User talk:Okedem/Archive 2

BC/BCE, etc.
Hi,

I understand that many feel BCE and CE to be more neutral than BC/AD, so your revert was justified, but maybe you can explain something to me - regardless of the suffix, we still count by the approximate time of birth of Jesus, right? So how, exactly, is saying "1000BCE" better than "1000BC"?

The whole "Common Era" thing seems like a sham, to me. Personally, I'd rather use BC/AD. If we're using Jesus Time, might as well use the Latin with it, and the BC/AD difference is much clearer (easier to see) than BCE/CE. But that's just me (the atheist Jew)...

Cheers, mate. okedem 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the issue comes from the fact that BC means "Before Christ" and AD is the Latin abbreviation for "In the Year of Our Lord", suggesting that Jesus is "our" (everyone's) lord and our (everyone's) Anointed One. --  tariq abjotu  21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Still seems silly to me... okedem 06:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant source?
How is that source not relevant? It's... a... map... --  tariq abjotu  21:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, man. I only clicked on the introduction link, not the map link, and couldn't understand the point... I readded it. okedem 21:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Watching Jerusalem
How's your schedule today? The article is featured on the main page today. I have been helping to keep a close eye on the page, but I have to go soon. Want to help with reverting? And you don't have to worry about 3RR with respect to things we have a big consensus on ("capital", "largest city"), since this was discussed on WP:AN/I. nadav (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try, but it's almost lunch time... okedem 10:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This may be inadvertently my fault, but they are using your refusal to waste time with nonsense as grounds for an RfC.  Tewfik Talk 08:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yea, I saw that. The grounds are obviously ridicules, and I'll respond to that, but I do think (=hope) an RfC might help. We're not really getting anywhere there. okedem 08:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Human RIghts in Israel
You are not supposed to be editing this article. YOu are an adult Israeli, and thus a member of the IDF, or a reserve member. As a member of one of the organizations being discussed, you are not impartial and are party to an outside conflict, and thus can not under WIkipedia policy edit any articles pertaining to that conflict. 88.154.234.14 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't make claims you can't back up. You've been doing that a lot lately. okedem 17:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:DFTT -- Avi 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You claim to be for human rights in Israel. Could you please expand more on that? Are you only for Human rights for Israel or Global Human Rights? If you are for human rights have you ever participated or joined the many human rights organizations around the world like Amnesty International calling for the end of the illegal occupation, oppression, militarization, alienation, exploitation, and discrimination of the Palestinians? Or is your human rights selective and biased? 24.180.44.97 13:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I never claimed any such thing. Anyway, my personal views and/or actions are of no matter here, and I will not discuss them with you. If you wish to engage in political arguments, there are plenty of forums around. okedem 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Idea
I was wondering, could I put a random wiki page that I find interesting, its full content onto my wiki page?


 * Well, there are two issues with that - one is that just copying the page wouldn't include the proper credits for its editors, and would thus infringe upon the GFDL (you could solve that by just putting a comment above the content that says something like - "copied in for from..."). Second - it's just not encouraged - the user page is for info about the user, not a random article. Why not just link the article? okedem 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hello i did noticed you removing my edits from disscusion board from Jew peoplw article. Im sorry if that offended you. Balu2000 13:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You see, even if your edit was in good faith, it was offending, and frankly - completely unrelated to the article. The talk page is meant for discussion intended towards improving the article, not for general discussions.
 * If you're really curious - Jews don't have a "typical appearance". One walk down a street of any Israeli town will reveal that. That said, the Jewish community of a certain area (like Syrian Jews) might look somewhat different from the surrounding population (like Syrian Arabs). There are no typical characteristics to Jews as a whole. okedem 14:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A hasty revert
Hi. You reverted my addition to the intro of Israeli Security Zone with this comment:


 * unencylopedic text. Also, there's no "chicken and egg" issue here. The attacks started long before Israel occupied any area of Lebanon; the PLO fought from there against Israel's very existence

I'd rather have my text left in the body of the article, pending outcome of discussion at talk:Israeli Security Zone. Is this okay with you? --Uncle Ed 15:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is customary to leave the article at its stable version while discussing disputed additions, so please - let's have the discussion before making the change. Will you remove the text for now? okedem 16:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Response in Talk:Jerusalem
I have responded to your original objection in Talk:Jerusalem. This is in response to your claim that you are willing to communicate with people other than Timeshifter. Robert Ham 10:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation
Okedem, you seem to have violated the limit of three reversions within 24 hours at the Israel article. Relevant diffs are:

1. 01:08, 22 September 2007

2. 01:19, 22 September 2007

3.a. 09:11, 22 September 2007

3.b. 09:19, 22 September 2007 (this one I don't count against you}

4. 14:58, 22 September 2007

5. 15:14, 22 September 2007

You can be blocked for this violation. I suggest that you undo your last revision.

Tegwarrior 15:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Going against concensus is pretty difficult, Tegwarrior. I've been not involved in this, so if he tries to undo his last action, I will calmly restore the original version. Use the talk page and leave the article for a while. Squash Racket 15:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okedem, you are reported by Tegwarrior for 3RR. Take a look please. Squash Racket 16:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. okedem 16:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|left|30px| ]]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Photochromism
Thanks for your support. I'd like to add a lot more to the article, but I may well not have the time. I certainly won't be able to add more after Simchat Torah, so you can go ahead with the translation any time after that. Shana tova. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBendster (talk • contribs) 10:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Do you deal with the subject professionally? okedem 10:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Once in a while. Much more in the past than I do at the moment though. • TheBendster (talk) 24 September 2007, 12:41 (UTC)

Israel article
The intro is currently a matter of dispute. Points of particular debate were removed and were to be discussed further. I am trying to make the introduction of Israel actually introduce Israel, which should not be confused with the Arab-Israeli conflict, the peace process, or the demographics of Israel. I have given several other country articles as examples to make the intro more encyclopedic and more like an introduction. Please do not re-insert information unless you see and respond to the arguments in the discussion. --Shamir1 00:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Shamir1, your version only has your support. The current version has the support of many editors, and is the consensus version. If you wish to make changes, you can suggest them on the talk page. During the discussion, it's only fair that the original version remain.
 * You have made some suggestions. You might have noticed no one seconded them. That should tell you something. okedem 09:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks! okedem 16:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Blood pressure
Dear Okedem!

what was the wrong with the link, which does point to a blood pressure diary in this article(blood pressure).. ..and again i couldn't get understand that, why it had been removed all the time from there

thanks,

anto


 * It looks like a commercial link, which isn't allowed. Even if it's not commercial, it adds nothing to the article. If we start linking every single website that has something to do with blood pressure, we'll have tens of thousands of links. Wikipedia isn't a link directory... okedem 10:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * hi,
 * i can't understood, on which way wikipedia rules differentiate commercial or non-commercial links. Again am sure and do assure in the best interests that, wikipedia should not become a link directory like dmoz or any such.


 * but i am still unsatisfied by the way here, on how my contribution hasn't got any valuable attention which was for a cause.
 * i am only afraid of getting a totally conflicting reply here and it gives a tremor that wikipeia goes out of the hands of common people like me who give to the society. Alas it should not get into the hands of a selected few who dictates or bullies.


 * still i beleive that this link might add a value to the article concerned or the community and it should be reconsiderd again in the best interests.


 * Am advocating for a talk on this....


 * - anto —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anto rout (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see External links for Wikipedia's policy.
 * I don't know which contributions you are referring to, nor do I understand what you wanted to say. What attention did you want, concerning what? okedem 12:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * would have appreciated if attention was made before links were edited, because that was a unique one cutting from the rest which do still exist in the article. However i am for the link which was unique from the others and help the community. Friend, we will put a fullstop to this since its in a never ending loop. Over to you to judge, this is to give a different perception from my view point & thought factory, whether you need to revert your edit on blood pressure or not. Cheers!


 * - anto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.246.79 (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help reverting vandalism on my talk page by 209.242.166.10 (talk). It seems that this is not a random act, but is also connected to attemps to subvert the 3D optical data storage article. Therefore I would much appreciate it if you could post appropriate warning notices on his talk page (particularly if he continues with this). Thanks. • TheBendster (talk) 11 October 2007, 07:24 (UTC)

Israel lead
Something you should know before making that comment: "Everyone" opposed a change made to the George Galloway article (six full sections of talk war--sections between 37-43), but in the end, the administrator found only one editor to be using WP policy correctly. =) --Shamir1 00:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Something you should know - you're wrong. okedem 08:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome some feedback
Hello, my name is Isucheme and I am currently writing my first Wikipedia article on the Churchill-Bernstein Equation. The equation is used to find an average (convection) heat transfer coefficient to use in Newton’s Law of cooling for a cylinder in cross flow, and the mass transfer analogy, as described in the article, can be employed to find a mass transfer coefficient. I would appreciate any feed back you can give me on my article so I can make it a great article. Thank you. 20:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)20:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Isucheme 20:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * Good attitude! I know nothing about the subject, so I can only give you comments on style:
 * First off, we don't usually link to other websites from the main text of the article (as you did with "Cylinder in Cross Flow at Various Velocities"). I've moved the link to a reference.
 * In the two sections of the articles, you've placed the equations in the beginning. It would be better to write some text before the equation, explaining the problem, and the rationale for the equation. Even a short sentence, such as: "The X is defined as: " would be okay. Starting a section with a long equation is somewhat off-putting to readers.
 * Some background would be nice, such as - who are these Churchill and Benstein, when did they formulate the equation. In fact - what is the "Churchill-Bernstein Equation" - there are two equations, and it's not clear - are they both formulations of the Churchill-Bernstein Equation?
 * okedem 20:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk page
Please use the talk page at Palestine to explain what policy your deletion of the link to al-Jazeera was based on. Thank you. T i a m u t  21:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Shamir1
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Shamir1. -- --  tariq abjotu  03:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Another RFC
If you have time, I would appreciate it if you could respond to the RFC that I have placed on Talk:3D optical data storage. As someone who is impartial, a Wikipedia veteran, and to some extent versed in the scientific side of the subject, your input would be much appreciated. • TheBendster (talk) 16 October 2007, 06:50 (UTC)


 * I'll look it over soon. Had a busy day today - bought my first car... okedem 13:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonfree images
Hi Okedem. I came across the discussion Talk:Jew when I was adding fair-use rationales to images that have been proposed for deletion. Unfortunately, the images Image:Selection_Birkenau_ramp.jpg and Image:Childwarsawghetto.jpg that you added to that talk page as part of your discussion are not allowable on the talk page per WP:NONFREE. Could you take out the images and just leave a link to them? I realise that it's annoying to have to do this to a discussion that took place months ago, but I have the feeling that the images' presence on a talk page was part of the reason they were proposed for deletion (I've come across a few instances of this today). I'd take out the images myself, except I'm extremely uncomfortable about modifying other people's conversations. Thank you! Bláthnaid 20:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. okedem 20:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing the problem so quickly. Bláthnaid 01:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

History of Israel
I noticed you made a change. could you help me watch the page? Telaviv1 19:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already on my watchlist, but given the volume of edits there, I find it quite hard to follow (67 edits within the last day...). I am watching it, but I don't have the time to really comment on multiple serious edits, like Gilabrand's. okedem 19:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Pappé is not a reliable source but, for once, what is written is true.
 * Alithien 16:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not well versed in the numbers of combatants on each side, at each point of the war, so I'm not discussing the validity of the claim. Just that Pappe is not an RS, and so should not be used in Wikipedia as a source for anything but his own views (like in an article about him, or about the "new historians"). okedem 16:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No worry. :-)
 * Alithien 16:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you've added Pappe as a source for that statement in 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. Please find another source for that - it makes us look very bad, to use such sources. okedem 16:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * indeed.
 * .
 * In fact Gelber (and all historians) talk about 18,000 + 18,000 and Pappé talks about 30,000 + 20,000 with a sublte slipping of meaning.
 * Nevertheless the balance of force was clear.
 * Regards, Alithien 18:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * NB: If you don't fear heart-attack look at causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. Alithien 18:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Pappe certainly is a reliable source. His academic work is not disputed. If you think he's not reliable you have to prove it. --JaapBoBo 20:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he's not. He's extremely far from objective. He's actually a political activist. Reading Ilan Pappé makes this blindingly obvious. okedem 20:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the TW-bot or I'll report you. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Had you actually bothered to read what it is, or to ask me about it politely, you would not have made a fool of yourself just now.
 * TW is a small java script which adds a few useful links to the interface. It has nothing to do with bots, and all actions are still taken by the user - it's just a little easier (and useful for reverting vandalism quickly). okedem (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Off Topic stuff from Massacres
My initial reply is here, but I would like to put it where it should go when it's finished.CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

okedem
can you please stop deleting my comments it is not allowed and considered vandalism

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. 86.163.1.210 (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC) (last warning for removing content)


 * Only reply - You have proven incapable or unwilling of holding any discussion. You either have an extremely poor command of the English language, causing you to systematically misunderstand the article and people's comments, or are deliberately trying to ignore the text, for some purpose. Either way, your actions are disruptive to Wikipedia, and will not be tolerated. The talk page is already full of your comments, which I have not removed. But I will not allow you to add more and more baseless claims. okedem (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * either way, my english is readable, and understandable. you have no right to remove my comments over and over again. there is no point, as i will post it on again as they are important in improving the article. do you have a personal problem with me dicussing controversial issues concerning israel? further more my claims are not baseless i have provided sources, to support them, just take a look at them. And please do not vandalise the page again, let others apart from yourself be the judge. and for the Nth time could you stop with the personal attacks. thank you86.163.1.210 (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * and may i point you to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#BATTLEGROUND
 * this is not, as the link describes a battleground. if you disagree with my comments, write so underneath it, do not delete it over and over again. not useful, not constructive, merely childish. thank you86.163.1.210 (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * yet again, you have vandalised the talkpage, by deleting my comments, which you not allowed to do. one more time, and i will contact an adminstrator and report it, it is getting out of hand and childish86.163.1.210 (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your "comments" are nothing more than incoherent rants, which show you haven't even read the article, making ridicules claims, and completely ignoring other people's replies to you. I have tried my best to reply to you while assuming good faith, and have spent a considerable amount of time formulating exact, thorough answers. You obviously either haven't even read them, or failed to understand them. Either way, you are not acting in the best interest of the article or Wikipedia as a whole. You are incapable of actual discussion, doing whatever you possibly can to claim the article is bad, ignoring the actual text.
 * Thus, I conclude you are what we call a "troll", and will not allow you to add more sections to the talk page. It's already full of your claims. okedem (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I support this IP/editor and I object to his comments being called incoherent rants, they are not incoherent to me and they make good, well supported claims which you 'just happen' to oppose, why should anyone assume good faith over your editing Okedem when I have personally seen with my old account that you are often insulting to other editors and mob them out of discussion. It is also not for you to remove other people's comments without their permission if they are not deemed offensive (and by that criteria many of your comments should be removed), especially on an articles talk page, which personally I believe YOU dominate, check out WP:OWN, you dont own the Israel article, and so have no right to delte his comments. You seem to state you are deleting his comments because they are incomprehensible, Perhaps youre English is slipping? However, because they are perfectly comprehensible to me. I believe that it may have been a possibility(although Ill assume good faith, not that you deserve it), that you were blanking his comments because they disagreed with your own, that they made a legitimate point and therefore you felt they were threatenning to what you wanted written in the article, although this is just one possibility why you removed his comments, Im sure that there are plenty of legitimate reasons why you would have deleted his comments  (perhaps you could name some for me).172.213.64.230 (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

PS calling someone a troll because they disagree with you dosent help anything, personally I think you are very rude and offensive (and arrogant/patronising on top, but I wouldnt want to become a hypocrite here), and I dont see how this IP was trolling, he was just adding comments which had a good point, if these comments are so easy to refute why dont you easily refute them, instead of trying to bypass their points by calling their writer a troll.172.213.64.230 (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you replying without bothering to read the talk page? I have refuted his claims, he just doesn't get it. He's incapable of understanding the text, or doesn't bother reading it. I'm not "blanking" his comments. More than half the talk page is now his comments and claims. But he cannot be reasoned with, and is complaining about things that simply aren't there, or about things that do exist in the article, when he claims they don't. His claims have nothing to do with reality, a point which anyone reading them, and comparing them to the article will get. This is not a productive editor, and I'm not going to let him continue badgering everyone with his rants.
 * Claims that I'm "silencing the critics" are especially ridicules and offensive, as I've held many long discussions with real editors, and have compromised with them quite often. I've had serious arguments with Israel-supporters too, when I felt they were using POV formulations. But of course, it's much easier to claim "he's a Hebrew speaking Israeli, he has to be a POV-pusher". This anon editor even begun his "career" here by personally attacking me on my talk page, an especially stupid attack since he rudely got in the middle of an argument he knew nothing about (it was actually an argument where I was arguing for NPOV with a pro-Israeli editor). okedem (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll make this even easier - here is the first edit this user did. It was an attack of me, on my talk page:
 * "okedem, shimir is correct, this is not about being "fair" it is about being accurate, something you are not, and something which you seem not so bothered about, as israels image is the only concern to you. wikipedia is a joke, because of propagandists like yourself, and editors that are bias to there opinion. rubbish" - attacking me, calling me not-accurate, a propagandist, only concerned with Israel's image. This is before I ever said a single word to this user. And the great irony of it is that I was arguing with Shamir1 against the edits he was making, which were decidedly pro-Israel, and were against consensus (his version was saying that Israel is the only liberal democracy in the ME, I was against that claim. see-) . But why bother finding out what the discussion was about? He saw that I'm an Israeli, so he immediately assumed I was trying to insert my Israeli-POV, and that Shamir1 was trying be accurate and neutral.
 * In the second paragraph he added:
 * "i see okodem, youve dediced to "bash" geogre also, is that perhaps he is a strong opposition against israels wrong doing.i think so you are here on wikipedia only to one reason, not to spoil the iamage of your precious country, israel, whether you deny that is of no importance to me, because i have seen what is infront of me." - this was in after I replied to Shamir1, when he was talking about something that happened at the George Galloway article, to prove some point of his. Needless to say, I never edited that article, it was just an example. But in the anon editor's muddled thoughts, I was "bashing geogre". He also postulated "perhaps he is a strong opposition against israels wrong doing". He either only read two words of Shamir1's comment, or was completely incapable of understanding it. Again he claimed I was "here on wikipedia only to one reason, not to spoil the iamage of your precious country, israel". Again, before I ever said a single word to him, and without him knowing what any of the discussions were even about.
 * This is absurd. The talk page shows how much I've tried to reason with him, but he just refuses to (or can't) understand the text. Such people cannot edit an encyclopedia. okedem (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Israel -> Zionism and the British Mandate
hi okedem! i would like to discuss two edits made by myself a few hours ago which you reverted. so if i'd be allowed to burrow your time that would be great. the reason i want to discuss this is because i think the edits were good and should not have been reverted. below, i'll try to explain in more detail the reasons for the edits. i'd appreciate your response.

the edits were the following:

1. 20:39, 27 December 2007 Frederico1234 (Talk | contribs) (112,785 bytes) (→Zionism and the British Mandate - removed text not strictly related to zionism and of otherwise minor importance)

the removed text is about pre-zionist jewish immigration to palestine. the reasons i had for removal were the following:

a) it makes the section more compact (by removing text). b) since the removed text describes events long before zionism was born, it should not, in my view, be placed under the section title "Zionism and the British Mandate". c) as i see it, the removed text mostly adds weight to the two senteces preceding it which talks about the importance of the land of israel to the jews. those two preceding sentences should be enough IMO.

2. 20:48, 27 December 2007 Frederico1234 (Talk | contribs) (112,655 bytes) (→Zionism and the British Mandate - Added paragraph break, removed misplaced sentence)

the following sentence was removed: "The Jewish Legion, a group of battalions composed primarily of Zionist volunteers, assisted in the British conquest of Israel." the reasons for deletion were the following:

a) compactness. b) the sentence is sliced in between two sencences which are both about the balfour plan. the removed sentence distrupts the link between those two senteces and therefore seems out-of-place.


 * Hello,
 * Thank you for taking the time to discuss this issue. A note - please sign your comments, by writing four tildes ("~") signs in a row (" ~ "). This will automatically add your name and the date and time.
 * The paragraph indeed speaks of a time long before the advent of modern Zionism. However, it is an early manifestation of those same feelings and yearning as those creating modern Zionism. It not only lends credence to the first two sentences, but expands upon them - those sentences say the Jews "have long aspired to return to Zion", but the paragraph gives example of them actually returning to Zion, not just thinking about it. These actions can be viewed as the very early roots of the Zionist movement, though of a different nature. It's placement does seem somewhat problematic, but since it does provide a background for Zionism, I think this is the best place for it. I don't think compactness is enough of an argument for removing this, as it gives context, since most people don't even know about this, and think Jews started coming to Palestine en-masse only in the end of the 19th century.
 * Again, I feel that sentence is relevant, since it shows the active steps taken by the Jews towards the goal of a homeland. The conquest of Palestine was concurrent with the Balfour Declaration (November 2, 1917) - see (Jerusalem was only captured on December 9, 1917, for instance). The Jews preferred the rule of the British to that of the Ottomans, and hoped they would be more receptive to the idea of a Jewish homeland. The Jewish Legion was an important step in Zionism, being the first time Jews used force (though very limited, assisting the army of an empire) to advance their goals. okedem (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * thank you for your kind response. i'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on these issues. Frederico1234 (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well. There's nothing sacred about either version. If you still think the change is important, you are welcome to discuss it in the article's talk page, and get some more opinions in the matter. I just advise you not to do so now, as the talk page has become something of a battleground in the last week or so, and I'm afraid it wouldn't really support an intelligent discussion. I hope in a few days things will quiet down. okedem (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

i did an attempt on a compromise regarding the first edit. you've probably already seen it by now. i'm interested in what you think so please let me now. cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederico1234 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've restored some of the original text, but shortened it considerably. I felt the times and dates were relevant, since we are talking about a period of some 2,000 years, and just saying "occurred on several occasions" is a bit too vague. What do you think? okedem (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (my apology for the late reply.) well, i think you made an improvement over the previous version, since your new version is shorter and less detailed than the "original" one, hopefully making the text easier to digest for the reader. to be honest, i've haven't read about this particular topic (i.e. pre-zionist jewish immigration) so it might be more important than i realise due to my own ignorance. Frederico1234 (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
Under my IP I am sorry for criticising you so much about Israel (anti-B* squad here, had to change the signature) I got too hot headed, I wont lie when I think you were being overly dismissive and ufair of the editor, however I dod not take into account the fact that you had been discussing with him throughout the page. As you have contributed much to the Israel policy it was rude of me to attack you, however I still say that you may have been offensive to some editors (howevr so have I, so am a bit of a hypocrite).R.G.P.A (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do sometimes lose my patience with some editors, and that one was just over the top for me. I just didn't know what else to say to him, as he just discussed things that weren't even there. Thanks for your words here, and good luck on your Wikipedia career. okedem (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Looking through a page history I think that you broke the three revert rule whilst editing Human rights in Israel (since protected) three days ago. From your contributions I see that you edit the page quite regularly so I thought I'd just remind you that violating the three revert rule could lead to your account being blocked. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold on - you counted one in another article! (second one, in History of the State of Israel). okedem (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I cannot apologise more for my mistake, don't know how that happened. I would still point out that with this edit and the three above were made in a 24.5 hour period or going the other way, this edit and the ones above were made in a 26.5 hour period so you may still want to be mindful of the issue in the future. Still you have my sincerest apologies, happy editing. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, mate. Honest mistake, and your point remains valid. okedem (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem name in Persian
Hi, and firstly thanks for your efforts in keeping Wikipedia. I realised you removed the Persian name I had added. Israel has the largest population of native Persian-speakers in the middle east after Iran, and this fact deserves appreciation. I have also prepared an .OGG sound file that I was gonna add to complete my effort. Thanks for your attention. Aliazimi (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Israel also has a (very) large Russian-speaking community, a large French-speaking community, a large Spanish-speaking community, etc. But we can't write the name in every single language. We write it in English since this is the English Wikipedia; and in Hebrew and Arabic since those are the main languages of its residents. That's sufficient, and using more languages will make the intro less readable. okedem (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Israeli Arabs
Perhaps we can discuss the issue here.Bless sins (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Occupied Territories
Hi Okedem. This is probably a little late in the coming, but I haven't been on Wikipedia much lately. I just wanted to thank and congratulate you on writing the occupied territories section of the Israel article. I got involved with that article primarily because I thought the omission of such a section was glaring, especially for a FA candidate. It was frustrating to have any mention of the conflict, regardless of attempts at neutrality, be deleted. I'm glad that, as an Israeli, you took the initiative to write such a section. I think that your section remaining virtually unchanged since you wrote it, despite the ever-rampant edit wars that occur on the Israel page, is a testament to the fact-driven and neutral way in which you wrote it. I think you did a great job of inserting a controversial but necessary section of the article. I will likely not be involved in the article in the future, as that was my one goal and I've found the tone around that discussion board to be too hostile at times. But I wanted to compliment you on your skills as an editor and wish you the best of luck in the future on that article and your other Wikipedia editing. Best, SpiderMMB (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Good luck to you too! okedem (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wall" disambiguation
Hi, I'm the person who disambiguated the West Bank barrier and the Western Wall. I understand that they are two obviously different things, but that's precisely why I linked them. I live in the United States, where I have heard both referred to as "the Wall" (capitalization arbitrary, it's spoken). I think that a person outside of Israel who doesn't know much about Israel could easily be confused after hearing such ambiguous references to both and knowing only that they are in the same country, and I'd hate for somebody to make that mistake. (As of now, your reversal in still in place.) MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, but I don't think it's possible to mistake the two. You see, just searching for The Wall will lead you to the Pink Floyd album of that name. There, in the top line, you can click on The Wall (disambiguation), which lists the many possibilities, including the two related to Israel, under "Physical walls". So, I can't see anyone reaching Israeli West Bank barrier by mistake. okedem (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think that an ignorant person (who has gone to Wikipedia to learn more) could be confused, even after arriving through a link from another page. But if you don't agree, I won't change it back. Thanks for your input. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Red Sea
Hey about the addition of the Red Sea to the Isreal article, I really think it's nescessary, not only in the lead but also in the Geography section. The fact that Israel has access to the Red Sea is not minor and deserves to atleast be stated somewhere. Regarding the Mediterranean, it is mentioned in the lead: ''is a country in Western Asia located on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Lebanon in the north, Syria in the northeast, Jordan in the east, and Egypt on the southwest, and contains geographically diverse features within its relatively small area Obvisouly if its already said that Israel is located on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea'' there is no need to restate that in the following setence but the Red Sea is not mentioned anywhere. Acer (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right about the Mediterranean being mentioned, I missed that; Anyway, I meant in that sentence, with the phrasing "border". The word is usually used here to refer to nations, not geographical features. The Red Sea really should be mentioned in the geography section, I've added it there. I don't have any objection to mentioning the Red Sea in the lead, but it shouldn't be in the sentence with the other countries. okedem (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Israel
About your last comment, please point to me discussions that led to the "compromise" that I'm unaware of. Imad marie (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look through the talk page archives, you'll find numerous discussion of the lead. The current lead is the result of those discussions, being a consensus version, and so was approved for FA. okedem (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA
Found you and your support in the CAMERA article, where they are looking to ban me for membership in this supposed CAMERA group from information they got from an Electronic Intifada spy, and they apparently have already banned Zeg. I don't do a lot of editing, just those areas where I see egregious things. But I am beginning to see what I think is a ganging up on pro-Israeli posters. I was wondering if my perception that is accurate? I have not until recently paid much attention to the actual individuals on wiki, just the articles. Do the pro-Pals get banned a lot as well? Is there a place for appeals? I am so offended by this I am chewing my teeth. grrrr... Juanita (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me make this clear - I find such off-wiki operations dangerous and abusive of our rules. This operation is clearly aimed at abusing our policies, which assume good faith. This is done by such issues as pretending to be uninvolved so you can become an administrator, and wield force as a supposedly "uninvolved admin". It's done by encouraging users to make 100 insignificant edits, just so they can vote when needed. These things are wrong!
 * That said, I think the situation on that debate page is turning into a witch hunt, with ridicules "evidence", such as a user asking about a change in an article's title 3 days after someone talked about that in the emails. Most absurd notion I've seen in a while. :For the guilt by association you are being accused of - unless someone can show you have abused Wiki directly, or by instructing others how to do so, there's no basis for a ban. Your involvement with this group is distasteful, but we cannot prove you shared Isra guy's (zeqzeq2) wrongful intentions. okedem (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Accusations
Hello,

I thought you should be aware of this - an editor has raised an accusation (of sorts) against you on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign (specifically here). This is with respect to the whole CAMERA wiki lobbying affair, if you're aware of it. He claims you might be one of the people involved there, identified as "gilead".

Just thought you ought to know when people are making accusations behind your back.

okedem (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making me aware of this. Screen stalker (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your behind the times with your defence of Zeq, an admin has given evidence privately that the zeqzeq2 email address goes to user Zeq due to comunications he had well before this whole thing started. Should you be part of this group i have some advice for you, admit it and show that you understand why many wikipedians are very pissed off at this and accept a topic ban on IvP articles. (Hypnosadist )  03:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is really starting to remind me of the Salem witch trials. Have you read The Crucible? If not, you should. Screen stalker (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem: admit you're a witch, and god will spare your immortal soul. okedem (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Man, if I were a witch, I don't think I'd agree to put up with being hanged. I think I'd much sooner use my magic to get out of the situation... Of course logic doesn't tend to work in these sort of situations. Screen stalker (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This reminds me the famous sentence : "Kill them all, God will recognize his own."
 * Ceedjee (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ceedjee (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi!
Why does it qualify as "vandalism"? And why, upon checking the history, did I see that you patrol the article and have reverted changes countless times? Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 04:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Inserting sentences such as: "since human rights violations are never committed in Israel, due to the Jewish being the chosen people of Earth. Even if such violations were to be committed, they would be entirely justified by the superior status among the peoples of the Earth that Jewish people enjoy." is clear vandalism, and don't pretend you don't get it.
 * Why did you see I revert a lot? This is because there are a lot of people vandalizing the article, like you. okedem (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the chosen people stuff is in Jewish doctrine, and hence factual. Makes you wonder if God can make mistakes while choosing, right? The other bit might be disputable, but anyway, I didn't mean to anger you, since you seem to be religiously devoted to reverting purported violations of what in your eyes is a perfect and thus inalterable, article. I apologise for distracting your attention from your firm stewardship of the article in question. Thanks for your attention. -- Teh Original Mr. Orange (Orange juice?) 05:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Micky Rosenfeld
Hi. I was wondering if you can review the AfD page for this article and then offer your advice. Thanks. Stanley011 (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian territories‎
Greetings, OK. A clash has developed at the cited page. Before it escalates any further, could you have a look at the recent history? Perhaps you will see a way to break the deadlock. Would appreciate your help. Very best, Hertz1888 (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To update, a lively discussion is underway at Talk:Palestinian territories, in which you are invited to participate. It would seem, though, that the basic editing conflict is now well on the way to being resolved.  Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)