User talk:Okedem/Archive 3

Israel / 3RR
Please be aware of the three-revert rule. This is especially because we are less than three hours from getting this article on the Main Page. When it hits the Main Page, there will probably be plenty more issues to worry about... this dispute will seem trivial. --  tariq abjotu  21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, I keep forgeting about that one. okedem (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem having a Jewish majority since the 19th century
Hi, in your comment, you said "Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since the 19th century". This is not factual, Jews were a minority in the 19th century, maybe you need to self-fix the statement. Imad marie (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't need to fix anything, since my comment is factually correct. Check the facts before claiming such certainty, or at least ask me what's my source for that fact. Read here:, section 7 of "Major Conclusions". See "Table 10 - Population of Jerusalem until 1945", under "The Population of Jerusalem in Ottoman and British Times" for the detailed numbers, also showing Jews were the largest group (but not a majority) at least as far back as 1844, when they were 45.9%, far larger than the Muslims or Christians in the city. okedem (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Okedem please read my new "discussion" topic on 2006 Lebanon War
I could not find any other way of contacting you because you dont receive emails so i decided to post on your "user talk" page. Please read my topic before you erase the Al Amin section again. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2006_Lebanon_War

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholausz (talk • contribs) 13:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that discussion. I posted a comment there, too. okedem (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ...and please see /Palestine (top of the 'talk' page), for 2 suggestions by me; as a non-Wikipedia member I can't change the locked article (historic sources refute anti-IL claims, and looks like you're active/respected in that article and would give my concerns a fairer review than...some of the other people editing that article ;-P ). Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.22.160 (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Templates
I answered you on my talk page. One more thing: there are different definitions of mile, not just one. I didn't know about this limit, thanks for the info. Squash Racket (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem FAR
Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 21:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Compromise
I understand that this issue of the "Israel as capital" sentence is very important to you, perhaps more than anything else. I also see that you personally have worked hard to achieve common agreement on language on a range of other topics. I have experienced that process with you and I think we both handled it well. However it should be clear that the recent additions to "Jerusalem" have not been about bringing the article more and more "my way." Much of the information that you and others worked to develop in "Jerusalem" was quite good and there has been no reason to delete existing info. There has, however, been a need to add info that has been ommitted, that clearly impacts the shape of the city past and present. I apologize if my tone in the last few comments was rough - if you hadn't noticed, Gilabrand does not attempt to work with other people's edits, which raises the pitch of the discussion considerably. 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I said nothing of your contributions to the topic, and was not referring to them. The Arab side of the city is (or at least was, I haven't reviewed the article in a while) clearly under-represented, but not due to any malice, but simply due to lack of knowledgeable editors willing to contribute (and not just complain). Additions of that sort are welcome, though I can't comment on your additions specifically - I simply haven't had time to read them.
 * This capital (and lead) issue keeps getting opened up, and when some editors complain, it has become customary to say they're "unwilling" to compromise. This is clearly not the case, as everything there now is the result of a compromise, which some editors refuse to honour. Some of them are just new, and weren't involved in the compromise. Others were, but are taking advantage of the opportunity to push their agenda. This goes beyond the specific issue of Jerusalem, and relates to the incredible importance of compromises in writing about contentious topics in collaborative projects. If compromises are not honoured by both sides, articles are doomed to fluctuate between two POV editions, never reaching any reasonable equilibrium. When I work for a compromise, and enforce it even when it's "against my side", I expect other editors to do the same. The reality of some editors' behaviour here shows my hope might be misplaced. Some editors only view compromises as steps to achieve their final goal, and not as the welcome end-result. Those editors are damaging wiki, and they should be shunned, not encouraged.
 * Specifically, factual accuracy should not be sacrificed to appease partisans. Suggestions like "proclaimed" are especially bad, as they give a completely false impression. Proclaimed might fit a declared capital, which doesn't serve as such (like a new capital, where the government hasn't been moved to yet). It has been demonstrated that the word "capital" fits Jerusalem well, and the opponents have failed to present any sources to the contrary. They've tried to conceal this problem by carpet bombing us with sources to points no one disputed (like that the UN doesn't recognize Jerusalem as capital, or EJ as Israel's property, or that EJ is occupied, or that there are no embassies in Jerusalem, and so on). Dozens of kilobytes of these, just because they can't find any sources to support their actual claim, the actual problem being discussed. okedem (talk)

21:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

2006 lebanon war
Please delete the section of the AlAmin from lebanon 2006 war, its crap and takes up space
 * It was a valid discussion, with several participants. We don't delete such discussions. After a while, old discussions are moved from the talk pages to archives, for future reference. okedem (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The section "Please Don't Erase Gabriel Al Amin" in the discussion page, can you please remove it? Just that section. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabbrii (talk • contribs) 12:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it will not be removed. I don't know your motivation for this, but it is completely irrelevant. Talk page discussions are kept for future reference. okedem (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding on Jerusalem's article
Hi Okedem, It sounded to me you was "upset" by my remark about Jerusalem as being an "arab city". There is a misunderstanding and I answered you on the talk page. Of course : 2/3 of the population of the city was Jewish and was the majority. But I meant that Jerusalem was also an Arab city (in fact a mixed-city) and there is not a single work about them, which is not respecting NPoV... See you, Ceedjee (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It just seemed as though you were reaching very wrong conclusions.
 * I don't understand why the word "also" is striked-through on your comment here. I'm guessing you meant to make it bold?
 * Anyway, the section is very short, and Arab and Jews are mentioned about the same. I don't see an NPOV issue. okedem (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wanted to underline.
 * Ok. Ceedjee (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

אילן רמון והמדע בישראל
היי

הנקודה שלי היא שלא ישראל שלחה את אילן רמון, לא היא סיפקה לו את הכשרתו להיות אסטרונאוט וגם אין יותר מדי מדע גלוי על הפרוייקט המדעי שהוא היה אחראי עליו בחלל. גם אם היה מידע כזה, עדיין-לא מדובר בנקודת מפנה או בנקודה משמעותית למדע בישראל. היה יותר נכון לטעמי לתאר סקירה של התפתחות המדע בישראל-את העובדה שלא מעט גדולי עולם היו מעורבים בכך (כך אופנהיימר ישב בחבר הנאמנים של מכון ויצמן או העברית-יכול להיות שאני טועה בהקשר זה)ץ את ההישגים המדעיים הראשונים שהיו צבאיים ברובם ,למשל: הכור בדימונה היה הישג מאוד לא קטן, אגב-בניגוד למה שכתוב ברוב המקומות צרפת לא סיפקה את הכור מתוך פילונטרופיה-לצרפת הייתה תעשיה כבדה שיכלה לבנות את חלקי הכור-שחלק מהותי מהם תוכנן והונדס בישראל עד הבורג האחרון ובתמורה היא ביקשה ממדענים ישראלים עזרה בתכנית הגרעין שלה-זה עובדתי., אפשר לסקור את התרומה של ישראל ללא מעט תחומי מדע שהוא הובילה בהם ולהזכיר אנקדוטות כמו שאחד ממנסחי פרדוקס EPR למשל היה ישראלי מהטכניון. בקיצור, כתבתי הרבה-אבל הנקודה המרכזית היא שבניגוד למדינות שאין להם הישגים מדעיים ממשיים, אנחנו לא צריכים להציג נקודות שוליות כחלק מהוכחה ליכולת שלנו.--89.139.148.253 (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * אוקיי, שכנעת אותי.
 * אולי נעביר את זה לחלק של הצבא - הרי הוא היה קצין.
 * okedem (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Shevashalosh
I have just now seen your August 22 message on User talk:Shevashalosh. I would like to stress that I am in total agreement with you and that I wrote to this user in the same spirit on August 23, after receiving her spam e-mail. You can find a copy of my letter (in English) on her Hebrew talk page שיחת משתמש:שבע-שלוש:he. [Sorry for the red link, but I am sure you will be able to track it down, if you are interested.] --Zlerman (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea, she approached several users there, too. Madness. But don't worry - I doubt you'll find even one Hebrew Wikipedian even considering such a ridicules act (closing down). Oh, well. It'll pass, like other storms (I feel like such a veteran...). okedem (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:IPCOLL
Greeting Okedem. Noticed your recent postings at the Wikiproject talk page. I'd like to encourage you to put your name down as a member of the WikiProject, too. Thanks for your participation and good luck. HG | Talk 04:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Shana Tova
Hi Okedem! May you have a happy Jewish New Year! -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Shana Tova to you too! okedem (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Toddst1 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Toddst1, my reverts were against obvious and rapid vandalism acts, not against regular content-related edit war. Your warning is misguided. When a user adds "Racist members of the Arab League including Iranian puppet-states Libya, Syria", or "figure out what form of propaganda they could make from this.", or repeatedly adds a 29K copy or another article (same user), the correct response it to revert, not discuss.
 * Some other user addressed me in Hebrew, so I replied in kind. I won't translate his entire comment. I myself never initiate any use of languages other than English here. okedem (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not blank sourced verifiable content on December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes without providing an explanation as you did regarding the Peter Falk quote on humanitarian conditions in Gaza. Colombo Man (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I gave an explanation in the edit summary, but I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. The background section is already quite long, even containing just the bare facts. If we start adding quotes and opinions, it'll blow out of proportion. I can provide many quotes about Hamas's actions, and you can provide quotes about Israel's action - but do any of them really add something? This is just a background section. Quotes might be relevant for Criticism sections about the actual operation, but opinions about the past are just tedious. Anyone can find any quote to suit some point they care about. There are enough opinions for everyone, but quotes are a dangerous tool. How important is it that someone said something? How much does it add to the reader's understanding? Usually, very little. Let's stick to presenting just the facts, let them speak for themselves, Please. okedem (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

It seems to me that there are at least 4 reverts of possible good-faith (even if POV-pushing) edits in half an hour - 1, 2, 3, 4. If not for the conflict of interests, I would have declined the request. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit 3 was an actual content issue.
 * Edits 1,2 and 4 - Even if the first time was in somewhat good faith, it was a poorly written, argumentative, POV-pushing text. If you want to count that as a revert, the obvious result is that articles will quickly deteriorate from this kind of edit. When an article is so heavily edited, and the talk page so full already, your approach will inevitably lead to the article becoming unreadable in a couple of hours. You can't go opening a discussion for every edit some POV-pusher does. The article must be maintained at some reasonable level, especially considering it is a current event. Besides, those edits were simply to revert to the stable version, not to insert some change I wanted. If someone dearly wants to change something, they are free to open a discussion on the talk page. Again - think of the obvious consequences of what you're saying. If there's an onslaught of POV pushers, you say Wikipedians should just let them go ahead, and wait for days to discuss the issue, while the article becomes utter crap. okedem (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to unblock if you can assure me that the edit conflict is finished. Toddst1 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said before - most of my reverts were against obvious vandalism, few were a content dispute. Perhaps for those I reverted too quickly, "in the heat of battle", when the article was being vandalized every minute. I'll refrain from such reverts in the future.
 * However, I'd like to understand something - the edit I linked to - that was a very heavy handed, poorly written, obviously POV pushing edit. Should I have just left it there? When there are a lot of those - should I just leave them? Should I just let the article deteriorate into a complete mess? There's an inherent imbalance, in favor of anyone adding material, no matter how bad, or damaging to the article, it is. What should one do? okedem (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * Thanks! okedem (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Keep doing what you are doing! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not insult those who disagree with you
There is nothing wrong with my English. Karldoh (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor did I say so. Another user implied that. Replied on your talk page. okedem (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies, okedem. Another user inserted a comment above yours, with the same indent. Happy editing. Karldoh (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say
that your comments on the "2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict: How to write a biased article" discussion are very much ba'makom, in light of the non-stop anti-Israeli editing that's been going on there. You comment very eloquently and convincingly and give me inspiration each time these bigots make me wanna log out forever. Rabend (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I try to do something useful there, but, frankly, the rate of editing and discussions are wearing me down. I don't have the time to deal with it. I worked a lot on the Israel and Jerusalem articles, but they were never edited or discussed so rapidly. I do what I can, but after leaving the article for a few hours, turns out it's changed shape completely, and I didn't even see the discussion... Indeed, I think I'm starting to prefer the Hebrew wiki's attitude - let's write about thing after they happen, with some perspective, not "in the heat of battle", so to speak. okedem (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

...and another compliment
Hi Okedem, I've seen some of your work on the Israel and Jerusalem articles, and I think you're an excellent editor. I would imagine that, being Israeli, your sympathies align with that country, but you're a great example of an editor who overcomes potential biases, being professional, incisive and courteous. I'm working mainly on the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict: I noticed you used to be active there. Your explanation above as to why you left resounds with me, but I hope you come back soon, and I hope Nishidani's holocaust comparison wasn't an influence in your decision. There are some reasonable and unreasonable editors on both "sides", but as interest wanes, I think and hope that each reasonable editor will be able to get more done without being overwhelmed. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That article really wore me down, and other responsibilities (such as my studies) demanded my attention. I will surely return to that article at some point, when I have more time, and the topic cools down a bit. okedem (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arab Citizens of Israel
Might I suggest that you and RolandR take up your differences on the discussion page? The last thing that article needs is another revert-war. Just a thought. Szfski (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right about that. In my last edits there I handled each point independently, and explained my rationale for each, and I hope that will help. If it goes on, I'll open a discussion. okedem (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky
copy from Talk:2006 Lebanon War Just reverted twice a remove by User:Okedem, concerning Noam Chomsky. His/her edit arguments change, and do not respond to my rv arguments. Also: User talk:Okedem shows repetitive edit wars. So I stop argumenting and reverting. -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

--BEGIN OF COPY ''--After about 24h, a summary (copy from article history, some minor info deleted here): -- (End of history quote) As I wrote at the start of this section about Okedem: His/her edit arguments change, and do not respond to my rv arguments. Q.E.D.. Not worth discussing. -DePiep (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC) By the way: Okedem revert at 16:09, 21 March 2009 was way after opening this talk here. -DePiep (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * supposedly belonging here, not on the article talk-page (copy as of 2 mar 2009 2300): -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 16:15, 21 March 2009 Okedem (→External links: update link - the page moved)
 * 16:13, 21 March 2009 Okedem (→External links: rm link - seems non-notable. Please explain significance before re-inserting)
 * 16:11, 21 March 2009 Okedem (→External links: rm link - seems like a non-notable blog)
 * 16:09, 21 March 2009 Okedem (→External links: rm Chomsky-zero information about the war, no useful analysis, written during the war itself; half of it actually talks about the Palestinians, not Lebanon)
 * 22:26, 20 March 2009 DePiep (Undid revision 278616942 by Okedem rv2. See talk)
 * 22:06, 20 March 2009 Okedem (rv - no, these are opinions and claims by an expert in linguistics, which has nothing to do with this, and who is also an outspoken activist in these political matters.)
 * 21:40, 20 March 2009 DePiep (Undid revision 278605245 by Okedem. Not personal opinions - facts. To be examined scolarly. And an expert at that.)
 * 21:00, 20 March 2009 Okedem (rm Chomsky - not propaganda, just non-notable. It's just an interview with someone who is not an expert in the subject, detailing his personal opinion.)


 * As fun as it may be to copy and paste long passages and quote yourself, what do you want, exactly?
 * The first three actions you have up there have nothing to do with Chomsky, and so are irrelevant.
 * I have explained, in detail, my reasoning for removing the link, right here on the talk page. I won't repeat it, just scroll up. You, on the other hand, have refrained from using the talk page to give any reason to keep the link. Instead, you opt to attack me with false accusations. I don't even understand your claim that "His/her edit arguments change" (it's "his", by the way). Do you want all my edits to have one copied & pasted argument? What's your point?
 * Though you may enjoy attacking me, you still present no case for that link, which is the topic of our discussion, I'd like to remind you. okedem (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another quote from the top here: Also: User talk:Okedem shows repetitive edit wars. So I stop argumenting and reverting. Q.E.D. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Quoting yourself and attacking me is irrelevant to the discussion. And if you say you're going to stop "argumenting" - why are you here? Leave the floor to people who make an effort to stay on-topic. okedem (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And: By the way: Okedem revert at 16:09, 21 March 2009 was way after opening this talk here. -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

--END OF COPY

Officer and Gentelman!
It has certainly taken a while, but I may now be able to archive my page with a clean slate. That is due to our mutual collective clean conscience, AGF and NPOV credit. Glad to see (apparently) that the academic year has gone well, it has been some time, mabruk. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Pleasure working with you. okedem (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: UAA Report
I noticed that you reported User:Greater Syria to UAA and he has responded to your comment on his talk page. Please could you read his message so that we can come to an agreement about whether the username needs changing. Thanks. GT5162 (我的对话页) 14:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

About your complaint
Shalom, you have claimed my username is "offensive and disruptive". I'm sorry about that, sometimes we see things in life that do cause us offense, like the slaughter of 1500 Palestinian civilians. Live and let live Ofer. Greater Syria (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Bringing up irrelevant and inaccurate gripes does not make your username any less of a violation of WP:IU. Wikipedia has rules, and you broke one. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to several administrators, I didn't. Love your name and userpage btw. Greater Syria (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but wrong. See my comment on your talk page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to change the name. Hava nagila. Greater Syria (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)