User talk:HG1


 * For editing as a (named) Subject-matter expert on Wikipedia, I have a separate account with more current contributions. (See: [ [1]]).

 ''Welcome to HG's talk page. You are invited to comment here or simply say hello. Please don't delete old comments, though you can strikeout your own text and add to it. It's best to keep comments in order, leaving me to re-arrange or archive. Please sign & date your entry by inserting   at the end. [ Start a new talk topic here.] Thanks!''

Welcome! Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! IZAK 07:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Re: Working group
Not yet, but soon! :-) Kirill 04:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Parshah articles
Thanks, HG, for your kind words on the parshah articles. I would welcome any general suggestions for bringing articles up to GA level. Thanks again. -- Dauster (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the concrete suggestions. I'll work away at addressing them for a bit.  I think you're right that additional content would be useful.  And thus I would not be inclined to invite in disinterested folks to edit just for style just now.  Thanks again. -- Dauster (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Award

 * and may you enjoy your well-deserved lunch, bon apetite. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you guys are swell! Warms my heart and yummy... HG | Talk 03:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian people
Hi HG and thanks for your message. I know the edit was on the bold side but I did already make a comment on the talk page about this section and a sensible editor, though disagreeing with one of my points, said that s/he believed the section could be cut down. So I was just cutting out stuff that I thought was obviously irrelevant. Can we see if any disagreement emerges on the talk page? I'm not happy with the section as it stands, as it is cobbled together from many different articles, most of which do not have Palestinians as their main focus. But it will take some time to consider each source carefully in order to judge whether it can contribute anything to the encyclopedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I didn't think it was particularly controversial. I'll leave a message on the talk page as you say. In the meantime, did you have any problem with the deletion? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

problematic user
Hi, I hope you don´t mind that I ask, but I just wondered; do you have any idea about what to to with a user making contributions like this? Do you think he is "savable" as constructive contributor to the project? I confess I have my doubths, and will rather try something simpler and easier, say, climbing Mt. Everest, or taking a walk to the South Pole ;-D Regards, Huldra (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply; I wonder if I shouldn´t take it to WP:AE at once he starts up again. Perhaps I shouldn´t admit this, but I am most of all amused by him(!) He is horribly disruptive, though. Anyway, thanks again for you reply, Regards, Huldra (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, well he started up again, and I was just in the process of making a report for WP:AE (on 1948 Palestinian exodus the following reverts: 17.34  17:33  17.32:  17:29: 14:50  and a similar pattern at Palestinian immigration (Israel)‎) ....but when I started the report I noticed his user-page was no longer red....as he had already been indef.blocked!  Regards, Huldra (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I see, it was probably this report which did it,(for future reference) Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

DYk for Israel/Palestine stamps
You weren't listed as a notify-ee for the other article, but you are for this one ...


 * Nice job... not a subject I'd normally find myself reading about. Thanks for your hard work :) --gren グレン 07:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you both very much. HG | Talk 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, here you go ...

I'd love to, but...
I just started a new article and I'm pretty taken with it right now. I'll try to add some stuff if I have some time to spare. Thanks for asking though and congrats on the DYK.  T i a m u t talk 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, well, (blush) I thought it was about time there was an article on Palestinian archaeology. A google book search showed it to be a notable term and when a search here at Wikipedia turned up nothing by the Archaeology of Israel article, I though I'd give it a go. I'm terrible, aren't I? Anyway, happy editing to you too.  T i a m u t talk 19:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh no! Say it ain't so, HG! You don't like Finkelstein? I just love the guy. He's arrogant at times to be sure, but such a humanist in his approach to the issues. However, I will not reinsert him as a source in that article, as long as you don't take him out of the other article. After five days, we can discuss it more if you want, or we can just let sleeping dogs lie. Speaking of which, it's 6:30am. I'm about to make some coffee having decided not to sleep at all anymore and just keep going and going and going until my batteries die. I'll raise an Arabic coffe cup to you, my friend. Insomniatically yours,  T i a m u t talk 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind wishes HG. But there's no need for worry, my Circadian cycle has been seriously off in the winter for years now. Spring is just around the corner, right? I do wish I had access to a regular supply of good English-language crossword puzzles. The Arabic crossword puzzles I could never get into. Most of those here deal with entertainment figures, and writing down Haifa Wehbe or the names of other immodest figurines of the new Westernized Arabic culture doesn't really do it for me. (Coming from a self-professed lover of English-language crossword puzzles, I must sound like such a hypocrite! :) Anyway, coffee it is and indeed a toast will be raised to you.  T i a m u t talk 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Postage stamps and postal history of the Palestinian National Authority

 * Thanks so much BorgQueen for your work on DYK etc., HG | Talk 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Phoenician gene
Please see what I wrote in Articles for deletion/Phoenician gene. I find it as a personal affront; thanks. Itzse (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We can discuss more on Sunday. But for now, I don't think it's proper to remove the deletion tag, so it makes you look quite in the wrong. Plus, at first glance, this kind of argument is deprecated and may give mar'it ayin of WP:POINT -- "if this source isn't good enough for this article; then it would seem to me that it shouldn't be good enough for the Canaan article" so I wouldn't go in that direction. Chill out for a day or so ;-) and we can talk later, kol tuv, HG | Talk 20:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * HG; maybe I shouldn't have gone as far as removing the tag; it probably wasn't necessary; but improper? I do think that my arguments were in the right direction; and still remains unanswered. I'll leave it at that. Itzse (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: pout
You spelled "wryly" right. Anyway, thanks for the encouragement. I'm not sure I feel encouraged overall, though. Since the recent ArbCom ruling (until yesterday) I've felt a personal obligation towards circumspection and treading softly; yet I'm increasingly feeling that some other editors got the opposite message. When it takes multiple reversions and talk postings just to acknowledge that the West Bank is not part of Israel I wonder how we're ever going to write a neutral article about something that's genuinely controversial. Personally, browsing Israel-Palestine pages, I come across enormous volumes of material that needs to be rewritten or removed entirely, but I refrain because I know well that it would take a major effort and probably lead to RfC's, ANI threads, and the like. More than once I've thought of just retiring this account and starting a new one, free of the I-P insanity. Believe it or not, Israel-Palestine is not my primary interest on Wikipedia, even though it soaks up the majority of my edits. It's just that a change which would have taken one edit on any other topic takes about fifty edits on an I-P page, most of them completely superfluous. You can't do the simplest thing without reversions, argumentation, incivility, and (in all probability) being called an antisemitic terrorist. Think of all the time wasted on Allegations of Puerto Rican apartheid et al.

Well, anyway, I'll probably stay here. It is, after all, childish to complain about edit wars on the Intertubes when it's all about a very real war which kills very real people. It's just that I had high hopes for the collaboration project, they're being pretty conclusively dashed, and it's disheartening to say the least. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 03:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources and notability added
Hi HG: Shavua Tov: I have spent some time improving the two articles currently up for deletion. The Adas Israel Congregation and Adath Jeshurun Congregation articles, now renamed Adas Israel Congregation (Duluth) and Adath Jeshurun Congregation (Minnetonka) to differentiate them from other similar sounding congregations elsewhere, are now a full articles. They meet all criteria for such articles. I also wish to point out that this is proof of what can and should be done to improve stubs. Merely because someone has started a stub does not mean that the article of a place/person/event are "not notable" since not all people have the time and capability of working to improve such articles. There is no statute of limitations on how long a stub deemed to be significant can exist and it is certainly no reason to invoke reasons to eliminate them, otherwise why do we have stubs in the first place? It is requested that the nominations be withdrawn! Please look into this. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, replied by you. HG | Talk 14:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Messing around
Perhaps it could wait until after today, since it's going to featured as a DYK in a the next couple of hours. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 14:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I aim to please when I annoy (or vice versa). HG | Talk 14:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As the DYK has come and gone, I am now ready to tackle the larger subjects you raised at Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Your input on how to restructure the article so as to improve it and bettter define its relationship to other existing articles (or new ones that might be farmed out of it) is welcome and appreciated. Perhaps we can get it to good article status, or even, dare I dream, featured article status, through our collaborative efforts.  T i a m u t talk 13:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey HG. I think it's preferable to conduct the discussion on the article talk page. Perhaps I haven't been making mnself sufficiently clear: I have no problem with articulating how the Archaeology of Israel is related to Syro-Palestinian archaeology. I simply want to ensure that we use reliable, expert sources as the basis for our definitions. I would prefer that they make explicit the areas of temporal and geographical overlap, as well as the distinctions. I don't think we will have trouble finding such sources. Indeed there are a few already cited in the article. More challenging however, is determining how to discuss the study of Syria, given that specialists in that area do not use the term "Syro-Palestinian" (which might explain why "Palestinian" and "Syro-Palestinian" have come to be used as synonyms) and the fact that we have yet to find a source that explains what term they do in fact use. I've replied to your last comment on the talk page about the issue and am waiting for your reply there. Cheers.  T i a m u t talk 14:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Otte Wallish, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

requests
Hi. i need your help at Talk:Israeli settlement. An editor there has engaged in various slightly uncivil comments. it is someone who should know better. the article is also currently protected, due to some insistence on adding a one-sided quote. You will see more from my exchange there. Appreciate your help (at the bottom of the page). Feel free to comment there, or at my talk page, whatever you prefer. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I see that you have experience in moderation and I was wondering if you could help here []. El_C is currently running things except that I don't understand what it is he/she wants to happen. Maybe you could advise him or clarify to me if I'm misunderstanding him or even act as the moderator? Thanks --Robertert (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. Ok, I will look there. However, I don't think El C has volunteered to moderate, or nec needs to do so. ElC is trying to stop a revert-heavy edit dispute ranging over multiple pages. You all need to either come to consensus or otherwise stop edit-warring on those pages; a centralized discussion is a plausible mechanism. I'll try to make some suggestions about how you might proceed, though I'm also not volunteering to moderate (if only because of my current time constraints). Thanks again, best wishes, HG | Talk 11:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with food?
Hi, we edited a bit, several months ago, and I made some comments at your workshop.

I was wondering if you could do me a favor? I stepped into a brushfire at zaatar and thought I had put it out. Perhaps I am guilty of thinking myself too clever. I put Palestine and Israel together at the beginning of the list. I dropped as much controversial stuff as possible. And where one side had wanted to banish Israel from the article, and the other wanted Israel to be more-mentioned than any other country, I kept a bit of well-sourced stuff about Israel protecting the plant from over-harvesting, and included a Foreign Ministry quote about za'atar being a cultural borrowing that has become very popular. The pro-Palestinian IP disappeared. Some of the pro-Israeli editors seemed content. But several are angry about the cultural borrowing aspect. Can you take a peak over there, and let me know if you think I am wrong? I'd value your opinion. Jd2718 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I remember you. But I'm currently too busy in non-wiki life this week to deal with this in a timely manner. I'm sorry. You might briefly raise the question and elicit input at WP:IPCOLL. Maybe you'd join the project, too? Thanks. HG | Talk 16:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will! And I hope that that is 'good busy.' Jd2718 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'good busy' but quite busy nonetheless. Take care and don't choke on the zaatar, HG | Talk 21:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

IPColl question
Recent disputes list (Copied from WP:IPCOLL)

New. Added a new table -- for disputes in the last 30 days. These would be the priorities, presumably, for our Project to address. (See discussion in thread above.) For now, we'll try Steve's idea of giving a brief description of the dispute. (If that gets too disputed itself, we'll lose the column.)


 * Please add hotspot articles to the table. (Article data should also be put in the annual report, for period covered.)
 * This table will probably be moved to the main WikiProject page for better visibility, ok?

Thanks to all. Constructive comments and suggestions most welcome! HG | Talk 20:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. could you please help me? Sorry, not sure i know how to use this. where do we tabulate new and ongoing page protections? Whre would the date of each be indicated? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Steve. Look at WP:IPCOLL/BATTLE. Maybe you could add new/ongoing disputes there, eg Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This table has a column for page protections and "Focus of dispute" to give a brief description, as we had discussed some time ago. How does that sound? If this "Recent disputes" table seems useful, maybe it can/should be moved to the main IPCOLL project page. Take care, HG | Talk 16:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I saw that table, but it appears items are supposed to be removed from there after 30 days. I also saw the table for annual monitoring up to Jan 31, 2008. Is there another such table, for items which are subsequent to January 31, 2008? In other words, is there a separate annual monitoring table for items beginning Feb. 1, 2008? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Steve, good pt. Pls do us a favor and see if you can figure this out. Maybe create a separate annual monitoring table, as you suggest? Sounds reasonable to me. (I'm busy and can't deal with this right now, sorry.) Be well, HG | Talk 17:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, thanks. will try to do so at some point. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comment
Ok, sorry about that. I just thought that since you'd raised an objection to the word in another article's title that I could draw this to your attention. Strongbrow (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. In terms of the article name, 'allegations' is both a known problem (i.e., discussed in our guidelines) and a known work-around for POV disputes. In terms of WP:CANVASS, I suppose one question would be whether you contacted only those people who you believe shared your objection to the word, or did you contact everybody who you believe had an interest one way or another. In any case, it's nice to meet you and I wish you well in your efforts here. HG | Talk 20:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Shituf
HG, it wasn't my idea to move the discussion into the Judaism project. It's just obvious that Tim and I aren't going to agree, so I wanted to do a RfC. That seemed like the appropriate thing to do in such a case. You're more experienced here than I am: was I wrong?

Tim expressed the view that discussions in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism and [] needed to precede any RfC. I don't think that's right, but he went ahead and posted them anyway. I only responded because I didn't think his misstatements of fact should go unanswered.

Educate me, please. I'm faced with an editor whose Christian background leads him to insert Christian polemics into an article on a Jewish technical term. No amount of arguing with him will convince him to stop. What steps should I take? Is an RfC wrong? What's the appropriate course of action here? -LisaLiel (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me. I've replied at the WPP Judaism link above. Good luck. HG | Talk 04:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tim has reneged on the consensus we reached. I'm going to be taking this case to mediation or arbitration now. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin, revisited.
Just a heads up, we have a new player on the talk page and things seem to be spiralling into a web of OR and SYNTH. Can you please come back and facilitate again? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. That's very kind of you to ask me. Glancing at the Talk page, it does look like the conversation would benefit from some facilitation or stronger input from parties outside the dispute. While I can't do this myself, I will put at note up at WP:IPCOLL. Thanks again for asking me. Best wishes, HG | Talk 21:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

P'tcha

 * Dear JFW, Thanks so much for the barnstar -- and for the fine translation of the mishnah. I feel very honored. Kol tuv, HG | Talk 15:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts on mentoring
Hi HG - yet again, you have slashed through some nonsense, this time around around mentoring and have come up with reasonable alteratives to what has "run it's course". (You probably recall that I'm a cooperative and even enthusiastic mentee when the process is actually functioning, which nobody thinks it is).

However, I'm a little concerned that we're being repeatedly told that one person saved me from blocking with mentorship as a lenient "last chance". The record plainly shows that the original "disciplinary" on me was hi-jacked in order to impose permanent, harsh restrictions - before input from the community could find any consensus. (The "Community Sanction Noticeboard" where this happened was pretty much discredited and abolished not long afterwards).

Here's the time-line - the CSN was raised at 02:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC), "Mentorship prior to Ban" was proposed in a new section less than 2 hours later, 04:29, 13 August 2007, and the discussion closed and mentorship imposed less than 2 days after that 04:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC). (The process was hurried indeed - so much so that my attempt to discuss this completely detail-free "mentorship" was summararily reverted). In fact, the community cared nothing for this result, and for weeks afterwards I edited normally, it was only another regular editor (that I know of, anyway) who went round demanding of me and others that I find and take a mentor. This is the same user who then harassed each of my 4 real mentors to abandon the effort, as I've documented.

Now, I know people feel that everything should be AGF'd - but it plainly should be cutting both ways. Yet again, all vestiges of process have been trashed in order to get me hanged. (You might take a look at what I've added to Nixeagle's page to see an even more extreme and astonishing example of this behavior). PRtalk 12:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've read some of the AN/I and related discussion but I have no further comment at this time. Thanks. HG | Talk 06:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Quacky analytics?
Re, can you let me know what that's in reference to? I think I know, and if so, I will gladly explain. However, since I don't know for sure what you're talking about, I'll await your reply. Cheers, Antelan  22:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Like I said, I'd be happy to explain why this is actually relevant to the RfC if you're interested. If not, no worries. Cheers, Antelan  23:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Request
I've just been observing the skill with which you've woven many strands together, providing more accurately nuanced phrasing and accomodating various sensitivities. I've just added some sourced text I feel is not yet represented. It might stretch you a bit to weave that in also. I'm just dropping by because I think you'd be capable of doing this well, but also because I recognize that doing this is a more complicated matter than simply dumping text into articles. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind appreciation. I've replied on your Talk. Cheers, HG | Talk 13:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify a point
I may have posted that in your section inappropriately, messing it up somewhat. It is not really a comment on your alternative, though I took that into consideration. My problem is simply that it has been extensively shown, I should think, that whatever problems PR may have had in the past, the present case and its evidence is extremely poorly grounded. Therefore any solution that, on the basis of that lack of evidence (if anything the evidence points to barratry by people who have in turn been shown to make edits as least as problematical as anything adduced against PR), proceeds towards a restriction on PR would be formally incorrect. I could make much of this, but I won't.

Therefore, as I understand it, technically this whole complaint could be legitimately dismissed, except for one thing, Ryan's admission of fatigue with his role as mentor. I fully understand Ryan on this, but he left his documentation of cause for others to complete, endorsed Jayjg's requisition, and that requisition is patently wrong-footed. So we only have Ryan's expression of exasperation. Since decisions in the past have consensually required PR to obtain mentorship, that is the only problem.

If I am wrong in anything here, (and I admit I only play things by ear, and have no real competence in the byzantine ways of wiki law), I will happily stand corrected. In fine, if I have disturbed the flow by that addition, please feel free to detach it into another section. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Duly registered. By the way, I'm intrigued by your book list. What do you think of Pierre Vidal-Naquet and is he in conversatio with, say, Agamben? Take care, HG | Talk 22:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It was casual, and yet dictated by a single consideration. I aspired once to make a profession of classical Greek. Vidal-Naquet's studies, along with those of Jean-Pierre Vernant, Paul Veyne, and Marcel Detienne powerfully affected the way we read antiquity. V-N's wider work on Jewish issues impresses for its originality, erudition and independence.


 * Agamben/Vidal-Naquet. Quite acute.Intertextually Agamben's books are in dialogue with Pierre Vidal-Naquet's thinking on the classical hinterland, especially in books like Le chasseur noir. I am not sufficiently specialized in this area to know if they are 'in formal conversation'. Agamben, a colleague of one of my relatives, has done something remarkable in wresting, from the works of two men (Heidegger and Schmidt) I regard as idiots of genius, concepts of trenchant penetration that convince, where, as formulated by his mentors, they only make one laugh with exasperation at the puerility of fascism's pretensions to intellectual refinement. Anyone who wishes to know why many of us are deeply troubled by the prospects for Israeli democracy, under the IDF/Parliamentary duopoly within the atmosphere of rhetorically chronic remarks about an 'existential crisis' over the Homo Palestinensis as subspecies of homo sacer, could learn much from the two, esp. Agamben's formal analysis of the general crisis of the West. Just one more thing to put on my to-write list this summer. Of course, such conversation will never have the slightest effect on the world, which will continue to deteriorate or languish, much as I/P articles do. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This morning I checked around re what Wiki says on the two. (Agamben article's quite a good start, if poor on background and conceptual contextualization: in the meantime needs copyediting). I note, to my grief (lasy year was bad enough with Hilberg and Cohn's deaths, within a week of each other) he died in 2006, so they cannot of course be 'in formal conversation', if they ever were. (Apropos Agamben, Umberto Galimberti, another 60s Heideggerian (Il Tramonto dell'Occidente), has had a parallel life or geist-course, only in the direction of psychoanalysis. Though not directly bearing on Judaism, his Orme del sacro. Il cristianesimo e la desacralizzazione del sacro(vol.13 of his collected works) can be profitably read in these connections).
 * Apropos the PR page. Sorry for this bother. A matter of archives. I can no longer read or obtain a copy of the PR case, since to read it I have to go to edit mode. Could you possibly direct me with a link to where it is archived, so that I can download a copy? Thanks in anticipation (irregardless of whether this is possible or not).Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

PR note
Sorry about the delay. I was not trying to disagree or find fault with your suggestion at all. Rather, I was pointing out to Carol that a dual mentor, as I saw it, would allow for one mentor to be more ideologically inclined to PR. I apologize for any misconceptions I may have inadvertently caused. -- Avi (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Connotations
''Since we seem to share an interest in accuracy, allow me to reply that "blatant" has negative connotations and does not simply mean clear or obvious. From OED: "Of persons or their words: Noisy; offensively or vulgarly clamorous; bellowing." "In recent usage: obtrusive to the eye (rather than to the ear as in orig. senses); glaringly or defiantly conspicuous; palpably prominent or obvious."''

Exactly. I wasn't using it archaically, but in its modern usage of glaringly conspicuous and palpably prominent/obvious. None of those carry a negative connotation. I'm a programmer, and if I come across a blatant error in the code I'm working on, it doesn't mean that I think it's either offensive or vulgar. Just obvious, as per the modern usage. Thanks, though. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

User page
Thanks.--Rjecina (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The recent CFD for Category:Jews by religion
Hello, HD - I just now saw the follow-on discussion after I said:


 * The "by religion" parent cats are generally understood to include those sub-cats for religious skeptics. I suppose we could rename them all to something like "by religion or lack thereof", but that strikes me as verging on the absurd. Cgingold (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pointing out the logical weakness of the category title because categories should be clearly and well-defined for all editors to utilize. If you think that the logical implications are absurd, that happens to bolster the argument against the category. (If you said absurd to belittle my ideas, well, that's not nice.) Thanks. HG | Talk 18:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I didn't reply there, I just want to let you know that I was in no way suggesting that your concerns were absurd. I thought it was clear that "verging on the absurd" was referring strictly to the hypothetical category name. I hope Good Olfactory's explanation helped on that score. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. You civility here is appreciated. Take care, HG | Talk 02:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

SJ
Fine, if you think it's a speedy. I'd have done that if I thought it fit the criteria. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Beitmidrash deleted the Afd tag which is clear vandalism. I didn't warn him because I don't see any point in winding him up, but you'd better keep an eye on your speedy tag. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to AGF until the editor started getting hostile. Oh well. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, more power to you. In hindsight, I wish I had made a stronger appeal for real contributions, but it probably wouldn't matter. As it was, I tried to exercise restraint, i.e. AGF the person but not their actions. HG | Talk 21:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Worrying editing at Land Day
I may have left this too late to catch you tonight or tomorrow, but I'm pleased to see that you're concerning yourself with worryingly POV and/or non-policy edits being made in articles on the I-P topic.

I wondered if you'd care to apply your undoubted talents to considering the issue at the Land Day article. Almost everything in the last 25 edits seems calculated to be harmful to the article (with unpredictable but likely dire results on the people for whom this is an important commemoration).

A few of the more worrying edits are as follows:

Removing the section on (and indeed all mention of) the "Absentee Property Law" - instead refering to "emergency legislation". Removing "More than a 1000 square kilometres of land were expropriated from Arab citizens of Israel" and "there are an estimated 200,000 'present-absentees' or internally displaced Palestinians" and "The law was used to confiscate lands". To add insult to injury, the summary of this edit calls it "a neutral presentation" which could hardly be further from the truth.

Replacing the relevant and necessary section name "==Commemoration & significance==" with the meaningless "==Legacy==".

Removing the very modest "==Historical background==" section - this is a surprising turn-about, since this editor regularly insists on entering material much less relevant (and likely highly POV) "background" material into other articles, often into the lede.

Removing category Nakba and replacing it with 1948 Palestinian exodus, a change that could hardly be welcome to the people concerned.

Practically gutting the article here - there's a promise to put some of it back, but that was three days ago. It seems extraordinary that we have supposedly experienced editors treating articles as sand-boxes.

Adding "only 31 percent of the land in question, or less than one-third, was Arab-owned". This comes from a highly dubious source containing material such as "Unfortunately, much of the annual tension surrounding Land Day results from the all-too-familiar phenomenon of history being mixed with myth, in the process blurring what really occurred." The same source is used later for an editorial entitled "Land Day? No: Call it 'Lie Day'", mirrored by the group "ChritianActionForIsrael". By the high standards seen here, this source would rate as a hate-site - even if the original, as an editorial, was acceptable as RS.

Separate to the problems identified, summaries such as this "Article written from a single view point... needs more facts and less narrative" (this to a well-poisoning inclusion blaming the Communists) seem puzzling indeed. Examine the history of the article Saeb Erekat, which suffered total domination with a single view point (and breach of BLP). While you're at it, note the pointless and provocative nature of the last edit there, and the refusal to correct errors visible | here. I'd not be surprised if your skills weren't in more demand presently.

I could (and maybe should) have taken this matter to this editors mentor, and will do that if you prefer. I feel confident that this is a lot more than a content dispute, the kind of thing I've always tended to avoid. PRtalk 18:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PR, thanks very much for contacting me. It is probably a wise idea to contact me (or others) rather than intercede yourself on that page. I see that Jaakobou is working to revise the page and he seems to be broaching his ideas on the Talk page for other editors to review and comment. You two have had conflicts in the past and I admire your restraint in staying away. So, who can you use as an intermediary? I don't think it should be Durova or Avi and, I'm afraid, this isn't something I want to take on myself right now. Perhaps you could post a comment on the associated WikiProjects? Or contact other colleagues (as you've done here)?
 * Meanwhile, I would appreciate your answer to my question on your Talk. Not an easy issue, but so it goes. Take care, HG | Talk 18:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PS -- Hi PR, I do have one idea. You and Jaakobou are welcome to use me as a passive intermediary if you'd like. I'll let him know you posted here, and he can respond here (or on article Talk), if he so chooses. If the two of you get out of hand (i.e., in my opinion), I reserve the usual prerogative of asking you guys to knock it off on my Talk page. Cheers. HG | Talk 18:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not bothered to slug this out with another editor. I simply noticed that you have concerns about editing in the I-P project. I thought you'd be interested to know that I can see things happening that, in my humble opinion, amount to using the project as a play-pen. If this is above your pay-grade, then it's above mine too - I'll take it to Jaakobou's mentor if you prefer. The last edit at that page was 24 hours ago, so it's still possible that the article will miraculously improve and only be left in an insultingly POV state, and not completely gutted as it is now. PRtalk 19:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, pls AGF the revisions. (And thanks again for appreciating my concerns with I-P editing!) As above, I advise against taking this to Durova or Avi. Instead, you should bring this up with your own mentor. If you don't have a mentor, then I'd think that finding one should be a top priority. Be well, HG | Talk 19:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've not got permission from any of my mentors to say what is happening on that score. I've pointed each of the volunteers to this and there seems a marked reluctance to expose themselves to such severe and prolonged harassment in private and (occasionally) in public. It has to be said, however, that I did not run the above past anyone, since you've previously informed me of the quite tight timetable you operate under. Can you explain why you advise not speaking to the mentor of another editor when one has concerns about what is going on, but don't feel bold enough to revert it as obvious vandalism? PRtalk 19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I reading you right? You have unnamed confidential mentors? Well, that's fine, but I don't believe that it is sufficient in and of itself, for imposed mentoring. Or have they been approved confidentially as well? Thanks. HG | Talk 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've offered to start another "Mentor" page, on which I put my "open" matters and e-mail my mentors each time I've made a change. However, given the outrageous nature of the attacks on those who have gone before (one of my 4 real mentors was indef-blocked, another was de-sysopped) I cannot even get agreement on this. In the meantime, your reputation as a dedicated protector of article quality threatens to slip if you carry on as if it's me that menaces the project. PRtalk 19:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Our project has 10 million articles and millions of editors, I don't think any individual editor menaces the project. I've contacted Jaakobou, both mentors, and the article Talk page. Maybe you should give me a barnstar before my reputation as "a dedicated protector of article quality" slips too far down! Cheers, HG | Talk 20:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

shalom
thanks for bringing truth to the compendium of consensus.

have a yom tov, and you will have a blessing, in the will of HaShem. warning, i'm a nazarene, but can work together to achieve common interests with any faith. until later, peace be upon yerushalayim. Yosef.garibaldi.gmail (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really.
I personally interpret the rule as deleting what he wrote and then calling him an idiot for writing it. That would be biting. Admittedly, I could have probably left a note as to why I deleted it, but seeing as there was a topic concerning it,I felt someone else could do that. I generally find leaving a link to the policy in question to be enough. Half Shadow  16:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your request for feedback
I just spent about an hour responding to that request, but it somehow got lost when I tried to save it. Instead of redoing it all now, I will take a bit more time to think about it and get back to you with a nuanced reply. Forgive me, but I jsut do not have the patience to redo it all immediately. Thanks for respecting my no email rule though. You are, as always, quite the gentleman.  T i a m u t talk 17:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Old sources
Hi, I have been searching lately for old (travel-) books from "the Holy Land"/Palestine/Israel. There are basically 3 places to look: U. of Michigan, Gutenberg,org, and google-book. I hadn´t checked google-books for at least a year... until I started checking again a few weeks back. I was extremely pleasantly surprised: there are sooooo many books which have now been made available. Most can be downloaded (I have now a nice little library on my hard-disk). And so much was written about the area! (I am eg. very happy about the additions I could make to Dhaher al-Omar...and just look at the talk-page of Bayt Jibrin and see all the people who wrote about that village.)

Anyway, I am contacting you as you have had quite a lot to do with the WP:Palestine/Israel, and I have started to collect the sources on User:Huldra/Sources (Scroll down). Since it is quite time-consuming finding these books, I wondered if we perhaps should make a sub-page on that project? And anybody could add links as soon as new books become available? A sort of virtual library, for anybody interested in Israeli/Palestinian history. Of course, most of these travellers have their prejudice, to put it mildly. (I guess Edward Said´s "Orientalism" would be a much needed antidote against some of them). However, even with the most bigoted writer you can find gems, casual observations. And from what I have read of them, when they travelled around they stayed with (and wrote about) all the different communities; Muslim, Christian and Jews. So, what do you think, could this fit in somewhere? Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Nice to see you compiling useful sources. I would think a subpage at WP:IPCOLL would be feasible. But I would encourage you to come up with some way to narrowly limit the list of sources. There are countless sources for this topic area, so how would this subpage not be inundated? I'm not sure WP pages serve as a "virtual library" for a topic. Btw, you might also look at: WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Links to reliable sources discussions as an example of an IPCOLL subpage. Thanks again. Be well, HG | Talk 14:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks, and yes; I agree that we have to limit it some way. I was thinking of starting with those books which are referenced in major "modern" works. If you look at the page, I have started with marking the books which are used in Khalidi (1992): "All that remains," and Weir (1989): "Palestinian Costume," and I thought of continuing with those mentioned by Alexander Schölch and Benvenisti (which happen to be books I have in the house at the moment ;-P ). I was also wondering if we shouldn´t mention those references in the books themselves? Eg: I learned of Tristram because he was quoted in Weir´s "Palestinian Costumes", but reading Tristram I see he often refer to van de Velde (and so do other travellers at the time.)  I guess we could also refer to those that van de Velde refer too...But I would put the "key" for inclusion presently something like this:
 * referenced in modern RS work ( lets call this "primary old source", POS)
 * referenced/referred to in POS (lets call this "secondary old source", SOS)
 * If we limited such a list to "POS" and "SOS", would that be a way to start? (I think we can leave out TOS, tertiary source, for the time being..) Regards, Huldra (talk) 05:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again. What about also definiting the topic -- is it limited to travel books? Presmably, it is limited to Palestine (geographically)? Anyway, I would encourage you to go ahead: Create the subpage, add the sources, and explain it on the project Talk page. If you decide it's more suitable for just WPP Palestine, that'd be another option. Take care, HG | Talk 17:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique [ approves | this | message  ] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  21:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey
Yes I'll be able to do that, I enjoy doing statistical work like this. I think we can get most of the information from a few toolserver queries, I'll have to look closely at the requested information, but I think we can do this. Expect that I will be busy until this Saturday or so. Please email me with the list of "items" of information we need and I'll see about putting together a program that gives what is needed. If you can give me some ideas of what/why this information will be useful, I'll have a better idea of what needs done. ——  nix eagle 18:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much.  Take care, HG | Talk 04:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppets
Hi HG,

I'll go look at the JIDF talk page, however, the evidence for the account in question being a sock puppet is rather strong. The account also made antisemitic accusations which require strong action by admins. Technically it was the Livingston Manover that they used. I do not stop assumign good faith without just cause, in this instance there is just cause, so removing a justified accusation to avoid a scene would be highly inappropriate. I ask you to please consider their contributions to Wikipedia yourself.

Oboler (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting in touch with me. Why don't you bring up your concerns with the blocking admin? (You might want to consider that a block is often considered a strong action.) b'hatzlakhah, HG | Talk 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I left the comment there in the hope an admin would look at it, though I did message another admin about it off memory and asked them to take a look. That he is still editing is a positive sign against it being a puppet, but I have written a full explanation for why it looks like a sock on his page, appologised if it is not, and explained (clearly I hope) what was wrong with his statement on the page (which as half of this brand new accounts edits at that point were IMHO racist... is evidence enough to stop assumign good faith). Anyway feel free to look at what I've written and to add your own comments . I've been dealing with antisemitism now for the last 3 days straight (I attended one of the key academic conferences on the topic) so I need a little break before doing any more Wikipedia editing, or indeed engaging in a prolongest discussion with him over the exact reasons why those two edits were antisemitic. If he is seriously interested in learning I'm happy to put the time in. One can hold his politics (in a less simplistic form), while still recognising and fighting antisemitism. It makes the world less black and white, but more accurate. Thanks for your comment. I would still suggest the account be watched / mentored and if he learns not to be disruptive great, if not... removing editors who do nothing but cause upset and disruption is the role of admins. At this point I guess more time in needed. I have offered a way to resolve this specific incident Oboler (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see evidence that it's a sock and I recommend that, unless the evidence is stronger, that you avoid making that allegation. It's fine to ask him not to make comments or edits you consider racist, and you may make better progress thru a dialogue with the user (as you are trying) than through WP sanctions. Depends on how bad the comments are perceived by others. Good luck, hope the conference went well, HG | Talk 21:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've noticed an editor who persistently makes a wide range of racist comments, and I've just recently tried to bring that to his attention, very, very mildly on his TalkPage. He removes my comments from there and then comes and harasses me on my TalkPage (oftentimes with his buddies in tow). Two other editors (in this case, his conduct was actually directed at one of them) and an admin have tried to persuade him to stop but he shows not the smallest sign of stopping this behaviour, and continues to tamper with the comments, latest hiding all the significant bits and leaving only self-serving nonsense.
 * The most disturbing part of all is that he largely concentrates on articles concerns the people he clearly despises and cannot be polite to - is there some way to protect them? It's bad enough for us regular folk to see what's going on, what it can be like for his victims boggles the imagination. PRtalk 16:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

PNA
Thanks for your note. I just want to point out that my vandalism warning to Fipplet related to his/her editing of my user page, and not to the disputed edits on the PNA article. By my count, s/he has made seven identical reverts on the article within 24 hours. RolandR (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (fyi I explained to Roland that the comment on his user page is definitely not vandalism and he is welcome to file a 3RR report. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC))
 * I filed a 3RR report at 12.33 today; since when Fipplet has made two further reverts, a total of eight so far. But no action has been taken. RolandR (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just be patient. Admins are dealing with the backlog. I added a note there. HG | Talk 15:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The account has been blocked; but I suspect s/he is back using sockpuppets. I've filed a report at Suspected sock puppets/Fipplet. RolandR (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Shomer Shabbat
Hey, sorry you never got a response to your request for feedback back in January on Shomer Shabbat. Did you still have any questions about it? You can always ask me on my talk page (about that article or any other) if you do, I'm always glad to try and help out. If not, can I tag the section resolved and archive it? Peace, delldot   talk  01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, ok. I'd still like to learn more about quality assessments, but we can pick this up again later. Thanks. HG | Talk 23:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Quality assignments? Like how articles are assessed for B class or start class and so on?  Do you have a particular question?  I'm definitely glad to help.  You might want to give me a poke on my talk page if I miss a response here, I'm terrible at watching talk pages.  Peace,  delldot   talk  04:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Anne Kilkenny article
Hi HG. Looks like you have been working to tighten up the Anne Kilkenny article. Please take a look at my most recnet comment on the talk page

Most significantly, with regard to your recent edits, it seems that you started with a version of 19:35, 8 September 2008 by, which restored, in part a POV version. Please take a look at the current version and work from there. I undid much of the POV reversion and tried to keep your additions. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No disrespect intended to your edits. I believe we are working toward the same purpose &mdash; a NPOV article that is tighened up with respect to the facts. I do think that your starting basis, which seems to be from a SPA editor left you with significant work.  In fact, after that edit by RKtect, the article was much as I found it before I put in time cleaning up POV and tightening it, and formatting references.  Take a look.  What do you think?  &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks ERcheck, I'll look. -- Oh, it looks much better! I don't have a significant interest in Anne Kilkenny (found it via working on AfDs), so any adequately neutral version is fine by me. But I think you could put in a few quotes from the letter, which have gotten attention pro or con. Best, HG | Talk 12:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Likewise - found it via AFD. Never had heard of the letter or the author.  Before weighing in on the AFD, I read the article and found it in need of major revisions to comply with BLP, NPOV, RS.  So, I decided to clean it up while the community weighed in.  I do appreciate that you were working on it.  I hope you will continue to review it and keep it up to standards.  &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you; thank you; thank you; thank you; ...
I just wanted to say many thanks for all the work you've done on IPCOLL. Shana Tova. Phil Burnstein (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Phil -- Thanks so much for your kind note. It's great to get such appreciation for IPCOLL, we could all use more positive feedback here! I've been swamped lately and haven't been able to contribute, not sure when I'll resume. Feel free to email me as you wish. Be well, and a belated shanah tovah to you, too! HG | Talk 13:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality in "Israel and the apartheid analogy"
Hey HG. I took a break from Israel and the apartheid analogy for a while and have come back to find it looking a fair amount more readable, although still too wordy. It also seems to have achieved a less contraversial tone. How are you feeling about its neutrality in its current form - have your concerns been addressed? Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom case #Piotrus2
Hi HG. Could you take a peek at (last comment) and offer an opinion? Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that's too bizarre. Greg is about to be booted from Wiki for his incessant antisemitic and uncivil rantings and now he come up with this proposal? Amazing. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Draft Restructuring of Wiki I-P Collaboration pages
Hi User:HG and User:Sm8900!:
 * Per my recent comments on Wiki I-P Collaboration talk...
 * Since you two were most involved in starting these pages, thought I'd get comments from you first before previewed drafts to the group on Monday, Dec 1st, at earliest. Looking at them from the perspective of a busy user who needs to get to the meat of the matter right away, I restructured the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration pages to make them much simpler and easier to use for myself and hopefully other users. Feel free to comment on the talk pages of those draft articles listed below.
 * Sandbox 1: Main page and talk page, with notes on top
 * Sandbox 2: Current Article Issues (formerly Community Lounge) which includes "lists" as main page and "discussion" on talk page
 * Sandbox 3: Material moved over from the main page which has to be integrated into Battleground statistics. Something which I'll let others do
 * (Note that material from current pages would be archived on new pages, as appropriate) Carol Moore 15:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Policy-centered resolution of disputes
I like your emphasis on policy-centered resolution of disputes (which you used in Freedom's Watch awhile back).

Is there any sort of central place for this? Somewhere where people can mention their disputes (not necessarily actual edit wars) and others can come in and explain policy and how it might apply in a particular dispute? &mdash;Ashley Y 03:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note, Ashley. Have you looked at the various DR pages? Like 3rd party opinion, medcab, requests for comment, etc? I think these are often pursued via policy clarifications or deliberations. Then there are pages for the development and articulation of specific policies. Also, pages for particular kinds of disputes, like those dealing with the determination of reliable sources. Sorry for the long delay, I'm pretty much on a break here. Be well, HG | Talk 23:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Environment Agency - Navigation issues
If you get a chance, some help with this would be appreciated...RTFArt (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Palestinian_law
Should this be moved back to the other name? Bearian (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Ralph Bunche 1982 stamp.jpg)
. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC) thanks, HG | Talk 12:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
31 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks (not interested currently). HG | Talk 12:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello HG! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created  are  Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Nahum Rakover -
 * 2) Paul R. Mendes-Flohr -
 * 3) Emanuel Feldman -

CfD nomination of Category:Judaism and ecology
I have nominated judaism and ecology for renaming to category  * judaism and environmentalism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

messed up on Swedish wikipedia
I have an account on Swedish wikipedia with the identical signature RPSM

It has been corrupted and I can't access my talk page or an article I am editing.

Help RPSM (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Religious text primary
A TFD has been opened on Template:Religious text primary. The TfD was opened on 2 December; so is due to close in two days time. Notification being sent to all participants in the previous discussion Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_30. Jheald (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Mordecai Tendler for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mordecai Tendler is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mordecai Tendler until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dweller (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Moderation on IPCOLL
I took myself off; it doesn't seem we need official moderators anyway. Do you want to remove yourself since not active and we can change language about moderators? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Replied (yes) on the IPCOLL talk page and revised my listing as a member. Best, HG | Talk 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Legal status of Texas and Republic of Texas (group)
An article that you have been involved in editing, "Legal status of Texas" and another, "Republic of Texas (group) has been proposed for a merge with Texas Secession Movement. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Otr500 (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Israel stamp collecting cover Takhbiv.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Israel stamp collecting cover Takhbiv.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Cousin project on the French WP
Hi HG, I contribute mostly nowadays to the French WP where I am a mediator and member of the local Arbcom. In view of recurring edit wars on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I am in the process of setting up with fellow contributors a "reconciliation project" inspired by the project you started here. A word from you on the talk page of the preliminary discussion would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to write in English. Cheers, &mdash;&thinsp;Racconish&thinsp;&#9993; 08:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Fishbane


The article Michael Fishbane has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced-like BLP as the only source (which seemed like a CV) is a dead link.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice work!
Posted automatically via sandbox guided tour. HG | Talk 19:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Account name
Hello,

The huwiki HG account would have priority by the technical system because it has more edits. It would be preferable that you be renamed to a different name, but HCG wouldn't work - the german account has enough edits that usurping it would be undesirable, though you could leave a message on its talk page to ask if it is OK with being renamed.

A better solution would be to choose an unused name that I could rename you to.

Let me know what you would prefer to do. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi., thanks. Just to clarify: Does the German account only have 12 edits and only from July 2006? I'm skeptical that I could even get in touch with a user from 8 years ago. Well, if you think that it shouldn't be usurped, then I would choose HG1 for a rename. Thanks! HG | Talk 23:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Otte Wallish
Hi. I'm wondering if you could do me a favor and glance at Otte Wallish. I worked on this some years back. Since I'm not familiar with the WP grading expectations (though I've seen the criteria), I'm curious about whether this article should still be listed as a Start. I'd also be curious to know how much more work would be needed to get it to GA. I'm not aware of any new data or ref's for him. Thanks! Please reply to my talk page, if you don't mind. Best wishes, HG | Talk 15:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not a topic I can really help you with as I know nothing about the man but I have made a few minor changes to the image placement and a few citation errors. I have also uprated it to a C-class and with some improvement it may well be a B soon. Here are a few pointers you should try to address for now. The lede should be able to stand alone as a precis of the full article, so everything in the lede should also be in the main body of prose and ususally needs no citations as the facts there will be with the fuller prose further down the page and cited properly there. There are no family or work sections but the lede has some family history and work details; you should move all of this and expand it if possible, and then maybe make the lede text shorter and concise. There are a number of dead citation links and these need fixing or replacing. Also we don't combine citations within a pair of ref tags, just make individual citations for each reference. You might be better asking the biography or Israeli wikiprojects for some advise rather then me. All I know is what I read about his stamps designing and that's not much. Right now I see that WP:GA is backlogged months, so just continue to improve it for now s best you can. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ww2censor, thanks very much! HG | Talk 16:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That was quick. ww2censor (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just happened to be online. But, ww2censor, when I look at the article talk page, it still shows it as Start class? Cheers, HG | Talk 16:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Reviews on Environmental Health
Thanks for your (extensive) 3PO efforts here. As you certainly noticed, I was becoming quite exasperated with this severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT... I hope your intervention is enough to settle the matter, although the initial responses don't make me hold my breath... Happy New Year! --Randykitty (talk) 11:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Randykitty. I gave it one more try, but also emphasized that the edit ought not be made unless there is consensus for it. Happy new year back at ya! HG | Talk 13:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I most certainly HEARD was was contended. My failing to disagree, and explaining why, doesn't mean I ignored what anyone had to say. Indeed, I have explored several different solutions while you two have always reverted back to the exact same thing. Sadly, I can't say the same with respect to my quoting of WP:RS "reliable sources are not required to be neutral" and WP:NPOV. I'll add that if WP:CONSENSUS were read in full, editors would not be copying and pasting from elsewhere comments that are mere votes (see below), in an apparent effort to lead readers to a certain conclusion about what the consensus is instead of leaving them to drawing their own conclusions.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

editing my comments
Please do not move my comments out of a thread and place them in a new thread that you've started when there's reason to believe I would object, as I do. If I wanted to place my comment somewhere else than where I did I would have done so. I believe your move of my comment created the false impression that I was the one to start a new thread (indeed, I am at a loss as to why ANYONE would think "further discussion" in the BLP thread is needed of AFTER the edit at hand has become one that makes no reference to any individuals at all: I disputed the BLP contention, but then effectively conceded for the sake of argument anyway by removing any BLP implication with my article edit prior to your comment moving, did I not?). Had you just wikilinked over to the noticeboard, readers could see the full back and forth. Now, we've got you copying over Guy's comment but not my reply to Guy. You think it's reasonable to expect me to repeat myself in the second location because you are being selective in terms of what you are copying over? You're satisfied with presenting readers just one side of the argument? Are you going to copy over GRuban's comment "could be an appropriate source for some things" from RSN as well?--Brian Dell (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Brian Dell. Usually my refactoring (if that's the term) of a Talk page is well-received. I was mistaken this time and I apologize to you. Hmm, not sure I noticed the WP:RSN thread, though I see you pinged me there, thanks. HG | Talk 03:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Reform Judaism
Hello HG, I've been seeing your name on a whole lot of talk pages trying to figure out what's going in the field of Reform Judaism here. I mainly edit on Hebrew wikipedia, and I'm deeply interested in the history of Jewish denominationalism in the last two centuries. I've written a whole lot of articles about it. You seem to be the only one who attempted to counter what I cannot describe but as a massive and unnecessary atomization of information regarding what we know as Reform Judaism (Look at the bottom of talk:Reform Judaism for my view on the subject; the amount of redundant, messed articles is staggering). There are ~12,000 people a month hitting that page, and they're probably more confused after they read it. I thought of forwarding some action plan and hope you'd help, but to be honest I don't know even where to start. Consider this a sheer venting of frustration. Cheers! AddMore (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Terrific to hear from you, AddMore, especially since it helps me feel validated about the atomization, as you say, back then. As you seem to agree, there was some POV-bias (and impatience) in how the articles were written, titled, and splintered. Hope I didn't contribute to the mess myself, not sure I recall how it all transpired. Thanks very much, perhaps you can gradually turn things around. HG | Talk 16:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey dee ho there, Sorry if I'm bothering you and don't bother to answer if you don't have the time. I've recently pulled began implementing my proposals. Reform Judaism, though it's still under construction, became an informative article again, rather than a confusing dab. I wondered if I could enlist your support in nominating Jewish beliefs and practices in the reform movement for an AfD? That article is written like a freshman's term paper from hell, and while it supposedly has an impressive bibliography, I very much doubt the author even tapped it. He somehow managed to skip over all the basics of Reform (cf. Reform Judaism, which still needs much expansion but I'll accomplish that from my sources). The title itself is extremely problematic. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jewish beliefs and practices in the reform movement


The article Jewish beliefs and practices in the reform movement has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A hulk of an article, filled with OR+synthesis (the bibliography in the end is faux; I read some of these books and they contradict what's written here). Cf. talk page. Orphaned, poorly written, filled with mistakes, quotes - on the verge of copyright problems - and bolted lists. On top of all, it's redundant (compare Reform Judaism and so forth.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Judaism and environmentalism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Judaism and environmentalism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Judaism and environmentalism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Normal Op (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

sig
Hi, your signature points to User:HG not User:HG1. Its fine if you are the same person, but it made me think you did not have the 500 edits required to participate in the Israel and the apartheid discussion per WP:A/I/PIA. Any chance you might change your signature to point to this user name when using this account. Maybe can include in the sig that User:HG is alt account?  nableezy  - 16:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note! I didn't realize the sig was messed up. Some years back I set up an alternate account (see note that I just added to top of User:HG1.
 * User HG is a bit messed up -- it includes contributions by an inactive user and a few of my old (HG) contributions that didn't switch over properly to HG1. I would need some admin or bureaucrat to fix that, I think.
 * Btw, how did you figure out so quickly that I'm HG1 and not HG anymore? HG1 | Talk 16:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw in the history of the article that the comment was by HG1. When I first struck out your comment I just saw the contribution count through the pop-ups gadget User:HG only had a handful of edits. You mind if I update the signatures in the talk page to point to HG1 so nobody else makes that mistake?  nableezy  - 16:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I just fixed it myself, thanks. See you around! HG1 | Talk 16:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Marshall Sklare Award for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marshall Sklare Award is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Marshall Sklare Award until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Longhornsg (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)