User talk:TrickyH

Highway 60 (Israel)
Hey TrickyH, you recently edited Highway 60 (Israel). Your edit leaves out an important fact. You say "...between Israeli settlements and the city of Hebron...". In fact, (unlike Highway 443 which was closed for many years to green license plates) Highway 60 is shared by both Israeli yellow license plates and Palestinian green license plates (usually courteously). So the road connects both Israeli settlements and Palestinian towns.

Moreover, you placed your edit in a paragraph describing the road's physicalities. There is an entire section where I think your point would better fit and even be expanded upon. The section "Bypass roads" (and this section's name could be changed) would be a place to discuss political issues. For example, further north, in the Samarian Mountains, there are frequent road closures. Closures do occur in the southern Judean Mountain section of the highway, but considerably less by far. (I think by a ratio of about 10:1) (need refs)

I am considering rewriting your edit and placing it in the paragraph dealing with political issues, unless you beat me to it. (I'm kind of busy for a while.) I look forward to discussing this option further with you. --@Efrat (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Efrat, I have revised my edit to make it clear that the highway services Palestinian communities such as Hebron as well as the Israeli settlements of the southern West Bank. I feel that this sentence should remain in the current section, as it describes the highway's route through the southern West Bank via Israeli settlements and the cities of Hebron and Bethlehem. You are correct in stating that the road is open to Palestinian vehicles; however, there are other issues such as the placement and access to junctions that restrict the movement of green-plated vehicles which could be expanded in the Bypass roads section. --@TrickyH (talk)
 * Your edit gives true information, but to be consistant, all the information must be given. Now, the following 2 sentences after your edit need to be reworked. ie. Once entering J'lem, the road only serves yellow plates.  Then, north of J'lem, the situation reverts to that of the south (as, shown by your edit) until Jenin where the route is restricted to only green plates (and is not even officialy Route 60 pending final status agreements as detailed in the "Junctions" list), and finally at its northern limits to only yellow plates.  Further more, all along the route, access at various junctions with Palestinian towns and Israeli settlements involve various restrictions and permissions.
 * I'm sure you will see, that at some point in the future, this entire discussion will grow to become a seperate paragraph immedately following a purely geographical discription of the route. Now that I think of it, why has no one ever written an entire article about Bypass Roads in the West Bank?  And while we are at it, maybe something should be said about the economic cooperation between many Settlers and Palestinians in the West Bank (which in part is facilitated by the existance of shared bypass roads).  It will be interesting to see how this develops.  It seems that a simple article about a simple stretch of pavement may lead to discussions about many other issues!  --@Efrat (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

1RR
Please be aware that all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict 'broadly construed' (WP:ARBPIA) are covered by editing restrictions. The restrictions are described in the 'WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES' section on article talk pages such as Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and include WP:1RR. You should be aware of WP:BRD too if you aren't already familiar with it. It is easy to trigger edit warring in the ARBPIA topic area because there are many advocates and nationalists.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Resistance (socialist youth organisation)
Hi TrickyH. Regarding your edits at Resistance (socialist youth organisation), firstly you added some sources from the official Resistance website. As you can see from the reference list in the article, 18 of the 22 references in the article currently come from either the Resistance official website, or Green Left Weekly and their youtube channel. Please read WP:PRIMARY. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources..." The fact that this article has to rely so heavily on sources from it's own official publications gives the impression to the reader that Resistance cannot get much support or news coverage from outside its own sources; it's certainly not helping the article in any way. It would be a great benefit to the article if at least some, if not most, of those primary sources could be replaced with secondary ones.

The second problem I immediately see at this articles is all the references are bare URLs. Please read Template:Cite web and start formatting references using that template. As well as looking a lot tidier, formatting references this way helps to prevent link rot, as when a date, article title and author are specified it is considerable easier to search for where the url has moved to, or to find a mirror of it. If you are unsure of how to do this, here is an example:. Freikorp (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'll look into secondary sources to further expand the article and reformat the references!

Self revert your edits or be reported.
I have created a new section for Extrajudicial killings. Self revert your edits which violate revert rules. If not, I will report you. If there's an objection from two users on your sources, you should bring it to the talk page and not revert their edits. Among the things I removed, were things that are not in the right location of the article, suggestion unsourced claims, like for example that the death of alldged Palestinian assailent in 22 September was followed by an esculation but acually, the esculation occured in 1 October and sources in the article agree with that. So self revert your edits or be reported for breaking rules.

If you did not know, articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have a revert protection, users are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours in those articles.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC) -- Even if Bolter were my twin brother and did say exactly what I thought (not the case), if someone takes such a tone (and violates the English language with such stubborn persistence), better ignore.Arminden (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Geography of the State of Palestine
It's a bit funny to write about an as yet non-existent state, but I do appreciate your effort and joined in a bit. If only it would lead to a few users & editors taking a less one-sided stance... But I'm afraid it won't. Anyhow, I'm quite sure that the temperature tables need fixing. It is factually wrong to state that Jerusalem (7-800 metres above sea level) has higher average temp. in July-August than Jericho (some -400 m) and Gaza (Med coast, 0 m). Either the source is flawed, or maybe you combined several sources? Don't believe me, just check for instance similar data from Israeli sources on, say, West Jlm, En Boqeq and Tel Aviv. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice that Jlm is the only one to have an additional line, "record high" or alike. I was comparing pears with apples. It still might happen to others, too, and the sources are indeed mixed, but there's nothing factually wrong there, sorry.Arminden (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries! I didn't add the data for Gaza, but Jericho and Jerusalem were copy+paste jobs. I welcome further contributions, there's lots more to add and I just wanted to get the page started with some substance. TrickyH (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI and WP:BRD
FYI, I opened a discussion about the importance of Palestinian wine for the Palestine project at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine. In addition, I would like to refer you to WP:BRD, which says, in simple words, that when reverted you should discuss first, and not simply repeat your edit. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Slow down and read articles before assessing them
Your ratings of both Nuaman and Muhammad Najati Sidqi are quite unfocused. There is no way in the wide world that the grading criteria 'Start' can be applied to either article. You are sequentially downgrading their quality. Get a third opinion when in doubt. Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Nishidani, I didn't rate either article on the quality scale. I'm working my way through the "Start" class articles with no "Importance" rating and focusing almost entirely on that, for the moment. You're right - I thought Nuaman was probably more of a C class as I read it over, but I didn't want to take too much initiative...TrickyH (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine. But look at format uniformity, design, sourcing quality, links, etc, I never drive any article I mainly write towards some grading like GA, but if I do articles like those two, you can be assured I scraped the barrel of what is available concerning those topics, and the sourcing will be exhaustive, linked and of high quality throughout. By this, I don't mean to get you to alter your opinion. But the grading, if one clicks to the relevant information about what 'start' class means, is wildly off the mark. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'll have a re-read and work on the quality too! TrickyH (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Noha Khalef


A tag has been placed on Noha Khalef requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC) /Newsletter/Send&oldid=9976074

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter
We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:


 * with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
 * with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
 * with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
 * with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
 * with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
 * with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter
The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:
 * with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
 * with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
 * with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
 * with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
 * with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter
The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:


 * with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
 * with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
 * with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
 * with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)