You can respond on my talk page if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi...
If you insist on copying the sources verbatim, then it should be in quotation marks. Otherwise, the phrasing will mislead people into believing that the issue has been settled once and for all and that anyone who disagrees is a moron. That's not very encyclopedic, in my opinion. And since we only have a handful of scholars and a NYTimes article to go off of, it comes off as POV pushing. However, there's only two of us involved in this discussion, so it seems we're at a stalemate.Evildoer187 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC at List of indigenous peoples Talk page
Hello Dailycare, I've posted an RfC on an article related to the Israel Apartheid analogy article, and am notifying you in case you'd be interested in commenting.

The RfC relates to two official UN sources describing the Palestinians and Arabs in Israel in terms of indigenous peoples. I am somewhat new to editing these pages, but another veteran editor recently made the following comment on the Talk page, so the material seemed relevant.

"As per all the other RfC on the matter since 2006- both out until recognized by an official indigenous body - so no change from the norm.Moxy (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)"

One of the UN sources I've cited is from 2009, the webpage does not indicate a date when the relevant material was posted, but that is general definition of thematic issues related to education issues faced by indigenous peoples, whereas the report addresses the state of affairs at a specific point in time.

Are the references in these sources tantamount to official recognition by the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues?--Ubikwit (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

Wikipedia:OR/N

I've opened a section titled "Do official UN publications recognizing Palestinians as indigenous peoples mandate their inclusion of Palestinians?" on the above-referenced page. It wasn't clear how the notification markup should be used, so I'm using the Talk pages of editors mentioned in the filing.--Ubikwit (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit

RfArb: Jerusalem
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --  tariq abjotu  20:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, Dailycare. In response to the RFAR noted above, I've posted a number of questions that I'd like parties to respond to in their statements. When you get a chance, please stop back by and add your responses to your statement. Thank you. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparent oversight on your part
For someone highly attuned to the almost imperceptible shades of nuance connoted by "said" and "noted", I am somewhat surprised that you utilised that mischievous word, "claim" when striving for a neutral tone, and I request that you remedy this obvious oversight. ' Ankh '. Morpork  21:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, I made the edit you suggested. I think I originally used "claim" as I recall reading analyses of the NYT's line that draws the opposite conclusion. --Dailycare (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit
Hi, regarding your edit to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194. It is good that you caught the refuge issue, it should be part of the lead, noting that article 11 is the most referenced article of this resolution(and the only one that has a dedicated section in the article). However, this doesn't explain why you undid the previous edit, instead of appending to it. Note that this resolution has 15 articles and all but 11 deals with ways to implement the truce, so the previous edit was on the spot. Also the previous "bit" is as "unsourced" as your current "bit", thanks.--Mor2 (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your comment. The reason I removed the "attempted to create" language was that it was an interpretation of the resolution that didn't come from a source, and conveys the implication that the resolution was somehow unsuccessful ("attempted"). In reality, the resolution did pass and adopted all of the articles. I realize that English isn't your native language, so this may have been an unintentional meaning on your part. The refugees and commission relate to articles 11 and 12-15, recpectively, so I don't consider those to be unsourced. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

UNSCR 242
Hi Dailycare. You reverted an edit that restored wording that had been heavily debated and agreed some time ago, and stable ever since. Mor2 has also made extensive changes which I am proposing to revert. I want to go back to my last edit but I am happy to discuss your reversion of my change on the articles talk page. See you there. Steve157 (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

sovereign
Hi, regarding your edit on the West Bank article.

It's about recognition + Sovereignty i.e. recognition of WB as part of Palestine has nothing todo with this. Since 'state of Palestine' never exercised any independent authority over this geographic area, unlike Jordan or Israel. So i request that you fix this.--Mor2 (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, we can discuss this on the talkpage, where I've already posted a comment on this a few days ago. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "List of indigenous peoples Talk page". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  20:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo
Hi there! I invite you to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one
Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 17:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two
Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 16:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I want no further interaction with you
See above. If you see me editing an article, just walk the other way. I shall do the same in the reverse circumstance.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I said I wanted no interaction with you, and I meant it. I do not trust you. Delete this if you wish.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three
Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   19:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  21:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Herodium edit
Since you made the edit, I think you should be the one to add the second source. The present source mentions only Israel, now we need to add the second source stating West Bank. Debresser (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
That was not an edit war. One revert does not count as an edit war. Post another message like that, and you will find yourself at AN:I.

This is your only warning.

Evildoer187 (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Jewish diaspora. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You are currently on your second revert. Do not revert again.Evildoer187 (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC
A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts
Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.

So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.

Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 03:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step four
Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: final countdown
Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 16:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC has started
Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Wikipedia, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC: breakdown of results
Hello again everyone. Now that the Jerusalem RfC has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start step six of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for offering a Third Opinion
...about the editing conflict between myself and Sonicyouth86. You did your homework by taking the time to read some of the original sources.

Sonicyouth86 has brought a complaint against me based on that editing conflict. If you are interested, you can check it out here.

Thanks, Memills (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your willingness to step into this contentious situation to provide a neutral perspective. Perhaps a "quieting down" period is needed, and, as you suggested, editors need to focus on the edits, not each other.  Memills (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

POV Pusher
Please stop polluting WP with PA propaganda and then coming to support your buddies as though you were some kind of neutral arbiter. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Will you be able to reply in the DRN?

 * Will you be able to reply in the Drn ? Ykantor (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Will you be able to reply in the DRN ? Ykantor (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "West Bank". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Jewish diaspora. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Evildoer187 (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

BP article RfC
I have started an RfC on the BP article and would welcome a response from you. I am sending this message to all users who have edited that page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited One-state solution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Jihad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona
Talk:Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona might interest you.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

COI and NPOV of Marian Dawkin
Hi, thanks for your comment on the noticeboard, I just replied you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.22.46 (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, a gang member of DrChrissy has been removing/censoring my communication with other editors because I reported their misconducts. He just removed my reply to you on the noticeboard. But You can find it in the history version.124.170.226.136 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Superpowers dispute
Dailycare I am not opposing your idea but the problem is two editors on Superpower that bully edits with no exception here have both have showed anti China & Russia on the superpowers page. If you got sources, forget about it they will undo any source you have see here. You know winner takes all, well that simply is what is happening as you can see their refusal here absolutely no compromise but bullying content and sources. If fact, if you have a valid source or sources, they'll put an anti opinion on your source and say keep looking look at what they did here. So that is the basis of the problem of the superpowers is if you bring something up see what happens, then they'll gather like here up a conflict of interest editors by contacting them to come over to put the sources to shame the source even more. So yes there is corruption on Wikipedia even if you have all the valid sources to present, get ready for denial. Sure there's good facts and sources on China Russia are superpowers and even India and even the US as a great power or a superpower under the Obama administration or not a superpower under the Obama adminstration. You got pro USA editors and when you have go USA editors then prepare your sources to be bullied

Now what I am telling you is not attack on anybody but the plain truth. Some editors spend 8 to 10 hours a day on Wikipedia with no job but edit and edit and even some get paid to edit by special interests. Which also brings up another question, somebody is paying someone to edit on Wikipedia and it really looks like it is on the superpowers and military pages which might have to get a hold of Edward Snowden to find out who's on Wikipedia.

So my solution is that some articles need to be reconsidered because there is sources that are been place as sources and they not really reliable sources so why should some say, no we need that but you can't have that. That's what I mean and that has been the case since December 28 2013.

The source you mentioned on Superpowers talk, I know it will be denied by the two editors, so I am not opposing the US is a superpower or not a superpower but really I am opposing that China and Russia are not superpowers, that is out of context that to say world stage countries are not superpowers because of academic sources. Well there is academic sources it's just two to three editors insist on saying no and then they are editors that are saying yes, not just from different ip's but users.

I am not anti American because I live in the States and born in the States if I bring these sources of saying the US is not a superpower, they are just sources. I could pull up sources saying the opposite too but I just put this in line what I have. U.S. No longer Superpower, now a Besieged global power - University George Press by Edward A. Kolodziej, Roger E. Kanet May 26, 2007 America Was Once a Superpower Now It's Not - Truth-Out.org by Thom Hartmann Oct 30, 2013 Is America About to Lose Its "Superpower" Status? - Daily Finance by Katie Spence Jan 25, 2014 The US is NOT a Superpower Anymore - Israel National News by Tamar Yonah March 5, 2013

Russia and China, there is many but as many as I bring up on the superpowers, they will be denied, so I guess I need your opinion or support if you wish to add. Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower Russia is a Superpower CNN, US Senators telling the truth http://www.voanews.com/content/netanyahu-heads-to-russia-with-call-for-crippling-sanctions-on-iran-84341537/112463.html --198.134.105.62 (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

1RR AT Origins of the Six-Day War
Please be aware that you violated 1rr with this edit. . Also, I reviewed the cited source and it does not appear to say, as you stated in your edit, anything about "Most scholarly accounts." -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi BC, the edit is not a revert as it merely adds new material to the article, that was not previously there. Concerning the content, I refer you to the citations from the book on the talkpage. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

International Law and the Gaza War
If my statement that following references to the 2009 Goldstone report must be reconsidered in light of his 2011 reconsideration/retraction is "unsourced editorializing" and must be removed, then how shall we deal with this simple fact?

Shall I go through the document and add a reference to "Goldstone Reconsiders" at every point that the 2009 report is referenced? Which approach would be better for the document? Some accommodation must be reached, since much of the document relies on dated material. Brownwn (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for contributing to my talk page. I think what needs to be done is to write in the article of the issues that reliable sources describe that relate to the international-law aspect of the Gaza war. So if reliable sources draw a connection to Goldstone's partial reconsideration in connection with some specific point, then that ought to be mentioned in connection with that specific point. What cannot be done, on the other hand, is making such connections ourselves. Hope this helps, --Dailycare (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=620742660 your edit] to 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/05/374152/spain-puts-arms-exports-to-israel-on-halt/ It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * /> World outrage grows as Israel pursues 'quiet and security', Guardian weekly, Aug. 8-14th, 2014

Your Orwellian attitude towards editing the six days war articles
I have delayed my response to your unbelievable editing of my talkpage, as I hoped to stay calm, but your writing suits Orwell quote: "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful ". Behind your polite writing there is a complete upside down text. You consistently disregard Wikipedia rules, but try to blame me for it. ! Let's go to specific points.
 * Your edit: []. You breach wp:preserve :"Instead of removing text, consider:..adding more of what you think is important to make an article more point-of-view balanced". You removed a well supported text against this rule. Moreover, I deliberately chose a somehow Anti Israeli source, so there won't be any claim of using a pro Israel biased source.
 * Regarding the same edit, you explains that:"we know that most academics attribute the war to an escalation on both sides,". You breach the wp:or policy.
 * Your edit: []. You ignore wp:Cherrypicking. You use the quote that suits you, and ignores other contradicting quotes. The relevant talkpage discussion:[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War#Nasser_steps_made_the_war_ineviteable ].
 * Regarding the same talkpage discussion, you breach the wp:faith. It is not the first time for you to use an attrition warfare tactic. You ignore the other side claims and repeat your claims that have been already refuted, in order to have endless discussion. You quotes Maoz's sloppy (or contradicting) text, instead of behaving like a "good faith" editor, who would have look for other source who support this wrong thesis, that both side are equally responsible for the war.

So, who started the 1967 six days war? . There was an escalation period of months or years but the crisis itself started at 14 June 1967, when Egypt began to move the army to Sinai, close to the border with Israel. The trigger was a Soviet false claim, that Israel already positioned a big force near it's border with Syria. Although Nasser knew that this is not true, " Nasser took 3 successive steps that made the war virtually ineviteable: On 14 May he deployed his troops in Sinai near the border with Israel, On 19 May expelled the UN peacekeepers stationed in the Sinai Peninsula border with Israel, and on 23 May closed Tiran straits to Israeli shipping.(Shlaim, Rogan, 2012 pp. 7, 106)"

Moreover, I have looked for sources that can't be suspected of being pro Israel:


 * 1) The Egyptian president, Nasser:
 * 2) Shlaim, Avi (2012). The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences. Cambridge University Press.  ISBN 9781107002364 :
 * 3) pp. 7, 106. " Nasser took 3 successive steps that made the war virtually ineviteable: On 14 May he deployed his troops in Sinai near the border with Israel, On 19 May expelled the UN peacekeepers stationed in the Sinai Peninsula border with Israel, and on 23 May closed Tiran straits to Israeli shipping."
 * 4)  p. 63. : ""he claimed in a public speech to have been aware of all the implications: "Taking over Sharm El Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel. It also means that we ready to enter a general war with Israel. It was not a separate operation".."
 * 5) p. 66 :Nasser seems to have been encouraged by the fact that Israeli rhetoric condemning the Tiran blockade and subsequent developments was relatively mild. Even the fact that the United States counselled restraint was interpreted as an attempt to protect Israel from Arab wrath — and therefore as further evidence of her need for protection
 * 6) p. 63 : the leaders of the confrontational states were caught by complete surprise when Israel took their threats at face value
 * 7) p. 7 : Nasser appeared to challenge Israel to a duel
 * 8) p. 63 : In the end of May 1967, Nasser claimed in a public speech to have been aware of the Straits of Tiran closure implications: "Taking over Sharm El Sheikh meant confrontation with Israel. It also means that we ready to enter a general war with Israel. It was not a separate operation"
 * 9) p. 68 : the testimony of Bassiouny, who recalls that when the Washington Embassy reported that Secretary of State Dean Rusk had information that Egypt was going to start the war, Amer wrote on the cable, “Shams, it seems there is a leak.
 * 10) An Arab historian, Samir A. Mutawi (18 July 2002). Jordan in the 1967 War. Cambridge University Press. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-521-52858-0.
 * 11) p. 95.  "On 26 May he declared, ‘The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel’.” The same day Hasanayn Heyical, a close associate of Nasser, wrote an article in Al-A ahram explaining why war with Israel was inevitable: ‘The closure of the Gulf of Aqaba... means first and last that the Arab nation represented by the UAR has succeeded for the first time, vis-a-vis Israel, in changing by force a fait accompli imposed on it by force To Israel this is the most dangerous aspect of the current situation — who can impose the accomplished fact and who possesses the power to safeguard it. Therefore it is not a matter of the Gulf of Aqaba but of something bigger. It is the whole philosophy of Israeli security. Hence I say that Israel must attack.”7 He went on to say that the international situation was such that Egypt would have to allow Israel to strike the first blow and concluded, ‘Let Israel begin. Let our second blow then be ready. Let it be a knockout.
 * 12) p. 111 :"On 25 May Israel declared total mobilization..the Israeli economy ground to a standstill. ..soon Israel open a war because ...Israel could not tolerate such a total stoppage for very long"
 * 13) An Arab historian, Abd al-Azim Ramadan: "the prominent historian and commentator Abd al-Azim Ramadan, In a series of articles published in AlWafd, subsequently compiled in a hook published in 2000, Ramadan criticized the Nasser cult, …. The events leading up to the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, as other events during Nasser’s rule, Ramadan wrote, showed Nasser to be far from a rational, responsible leader. … His decision to nationalize the Suez Canal was his alone, made without political or military consultation. … The source of all this evil. Ramadan noted, was Nasser’s inclination to solitary decision making… the revolutionary regime led by the same individual—Nasser— repeated its mistakes when it decided to expel the international peacekeeping force from the Sinai Peninsula and close the Straits of Tiran in 1967. Both decisions led to a state of war with Israel, despite the lack of military preparedness" (Elie Podeh; Onn Winckler (1 December 2004). Rethinking Nasserism: Revolution and Historical Memory in Modern Egypt. University Press of Florida. pp. 105, 106. ISBN 978-0-8130-3137-8)
 * 14) An Egyptian senior aid of Nasser, [ http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5195412  Abdel Magid Farid]"Abdel Magid Farid, however, suggests that Nasser did actually consider the first strike option until early on 27 May, when he was hauled out of bed at 3 by the ambassador from the Soviet Union [13] and warned not to precipitate a confrontation", (Shlaim, Louis, 2012, p68)
 * 15) The Israeli steps:
 * 16) Shlaim, Avi (2012). The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107002364 :
 * 17) p. 66 :"In private, Eshkol had sent Nasser secret messages urging deescalation. In public, he continued to assert Israel’s peaceful intentions, call for international mediation, and avoid criticism of Egypt. This reinforced the existing image of Egyptian military superiority — if Israel wanted to avoid war, it was presumably because Israel thought it would lose"
 * 18) Mutawi
 * 19) p. 93 : Although Eshkol denounced the Egyptians, his response to this development was a model of moderation
 * 20) p. 111 : On 25 May Israel declared total mobilization..the Israeli economy ground to a standstill. ..soon Israel open a war because ...Israel could not tolerate such a total stoppage for very long Ykantor (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your comment. Firstly, I'd like to thank you for remaining calm which, as you know, is a prerequisite for any successful collaboration. Concerning the specific points you make:
 * concerning wp:preserve, the UNEF issue and Straits closure remained after my edit, so I don't agree with you concerning this.
 * concerning wp:or, we have the Maoz source stating explicitly that most scholarly accounts do this, so I drew no new conclusion. Further, I don't see how one could violate wp:or in an edit comment, rather than in edited article text.
 * concerning this edit, see also this edit, where even more views are presented in the same sentence.
 * concerning the discussion, I can truly promise I have the least possible interest in an "endless discussion".
 * Concerning the cherrypicking issue in general, do you think that someone might feel you're doing it by collecting your Nasser quotations? We also have quotations from him promising not to attack Israel. The crisis didn't begin with Nasser moving his forces to the Sinai, but with a sequence of events that included the Samu raid, the Independence day parade in Jerusalem, the combat of April 7th (which was an escalation on Israel's part), Fatah attacks in Israel, the Syria-Egypt pact and, importantly, the public and explicit Israeli threats to attack Syria. David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan both felt Israel, and not Syria or Egypt, was responsible for creating the crisis (Tom Segev, "1967", loc 4587 + loc 5213 in Kindle edition). General Aharon Yariv, head of IDF intelligence, said Nasser moved his forces to the Sinai as a response to Israel's threats against Syria (Segev, loc 4399). Shemesh (Arab Politics, Palestinian Nationalism and the Six Day War, p. 182, 187) makes the same point. Nasser didn't start the war. The US advised Israel Egypt wasn't about to attack (Segev, loc 5141). Israel started the war. Rabin said after the war that Nasser didn't want a war. Israel's generals lied to prime minister Eshkol to get the war started (Popp, p. 297). So overall there were many things done and interpreted by the parties involved, that contributed to the escalation. Exactly as Maoz said. Trying to pin the blame on Nasser and exonerate Israel from any wrongdoing isn't neutral or truthful, since sources collectively paint a more nuanced picture. The notion that Israel couldn't keep the mobilization ongoing doesn't square well with the fact that just before the war, Israeli cabinet ministers were considering waiting for six months to see how the situation develops. And at the eve of the war, Israel had 160.000 troos mobilized whereas Egypt had only 50.000 in the Sinai, so Israel could easily have de-mobilized a great deal if it chose to. Cheers, and sorry for writing a long reply, --Dailycare (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

but the prime minister decided to hold on. Ykantor (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "collecting your Nasser quotations":
 * 1) During the 1st week of the crisis, most commentators estimated that Nasser was making a show off.
 * 2) At the 2nd week end, Egypt planned to attack Israel at the 27 May but the Russians (alerted by the U.S) told Nasser in the middle of the night that they were not happy with Egypt being an aggressor. Nasser immediately canceled the attack.
 * 3) During the 3rd and the crisis last week: "as  may drew to a close Nasser's declarations against Israel became increasingly extravagant and he taunted Israel to open hostilities." (Mutawi p. 94). 'Hasanayn Heyical, a close associate of Nasser, wrote an article in Al-Ahram explaining why war with Israel was inevitable. ...He went on to say that the international situation was such that Egypt would have to allow Israel to strike the first blow and concluded, ‘Let Israel begin. Let our second blow then be ready. Let it be a knockout."
 * There is a difference between the escalation period, along the months or years before the war, and the crisis which was initiated by Nasser at the last few weeks before the war. e.g. "the situation entered new phase with Russia's announcement...on 13 May... this evoked an immediate response in Nasser... the following day he announced the mobilization of the Egyptian army. 2 divisions were ordered into Sinai" (Mutawi, p. 93). Israel is justifiably blamed for its share during the escalation period (mainly by provoking the Syrians with an Israeli tractor plowing in the DMZ, over reacting in Samu raid etc.) However, as for the Crisis period, ""In private, Eshkol had sent Nasser secret messages urging deescalation. In public, he continued to assert Israel’s peaceful intentions, call for international mediation, and avoid criticism of Egypt. This reinforced the existing image of Egyptian military superiority — if Israel wanted to avoid war, it was presumably because Israel thought it would lose"" (Shlaim, Louis, 2012,The 1967 Arab-Israeli War, p. 66)
 * "David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan both felt Israel, and not Syria or Egypt, was responsible". Correct, but for the escalation and not for the crisis.
 * "General Aharon Yariv, head of IDF intelligence, said Nasser moved his forces to the Sinai as a response to Israel's threats against Syria". Correct. as said, During the 1st week of the crisis, most commentators estimated that Nasser was making a show off.
 * "Shemesh makes the same point. Nasser didn't start the war" (and Segev as well). Correct. As said Nasser canceled Egypt planned attack at the last minute because of the Russian's warning. Later he taunted Israel to attack.
 * "Rabin said after the war that Nasser didn't want a war.". I have yet to read the full source. However, Egypt planned an attack on the 27 May, which was canceled at the last minute because of the Russians. Hence Egypt wanted to start the war, at least until the 27 May.
 * " Israel's generals lied to prime minister Eshkol to get the war started" I am not sure what was the lie. Anyway, it is correct that the generals demanded a war, before more Arab division may advance to the Israeli border (e.g. Iraq). The Israeli army, was smaller than the Egyptian army, let alone all the other Arab armies.
 * Currently Maoz is cherry picked quoted here. As said, he has contradicting statements, and one should not avoid the other quotes. Moreover, the supposed difference between literature and scholar is a wp:or.
 * "The notion that Israel couldn't keep the mobilization ongoing doesn't square well with the fact that just before the war, Israeli cabinet ministers were considering waiting for six months to see how the situation develops" Some ministers were afraid of Israel annihilation by the powerful Arab armies, so they preferred to hold on, although it was not possible. e.g. The women,pupils and old men milked the cow, and there were no means of shipping the milk from the farms to the towns.
 * "at the eve of the war, Israel had 160.000 troos mobilized whereas Egypt had only 50.000 in the Sinai," . Looking in the "strength" table at the Six-Day War:
 * 1) Israel:      Total troops: 264,000, 100,000 deployed
 * 2) Arab armies: Total troops: 547,000, 240,000 deployed
 * Hi, I'll try to keep my response shorter this time. As to the theory that when Israel does something it's "escalation" but when Nasser does something it's "crisis", I don't see that in the sources. Concerning then the text, again, the current version doesn't cherry-pick since it explicitly covers also the non-academic view (the "conventional narrative"). And even if it didn't, it'd be a statement Maoz makes concerning the balance of academic opinion, which is perfect for Wikipedia's purposes. His statements, again, for the god-knows-how-manyeth-time, are not contradictory. You yourself above acknowledge Israel's culpability in the escalation. No-one in Israel's government was under the impression the country faced annihilation. As late as June 2nd this government was advised the Egyptian forces were in a defensive posture, and again, they considered whether to wait six months. The US implored Israel to not attack Egypt. Israeli generals implored the government to attack, and even considered attacking without authorization. Israel started the war and then lied that Egypt would have fired the first shots. Now, running this through your mind, can you honestly say that your proposed text is a faithful representation of what went on? I mean, really? Kind regards, --Dailycare (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * yours "As to the theory that when Israel does something it's "escalation" but when Nasser does something it's "crisis", I don't see that in the sources".
 * The weeks after 14 May 1967 are generally referred to, as the crisis or as a new phase, as I have just quoted Mutawi, an Arab historian. Please read again my previous post. It is no wonder that Nasser massing of his Army in Sinai, is a different ball game.
 * "when Israel does something it's "escalation". Israel has its share in the escalation, but this is limited to provoking the Syrian by an Israeli tractor plowing in the DMZ or supposedly over reaction to a terror attack which resulted in Samu attack. On the other hand, the Syrians reacted to the tractors with shooting and bombardments, from time to time they initiated attacks, they openly promoted terror attack on Israel and tried to deprive Israel of its' legitimate quota of the Jordan river water. Hence both countries share the blame for the escalation, and not Israel only.
 * Concerning Maoz's quote, it is clear that he is contradicting himself or at best it is a sloppy text. Would you mind to ask for mediation?
 * other claims:
 * No-one in Israel's government was under the impression the country faced annihilation. This claim contradicts the next one. Those ministers who wanted to wait 6 months, were very worried of a possibility of annihilation.
 * they considered whether to wait six months. correct for some of the ministers
 * As late as June 2nd this government was advised the Egyptian forces were in a defensive posture'. correct, but as Rabin, the chief of staff said, it was a matter of few hours to move from defensive posture to offensive positions.
 * The US implored Israel to not attack Egypt. correct
 * Israeli generals implored the government to attack. correct
 * and even considered attacking without authorization. not true
 * Israel started the war and then lied that Egypt would have fired the first shots. correct
 * You have not reffered to most of my last post claims. The claims are repeated here. I'll appreciate it if you refer to them:


 * During the 1st week of the crisis, most commentators estimated that Nasser was making a show off.
 * At the 2nd week end, Egypt planned to attack Israel at the 27 May but the Russians (alerted by the U.S) told Nasser in the middle of the night that they were not happy with Egypt being an aggressor. Nasser immediately canceled the attack.
 * During the 3rd and the crisis last week: "as may drew to a close Nasser's declarations against Israel became increasingly extravagant and he taunted Israel to open hostilities." (Mutawi p. 94). 'Hasanayn Heyical, a close associate of Nasser, wrote an article in Al-Ahram explaining why war with Israel was inevitable. ...He went on to say that the international situation was such that Egypt would have to allow Israel to strike the first blow and concluded, ‘Let Israel begin. Let our second blow then be ready. Let it be a knockout."
 * ""In private, Eshkol had sent Nasser secret messages urging deescalation. In public, he continued to assert Israel’s peaceful intentions, call for international mediation, and avoid criticism of Egypt. This reinforced the existing image of Egyptian military superiority — if Israel wanted to avoid war, it was presumably because Israel thought it would lose"" (Shlaim, Louis, 2012,The 1967 Arab-Israeli War, p. 66) note that Shlaim is not suspected as being pro Israeli. Ykantor (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you wrote above that you want to avoid an "endless discussion" and I agreed with you then, and still do. So for the sake of efficiency I'll just address a few of the points you raise in your latest entry. Concerning the Egyptian plan to attack Israel, so what? IIRC the jury is out whether Nasser even knew of this plan. We do on the other hand know that Israel not only planned to attack Egypt, Israel actually did attack Egypt. Israel also planned to attack Syria, publicly threatened to attack Syria, and in fact did attack Syria on April 7th. Israel also attacked Samu. Israel had invaded Egypt in 1956. This point, and similar points in your entry, don't directly relate to the edit we're discussing, I'm also partly to blame for that. Now concerning the actual edit, you mention mediation. While I'm not opposed to mediation and can participate, I sincerely feel it would be a waste of your time, my time and the mediator's time. A plain reading of the text clearly, IMHO, reveals that Moaz contrasts the traditional studies that blame Egypt with the majority academic viewpoint that a multi-party escalation led to the war. He explicitly emphasizes what the majority academic viewpoint is. This is exactly the kind of source that is most useful to us since it describes the balance of opinion in reliable sources. As I have, frankly, now repeatedly written. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * - The planned Egyptian attack- it was canceled in the last minute on 27 May because of the soviet threat. So, at least during the days before the 27 May Egypt wanted a war.
 * - All the mentioned Israeli attacks were preceded by Arab attacks, except the 5 June Israeli attack on Egypt. I can't understand why you did not mention it.
 * - As for Maoz's text, there is nothing more to say. Everyone who read this text can clearly see that Maoz's text is sloppy at best, or even contradicting itself.
 * - Even if Maoz's text is fine, than according to the Wikipedia rules you should not delete a different point of view supported by plenty of wp:rs, including Arab sources or Shlaim, who is very far from being pro Israeli. Ykantor (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Concerning the alleged Egyptian plan to attack, the Israeli diplomat Oren concedes in his book ("Six Days of War") that it was unclear whether Nasser even knew of that plan (Kindle edition, loc 2328). And Oren elsewhere tries to make this plan into a big deal, so you can see he's scraping the barrel. Of course, the Israeli plan to attack Egypt was actually carried out, as I've already pointed out. Why you've decided to concentrate on the Egyptian plan (which may not have even existed) instead of the Israeli plan which was carried out, I don't know. I agree with you that we've covered Maoz, although I don't accept the conclusions you mention. Concerning your last point, not everything belongs in the lead, not all viewpoints deserve mention and, I'm once more repeating myself, the conventional studies that blame Nasser are covered in the lead. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * -You show again why the discussion with you is futile. You reply mention Oren, whose support was deliberately not used by myself, and avoid referring to my supports: Arab sources and Shlaim (who can't be suspected as being pro-Israeli, in understatement.) - I modify the Lead in order to reflect the wp:rs, which is missing at the moment. Ykantor (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing the edits you're proposing to the article, and not just the sources you cite. The article needs to reflect what sources collectively say, not just what the sources you pick say. Regards, --Dailycare (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Dawn (1967), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Quigley. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Six-Day War page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=634868383 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F634868383%7CSix-Day War%5D%5D Ask for help])

Floodgates
Not that I disagree with your edit, but I fear that any addition to that section signals to some people that the floodgates are open to add more. It may have been better just to revert. DeCausa (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Six-Day War page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=644010798 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F644010798%7CSix-Day War%5D%5D Ask for help])

FYI
WP:ARBPIA3 is now open and evidence can be submitted until September 8. 62.90.5.221 (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Would love more input from you
You weighed in briefly on this conversation. I'd appreciate you (and others) chiming in again so that the outcome is not just about what two editors have been going around and around on. PPX (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Diaspora
For having the audacity of saying I edit war, when I made a first revert, while you yourself ignore WP:BRD and restore disputed content you added without discussion to establish consensus.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I was serious with this warning. Per all accounts you should discuss first and edit later. If you make one more revert before first establishing consensus, I will see myself compelled to report you, however little I may like that. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Debresser, a user who seeks to change the consensus version is the user who, after being initially reverted, should initiate discussion on the talkpage. I am not the user who is in favour a change in the longstanding version (see e.g. this version from 2015). If you'll take a few minutes to read what the sources say, it is quite straightforward to realize that "some scholars" is not a neutral description of "Experts dismiss the popular notion that the Jews were expelled from Palestine (...)", "the myth of an exile (...) is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions", ""in the popular imagination of Jewish history, in contrast to the accounts of historians or official agencies, there is a widespread notion that the Jews from Judea were expelled in antiquity (...). Even more misleading, there is the widespread, popular belief that this expulsion created the diaspora." Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the last stable version said "some scholars". In any case, your edit warring is becoming annoying. Debresser (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "not accepted by historians"/"not correct" has been in the article, in slightly varying wordings, in 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012, the last one being in briefer form. "Some scholars" has not, wherefore it is not the stable version and "not accepted" is the stable version. You have made a revert without addressing the source interpretation arguments I present above, and yet charge me for edit-warring and lack of discussion, which is illogical. You have also, it appears, given up on the argument presented in your edit summaries that there would only be one source. Of course, one reliable source would be quite sufficient, but anyway, as I pointed out in my edit summary of March 9th, there are three reliable sources for this. Again, if you'd like to make changes to the stable version, we can discuss such suggestions. I'm copying this to the article talkpage. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jewish diaspora. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read this carefully
Doug Weller talk 13:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected your talk page
Hi Dailycare. I semi-protected your user talk page for two weeks to prevent an IP-hopping racist leaving you harassing messages. Just let me or another admin know if you want the semi-protection lifting earlier. CIreland (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)