User talk:MichaelNetzer/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome to Wikipedia. Are you editing an article written about you entitled Michael Nasser? You may be aware that this is generally frowned upon. See WP:Vanity. If you do continue to edit, please ensure that you only make factual changes and not changes pushing a particular point of view. Enjoy your time here Maustrauser 11:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Much gratitude for the warm welcome and good advice, it will certainly be taken to heart. MichaelNetzer 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see it has not been taken to heart. Please read Conflict of interest. It is frowned upon to edit an article about yourself or an organization with which you are affiliated. --Iamunknown 03:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand. I do believe, however, that I took the comments and guidelines to heart. All the minor factual edits on my biography were in accordance with "please ensure that you only make factual changes and not changes pushing a particular point of view."
 * The material added to Expanding earth theory was necessary as there was a need to expand the article which stood rather barren for some time. I toiled to produce work in accordance with Conflict of interest:
 * "There is no list of criteria to help editors determine what counts as a conflict of interest. In most cases, the intention of the writer can be deduced from the tone and content of the article. If you do write an article on a little-known subject, or on one in which you are involved in some way, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, published sources."
 * I believe I have written it in a neutral tone and cited reliable sources to the best of my ability. The work may certainly be scrutinized and if I'm found to have overstepped the guidelines, and shown why, I would accept any such authoratative opinion or decision. MichaelNetzer 15:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
Michael, you are missing the point of WP:COI. There is no way you, as the subject of the article, can ever "[toil] to produce work in accordance with [the policy]," because the policy explicitly says that you "should avoid editing articles related to you."

Your biographical article as it stands is, as far as I can tell, entirely unverifiable and anedcotal. I looked through all of the external links you've included in your article; none of them back of the minutiae that are included in the article. You were "born Michael Nasser on 9 October, 1955." How can I verify that statement with reliable, verifiable secondary sources? You are "dedicated to bringing the comics community together for the betterment of society." Which commentators have said that? Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable.

That said, I'll be editing your article. As it has no references relevant to the detailed information, I will tag it with. I may cut or comment out information which I cannot verify. Please consider reading and then re-reading Conflict of interest, Verifiability, Autobiograph and Neutral point of view before editing your article again. --Iamunknown 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Neal Adams at EE
Sorry, but I think this stuff, while interesting, is dragging the page down. If you want to include it, make a separate page and link it to EE. In case you haven't caught on, this is an encyclopaedia. Comparable to britannica not a comic. I am a big fan of Neal Adams and comics, but there are better references available. Highly regarded professors of geology, for example Carey. Your comparison to DaVinci was specious, at best. Try substituting Rob Liefeld for Neal and see if you don't agree! I am removing it, sorry. - Fred 09:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your response Michael. I do not reflexively make that comment, I mean it with the upmost sincerity.  You are obviously a highly intelligent person and you show great integrity of character in such a moderate response to my deletion of your edit.  Please allow me a little time to consider my reply.

But, firstly I want to point out that I completely agree with most of your statements, especially regarding the artists ability to penetrate reality in a way that specialists (and most scientists) seemingly cannot. Dear Carey had much to say on the nature of paradigms and the belligerence of supporters of current ones. EE would be the primary reason I started here on en, but I have cautiously approached the subject by exploring the nature of our beast, the wikipedia community. But I do not hope to change what Sam Carey could not, despite his high level of credibility and, ironically, helping to resurrrect Wegeners 'continental drift' theory, demolishing a paradigm of a static earth and contributing to the new one. I also appreciate you having introduced me to Neals theory and have given it much consideration as a possible mechanism. The solution must necessarily be cosmic in scale and scope. Bear in mind that I substantially contributed to Samuel Warren Carey's article here, but found myself 'defending' the article against comparisons to Shaver's Hollow earth. We need good citations and to "write for the enemy". Well met, brother. Best regards  -  Fred 13:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Purchased!" You had better send me the bill. This will also recompense for the tone in my earlier comments.  As for my removal, it might clutter up the talk page if we put it there. Do you know how to make a subpage? You could put your work here and link the EET talk page to it. It might look like this:

or in your 'sandbox' is common also (I think I have that right!?). This appears as a red link and you click on it and 'create' the page. Also, don't forget to sign your name on talk pages. Cheers Michael - Fred 16:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Neal Adam's theory of an expanding earth mechanism
 * Right of the 'pipe'(|)appears as name
 * Thanks I have never been more optimistic for its future as an article. I reckon we might even get it a Feature Article one day. I must send you a book by another Australian on this subject; for your hard work and good manners.  Best regards - Fred 16:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Obsolete, Fringe and Superceded
As per your suggestion, I have removed that category. If someone notices and objects they can easily 'undo' it from the history tab or revert it using 'popups'. Everthing remains in the history. Nothing is lost from this dynamic document, wikipedia. When I originally categorised the theory, obsolete was the best fit. The only reference I found on google were enigmatic ones by alleged mineral exploration companies who claimed to have the inside dope on discovering mineral wealth or new oil fields. I thought it best to skirt that whole issue until the article was expanded. I will be back tonight (Western Australian time) with useful internal links. Best regards - Fred 00:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fringe science has shifted to opprobrium in that time also. No doubt it will change again. I removed that also.
 * In feigning neutrality I included EET at superceded theories also. I hoped to attract some attention to the page, but of course this is not always desirable.
 * Have you got a suggestion for a better adjective, I wrestled with it for a couple of days and settled on these. But as I said they have all changed now and no longer apply. No doubt this is because of the increase of editors in our community and them all putting there '2 cents' worth in.
 * You will find great advantage in getting involved in some editing that is not so close to your heart, at least a while. I hope you don't see this as patronising; This is how I learned what I have about our novel community on wiki en. and am now in a better position to improve areas that may be seen as contentious.

50-50 chance of being credible
LOL (laugh out loud), clever and true mate. You cat name suggestion was right on the money, but like the others it could contain almost any theory - crackpot or otherwise. There may also a problem with those in our community who suppose the en strives to show a consensus view and those that think the 'truth' should win the day. I will take your suggestion to some wise editors (who also happen to be 'admins') and see if there is not a similar situation somewhere else. Categories should start with about 25 members lest the 'deletionists get hold of them. They do important work but some get carried away with hunting for new cats to string up. I am still editing here and not getting on with the day. Be wary yourself of the addiction factor here. It will all be here tomorrow, I am telling myself this more than directing it at you. - Fred 03:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well put. I will take that line when I do. I'm still here as you can see! Issues on en, some of which have crossed over to the 'meatworld', are drawing me in.  I must set myself strict time limits. A real pleasure to converse with you. Back again later. I will look at your website before I do though. Your work is probably in my comic collection somewhere.  I think I saw a second hand copy of the book I want to send you in my port city (Fremantle) and will buy it today - if I ever get away!  Let me know (recommend you use a discrete email address) if that is welcome and advise me of a mail drop. C/- your local Post office may be best.  - Regards Fred 03:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Too late, already picked it up. You may enjoy it and it was not expensive. Regarding the rapid revert of my category deletion, would you mind waiting a moment while I have a bit of a nosy around? Some people get upset by challenges on their own talk page.  Let me see if I can determine why he did and we can discuss what to do from there.  I will inform you of the rationale when I return from the dark recesses of wikipedia.  Best regards - Fred 12:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Obsolete Cat
Ok, I initially was going to tell you my suggestion for you to tackle this revert or undo (that is POV) and the next step to take. I will a bit later, but firstly I will explain that the history tab shows:
 * 12:47, 6 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Expanding earth theory (add category: Obsolete scientific theories) (emphasis added)

and this by Tim Shuba. From his POV I reverted this and did so without explanation. This is not good form on part, I assumed that I added the cat in a previous edit. Do you mind if I convey my apologies and try to elicit a reason? I will then return here and take some of the mystery out of the procedure I just undertook. Best wishes - Fred 13:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Did this and this


 * Well said and yes, definitely room for improvement there. - Fred 14:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

While we are waiting have a look at this. - Fred

Looks like
Expanding earth might be on its way, sigh SatuSuro 11:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Comic Book Cover Fair Use
Hi, Yeah actualy I already did tag the two comic covers as such. However the reason I removed them from the article was that as far as I could tell there was no spesific commentary on those two covers, nor any fair use rationale for theyr use in that article. The Wikipedia rules are fairly strict when it comes to using non-free licensed images (See the full Fair use criteria for details). If a rationale is added and some "critical commentary" on the covers are present in the aricle it will probably be ok to add them back though. The Image:Lifestory1.jpg should be ok, just add some source info, something simmilar to what you did on Image:Mnetzer.jpg should be sufficient. --Sherool (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That looks pretty straight forward. I think the key point in the AfD is discussion around the definition of theory.Here is some more fun. Looking forward to more from you. Regards, - Fred 10:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Licence
"Licence" is the noun, "license" is the verb. This is true for UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand (and India). In the USA, they use "license" for both (and the Philippines). But thank you for catching the misspellings of gratuitous and contradictory. Gronky 15:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Our?
I like that approach. Or is this something to do with Fridays. I hope the quick introduction to the deeper parts of wikipedia have been as enlightening to you as they have been to me. I think you have weathered the gales exceptionally well and I will try to emulate your composure. Best regards, - Fred 11:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC) My curiosity is piqued, what is your new article? Fred
 * I was overawed by Name of another name and could not bring myself to even speak to him. His truth quest was intriguing. It doesn't stand a chance of escape. "Decisive" comments, yet some naive editor thought to comment on the discussion page after the the discussion was CLOSED! I unceremoniously revertd him.  Happy editing. - Fred 14:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No doubt some bot jockey would have come along. I prefer the personal touch. If only for my own amusement. - Best wishes - Fred 15:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You...
Try using the 2.0 version of the Mozilla Firefox web browser, which has the spell-checker built in.

If the bad spelling on the Wikipedia is an indication of article quality, then the Wikipedia is much worse than even its most strident critics say it is. ;-) Kireji   ¿?  17:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Free Software AFI
In the absence of other nominations, free software is the article for improvement by the WikiProject for the week of 4/22-4/28. Please help rearrange the article, primarily, and make any improvements that you can think of. Hopefully, as the article is already pretty good, we can bring it to an FA. Thanks! --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 19:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hope all is well with you, I enjoyed our previous discussions. Just to say Hi. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion |✍ contributions  14:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Salam
Assalam Allaykom (Peace be upon you)

i have noticed that you are interested in the Arab World and its Culture, i would like to Invite you to Join the Arab Wiki Project.

our goals are to Increase the Public's Awarness and Develop Articles that are related to the Arab world, and help each others to achieve it, we are all good in certain things, so why not complete each others to make the Arab world a more Understood region for readers in Wikipedia...

i hope you join in, and get to explore the Project more, and add your name as a member in the Project...

Ma Assalama (Peace be with you)

--Arab League User (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Loïc Dachary
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Loïc Dachary, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Loïc Dachary seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Loïc Dachary, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack Abel
Thank you for the kind words, and may I say it is a wonderful thing to speak with someone who knew Jack. I spoke with him many times when he was the proofreader at Marvel, and until his stroke, he was an absolute joy, just so full of life. I remember the first time I met him, at the reception area at 387 Park Ave. South, doing like so many new pros and gushing a little. I told him how much I'd loved his work growing up, that his ink line was so smooth and so lush. Without missing a beat he turned to the receptionist and said, "You hear that? He called me a smooth lush!"

I am so glad something positive came out of my having happened to have chosen that piece of art as an example of Jack's work. Completely by chance &mdash; or perhaps comics karma &mdash; the relatively high profile given it in Wikipedia allowed a decades-old error to finally be fixed.

And may I say thank you for a second thing: You patience and understanding over the credits as given in one of the standard sources. I wish I'd been familiar with your art (I was always more a Marvel guy). You're artwork is absolutely top-notch, and I can completely see the Neal Adams/Continuity influence.

All's well that ends well, and I'm glad we've given your own legacy a little more coverage. Ah, and Jack Abel -- he's not obscure to the ones of us in the know! With all great good wishes, and a hope that you'll drop a line sometime, --Tenebrae (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

CC of reply
Thank you for the gracious reply. Jack Abel was a very good spirited and witty person as you said. When we worked together at Continuity and he expressed interest in inking my work, some in the studio tried to discourage the idea because his work was considered not illustrative for the new era or too "slick", as Gene Colan is quoted as saying. The "Neal Adams" age of comics art had classified Jack's inking as not necessarily suitable to the new age. I myself loved his work since childhood and like you, it evoked within me a sense of a rich, plush and smooth look that I thought would enhance my pencils. Through it all, and though he knew what the "young set" was saying about his work, Jack remained a gentleman with a wit and charm that only produced good vibes around him. There was never a sign of bitterness at the general attitude in the mid-Seventies that his style had become "passe" as many said. The room we shared was a magnet for visitors who loved to spend time with Jack and listen to his seasoned wit and charm. Chaykin, Weiss, Morrow, Austin, Starlin and countless others would head straight to our room when visiting Continuity to say hello before they'd visit the front room. When he suggested we begin a Sundays softball game in Central Park and word spread about it, he touched on something that most comics creators needed them, a way to spend time together outside of the work environment. Jack Abel was not only a very talented comics artist but also a connoisseur of life. When I returned to NY for a few years in the early 90's, I settled (by chance) into his neighborhood in Queue Garden Hills, Queens, only two blocks away. We spent much time together in that period and even shared many bus rides into Manhattan. It was a great privilege to also have known him in that period of his life and career, and I learned of his passing away soon after I came back to Israel. Jack Abel was a rare breed of talent and humanity that we don't see as much of today in the comics.

This episode of crediting the art on that image has truly corrected a decades old omission and also brought back many good memories... and I thank you again for the wonderful work and exemplary attitude you're injecting into the Wikepedia comics project. As an aside, you're also right about my own Wiki Biography but with a slight correction that I did not write the original article. Someone who knows me did so and when I could not convince them to edit it so as to fit Wiki standards I began taking it upon myself to do so, even with the risk of COI and other Wiki standards. I made corrections, replaced images in order to avoid copyright issues and provided all the references. It still needs much work and I've refrained from it only in hopes that someone else would do it in order to avoid these issues. Thanks again and best wishes for the good fortune in everything you do. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Clifford Meth and your own article
Thanks for the note.

On the Clifford Meth article: there are genuine issues that need addressing - there are major neutrality issues and some aspects that touch on WP:BLP (if someone is described as "controversial" it needs sourcing asap). Also the user was registered, but you are right that it being their first edit does raise red flags but in the case I'd rather let the tags stay for the moment in the hope that the problems get fixed (we also have to assume good faith and I wouldn't class it as vandalism). That said there is nothing major wrong (despite the impression the various headers give) and it should be easy enough to sort them out (I'll run through it later and fix anything that might be classed as "weasel words") and any help you can provide would be much appreciated.

On your own article: I do disliked and believe it overused (when,  and  will usually do the job) and it needs to be addressed quickly so it doesn't hang around too long (and I note it has been up since December 2007, which isn't good). I've flagged it for immediate attention and hopefully we can fix this and remove the banner asap. Again if you can help with the sourcing of statements then jump in, hopefully we can move the interviews to footnotes to source specific aspects and move things forward.

Hope that helps. Thanks for the efforts so far. (Emperor (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC))


 * Thanks for that. I have been busy elsewhere (deadlines and other Wikipedia articles that needed starting to coincide with a comic launch) but am freer and will have a look at the article now. (Emperor (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC))


 * It is exactly the right moment for that reminder - I have cleared the decks rather and want to sort out various bits and bobs that I haven't had time for, before I get bogged down (and distracted!!) again. I'll take a look at the Clifford Meth article in a bit. (Emperor (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Huntress3.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Huntress3.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Uri-On DYK nom
Hi. I've nominated Uri-On, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks, BorgQueen (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello MichaelNetzer! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Loïc Dachary -

You and Jack Abel
Hi, Michael. Sure, I'd be glad to help. Hope you're well and productive and busy &mdash; actually, I guess you are!

I'll go merge the like citations; once you see what the code looks like, it'll be easy as pie to replicate. (Although, having seen my wife make pie, I don't know what's easy about it...!)

I've seen a few illustrations of people for whom no photo is available. Bill Finger and Steve Ditko come to mind. So, yeah ... personally, I think that'd be great! Jack was such a sweet, funny guy and one hell of an inker.

It's great as always working with your, Michael! -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Kudos on all your hard work and talent, drawing original art to illustrate comics notables for whom pictures are rare or nonexistent. That is so very generous of you. And a treat to see. With regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Liked your Colletta column
And your Online Portal in general. I'll be there reading more! -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

growing/shrinking
Your image File:EarthGrowth.jpg would be more intuitive if the images of the smaller Earth were at the top rather than the bottom. As it is, it appears to depict a shrinking Earth. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Tom Spurgeon
Hi, Michael. Naw, I think you were right on with that health section; that's a significant event in his life and his thoughts on it are biographically important, I would say. As always, your utter humanity comes through. You have one hell of a heart &mdash; I'm touched by your generosity every time I see one of your portraits of some comics great whose article doesn't have an image of them.

I hope things are well with you &mdash; and if you're on the East Coast, I hope you've battened down for the hurricane they say will hit...and this just after Tuesday's earthquake. With regards and respect, -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

source quality
You really need to raise your standards regarding sources. Your edit at Alon Shvut was very poor, as I showed on the web page. Instead of spending time trying to argue for the reliability of dubious sources, go to Google scholar and look for the writings of people who are actual experts (as evidenced by scholarly publications) and don't just claim to be experts. There is a large amount of material to choose from. Ask for help if you need sources that are behind paywalls, lots of people here (including me) have access to most of them. Zerotalk 00:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

For the next one or two days you can get very high quality stuff on Khirbet Qeiyafa here. Search backwards through the issues and you'll find several articles. It is only free until Friday so hurry. Zerotalk 10:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription
I do not have any agenda,yet this cite was vandalized with unbalanced, unfounded quotes without any references, and with quotes totally taken out of context in order to suite someone personal interests. In fact I listened to your advice, and I removed the term "Hebrew writing" replacing it with "Hebrew text" (your suggestion was Hebrew script) which I guess is a synonym. I provided direct links to Haifa university which was solely responsible for examining this site http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=2043 http://humweb.ucsc.edu/gweltaz/courses/intro_judaism/kh_qeiyafa.html

All my editions were erased within minutes

In the same time, the vandalization of my contribution went so far, that texts like this "'Oldest Hebrew script' is found" from BBC was used to prove that this script is not Hebrew http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7700037.stm (in opposite meaning of what it actually says) From whole of this article (which is btw outdated) because (Haifa university scholars have translated this script in 2009, while BBC text was written in 2008) user Zero0000. have written on his site the following: "Hebrew University archaeologist Amihai Mazar said the inscription was very important, as it is the longest Proto-Canaanite text ever found" using this BBC text as reference, while removing all  links  that the text is in fact a Hebrew script. http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=2043

Examples of manipulative editing

1. "Excavations were carried out by archaeologists Yosef Garfinkel and Saar Ganor of the Hebrew University beginning in 2007, who dated the site to 1050-970 BC by pottery styles and two burned olive pits tested for carbon-14 at Oxford University.[7] The theory that Khirbet Qeiyafa was a Judean city inhabited by 500-600 people during the reign of David and Solomon has been challenged by Israel Finkelstein.[8] Based on pottery finds at Qeiyafa and Gath, archaeologists believe the sites belonged to two distinct ethnic groups.[9][10] "

Although this sites are inaccessible, nowhere the findings of Haifa university  scientists are mentioned, while Haifa university was solely responsible to examine  the site and gave their verdicts regarding this issues. In fact anonymous criticism of officially established facts were written, while ALL FACTS WRITTEN BY  EXCAVATION TEAM   WERE SIMPLY REMOVED.

2. "Other readings are possible, and the official publication presented many possible reconstructions of the letters without attempting a translation.[21] The inscription is written left to right in a script which is probably Early Alphabetic/Proto Phoenician,[21][22] though Rollston and another expert consider that it might be written vertically.[22] Early Alphabetic differs from old Hebrew script and its immediate ancestor.[22] Rollston also disputes the claim that the language is Hebrew, arguing that the words alleged to be indicative of Hebrew either appear in other languages or don't actually appear in the inscription.[22] One expert believes it is mostly a list of names.[22] Hebrew University archaeologist Amihai Mazar said the inscription was very important, as it is the longest Proto-Canaanite text ever found.[23]

1.Who is Rollston and who is "the another" expert???

2.Where are the findings of those who examined Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription ?

3.Why all references about the Hebrew origin of text were removed?

4.Why all references that this was an Israelite city were removed?

5.What kind of edition is this "The theory that Khirbet Qeiyafa was a Judean city inhabited by 500-600 people during the reign of David and Solomon has been challenged by Israel Finkelstein.[8]"?

6.We didn't even see "that theory" which is in fact an official finding of Haifa university scientists,because it was simply censored by this people,yet we can read only the denial of "that theory" while I can not even find that Israel Finkelstein challenged that Khirbet Qeiyafa was Judean city, or inhabited by 500-600 people

7.What is this? "One expert believes it is mostly a list of names.[22]" ?? This manipulation is beyond imagination.

In the same time, the vandalization of my contribution went so far, that texts like this "'Oldest Hebrew script' is found" from BBC was used to prove that this script is not Hebrew

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7700037.stm (in opposite meaning of what it actually says)

From whole of this article (which is btw outdated) because (Haifa university scholars have translated this script in 2009, while BBC text was written in 2008) user Zero0000. have written on his site the following: "Hebrew University archaeologist Amihai Mazar said the inscription was very important, as it is the longest Proto-Canaanite text ever found" using this BBC text as reference, while removing all links that the text is in fact a Hebrew script. http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=2043 All the rest of my quotes( and other parts of this article) with direct links were also removed. The section "Oldest Hebrew inscription" was totally erased by Zero0000, without any explanation.There is really a huge need that someone unbiased supervise this particular subject, because the page currently has nothing to do with archeology or science, its totally manipulative and full of false and unbalanced claims written only out of political considerations.

I will listen to your advice and I will not further edit that particular site, especially that I after my posts it was made much more objective. My further role in this issue is to watch for how long the current balanced presentation on that site will last. I have nothing against different opinion, that was the main reason why I was upset with the fact that Hebrew university/Haifa university opinion was totally erased from that site, replaced with non accessible sites and questionable quotes which likely do not represent the opinion of authors, they were credited with --Tritomex (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC). Thank you for your contribution and keep the good work, you have done. Tritomex --Tritomex (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Khirbet Qeiyafa‎ ref
Thank you for the kind words, it's always great to know your work is appreciated :-) Poliocretes (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Israel pushpin locator maps
can be found in the Commons category Maps of Israel with filenames starting "Israel outline ..."

I'm not sure how to get rid of the lower-case "jerusalem" that now appears in the infobox though -- might need some tweaking of the template. Jheald (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Khirbet Qeiyafa
I think this really belongs on the article talk page, since it concerns editing the article, but I'll answer here.

First the etymology question: The etymology of a word means its linguistic origins, and there's no way that the phrase "Khirbet Qeiyafa" has anything to do with David (with the word David that is - etymology is about words). But more important, no etymology is needed - this is an archaeological site, why would yopu need to find out where the name comes from?

Second, the use of the phrase "Elah Fortress": this just looks strange; it's not a name used even in the Bible. All the literature calls it Khirbet Qeiyafa.

PiCo (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

history of Arab localities
Huldra has been doing a vast amount of good work on the articles about former and present Arab localities in Israel/Palestine. For months she has been trying to put their referencing into a standard form, with a great number of articles done and many more to go. It's easy to argue whether her scheme is the best possible or not, but it is fairly good and standardization is good in itself. So please don't start changing it on individual articles unless you get consensus and are willing to change all of them (which would be a very large amount of effort). Obviously this doesn't mean that corrections, additions, etc, are not welcome; of course they are. Zerotalk 05:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would just like to add that I am in no way, how can I put it, "religious", about which way the references are presented. I see this as very much a work in progress, in fact, it is just a work starting up. The present structure makes is so easy to add new refs to be "mined", like I did here. Now, how it will look when it is finished, is an open matter. I look at these articles as small building-projects, and the "scaffolding" are still up on virtually all of them. Let os concentrate on adding relevant content, & get the structure right first. There is an expression in computer science that applies here: "First make it work. Then make it beautiful."  I think we have just started on the first part, Cheers Huldra (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)