User talk:MichaelNetzer/Archive 2

Khirbet Qeiyafa Vandalisation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khirbet_Qeiyafa

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]

Who is Rollston and who is the another expert???

All my editions were erased within minutes

K.Q. ostracon
Hi Michael, just wanted to drop in and congratulate you on the excellent work you did on the ostracon graphic. Have you taken a look at the Hebrew wiki page about the site? It features a similar graphic from the Hebrew University team. There are a few discrepancies which you might want to iron out. Still, truly marvelous! Poliocretes (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

''[Moved from another section above for chronology. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)]''

Shorter
Please shorten your statement. Respect the instructions at the top of the page. Jehochman Talk 05:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"The result was that on all articles that had sufficient content, editors added the legal statement in the leads, and also in its own new section, and placed it prominently in the middle of the articles." That is not the case. I've added the statement to large number of settlement articles so I've seen many of them, perhaps 100 or more. I didn't personally add anything apart from the statement to the lead but more importantly, as far as I recall, very few of the articles had anything about legality at all and they didn't have detailed sections about it. So, I think cases where there is a detailed section are probably unusual right now and the creation date of any detailed legality sections in the articles almost certainly predate the guideline.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have random random-ish-ly sampled 47 articles about Israeli settlements in Category:Mixed Israeli settlements and Category:Religious Israeli settlements (out of a total of perhaps ~180) to test the statement "editors added the legal statement in the leads, and also in its own new section, and placed it prominently in the middle of the articles." I say random-ish-ly rather than random because the test is repeatable. I looked at everything in Category:Mixed Israeli settlements and picked the first and last settlement for each letter in Category:Religious Israeli settlements or something like that. One was a junction so that wasn't included. So, there does appear to be a problem with the implementation of the guideline, but the evidence indicates that the problem is that the legal statement hasn't been added to the lead sections of many articles yet.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Results
 * Articles without legal statement in the lead: 13
 * Articles with legal statement in the lead: 34
 * Articles without legality section: 42
 * Articles with legality section: 5


 * I'm sorry Sean, but the thrust of your statement seems to perpetuate a POV push on the consensus behind the legal statement. Discussion on it focused on the wording and placement in the lead as being allowable in the lead and elaborated on in the body of articles that are large enough for it, but I don't remember anywhere in the discussion a clear statement deeming it mandatory on those pages. There was no issue of it being WP policy that the statement MUST appear on them. It was only agreed that it's allowable. So your statement about the problem seems not correct from the view of the consensus itself. On the other hand, you ignore the issue of how this allowance for the legal statement has been applied in excessive weight to the articles by disruptive placement in article bodies, adding weasel texts such as "as without basis in international law" and extending the title of additional sections (at least in one case that I've seen) "legal status under international law" to make it an unusually large title giving it more undue prominence. These all point to the more urgent problem of how the legal statement has been manipulated to gain undue weight and prominence and not whether it does or doesn't appear on every single page of the settlements, which seems to have been left to editor discretion. I think you should be careful not to appear to be supporting this POV push by ignoring all this and focusing on another aspect as if it's WP policy that the legal statement is mandatory, when it does not seem to have been decided on in the consensus. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have also noticed a fair amount of WP:Civil POV pushing on Sean's behalf, while his comments towards me were always full of blame for POV pushing, going as far as openly discrediting my editing abilities in the I-P area. I'm thinking about making a case against Sean, along with Nableezy and Malik Shabazz, as they seem to have formed a "consensus gang" of sorts. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was barely done leaving the previous comment... and I received this threat from Nableezy. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow
You know there is clearly no consensus for this edit. Are you going to self-revert? -asad (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't get it. What's the problem now? Maybe if it makes sense, I'll self-revert. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You know what the problem is. Maybe if you spent less time with political rants, you would notice there are editors who object to using the map you just put. -asad (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe I missed it but I haven't heard any editor object to a map like this that entirely avoids the border issues. Relief maps are used everywhere and this seems to solve the problem. But tell me, who do you think some editors object to it? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you re-read the section. I am not going to get pulled into a conversation that belongs on the articles talk page. -asad (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I posted this at Jerusalem talk page. File:Central-IL WB Gaza map.png Let me know if you approve or want changes. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria
Hi, I noticed you've weighed in on Wikipedia talk:WESTBANK. So sad to see so many editors siding with the view that Israel's position on anything Israel-related is fringe and undue... in any case, does it not seem to you like a forced quasi-consensus? Is there anything that can be done? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a little daunting but one camp seems to have strong-armed the settlement pages to disparage Israel even more excessively than usual. The discussions have become drawn out and we're waiting for a decision at ArbCom. It looks like they'll decline taking the case but I'm still holding out they'll make a statement on the Naming Guideline. If you want to make a statement there, go ahead. My comment has links to all the other discussions. Arbitration/Requests/Case Aside from that we need a show of good editors who see the POV push and are willing to speak up on it - within WP's guidelines for good faith and civility, which can only be helpful. -MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the links, I'll look at that and reply when I have the time to do it in a thorough manner. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Waving at you from behind bars [[Image:Cry.png]] but seriously – thanks for all the help. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hope it's not really so bad. Take some time editing other things and slip into a mode that'll show admins the ban can be lifted safely. We're pulling for you from this side. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you sir. I hadn't thought Wikipedia could be so full of intrigue :-) --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Would that I could always live up to the standard. Thank you and much love in return. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Now this...
Just wanted to bring this to your attention. I'm beginning to think that this is the work of Nableezy or one of his pals, since apparently an indef topic ban wasn't enough... I'm really sorry to keep messaging you about these matters, but in case I get wrongfully blocked, I will have absolutely no means of self defense. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good to see it's winding down and you're being cleared of the charge. Also that Nableezy jumped in to defend you. Like I said before, this is a good opportunity to enjoy editing here and develop collaborative skills in areas that are free of tensions. Good to hear from you and best wishes.--MichaelNetzer (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Caution
The AE page is not a battleground. Please keep comments about a separate ongoing case in the related discussion. Do not take it to another case. Also keep in mind standards of civility when commenting on cases.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The AE page has not become a battleground by my doing, if you haven't noticed. It has been that way long before I started posting there. You seem to have a narrow view of what's going on and your approach with me is borderline disrespectful. AE arbitrates cases based on behavior. The behavior by the same editor in the separate case is very relevant to the one you mention because my comment is about a behavior pattern. I appreciate you'd like to help but I don't see how your assuming an one-sided judge's mantle can be helpful, in light of your comment to the other editor about me. I should remove your misleading and non-athoratative "caution" box from this page but I don't like playing such games. The incivility directed at me on AE makes my comment sound tame by comparison. Please try to be a more considerate of the facts and a little more respectful if you'd like to help. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * While editor behavior is legitimate, your comment seemed to be nothing more than a vindictive response to Nableezy's case against you. I am trying to prevent the situation from getting completely out of hand in your interest as well as those of other editors. As for my comment to Nableezy, I was hoping to prevent him from doing what I know he would have done without any comment from me.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with vindictiveness about my case. I have been commenting on the same thing with Nableezy at AE long before there was a case against me. I think you're aware of that so it's a little odd that you say such a thing. I make these comments because I edit in the same space and we inadvertently have interactions that have been combative and not by my doing. Or at least not by my initiation of combative tone. I'm gravely serious about his behavior and others in his camp and I don't think positions such as you take in this case are helpful towards the problem. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know things wouldn't be this way if there wasn't such aggressiveness from their side. You seem to come to premature conclusions without checking facts. Or you might not be interested in all the facts, I don't know. I mentioned this about your statement on my case. Take it to heart and try not to say things that are false, and frankly, a little presumptuous. If you can understand my concerns I'd also ask you to remove the "caution box" from this thread. The text is alright but the box gives it an air of authority that's misleading. I'd like you to do it voluntarily, if you will. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, TDA. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I found your concerns about the caution template and my comment to Nableezy reasonable. Your comments on the AE case were, all the same, quite inappropriate and I believe you let your personal frustration over Nableezy's case against you impact your behavior. It is better to stay cool in these situations.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all frustrated over Nableezy's case against me. I know what I've done, and others, and I have no real frustration over it. A need to help change it, maybe, but no personal frustration that I can sense. Everything around us impacts our behavior. It's almost impossible to remain human and not be affected by it. But in this case, it's only about a concern for him and for what the encyclopedia stands for, that motivated those comments. I think you're still jumping ahead of yourself a little. But that's alright I suppose. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

AE Result
Per this AE Report I am delivering the following warning:

I know we have previously dialogued on this matter on my talk page. I feel some of your actions could be perceived as disruptive, I would encourage you to try to work with other editors to build consensus. Making changes because there isn't a consensus reached can be useful at times, that's not usually the case on articles in this topic space. Please use due care in the future to avoid sanction. --WGFinley (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Understood, and taken to heart, thank you. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Another uninvolved admin has stated he felt I closed the case prematurely, I have reopened the case. I am leaving the warning stand as I think that should be on the record, my opinion is the case should be closed but I will leave it for others to chime in. --WGFinley (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Michael. The whole "warning" thing has caused confusion in the topic area for years now. You should be focusing on the "counseling". If admins think that you have made a big enough mistake to be banned or blocked then you should consider it. More importantly, you should be seeking the advice of other editors. I would recommend not asking anyone with a history of issues in the topic area (such as myself), but I do think you should seek some feedback from admins. That is actually in the wording of the original Arbitration decision somewhere. The admins have volunteered to do a task on Wikipedia. That includes assisting editors. Some would even argue that an admin should be doing that before giving a "warning". You are obviously aware of ARBPIA so that has to be considered. As your next step, consider seeking feedback while you are in long disputes. It is easy to fall into bickering for days on end while anyone uninvolved ignores it based on WP:TLDR. You have brought up some amazing points. But it will all be for naught if you get into the poor habits that editors like myself have become accustomed to. Cptnono (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

AE
WP:AE.  nableezy  - 23:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * MichaelNetzer, would you agree to self-ban from the article for a defined period and not involve yourself in the etymological dispute that's erupted there and elsewhere in relation to "Abode of Peace"? Personally, I don't think AE was the appropriate venue for the complaint against you, even if I can appreciate the filer's frustration; asking for a high level of page protection to forestall further edit warring would have been a better idea, in my opinion, because AE is meant for long-term abuse and in our case typically involves behavior across more than one article in the topic area. But I'm suggesting this to you because you've impressed me as a mature and intelligent contributor, and it would be unfortunate were you to be topic-banned over this business of "Abode of Peace."—Biosketch (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the concern. There is a principle behind my actions that seeks to honor Wikipedia and what it stands for. I can't abide by information and good behavior being trampled in the way they have been here. My fate, and all of ours, is in good hands. Whatever arbitrators decide will be alright. Thanks again. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael, I would agree to withdraw the complain if you made a few promises. Now it looks like I wont be around for some time, but nonetheless I think you should consider the offer and none of the requests are, I think at least, unreasonable.  nableezy  - 21:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Do not again call any other editor prejudiced, or some variant, against Jews, Judaism, Hebrew, or Jewish history. Even if somebody says "Hi, my name is Tom and I'm a Nazi", let other people deal with it; you, in my view, forfeited the right to make such judgments public. Some of the accusations you made against others were obscene.
 * 2) At the very least, make an honest effort to try to avoid discussing others motivations for edits and reduce your discussions on topics unrelated to the actual article on an article talk page. My view of how the map discussion went is that you made that discussion much more hostile than it needed be. Through your accusations of waging political crusades, and the unfortunate side-bars that caused, and repeated accusations of only your opponents as politicizing the article with irrelevant baggage, the comments about Arabs' self-destructive violent nature, your repeated sneer that I assumed the mantle of spokesman for the project, all these things made what should have been a simple discussion become one where, I am sure, nobody thought any better of the other party after it. On an article talk page, as much as is possible, only talk about the article.
 * 3) Do not comment in any more AEs involving me. I dont know what it is you think you are accomplishing, but as far as I can tell, the most effective thing you have done through these comments is annoy me. If you actually want there to be a collaborative spirit between the two of us, you should reconsider constantly agitating for my being banned. You are certainly free to bring a complaint against me if you see some wrongdoing, but that isnt what you have been doing over the past month.
 * 4) This last one isnt exactly something you have to agree to, just advice. If you make a revert that is later reverted, do not make another one. Convince others on the talk page that it should be made, and let one of them make it. You cant keep arguing that when it is pretty much you vs everybody else that you are right. The two things most likely to have you banned for a significant period of time is edit-warring and socking. Dont do either.


 * Nableezy, though it might not seem that way, I'd prefer better all around collaboration than to not see you around. The requests are not unreasonable though I think they're framed in a way to compromise the wider picture. If you remember from the beginning on Alon Shvut, I've been accused of being a settler pushing a POV. I tried very hard not to reply in kind. My frustration at you early in the map discussion was because it seemed you distorted my point about administrative area and turned it into something else about territory. You're right that what I said was harsh but I was looking for a way to get over that hurdle, and ultimately showed that I'm more flexible than has been assumed. On the Jerusalem lede I was also accused of pushing a nationalist POV for most of the discussion, causing dismissal of everything I said. I exercised great patience in the face of it. I made the unfortunate remark at the end, after two long exchanges, and only after a remark was made that seemed to admit a prejudice. I've never made an issue of what's been said to me in the way it's being made against me. Some of my comments on AE have actually been in your favor though I agree the majority are critical of tone. But I never pushed for you to be banned nor would I. If I've learned anything from all this, it's to not engage in any more long discussions on talk pages that can raise tempers. Here is an adjustment to your requests that I agree to. I think, in light of all this, they're also reasonable.
 * I'll refrain from alluding to anyone as prejudiced or pushing a POV, and expect the same from others.
 * I'll refrain from discussing others' motives and expect the same from others.
 * I'll not comment about you in any AE's involving you for a period of 6 months, the duration of the longest proposed ban in the AE against me.
 * I'll consult editors on the talk page instead of reverting a revert I made that was itself reverted.
 * I hope this helps us and appreciate your reaching out. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry Michael, I am not looking to bargain with you. The issue isnt with saying somebody is pushing a POV, it is with alleging a prejudice as being the cause of that supposed POV-pushing. When you repeat charges like prejudiced against a Hebrew connection you are, rather blatantly, making an accusation of anti-semitism. An accusation that has been made, repeatedly, without basis. So no, I dont find the adjustments reasonable, at least for nos. 1 and 3. Take it or leave it, I really dont care which, but Im not going to be haggling over this.  nableezy  - 19:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand. I don't think the text in #1, as it's proposed, reflects what I've said or implied. I responded to certain things which I don't want to get into again for obvious reasons. But nothing I said was "without" basis. One could argue that I misunderstood something but not that there wasn't a basis for misunderstanding it. I'd rather leave it at that. On #3, I don't know what else to do. I think this type of condition for "all time" is a little over the top. It's not a matter of haggling, just fairness. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All right, its up to you. I disagree with you, especially for 1, and honestly I am a bit surprised that you could possibly find a reason to accuse others of being prejudiced against Jews, Judaism, Hebrew, or Jewish history during a discussion on an article, but if you wish to retain that "right" then by all means, that is your choice. As far as 3, in my opinion your comments at AE have served only one purpose, causing my well-established temper to get the best of me. There are a few editors whose views are pretty much the opposite of mine that I have respect for. Not one of them are among the chorus chanting in unison against me. I think that this is allowed at AE to be one of its biggest shortcomings, it usually achieves no positive outcome, and often causes multiple negative ones, among them a deeper distrust among users (that being me and you in this case). Again, if you want to keep that up that is up to you. I guess its bye then. Take care,  nableezy  - 03:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree about the excessive comments of uninvolved editors at AE, including some of mine. I've already decided to stay out of it in the future as a general rule, though I can't say it absolutely as I don't know what situation might come up. You might be surprised to have me supporting you there on some things. If we can build trust between us, it'll mean more than any promise either of us can make now. I avoided pointing to these two instances that I responded to which have caused the commotion, but I think it's now necessary. "However odd it may seem to outsiders, many Hebrew-speakers therefore believe that Jerusalem means "Abode of peace" and what many Hebrew-speakers believe is as good a guide as any to what we should put in the first line of the article ." Imagine if I would have said the same about Arabic speakers. Also: " Very biblical. 'Abode of Peace' is holy writ, and guess who's enjoying the infallibility associated with some office! "' I'm almost certain that if I would have said this to you about Islamic holy writ of Al-Quds, you'd have reported it to AE and I'd be blocked for a year. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm wrong about these statements, maybe not. It's behind us and better to lay them to rest. In light of all of it, I certainly intend on avoiding such drawn out debates that can also raise tempers and distrust. On a final note. I don't mind being the fall guy for the temper though it seems a little unrelated. My comments in AE were a response to the heated tone of many interactions and most of our exchanges on the editing field. I might have been partly responsible, but if you notice, I can be the friendliest editor when the tone is respectful and good-natured. At such times, I've made edits that absolutely refute allegations that I'm a "nationalist" editor, because they were the right thing to do. You don't have to withdraw the complaint, but this statement clarifies my future intentions and hopefully addresses your concerns. If there's going to be greater trust between us, and I certainly hope so, then let's start making the effort now. Thanks. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Much-needed WikiLove
 Hello MichaelNetzer, The Devil's Advocate has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I trust this template does not upset you yes? ;) The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's nicer. Colors are a little kitchy but the message is alright [[Image:Smiley.svg||18px]] --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello
It says in your article that you live in Ofra, is this true? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And you are an Israeli citizen? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dual. US & Israel. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your father was a Lebanese druze right? What was your mother? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * First, tell me your real name, where you live, what nationalities you hold and what nationality your father is - along with verified sources for all of it - then I'll consider if I'm interested in continuing this exchange. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to reveal personal information about myself. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. We're all settled then. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael, this is could be harassment per WP:OUTING, if you would like I can have it removed and the log purged, let me know. I was unaware you had your own article, since you edit on it I think the initial inquiry is fine but the following ones border on it, though you chose to answer. I'm sure you've been told this before but avoiding editing an article about you is generally a good idea as it brings up situations like this. --WGFinley (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, WGF, I only answered with what's already in the article. But his last question overstepped that, which is why I stopped it. As all the information in the exchange is WP verified, it doesn't need to be removed from here. I work closely with admins in the Comics Project where the article pertains. It's common there for artists and writers to update their own articles with news of their work that's been publicized, but admins usually patrol everything for tone and verifiability. Most of my edits in the last few years have been in adding refs, fixing links, etc.. and very little, if any, content edits. But I'll try to stay away from it in the future. Thanks for the watchful eye. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

AE Result

 * As a result of the reopened AE thread you are restricted to the following per this AE thread:
 * 1RR on Jerusalem topics, broadly constructed, in 24 hours
 * 4 month Probation on P-I
 * 1.5 month Topic ban on Jerusalem topics broadly constructed
 * Any verified complaint of WP:TE during probation trigger of P/I TBAN, allowing the enforcing admin to use discretion on time, recommending 3 month minimum.
 * -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate to be the grammar Nazi here, but I think you mean "construed" not "constructed" as you have it written now.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem
Hi, I've put up a proposal re: Naming Conventions for Locations in Jerusalem here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Naming_Conventions_for_Locations_in_Jerusalem) and would very much appreciate any comments you have on this issue. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

For your attention
Hi, I'd like to draw your attention to my comments here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brewcrewer) and, in particular, to my requests at the end. BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ==Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 12:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Reminder on probation
As noted by DQ, any verified instance of tendentious editing would be cause for an admin to impose at minimum a three-month topic ban. You should therefore avoid making edits like you did at Ofra and like you did at the nakba article especially, seeing as that was the subject of an edit war. It is better, while under probation, for you to avoid getting involved in an edit war in the topic area altogether.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I made one edit on Ofra, based on an RS already used in the article. You changed the wording slightly and I was fine with it, so I don't see what was tendentious there. I also made one edit on Palestinian exodus and have no plans to make more until some agreement is arrived at. I've made only a few brief comments in the talk page. I fail to see anything tendentious there also. I know exactly what probation means and I find your comment here presumptuous and pretentious. I've already asked you not to leave such messages as they are disrespectful and misleading. As a party to the edits, you are not in a position to flaunt such authority over others. Given our previous exchanges on your behavior, here here, and you knowing what I think of your messages, you are now harassing and hounding. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You can take my advice to heart or not. Make all the accusations against me that you like, but if you go down the path you are with those kinds of edits you are likely to be found to be engaged in tendentious editing and topic-banned for a considerable duration. If you want to avoid that, then I suggest you consider how you might modify your attitudes to insure that your edits conform more closely to neutrality. That is for your benefit.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you please modify your comment at the AE case? It was incredibly hostile and combative towards other editors.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry TDA, that entire AE is what's incredibly hostile and combative. My comment is just a slightly defensive measure, considering some are so easily swayed by the real hostility in this space. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Biographical portraits
Those are remarkable. I had no idea anyone was contributing work like this. Tom Harrison Talk 22:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I will say Mike, despite my occasional differences with you, I strongly concur with Tom here.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)